Want of money and the distress of a thief can never be alleged as the cause of his thieving, for many honest people endure greater hardships with fortitude. We must therefore seek the cause elsewhere than in want of money, for that is the miser's passion, not the thief s.

Character, not circumstances, drives crime

Blake's pointing at something we still get wrong about why people break rules: we assume desperation drives bad behavior, but that's actually too simple and lets us off the hook. Yes, poverty exists, but plenty of poor people stay honest. The thief and the miser aren't motivated by the same thing—one steals because something inside them wants to steal, not just because they need to eat.

This matters now because we love using circumstances as a full explanation. We see crime or dishonesty and immediately ask "what did they lack?" as if hardship is a switch that flips everyone the same way. But Blake suggests the real question is darker: what's broken or twisted in the person's character? What do they want that overrides their conscience? Sometimes it's thrill-seeking, sometimes it's resentment, sometimes it's just that they've decided rules don't apply to them.

The uncomfortable part is that this puts responsibility back on individuals rather than systems alone. But it's probably the truest thing: circumstances matter enormously, yes—but they're not destiny. The question isn't just "what can we take?" but "what kind of person am I choosing to be anyway?"