It is absolutely correct that it can be right to steal.

It absolutely can be right to steal, and I will provide a reason why. Here is the definition of "steal" hereunder: to take that which is not your rightful property. Here"s how the dictionary defines it in one of its definitions where I use it similarly for my own definition: i.e., the definition, to take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. The definitions vary in that I can take any context, not just the legal context, for which someone takes that which is not their rightful property and are therefore stealing. It can be right to steal because every moral depends on the situation for which it can be right or wrong. Here, I define "moral": being of correctness in the course of action. Here is how the dictionary defines "moral" in one dictionary definition: being of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical. The definitions relate to each other in that they say the word "moral" distinguishes right from wrong in the context of conduct. Here, "situation" essentially means "context". I define "context" hereunder by the dictionary in one if its definitions: the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc. I mean the word context to mean "the big picture", i.e. what is taking place beyond a thing and the thing"s definition. Then, I mean the term "definition" to mean like it does in the dictionary: the act of defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear. In other words, the term "definition" hereunder is used to mean clarifying all or the combinations of components of something or that which is to be defined; that is, to make clear what something is by specifying what makes it what it is. Therefore, the terms "context" and "definition" are somewhat opposites, the first standing for the big picture and the other looking at the smaller picture. I will now provide an example of how it can be right to steal (where "can" means "to have the possibility" or "may"): you need medicine to live, a monkey has medicine, there is a legal jurisdiction which has a rule (not to take another"s rightful property or not to steal) and it serves as the setting or context for you and the monkey with the medicine, you are in reality (which serves as a higher context than the legal jurisdiction), and, finally, you have the option to take the medicine. Notice how I have not defined the possibility of sharing; therefore, if you take the medicine for your own, you will be stealing. I may further define the monkey as an animal with greater intelligence than most other animals, but then I could also define "intelligence". That would be fun and all, but it *can* take up too much time, though, please, do ask questions about this if you need to. Next, I define "you" as an intelligent being, though not necessarily sentient, but which may be sentient depending on how you answer to the question (would you steal in this situation?). I have not defined a supporter of my existence, but I have defined me under existence. "Medicine" is defined like it is in the dictionary, but for which it may be of any controlled substance. Now, someone could say "what if this substance is explosive and could kill upon taking the medicine?". According to my contexts, there is nothing that could possibly explode in the contexts except for the explosion itself because I have not defined a medium supporting an explosion for my other contexts except by defining a sub-context supporting explosions that does not affect the higher contexts (hence, it is controlled). The medicine may be a universe in a nutshell (literally), but there is nothing altering or changing the situation because of it. There is no reason why you may or may not take the medicine except for one reason, and that is if you are sentient (i.e. productively intelligent). Further, "need" has been defined as a requirement unto sentience in reality. I have not defined "reality", but reality can be briefly put forth as "everything", i.e. purpose itself and the sub-contexts defined hereunder as reality. Lastly, "need" has not been defined as for a reason why the need exists or how it exists, except by being defined under existence, i.e. I have created the scenario as being possible, and therefore existing but existing in possibility.