A moral question for you all

[WhaleSharkBootySweat]

Imagine you go into a really nice small business selling either homewares or food. You pick something up that you really like, but it's the end of the month and you can't really afford it. What is the main reason that stops you from stealing it?

A.) Fear of getting caught, punished, criminal record, shame, losing your job
B.) Sympathy for the small business owner, not wanting them to lose money

Or something else.
For me it's massively more B but then I don't steal from chain stores, so I guess A must come into it then?
I just wonder where these moral decisions we make daily come from. Is it fear of repercussions or genuine moral compass? Why do a third of shoppers steal from self checkouts but wouldn't steal from a cashier at the till?
I think about the idea that if there wasn't law and order, then we would all steal and murder, but I genuinely believe that most of us wouldn't? I mean I've never felt compelled to, but why is that? Empathy?

I would prefer my own kids to do the right thing (or not do the wrong thing) because they understand the consequences it has for someone else rather than because they are following a series of what might otherwise seem like arbitrary rules.

I agree with this.

Because the law doesn't cover every moral question. Sometimes you will find yourself in a scenario where there are no rules to guide what you do, and the only way of deciding the right thing is by having an ethical code of some sort.

Someone upthread referred to utilitarianism - that's one method of determining what is 'right'. Kant's categorical imperative is another. My principle is to ask myself whether I would want to be on the receiving end of whatever action I am considering taking.

Strange that you only have those two options. I wouldn't think to steal because stealing is wrong even if it's from Amazon. I would never steal and I judge people who do as scumbags!

All animals have societal rules. Ours have developed over thousands of years.

If there were no "rules" over ownership and not taking what doesn't belong to you we would be constantly physically fighting for food and possessions.

The strongest and most ruthless would thrive to the detriment of the old, ill, children. We wouldn't have Society, tribal cohesion, or even families.

To succeed as a species we HAD to work together. We HAD to develop hierarchy and societal rules that everyone understood and generally abided by. Those that don't were killed or cast out of the tribe.

So, Do Not Steal is deeply ingrained into our psyche.

Yes totally agree. With the pandemic though I’d argue that I didn’t know enough about how the virus was transmitted to make up my own mind about what was the right thing to do - though even I could see that locking up playgrounds was totally unnecessary.

One example that always baffles me is all the stories I see about kids being sent home from school or put in isolation because they have bows on their socks or hair 1mm too short and all the comments go “quite right, rules are rules!”. If you question someone about how the bows on the socks actually impact anyone’s learning or behaviour or experience of school, they just say “it doesn’t matter, rules are rules”. I just can’t get my head around this (but apparently I am in a tiny minority!).

I think we are largely swayed by society. If everyone started stealing things in a certain situation, I believe a lot of people would. We generally think well if they're doing it then I will especially if we cannot see the person who the crime impacts, like during riots or using self service check outs

@TarantinoIsAMisogynist I mentioned utilitarianism but I realise it’s very flawed. After all according to utilitarianism it’s technically fine to kill one person so you can save several others with the use of their organs…

Totally agree about uniforms.

Saying "Pupils must wear grey trousers and a red jumper" is fair enough, that is similar to the requirements in many workplaces. But saying "pupils must have hair shorter than X, socks longer than Y, and shoes must be plain black but never patent leather or with bows on" is just control-freakery. Rules for the sake of it, which bear no relation to the conventions any adult has to live by.

Sorry, I meant in terms of how well people understood the intention behind the questions you posed. There was some confusion to begin with but it’s turned into an interesting discussion I think. Some food for thought.

But can anyone conclusively say that would be morally wrong? After all, the aim is to save 10 people by killing 1 person. Wars are fought on a similar basis - taking life to preserve life (in theory at least, in a just war).

There are plenty of philosophical arguments about why it is wrong, but following those arguments does result in the greater number of people dying due to lack of organs.

I'm not a utilitarian btw - but the argument in favour of pursuing the most good for the greatest number is a coherent one.

@TarantinoIsAMisogynist Yes, that’s exactly it. If your aim is the greatest good for the greatest number then yes it is absolutely correct to stab someone to death in a hospital, take all their organs out, and save however many other people - in fact even if you only save two it’s still correct. But who would actually do that and feel okay about it…?!

C. It is wrong

Ethics 101

😂 people are messed up in the noggin.

Basic ethics: do not lie, cheat, or steal. Even if you think you can get away with it. Especially if you think you could get away with it. Your character is what you do when you think nobody’s looking.

The question is how do you know it’s wrong. What informs that opinion ?

Your “Ethics 101” class would be pretty short if it consisted entirely of the assertion that actions abc are right and xyz are wrong and that’s all there is to it…

Both A and B that you've listed @WhaleSharkBootySweat

Also, I think I'd only ever imagine stealing in desperation and starvation (children) and all other outlets exhausted. Though I still don't think it would ever come to that. Your example wasn't a necessary item but something 'you really like' so there's no good reason to steal something like that.

Mr Spock ? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one !

But doesn't that explain exactly why we have rules. Presumably although it is acceptable to you and Elsie it probably isn't acceptable to Betty.

Elsie’s fine by me. No-one needs several million pounds. From a utilitarian point of view I can’t see anything wrong with what Elsie’s done.

And who decides how much is too much. Is it acceptable to have ? 1 million, 3 million, 5 million. Where is the line that makes having that much money acceptable to being a victim of a smallish scam?

Or is it ok to scam just a small amount. So a couple of hundred - all good, a couple of grand - wrong?

OK then, change ‘something you really like’ to something you really need. What would be your decision then, and why ?

It’s wrong.

From a utilitarian point of view, it's very easy to draw the line.

Provided the negative impact on Betty < the positive impact on Elsie, then it's 'right'.

If the amount stolen was sufficient that the negative impact on Betty > the positive impact on Elsie, it would be 'wrong'.

You'd have to work out a way to quantify the impact, but that's how utilitarianism works. I'm not a utilitarian, but it is a coherent ethos.

(Utilitarianism fully acknowledges that there will be negative impacts of the correct course of action, but views these as morally acceptable provided they are outweighed by the positive impacts.)

I wonder how Betty would feel about it if she knew the circumstances? If I was a multi-millionaire and some destitute person stole a few hundred quid from me I think I’d have a hard time justifying anger towards them.

For me, in the exact case you describe, no harm is done to Betty and that validates Elsie’s action. What I can’t do is work out exactly where the line is drawn where it crosses over into unacceptability. If I say that what Elsie’s doing is fine, how rich do I have to be before I am morally wrong for not donating significant amounts of my money to charity? It’s not quite the same argument but there’s a train of thought that leads that way.

(I asked my kids your original question - my 9 year old said Elsie was wrong and my 6 year old said she was right, interestingly…)

This is a really interesting question. One of my DC has complex neurodevelopmental problems and, despite our best efforts to teach him right from wrong, steals frequently from us, friends and family. We are still looking at ways to teach him. He struggles with understanding cause/effect and rewards/consequences too, which makes parenting him extremely tricky.

I try to get him to talk through his decision processes after an incident, it must be totally different from mine and I dont understand.

The rest of us are very much in the category of it just wouldn't occur to us to steal, so it's not just about upbringing.

A moral code!

And what about:

it’s wrong because it would hurt (inconvenience, upset etc. <= depends on the severity) other people?

that seems like an external focus to me.