Aristotle versus Kant! Philosophical battle!

I answered this question on Yahoo Answers some time ago: "What would Aristotle and Kant think about stealing? What would they argue?"

My answer was:

They dealt with opposite sides of an ignorance coin. Aristotle dealt with the ramifications of whether the thief knew he was stealing whereas Kant focussed on whether the victim knew he was being robbed. They would be separated by their respective perspectives and would probably kill each other in a dual fit of rage, both yelling at the other "Why won't you listen to me!" ... Aristotle in Greek and Kant in German, which doesn't help matters.

According to Aristotle, ignorance of the major premise results in an evil act, but ignorance of the minor premise results in an involuntary act, i.e., it is not stealing if one does not know the property belongs to someone else. It is a serious moral flaw if a man does not understand what stealing is, but it is possible to know that stealing is wrong and still take someone else's property in ignorance. This is the sort of ignorance of particular circumstances that results in an involuntary act for which one is not morally responsible.

Kant argued that any action taken against another person to which he or she could not possibly consent is a violation of perfect duty interpreted through the second formulation. If a thief were to steal a book from an unknowing victim, it may have been that the victim would have agreed, had the thief simply asked. However, no person can consent to theft, because the presence of consent would mean that the transfer was not a theft. Since the victim could not have consented to the action, it could not be instituted as a universal law of nature, and theft contradicts perfect duty.

Full disclosure: I referred to cliff's notes and wikipedia for my answer, although I particularly like my first paragraph in the answer.