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 was indoctrinated with it's wrong to steal from a very young age. If I had a starving child I'd steal and I'd choose the place I thought I could get away with it.

I'd be more likely to murder if I though I could get away with it, there are some really unpleasant people around.

Or how about the large chain stores in the USA which are closing down because they’re unviable in the face of shoplifting on an industrial scale. The closures result in job losses and loss of services in the poorer and deprived areas.

Because if everyone went around just taking what they wanted then the world would be chaos. Its the inherent understanding that there needs to be some framework of acceptable behaviour in order for society to work.

Mostly C - it's just wrong to take things that aren't yours, and it wouldn't enter my head to.do it.

Then A.

B wouldn't enter my head, because stealing is morally wrong whether it's from a big business or a small business.

It's wrong.
A THIRD of customers steal from self checkouts? Is that factual?

Why do a third of shoppers steal from self checkouts but wouldn't steal from a cashier at the till?
You wouldn't steal something while standing in front of a cashier at the till as they would see you do it. If there were no self checkouts you'd stick it down your trousers at the shelf. But that's harder than stealing it at a self checkout. You can't make it look like you just forgot to scan it.

When I was maybe five I took a "sugar mouse" sweet from a shelf on the way out of the village shop with my dad. He spotted me eating it and was angry, and made me go back and pay and apologise.
When I was about 12 or so (maybe) I nicked a small item from Boots. A little notebook or something that I thought I'd love to have. When I got it home, I felt so ashamed that I didn't enjoy having it at all. I had to hide it.
I wouldn't steal anything as I know I would feel awful whether I was caught or not.

C- It's wrong to steal, it wouldn't sit well with my conscience regardless of the size of business and if there was a guarantee I would never be caught.
My first inclination would be to come back to the shop another day, when I had the money to afford it.

It also wouldn't occur to me, but I wouldn't steal because it's objectively wrong. While I understand that desperate people do desperate things, and make some allowance for that, I am not desperate so for me it just wouldn't even cross my mind.

But btw we still pay for stuff that's stolen from big businesses - the insurance costs are passed onto the consumer, it's one of the drivers of food inflation. There's not really such a thing as a victimless crime here.

'Do we have fundamental morals, guided by something other than simple human decision to follow some rules (eg by God)? Or do we decide our own morals and so are free to choose them as we think best?'

Well, no. Morals are morals - the basic understanding between right and wrong. Yes, it's up to each individual to 'choose their own morals'... but, if they do this, they probably can't consider themselves to have good morals.

It is universally accepted that it is wrong to steal. Period. If someone thinks there might be occasions where this could be justified, this is immoral.

Wouldn't ever occur to me to steal something.

Maybe it's unintentional? Quite easily done I should think.

It's just not something that I've ever considered doing. Although that would potentially change if I was desperate - I.e. if I didn't have money for baby formula, but fortunately I've never been in that position.
I pride myself on being honest and trustworthy, so unless I was in a dire situation it wouldn't occur to me to steal from anywhere/anyone.

I'd never steal anything under any circumstances. If I wanted it that desperately, I'd wait till I could afford it.

Most people don't steal because lesson A was fully absorbed and imprinted at a very young age: you will face negative personal consequences (punishment, shame, abandonment) if you steal --> "it's morally wrong, end of".

Just shows how morals have declined generally if those are the only choices considered

I find it a bit disappointing so many are trying to shut down the debate, tbh. There is no 'end of' because all morals should be questioned regularly. As pp has said, homosexuality was once thought of as a fundamental wrong.

Yes, it’s a much more interesting question than some people are giving OP credit for. Most people use a mixture of types of moral reasoning- rule-based (stealing is wrong), effects-based (don’t harm the business owner) and virtue-based (I don’t steal because I’m not a low-life) and all of them exist on this thread.

Not stealing is a relatively clear-cut question (most of the time but not all)- you can see why people have internalised moral rules about it that they don’t question much. Rule-based thinking is a great time-saver but doesn’t work so well for more complex problems (pace Kant). It also entrenches moral rules that ought to be questioned (eg homosexuality is wrong) and treats as absolute things which are actually culturally contingent (the concept of stealing can only exist in a society with a concept of personal property). Other moral questions lend themselves better to effects-based reasoning (should I tell my brother’s wife that I think he had an affair 5 years ago?).

*'Do we have fundamental morals, guided by something other than simple human decision to follow some rules (eg by God)? Or do we decide our own morals and so are free to choose them as we think best?'

Well, no. Morals are morals - the basic understanding between right and wrong. Yes, it's up to each individual to 'choose their own morals'... but, if they do this, they probably can't consider themselves to have good morals.

It is universally accepted that it is wrong to steal. Period. If someone thinks there might be occasions where this could be justified, this is immoral.*

That's option A - it's just a different flavour of 'God decided'. It's saying that morals are already set in stone as fundamental truths that cannot be altered or changed. They are not decided by humans, they already exist as truths without us.

I am not sure I agree - but, as I say, existentialism has been debating it for decades so I don't suppose we'll find the answer on a mn thread

C because it’s just basic morals. Stealing is wrong. I’d have more sympathy if it’s stealing food because of hunger due to grinding poverty, but I wouldn’t steal something I just liked the look of. I don’t get it? 🤷🏼‍♀️

Essentially questioning whether you have the right to steal is about getting onto communists principles. Do you have the right to hold property beyond your basic needs on the first place?

But actually it's not an existential question

By God's (Christian) law "thou shalt not steal" (im sure others can add , and as individuals we have made laws that say though shalt not steal.

Every society has viewed ownership as a reward for endeavour it not unreasonable to think a persons moral compass should reflect this.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the practicalities of theft should not be the primary concern as to whether you do something or not. Not if you have any kind of moral code. External or internal.

Still it does perhaps suggest a career in politics might be appropriate given present politicians

It's wrong.
That's why I wouldn't consider it.
I have never for a second held an item in a shop & thought about taking it.

The only time I can imagine being conflicted is if I had a genuinely hungry child at home & it was food.

I'd still know it was wrong, but I can't say for sure I wouldn't do it if it was a case of my child starving or me stealing.

It’s theft

its wrong on every level

I don't know whether it's one of those '87% of statistics are made up on the spot' arguments or there's some truth behind it, ie answering yes to the question 'have you ever not paid for absolutely everything when using a self scan checkout' where some people have answered yes because once they didn't pay for a bag or told the machine they were buying bananas when they were actually buying cherries.

But it's obviously common enough that most supermarkets think it's worth putting cameras on them so you can see them recording you scanning everything correctly. The cost of which we will all pay for.

Like PP, it wouldn't occur to me to steal it. I'd think, pity I can't afford it and move on.

@Pencilsaremylife Off on a tangent slightly.
DH was sat in stationary car in car park when he was hit from behind by another car. Low speed impact, little damage. Reported to insurance co for information. Then the phone calls started from claims companies urging him to make a claim. He told them there was no injuries to claim for, but they went on and on, justifying it by saying 'the money is just sitting there for you to claim. They didn't seem to understand it would be fraudulent and that in the end we all pay.
Question - if he'd given in and made a claim would it be theft? We said yes but what would you do oh wise ones?

I think a lot of people are being very pearl-clutchy on here - they don't do it because they don't want to get caught and suffer the consequences of it. Not because they have a superior moral compass.

If that isn't true, put your hand on heart and ask if you check your speed when you go through a speed camera. If you never speed because it's wrong, you don't need to check. But I bet you do. And it's arguably worse as you might kill or injure someone.

Far too much sanctimony on here. You must all think the rest of us were born yesterday.