You’re equivocating between two different questions: whether an act is justified and what the act is.

Yes, context matters when determining whether an action is morally or legally justified. Self-defense, necessity, and defense of others are all examples. I have never argued otherwise.

What I’ve been arguing is that context does not redefine the underlying act itself. If someone intentionally takes property without permission, that’s theft. It may be justified theft, just as killing in self-defense is still killing and, in many legal systems, would technically satisfy the actus reus of homicide while being legally excused or justified.

That’s why “a starving person stealing bread” is a classic moral dilemma. It’s compelling precisely because it’s still theft, even if most people agree it’s morally justified.

So when people celebrate the theft of construction materials simply because they dislike AI data centers, they’re making a moral argument, not changing the definition of theft. If they want to say, “I think this theft is justified,” that’s a coherent position. Saying “it’s not theft because I approve of it” is not.