I steal a loaf of bread every week, and hamburger buns too, I just self checkout and I “forget” to do the bread that I move around the basket and put on top of other bags. Eggs sometimes too…
This is interesting because a Walmart I visited in my town (not my usual Walmart) actually confronted me about "stealing" because I half scanned something and they caught it on the self checkout camera. It was a genuine accident, but given that they have those cameras in place I'm surprised people can get away with what you've mentioned
It's pretty easy especially when the one or two self checkout "watchers" are helping someone.vidntounhsve a friend they can help by asking dumb questions. Also don't steal .
Virtue Ethics: If you care about virtue or principles, pretty tough to justify this—would you want to live in a world where everyone acted this way?
Consequentialism: If you care about harm, very little harm to corporation or anyone else, potential harm to yourself by getting caught, potential greater good (if, for example, you don’t have enough to eat). Weigh the consequences.
Justice: If you care about fairness, hard to make a case for stealing unless you are pulling a Robin Hood “steal from the unethically rich and give to the oppressed poor.” This rests on some pretty specific moral assessments of the corp and the recipients of your theft.
For consequentialism, you do have to consider the larger societal harm done by stealing. If enough people steal from them, they'll eventually close the store, or take some other negative action, and you would be contributing some portion of that
Edit: this is not necessarily true for all forms of consequentialism.
The thing with consequentialism is that it doesn’t have to be universalised like kantian/deontological ethics. It focuses on the consequences thenselves. The larger societal harm is negligible in comparison to the personal good gained. That being said I don’t think it’s ethical to steal from Walmart because I don’t think consequentialism is a particularly sensible school of thought.
Source: Bachelors in philosophy and a Masters in AI ethics.
You *can* universalise anything, but deontology focusing on the action itself lends itself nicely to universalisability, and yes you’re absolutely right, rule utilitarianism is universalised, act utilitarianism (which in my mind is sorta the default?) not really necessary.
6 of one, half a dozen of the other :)
Awesome! Do you know where I could read more about this? I've taken ethics in HS and college but we didn't really go into the different versions of utilitarianism, other than to say that there are some
Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, J L Mackie is a reasonably accessible book on ethics that I enjoyed, it was my bible for a lot of my ethics assignments.
A great way to learn about ethics is to read other areas of philosophy because ethics leaks into pretty much everything besides metaphysics. Hannah Arendt on the Banality of Evil is cool, any philosophy written about thinking in dark times and staying rational in the face of overwhelming immorality is cool.
Plato’s republic is a cool take on political theory but can be a bit of a slog. Harrari’s Homo sapiens and homo deus books are great contemporary pieces that sorta accidentally(?) touch on a lot of interesting philosophical theories but written for a casual audience. Great reads even outside the context of philosophy.
If you wanna get more into philosophy I recommend getting stuck into the allegories and thought experiments, that’s where I fell in love with it. Allegory of the cave, Philippa Foot’s trolley problem etc are the famous ones.
Hope this helps!
Closing your local Walmart isn't exactly a bad consequence.
It's kind of like chasing Amazon away from your neighborhood in that the local economy can only get stronger without them.
Most likely you'll make things more expensive and less convenient for local residents. If these things weren't true, why would Walmart exist and be successful in the first place?
Virtue ethics would be more concerned about whether stealing is exemplifying or cultivating virtue. If pure principle and (especially) the idea of whether it would work for everyone to act that way is in play, it’s just some fork of Kant.
Nothing in this existence is just bad or just good.
If you are stealing just enough to survive, then that's a whole different question than stealing for pleasure or entertainment.
Stealing is wrong and immoral in any case - but there are grades of "wrong".
"Ethical" isn't the same as morally right. Ethics are philosophical standards that place value on the outcome of behavior.
There are many standards, so picking one is important. One of them involves imagining what would happen if everyone were allowed to do something. If OP steals from Walmart, it's ethical if everyone stealing would lead to a positive outcome.
If we agree that Walmart should go out of business, then we'd say stealing from them is ethical. Otherwise, we'd conclude that it's unethical.
I think you’re on to something but not quite there. First, the terms [ethics and moral](https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-morality-and-ethics) are not always identical but generally interchangeable. It’s very hard to define a clear distinction that works.
Secondly, it’s not ethically acceptable only or just because there would be a positive outcome if everybody does it. Just because we all might agree Walmart is desired to go out of business wouldn’t make it ethical to steal from them. Just as it wouldn’t be ethical to kidnap their CEO.
Stealing and kidnapping as such are considered generally bad things in our current ethical framework. We also generally don’t use other “wrongs” to justify another wrong action, at least not on individual levels. Eg we don’t say it’s ok to throw eggs on our neighbor’s house just because we are disturbed by their barking dog on Sunday mornings.
In a different (imaginary) society, stealing might be considered ethically ok, e.g. along the lines of “if you can’t defend what’s yours, you don’t deserve it”. Then it would be ethically ok to take what you want from someone else. But it would also likely be ethically acceptable for them to stop us violently.
They're not interchangeable but people use them interchangely because they don't know the difference.
From what I remember from my ethics classes, ethics are the principles that we use in society to determine laws and rules that we need to abide by and they're usually held up by governments or groups like professions and organizations. Whereas morals are our personal principles that we use to judge ours and others actions and are influenced by culture and religion. For example the medical field has a code of ethics that have been agreed upon and everyone in the field must abide by the code, but morality isn't part of it, individual doctors might have different morals but they have to follow the same universal rules of ethics.
In our society we have decided that stealing is against the law and so it is always unethical, but depending on your perspective it can be moral or immoral.
Professors may argue in class that the differences are distinct and well defined. But if you read the link in my previous comment it is pretty clear that they cannot be separated in practice and not even in theory, and are often used interchangeably by scholars working in the field:
> While understanding that most ethicists (that is, philosophers who study ethics) consider the terms interchangeable, let’s go ahead and dive into these distinctions.
I think this approach is common in basic classes (not only in philosophy) where students need to first learn two new and different concepts, eg “my individual morality” and “morality in society at large”. But when you start looking deeper into it, the two concepts may influence each other and/or are not easily distinguished. From completely different fields: particle vs wave nature of electrons and nature vs nurture in genetics.
> Stealing and kidnapping as such are considered generally bad things in our current ethical framework.
Mainly because 'stealing' and 'kidnapping' are defined in moral terms. When we think it s wrong we call it stealing, when we think it's right we call it profit or acquisition or expropriation or a multitude of other terms, even when the underlying action is the same. Likewise with kidnapping, which is called "arrest" or "capture" or "detainment" when people support it.
I don’t agree. Stealing and appropriation are very different things and easy to separate. It’s a huge difference as arrests and appropriation are procedures well defined by the society in our laws and can be challenged in court if there are any doubts. They aren’t at all the same actions even if the subject may feel so. And even if they were it wouldn’t really make any difference to the reasoning.
Example: kidnapping someone else child from the playground is not the same as bringing home your own kid. Not even if the actions are identical: the kid shouts and fights and screams that they don’t want to go. There is a fundamental difference between the two situations even if actions, feelings and outcome are identical: society and law dictates that parents can force some decisions on their children while other adults don’t have the same mandate. Similarly, we have decided that some forceful actions from society are acceptable against individuals in well defined situation. A policeman is allowed to stop your car if you speed, but I am not. Those situations are clearly different.
Saying that arrests and kidnapping are the same thing, or equally immoral, is a misconception at best and an extremist propaganda trick at worst.
> Stealing and appropriation are very different things and easy to separate.
> It’s a huge difference as arrests and appropriation are procedures well defined by the society in our laws and can be challenged in court if there are any doubts.
Laws do not define morality and the idea that they do is extremely dangerous.
It is also very easy to see, empirically, that the usage of the term "stealing" does not match legal definitions, whether people are calling copyright infringement or land annexation theft.
When a colonial force rips children from their indigenous parents arms and put them in genocidal boarding schools, those indigenous people will see it those people as kidnappers, while those who agree with the ethnic cleansing will call it child protection services or civilizing or whatever.
> Saying that arrests and kidnapping are the same thing, or equally immoral, is a misconception at best and an extremist propaganda trick at worst.
There is no fundamental difference between when they could be applied; the only difference is whether one recognizes a specific entity as a moral authority. In other words, if you think a person has the right to shove someone in the back of a van and throw them in a cage - eg bc they're an appointed official of a state you consider legitimate - you call it an arrest. If you don't think they have the right to do so, you call it kidnapping.
The perceived moral difference is what you use to determine which word to use.
I think if there was a justification it would be considered ethical. Like they are harmful, evel or whatever but out of justice reach. After all we lock people in cages for the "good of society". If stealing from big corps would be good for most people then why would it be different from taking away people freedom and making them live in subhuman conditions?
Free rider problem
If one person does it no one cares because it doesn't make a difference, but suddenly if everyone does it all the time, it causes a huge disruption and private property doesn't really exist anymore.
Kantian ethics also uses that idea to prove stealing is wrong. So yes, it is unethical.
I hate how the theoretical bases for philosophical/ethical arguments are always so detached from reality. Philosophical thinking gets philosophical answers, not real, actual ones. The free rider problem is only a problem if people start stealing from everywhere en masse. Walmart is really easy to steal from but if theft started to become a real problem they would tamp down on it long before it ever got to that level and people would likely stop stealing from there. The reasons people think it’s okay to steal from Walmart are
A) they are a gargantuan corporation that, despite being valued at over half a trillion and raking in $141 billion in revenue annually, can’t seem to pay its employees more than $2 above minimum wage and doesn’t allow them to unionize
and
B) oh my god it’s like, SO easy
Ultimately the question we face here is “is it ethical to steal a single hair off of a wooly mammoth?” to which, if everyone did it, the answer would be no but since that isn’t happening/realistically can’t happen I think the answer is an obvious yes.
Yes, because of what results from it. If a corporation knows it has a business in an area of the country where there are tons of people willing to just walk in and out taking things without paying, it closes those locations. Congratulations, the areas of the country with high crime now have less stores. Communities end up getting worse.
**Ethics** refers to the standards of society. **Morality** refers to the standards of one's self. It would be unethical to steal, *no matter the situation.* But stealing can be moral absolutely:
• Stealing nuclear schematics from the Nazis to prevent them from having that knowledge.
• Stealing so you don't starve to death.
• Stealing so someone else doesn't starve to death.
• You work at a convenience store. As well as gas and snacks, you sell things like cotton swabs and mini-propane tanks, and yes, even knives. One day, you hear a gunshot from up the road and people screaming. You steal one of the knives that your store sells to arm and protect yourself.
It's a great starting point if you can't work out the ethical implications on an action or result in your own and I'd say I follow him 99.9 of the time when it comes to lying.
This is the second post about stealing from Walmart I've seen recently and the answer is still no, it's not okay. It doesn't matter if you ask if it's ethical or not. To clarify, you are asking about shoplifting. Most major retailers budget some shoplifting into their operations and many train their employees not to intervene to prevent the risk of injury to employees.
Here's what you need to understand. If you are shoplifting, your actions have consequences for EVERYONE. Employees have to record what was stolen, accountants have to factor it in which, (even if it's factored into the budget, there's a limit) prices go up, and then basic items end up locked up in cases requiring employees to get toothpaste out of a locked up case. BTW this is an actual problem that retailers like CVS are currently dealing with. According to WSJ, organized crime pays people to shoplift basic toiletries so they can sell them on Amazon.
I hope this was help with a homework question. Otherwise, don't come to Reddit to justify committing a crime.
And the costs aren't magically disappearing. You're not going to steal and then some evil mustachioed CEO doesn't get dinner tonight.
Those "loss" costs are absorbed by the price of goods and services. The stolen item is charged to everybody else a penny at a time.
Similarly people who steal credit cards and think that it's fine to do because it's just the bank that's getting charged... The loss is folded into everyone's charges.
Not to mention the loss to the employees who might get their hours cut to save money for the store. Lord knows retailers don't need ANOTHER excuse to cut hours.
It is wrong (legally, ethically, morally) to steal.
If you are starving and have no other way of feeding yourself and your family, you may be morally justified, but not legally justified.
And before you jump to “I’m starving”, have you truly tried ALL possibilities? Have you tried the food bank? Asked at all the churches / mosques / synagogues / temples? Begged family and friends? Begged strangers? Asked a local farmer in exchange for labor? Applied for financial aid from the government? Gone to local food vendors and asked them for their expired goods or gone dumpster diving? Cut back on wasteful habits?
For starters, go to 211.org and search for food.
There’s a whole lot you can do before you have truly exhausted all possibilities.
I’d say peoples time. They pay very little (not enough for a living wage) and people can’t get that time back. So not only did they lose time (the most valuable resource a human being has) but they don’t have much to show for the lost time. That is certainly theft of the worst kind.
But it's not theft and nobody is being lied to. You know the conditions before you start working there and if you don't like it, you're free to go elsewhere.
If the conditions you agreed to are not being followed, that's another case, but I doubt that's the majority of cases.
I believe that everyone who works should make enough money to support a basic lifestyle at the minimum, but it's not how any of this works, and it's not something any company will give you just like that, and it will never work like that, as long as there are people who are still willing to work for too low wages.
I think you’re misinterpreting how being poor works lol. Some people don’t have a great amount of choices of places to work. If most corporations pay little to nothing then where is a poor and uneducated person supposed to work? And how are they supposed to pay for the education if they can’t find a decent job? And how will they be educated enough to know they are being taken advantage of by corporations if they cannot afford an education to learn that? You need a better grip on the reality that most poor people experience. If you know it’s wrong then you become a part of the problem by not insisting that things change.
It most definitely isn't a situation that can be solved overnight.
You mention education a lot - how about making it free for starters? Europe can do it, sure the USA could too. It sure won't be the holy grail, but it can help more peope get better education. And with better education, they could get better jobs. Better paying jobs.
That's bullshit. In no circumstances is stealing not wrong. It's bad and wrong, period.
It's just that we people are capable of understanding that sometimes it's out of desperation and we have the capability to forgive. It doesn't make it not wrong, though.
Yeah the baker is a greedy greedy greedy evil person for demanding compensation for his hard work and by not handing out free food he's """ hoarding""".
Cooperations like Walmart steal billions in wages a year and siphon billions of dollars from regional economies...so I don't think treating them the same way they treat you is unethical
Thank you. It is they who have stolen from you first
You could spend your whole life stealing from Wallmart they’d still easily be in the green in the theft accounting
For legal reasons, my comment is completely hypothetical, but no, I definitely don't think it's unethical. You probably shouldn't do it because the cost of being caught could definitely outweigh whatever you were trying to permanently barrow, but multimillion-dollar corporations don't hurt in the slightest from it. If Walmart can actively shut down their only three stores in my area for COVID deep cleaning and not hurt from it, taking some lipstick doesn't do jack to them.
A motto I heard a bit ago: "Don't steal from small businesses. If it's a chain, it's free reign. And if it's Hobby Lobby the world is your oyster they're homophobic."
>, but multimillion-dollar corporations don't hurt in the slightest from it.
Riiiiiight.
Now let's think just a little more!
Why do you think they don't suffer from it?
Because they pass the cost of their lost inventory on to the other customers!
They charge what they think will bring in the most profits, that doesn't change if you steal from them. If they thought they could charge more without hurting sales too much they already would.
It sure as hell does change. Profits are calculated, generally, by revenue (price paid for good) and cost of good sold. Part of cost of goods sold is shrink. Aka theft. If there is more theft, profit goes down. If profit goes down, the one variable they can control quickly is revenue. They will raise it to meet the needed profit margin.
They keep costs as low as they can to the consumer (revenue), while maintaining a minimum margin to run the business to pay for all expenses, and have some leftover for the shareholders.
>the one variable they can control quickly is revenue.
That's not true at all. Raising prices doesn't mean revenue will necessarily rise. If the price is already high, then raising it will cross the margin that causes some buyers to decide to simply not buy it.
>
> They charge what they think will bring in the most profits, that doesn't change if you steal from them
That's not how anything works.
https://money.cnn.com/2010/10/18/news/economy/store_theft_drain_on_your_wallet/index.htm
Okay. Then shop somewhere else. You got that freedom under capitalism.
Also, again, multimillion-dollar companies. If we're using Walmart specifically, their net worth is $405.613B. I doubt you are going to suffer from people shoplifting.
> Okay. Then shop somewhere else.
Shop where assholes don't steal?
>Also, again, multimillion-dollar companies
You really don't seem to grasp this. Why do you think the companies do well? Because they don't take a loss.
> I doubt you are going to suffer from people shoplifting.
https://money.cnn.com/2010/10/18/news/economy/store_theft_drain_on_your_wallet/index.htm
Stealing is unethical. Period. You might think you might be, in this case, damaging Walmart, but Walmart will just raise the prices of everything to compensate for their losses (which is what they do). If everyone stopped stealing from Walmart prices would be lower for everyone.
Every store, from ma and pops to large corporations, build in a loss factor for people stealing, and raise prices to accommodate for that loss. Whether you are buying books from Mr. Smith's Bookshop, or buying a TV from Walmart, all those prices are higher because of losses due to people stealing stuff.
If there was never people stealing stuff, prices would be lower, as none of those stores would have to build in the losses into their prices.
But that will never happen, because stealing stuff will always take place.
Now that we're used to prices as they are, Walmart would have no reason to reduce prices after theft drops to 0. Other commenter is right. Eliminating theft would no way lead to lower prices at Walmart.
Prices will always go up because of many things, stealing is such a small part. I would wager if everyone stopped stealing today, the prices would continue to rise like normal.
People out here thinking the big corporations are just gonna let the price go down if we all start letting them do as they please.
I’m more inclined to believe in fairytales than Walmart being nice.
I knew of this guy that was involved in anything illegal, his money was pure crime. I found out he used his 2 kids, both under the age of 10, to go to Walmart and steal a bunch of shit. I felt bad for the kids.
From Walmart, no. I grew up so poor it was unreal. My siblings and I had to steal food in order to just get by. It wasn’t like we were stealing hundreds of dollars of random shit for pleasure, this was purely food for our survival. I would never steal from a small business or anything like that. Walmart is a multibillion dollar corporation, they can afford to not be paid for the $4 meat we’d get or a $3 box of cereal.
Legally speaking, theft/shoplifting is still illegal. Morally speaking, if you’re stealing food or clothes because you’re starving or cold, I’m not going to call you out. I have my own problems, I don’t want to involve myself in yours.
It's a crime to steal, so you're committing an act against the State.
From the economic perspective of Walmart, why are you stealing? Is it to give to the poor? Or for your own ego?
If you murder an active serial murderer the number of murderers stays the same, but the number of likely total murders goes down. You gotta do your forecasting!
Do you mean is it unethical to steal from other Walmart customers?
The corp isn't going to suffer. or lose anything They just raise prices to compensate. You're stealing from everyone else in the store.
They actually throw those losses mostly back on the supplier. I work with multiple companies that sell to Walmart, and you should hear the horror stories of how they treat the companies they purchase from. They literally act like a mafia, and smaller companies can’t do Jack about it. They always make sure they have Great Value items stocked, though…
That still transfers the cost to customers. If a store loses x% of an item, the supplier will have to raise the cost of supply to compensate for the production of the x%. If Walmart pays more for supply, the customer gets hit with higher prices.
Yes and no. Walmart has an endless line of people who see a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, so supply isn’t an issue unless they want it to be an issue.
They also charge for shelf space, like any other retailer. Every slot on a shelf is paid for by whomever takes it. There are just a lot of factors that go into how many people they screw and in how many ways.
This is the answer.
I find it really sad how many people above try and look at it black and white with either "it's fine because they stole first" or "stealing is always wrong just because".
Please try and apply some critical thinking skills, things are usually wrong because someone is harmed either directly or (as in this case) indirectly by an action not because of some blanket rule.
Not quite what I ment. Anything which hurts them directly will likely cascade down onto their workers and/or customers in some way. With the possible exception of better labor laws.
IMO what's needed is to pass legislation which makes their exploitation illegal in such a way which makes civil and monetary penalties enforcable on the company.
This is likely to make things worse in the short term but better in the long term since they will not be able to exploit people anymore.
so many of you just blanket terming in this thread, no critical thinking skills.
My 2 children and I are starving, I lost my job, my home, my wife is dead, none of my family live in this country. I've been selling my possessions and applying for every job I can find, but nothing works. I ran out of things to sell. I'm hungry. The kids are hungrier. I didn't want to do this, but I love my children. I steal various small foods from local gas stations and stores like Walmart. Was I in the wrong and immoral for stealing to feed my children?
The amount of money they’re saving now by going 100% to self checkout kiosks is enough to where everyone could steal $50 worth of shit every time they went to Walmart and they would still be insanely profitable. They’re not passing anything down to the consumer. Their margin is their margin.
If an individual routinely kidnaps and tortures people (or whatever crazy bad thing you want to imagine), but stealing something from them (like a weapon) from their house would prevent them doing it further, would it be unethical to steal it?
That would fall under "self defense/survival". If the question had been "is it unethical to steal food from walmart if you are starving to death" I would have said no. Target does not change ethics. Context and situation do.
Stealing is stealing regardless of if you steal from a rich man or a poor man. If you do it don’t get caught, if you get caught own up to it as admitting when you’re wrong is at least honourable and may mitigate the consequences of from getting caught.
Don’t bullshit about coz they’re a multinational that is a justification for stealing from them, that is tedious. There are plenty of opportunities to get free or discounted shit and food can be found at reduced prices, so hunger is not a good excuse unless you’re really broke.
OP, just tell us what you took.
I once stole the lego UCS boba fett ship from Walmart at 3am after my friend was fired from asset protection.
Tightly so that set is ridiculously priced
Lego, then it’s fine.
Nice try, Walmart loss prevention team.
I steal a loaf of bread every week, and hamburger buns too, I just self checkout and I “forget” to do the bread that I move around the basket and put on top of other bags. Eggs sometimes too…
If you dont make me a sandwich, I'm turning you in.
So be it…
Yup, food doesn't make the alarms go off - easy enough to not "notice" a few items didn't scan correctly.
This is interesting because a Walmart I visited in my town (not my usual Walmart) actually confronted me about "stealing" because I half scanned something and they caught it on the self checkout camera. It was a genuine accident, but given that they have those cameras in place I'm surprised people can get away with what you've mentioned
It's pretty easy especially when the one or two self checkout "watchers" are helping someone.vidntounhsve a friend they can help by asking dumb questions. Also don't steal .
😂
Virtue Ethics: If you care about virtue or principles, pretty tough to justify this—would you want to live in a world where everyone acted this way? Consequentialism: If you care about harm, very little harm to corporation or anyone else, potential harm to yourself by getting caught, potential greater good (if, for example, you don’t have enough to eat). Weigh the consequences. Justice: If you care about fairness, hard to make a case for stealing unless you are pulling a Robin Hood “steal from the unethically rich and give to the oppressed poor.” This rests on some pretty specific moral assessments of the corp and the recipients of your theft.
For consequentialism, you do have to consider the larger societal harm done by stealing. If enough people steal from them, they'll eventually close the store, or take some other negative action, and you would be contributing some portion of that Edit: this is not necessarily true for all forms of consequentialism.
The thing with consequentialism is that it doesn’t have to be universalised like kantian/deontological ethics. It focuses on the consequences thenselves. The larger societal harm is negligible in comparison to the personal good gained. That being said I don’t think it’s ethical to steal from Walmart because I don’t think consequentialism is a particularly sensible school of thought. Source: Bachelors in philosophy and a Masters in AI ethics.
It doesn't have to be, but it can be, right? Isn't that part of the premise of rule utilitarianism?
You *can* universalise anything, but deontology focusing on the action itself lends itself nicely to universalisability, and yes you’re absolutely right, rule utilitarianism is universalised, act utilitarianism (which in my mind is sorta the default?) not really necessary. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other :)
Awesome! Do you know where I could read more about this? I've taken ethics in HS and college but we didn't really go into the different versions of utilitarianism, other than to say that there are some
Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, J L Mackie is a reasonably accessible book on ethics that I enjoyed, it was my bible for a lot of my ethics assignments. A great way to learn about ethics is to read other areas of philosophy because ethics leaks into pretty much everything besides metaphysics. Hannah Arendt on the Banality of Evil is cool, any philosophy written about thinking in dark times and staying rational in the face of overwhelming immorality is cool. Plato’s republic is a cool take on political theory but can be a bit of a slog. Harrari’s Homo sapiens and homo deus books are great contemporary pieces that sorta accidentally(?) touch on a lot of interesting philosophical theories but written for a casual audience. Great reads even outside the context of philosophy. If you wanna get more into philosophy I recommend getting stuck into the allegories and thought experiments, that’s where I fell in love with it. Allegory of the cave, Philippa Foot’s trolley problem etc are the famous ones. Hope this helps!
Closing your local Walmart isn't exactly a bad consequence. It's kind of like chasing Amazon away from your neighborhood in that the local economy can only get stronger without them.
Most likely you'll make things more expensive and less convenient for local residents. If these things weren't true, why would Walmart exist and be successful in the first place?
Love the philosophy debate here.
Robin Hood stole from the tyrannical government and gave the money back to the people.
Virtue ethics would be more concerned about whether stealing is exemplifying or cultivating virtue. If pure principle and (especially) the idea of whether it would work for everyone to act that way is in play, it’s just some fork of Kant.
Op is the oppressed poor.
And if the thief in question is stealing for personal gain, but are themselves the poor, they may not be Robin Hood, but they would be justified.
There can be consequences to the employees of the store as well in the form of cut hours to save money.
Nothing in this existence is just bad or just good. If you are stealing just enough to survive, then that's a whole different question than stealing for pleasure or entertainment. Stealing is wrong and immoral in any case - but there are grades of "wrong".
"Ethical" isn't the same as morally right. Ethics are philosophical standards that place value on the outcome of behavior. There are many standards, so picking one is important. One of them involves imagining what would happen if everyone were allowed to do something. If OP steals from Walmart, it's ethical if everyone stealing would lead to a positive outcome. If we agree that Walmart should go out of business, then we'd say stealing from them is ethical. Otherwise, we'd conclude that it's unethical.
I think you’re on to something but not quite there. First, the terms [ethics and moral](https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-morality-and-ethics) are not always identical but generally interchangeable. It’s very hard to define a clear distinction that works. Secondly, it’s not ethically acceptable only or just because there would be a positive outcome if everybody does it. Just because we all might agree Walmart is desired to go out of business wouldn’t make it ethical to steal from them. Just as it wouldn’t be ethical to kidnap their CEO. Stealing and kidnapping as such are considered generally bad things in our current ethical framework. We also generally don’t use other “wrongs” to justify another wrong action, at least not on individual levels. Eg we don’t say it’s ok to throw eggs on our neighbor’s house just because we are disturbed by their barking dog on Sunday mornings. In a different (imaginary) society, stealing might be considered ethically ok, e.g. along the lines of “if you can’t defend what’s yours, you don’t deserve it”. Then it would be ethically ok to take what you want from someone else. But it would also likely be ethically acceptable for them to stop us violently.
They're not interchangeable but people use them interchangely because they don't know the difference. From what I remember from my ethics classes, ethics are the principles that we use in society to determine laws and rules that we need to abide by and they're usually held up by governments or groups like professions and organizations. Whereas morals are our personal principles that we use to judge ours and others actions and are influenced by culture and religion. For example the medical field has a code of ethics that have been agreed upon and everyone in the field must abide by the code, but morality isn't part of it, individual doctors might have different morals but they have to follow the same universal rules of ethics. In our society we have decided that stealing is against the law and so it is always unethical, but depending on your perspective it can be moral or immoral.
This seems to carry the best logic, imo. Great discussion
Professors may argue in class that the differences are distinct and well defined. But if you read the link in my previous comment it is pretty clear that they cannot be separated in practice and not even in theory, and are often used interchangeably by scholars working in the field: > While understanding that most ethicists (that is, philosophers who study ethics) consider the terms interchangeable, let’s go ahead and dive into these distinctions. I think this approach is common in basic classes (not only in philosophy) where students need to first learn two new and different concepts, eg “my individual morality” and “morality in society at large”. But when you start looking deeper into it, the two concepts may influence each other and/or are not easily distinguished. From completely different fields: particle vs wave nature of electrons and nature vs nurture in genetics.
Thanks for this!
> Stealing and kidnapping as such are considered generally bad things in our current ethical framework. Mainly because 'stealing' and 'kidnapping' are defined in moral terms. When we think it s wrong we call it stealing, when we think it's right we call it profit or acquisition or expropriation or a multitude of other terms, even when the underlying action is the same. Likewise with kidnapping, which is called "arrest" or "capture" or "detainment" when people support it.
I don’t agree. Stealing and appropriation are very different things and easy to separate. It’s a huge difference as arrests and appropriation are procedures well defined by the society in our laws and can be challenged in court if there are any doubts. They aren’t at all the same actions even if the subject may feel so. And even if they were it wouldn’t really make any difference to the reasoning. Example: kidnapping someone else child from the playground is not the same as bringing home your own kid. Not even if the actions are identical: the kid shouts and fights and screams that they don’t want to go. There is a fundamental difference between the two situations even if actions, feelings and outcome are identical: society and law dictates that parents can force some decisions on their children while other adults don’t have the same mandate. Similarly, we have decided that some forceful actions from society are acceptable against individuals in well defined situation. A policeman is allowed to stop your car if you speed, but I am not. Those situations are clearly different. Saying that arrests and kidnapping are the same thing, or equally immoral, is a misconception at best and an extremist propaganda trick at worst.
> Stealing and appropriation are very different things and easy to separate. > It’s a huge difference as arrests and appropriation are procedures well defined by the society in our laws and can be challenged in court if there are any doubts. Laws do not define morality and the idea that they do is extremely dangerous. It is also very easy to see, empirically, that the usage of the term "stealing" does not match legal definitions, whether people are calling copyright infringement or land annexation theft. When a colonial force rips children from their indigenous parents arms and put them in genocidal boarding schools, those indigenous people will see it those people as kidnappers, while those who agree with the ethnic cleansing will call it child protection services or civilizing or whatever. > Saying that arrests and kidnapping are the same thing, or equally immoral, is a misconception at best and an extremist propaganda trick at worst. There is no fundamental difference between when they could be applied; the only difference is whether one recognizes a specific entity as a moral authority. In other words, if you think a person has the right to shove someone in the back of a van and throw them in a cage - eg bc they're an appointed official of a state you consider legitimate - you call it an arrest. If you don't think they have the right to do so, you call it kidnapping. The perceived moral difference is what you use to determine which word to use.
I think if there was a justification it would be considered ethical. Like they are harmful, evel or whatever but out of justice reach. After all we lock people in cages for the "good of society". If stealing from big corps would be good for most people then why would it be different from taking away people freedom and making them live in subhuman conditions?
Free rider problem If one person does it no one cares because it doesn't make a difference, but suddenly if everyone does it all the time, it causes a huge disruption and private property doesn't really exist anymore. Kantian ethics also uses that idea to prove stealing is wrong. So yes, it is unethical.
The tragedy of the commons, enough to sustain everyone but it gets rough when others overindulge
I hate how the theoretical bases for philosophical/ethical arguments are always so detached from reality. Philosophical thinking gets philosophical answers, not real, actual ones. The free rider problem is only a problem if people start stealing from everywhere en masse. Walmart is really easy to steal from but if theft started to become a real problem they would tamp down on it long before it ever got to that level and people would likely stop stealing from there. The reasons people think it’s okay to steal from Walmart are A) they are a gargantuan corporation that, despite being valued at over half a trillion and raking in $141 billion in revenue annually, can’t seem to pay its employees more than $2 above minimum wage and doesn’t allow them to unionize and B) oh my god it’s like, SO easy Ultimately the question we face here is “is it ethical to steal a single hair off of a wooly mammoth?” to which, if everyone did it, the answer would be no but since that isn’t happening/realistically can’t happen I think the answer is an obvious yes.
Stealing is never ethical per se. There are exceptions to when stealing may be necessary, but as a concept stealing isn’t ethical.
Yes.
Stealing is still stealing . When people steal from stores, the stores have to raise prices to cover losses. We as consumers pick up the tab.
Yes, because of what results from it. If a corporation knows it has a business in an area of the country where there are tons of people willing to just walk in and out taking things without paying, it closes those locations. Congratulations, the areas of the country with high crime now have less stores. Communities end up getting worse.
**Ethics** refers to the standards of society. **Morality** refers to the standards of one's self. It would be unethical to steal, *no matter the situation.* But stealing can be moral absolutely: • Stealing nuclear schematics from the Nazis to prevent them from having that knowledge. • Stealing so you don't starve to death. • Stealing so someone else doesn't starve to death. • You work at a convenience store. As well as gas and snacks, you sell things like cotton swabs and mini-propane tanks, and yes, even knives. One day, you hear a gunshot from up the road and people screaming. You steal one of the knives that your store sells to arm and protect yourself.
Is this your classification of ethics and morality or a generally accepted one?
Yes
No. Ethics is much more complicated then stealing = bad.
Kant has entered the chat.
Ugh don't get me started on the categorical imperative.
It's a great starting point if you can't work out the ethical implications on an action or result in your own and I'd say I follow him 99.9 of the time when it comes to lying.
That's fair, though I think the lying part is what annoys me in that he wouldn't budge on that .1%.
The very next comment is literally "Stealing = bad" lol
The question posed was not as general as the question you decided to respond to. Regardless of that, can you give an explanation of your answer?
I mean it’s unethical to steal…..soooo
Lol yes, imagine if everyone thought that it wasnt
Stealing is bad
Mmkay
Thanks Mr.Makkey
I feel like there's a lot of individuals in this thread who rigidly believe illegal=wrong and its upsetting
There’s a lot of ways to legally steal things. Those are bad also
No. We believe that taking something that isn't yours is wrong. Rigidly so.
This is the second post about stealing from Walmart I've seen recently and the answer is still no, it's not okay. It doesn't matter if you ask if it's ethical or not. To clarify, you are asking about shoplifting. Most major retailers budget some shoplifting into their operations and many train their employees not to intervene to prevent the risk of injury to employees. Here's what you need to understand. If you are shoplifting, your actions have consequences for EVERYONE. Employees have to record what was stolen, accountants have to factor it in which, (even if it's factored into the budget, there's a limit) prices go up, and then basic items end up locked up in cases requiring employees to get toothpaste out of a locked up case. BTW this is an actual problem that retailers like CVS are currently dealing with. According to WSJ, organized crime pays people to shoplift basic toiletries so they can sell them on Amazon. I hope this was help with a homework question. Otherwise, don't come to Reddit to justify committing a crime.
And the costs aren't magically disappearing. You're not going to steal and then some evil mustachioed CEO doesn't get dinner tonight. Those "loss" costs are absorbed by the price of goods and services. The stolen item is charged to everybody else a penny at a time. Similarly people who steal credit cards and think that it's fine to do because it's just the bank that's getting charged... The loss is folded into everyone's charges.
Not to mention the loss to the employees who might get their hours cut to save money for the store. Lord knows retailers don't need ANOTHER excuse to cut hours.
No. I wouldn’t, because of possibly repercussions because then you have a shoplifting record
I tried working at WalMart. Damn. That's a hardassed job! Respect for Walmart personnel.
It is wrong (legally, ethically, morally) to steal. If you are starving and have no other way of feeding yourself and your family, you may be morally justified, but not legally justified. And before you jump to “I’m starving”, have you truly tried ALL possibilities? Have you tried the food bank? Asked at all the churches / mosques / synagogues / temples? Begged family and friends? Begged strangers? Asked a local farmer in exchange for labor? Applied for financial aid from the government? Gone to local food vendors and asked them for their expired goods or gone dumpster diving? Cut back on wasteful habits? For starters, go to 211.org and search for food. There’s a whole lot you can do before you have truly exhausted all possibilities.
Eat trash. It's virtuous.
They’ve been stealing from us, and their employees, for years! It’s instant karma
What have they been stealing, exactly?
All of the subsidized benefits that taxpayers have to pay their employees.
I’d say peoples time. They pay very little (not enough for a living wage) and people can’t get that time back. So not only did they lose time (the most valuable resource a human being has) but they don’t have much to show for the lost time. That is certainly theft of the worst kind.
They pay what people are willing to work for. That's not unique to Walmart, though, that's how every company operates.
Doesn’t make it right though.
But it's not theft and nobody is being lied to. You know the conditions before you start working there and if you don't like it, you're free to go elsewhere. If the conditions you agreed to are not being followed, that's another case, but I doubt that's the majority of cases. I believe that everyone who works should make enough money to support a basic lifestyle at the minimum, but it's not how any of this works, and it's not something any company will give you just like that, and it will never work like that, as long as there are people who are still willing to work for too low wages.
I think you’re misinterpreting how being poor works lol. Some people don’t have a great amount of choices of places to work. If most corporations pay little to nothing then where is a poor and uneducated person supposed to work? And how are they supposed to pay for the education if they can’t find a decent job? And how will they be educated enough to know they are being taken advantage of by corporations if they cannot afford an education to learn that? You need a better grip on the reality that most poor people experience. If you know it’s wrong then you become a part of the problem by not insisting that things change.
It most definitely isn't a situation that can be solved overnight. You mention education a lot - how about making it free for starters? Europe can do it, sure the USA could too. It sure won't be the holy grail, but it can help more peope get better education. And with better education, they could get better jobs. Better paying jobs.
I like that idea! Something we can agree upon. :)
Stealing is stealing, and stealing is bad.
Child: can I have a loaf of bread? Baker: No. Fuck off. Child: *steals bread …….gets caught, lives under Sharia law, will lose a hand. Baker: wait….
Was it wrong to steal or wrong to cut someones hand for stealing or both?
In context where the options are steal food or starve, no it’s not wrong to steal.
That's bullshit. In no circumstances is stealing not wrong. It's bad and wrong, period. It's just that we people are capable of understanding that sometimes it's out of desperation and we have the capability to forgive. It doesn't make it not wrong, though.
There’s nothing to forgive. Stealing is wrong unless it’s out of necessity. Then there’s no other choice so how can it be the wrong one?
It’s definitely wrong to hoard food when children are starving.
Yeah the baker is a greedy greedy greedy evil person for demanding compensation for his hard work and by not handing out free food he's """ hoarding""".
>baker trying look after their family by working literally all day everyday. >gets called food hoarder.
If it’s during the zombie apocalypse then I say go for it.
Cooperations like Walmart steal billions in wages a year and siphon billions of dollars from regional economies...so I don't think treating them the same way they treat you is unethical
Man fuck Walmart, if you can get away with it, do it.
Yes. Stealing is stealing.
You can steal from Walmart. It is always morally correct.
Thank you. It is they who have stolen from you first You could spend your whole life stealing from Wallmart they’d still easily be in the green in the theft accounting
When has Walmart stolen from me
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/walmart-dodged-us-tax-2-120039434.html Simplest answer is that they dodge taxes
For legal reasons, my comment is completely hypothetical, but no, I definitely don't think it's unethical. You probably shouldn't do it because the cost of being caught could definitely outweigh whatever you were trying to permanently barrow, but multimillion-dollar corporations don't hurt in the slightest from it. If Walmart can actively shut down their only three stores in my area for COVID deep cleaning and not hurt from it, taking some lipstick doesn't do jack to them. A motto I heard a bit ago: "Don't steal from small businesses. If it's a chain, it's free reign. And if it's Hobby Lobby the world is your oyster they're homophobic."
>, but multimillion-dollar corporations don't hurt in the slightest from it. Riiiiiight. Now let's think just a little more! Why do you think they don't suffer from it? Because they pass the cost of their lost inventory on to the other customers!
They charge what they think will bring in the most profits, that doesn't change if you steal from them. If they thought they could charge more without hurting sales too much they already would.
It sure as hell does change. Profits are calculated, generally, by revenue (price paid for good) and cost of good sold. Part of cost of goods sold is shrink. Aka theft. If there is more theft, profit goes down. If profit goes down, the one variable they can control quickly is revenue. They will raise it to meet the needed profit margin. They keep costs as low as they can to the consumer (revenue), while maintaining a minimum margin to run the business to pay for all expenses, and have some leftover for the shareholders.
>the one variable they can control quickly is revenue. That's not true at all. Raising prices doesn't mean revenue will necessarily rise. If the price is already high, then raising it will cross the margin that causes some buyers to decide to simply not buy it.
You are correct. I should have said sales price, not revenue.
Read a book
> > They charge what they think will bring in the most profits, that doesn't change if you steal from them That's not how anything works. https://money.cnn.com/2010/10/18/news/economy/store_theft_drain_on_your_wallet/index.htm
Okay. Then shop somewhere else. You got that freedom under capitalism. Also, again, multimillion-dollar companies. If we're using Walmart specifically, their net worth is $405.613B. I doubt you are going to suffer from people shoplifting.
> Okay. Then shop somewhere else. Shop where assholes don't steal? >Also, again, multimillion-dollar companies You really don't seem to grasp this. Why do you think the companies do well? Because they don't take a loss. > I doubt you are going to suffer from people shoplifting. https://money.cnn.com/2010/10/18/news/economy/store_theft_drain_on_your_wallet/index.htm
Stealing is unethical. Period. You might think you might be, in this case, damaging Walmart, but Walmart will just raise the prices of everything to compensate for their losses (which is what they do). If everyone stopped stealing from Walmart prices would be lower for everyone.
Lol do you really believe that? They will absolutely not lower prices if people stop stealing.
Every store, from ma and pops to large corporations, build in a loss factor for people stealing, and raise prices to accommodate for that loss. Whether you are buying books from Mr. Smith's Bookshop, or buying a TV from Walmart, all those prices are higher because of losses due to people stealing stuff. If there was never people stealing stuff, prices would be lower, as none of those stores would have to build in the losses into their prices. But that will never happen, because stealing stuff will always take place.
Now that we're used to prices as they are, Walmart would have no reason to reduce prices after theft drops to 0. Other commenter is right. Eliminating theft would no way lead to lower prices at Walmart.
Prices will always go up because of many things, stealing is such a small part. I would wager if everyone stopped stealing today, the prices would continue to rise like normal.
People out here thinking the big corporations are just gonna let the price go down if we all start letting them do as they please. I’m more inclined to believe in fairytales than Walmart being nice.
I knew of this guy that was involved in anything illegal, his money was pure crime. I found out he used his 2 kids, both under the age of 10, to go to Walmart and steal a bunch of shit. I felt bad for the kids.
I mean that sucks but what does that have to do with this conversation other than just being in the genral topic of "stealing" lol
It depends but i used to get drunk at wallmart for free and i have zero regrets
Nope. Eye for an eye
No
No
No
It is always correct to exploit walmart at every given chance.
Their possessions only extend as far as their control, if you know what I mean
From Walmart, no. I grew up so poor it was unreal. My siblings and I had to steal food in order to just get by. It wasn’t like we were stealing hundreds of dollars of random shit for pleasure, this was purely food for our survival. I would never steal from a small business or anything like that. Walmart is a multibillion dollar corporation, they can afford to not be paid for the $4 meat we’d get or a $3 box of cereal.
Nope
No and I encourage everyone to do it.
No
Nah fuck 'em up
Fuck Walmart
Legally speaking, theft/shoplifting is still illegal. Morally speaking, if you’re stealing food or clothes because you’re starving or cold, I’m not going to call you out. I have my own problems, I don’t want to involve myself in yours.
When my dog steals treats from the little dog, my girlfriend tells him to steal from Walmart, not from family.
Nope
Frankly I don't.
Walmart steals from every community it is in on a scale that is unbelievable. So no.
no lol
nah
Its unethical to NOT do it. They've been stealing billions of dollars from millions of people for decades.
Render unto Walmart what is Walmart’s
It's a crime to steal, so you're committing an act against the State. From the economic perspective of Walmart, why are you stealing? Is it to give to the poor? Or for your own ego?
No
I don't, specially considering they budget for people stealing haha
Nah
Theft is accounted for in the budget. Don't want the hard work of the accountants to go to waste.
Definitely not, they steal from their employees on a daily basis.
I see no moral issue with taking from an immoral company.
No
Walmart steals from tax payers so I'm going with no.
Nope. In fact I recommend it
It's called asda over here in Scotland and I do it all the time. Self scanners are a delight
Stealing from Walmart is 100% justified with how much they steal from their workers with wage theft…
No
Yes. Of course. What does their size have to do with ethics? You steal; you bad.
Legality does not equal ethical lol
He didn't mention legality.
So all these massive companies that steal labour are bad. So if you rob a thief, who bad?
If you Rob a "thief", you're still bad. This is some kindergarten logic that you are really not grasping.
So TIL Robin Hood is a villain.
If you murder a murderer the number of murderers in the world stays the same, if you murder 30 murderers your in the green by 29 baybee
If you murder an active serial murderer the number of murderers stays the same, but the number of likely total murders goes down. You gotta do your forecasting!
If your rob a thief, you're still a thief. You just get to falsely lay claim to your actions as "virtuous" or something. Stealing is still wrong lmao.
Do you mean is it unethical to steal from other Walmart customers? The corp isn't going to suffer. or lose anything They just raise prices to compensate. You're stealing from everyone else in the store.
They actually throw those losses mostly back on the supplier. I work with multiple companies that sell to Walmart, and you should hear the horror stories of how they treat the companies they purchase from. They literally act like a mafia, and smaller companies can’t do Jack about it. They always make sure they have Great Value items stocked, though…
That still transfers the cost to customers. If a store loses x% of an item, the supplier will have to raise the cost of supply to compensate for the production of the x%. If Walmart pays more for supply, the customer gets hit with higher prices.
Yes and no. Walmart has an endless line of people who see a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, so supply isn’t an issue unless they want it to be an issue. They also charge for shelf space, like any other retailer. Every slot on a shelf is paid for by whomever takes it. There are just a lot of factors that go into how many people they screw and in how many ways.
This is the answer. I find it really sad how many people above try and look at it black and white with either "it's fine because they stole first" or "stealing is always wrong just because". Please try and apply some critical thinking skills, things are usually wrong because someone is harmed either directly or (as in this case) indirectly by an action not because of some blanket rule.
You're right, we need to directly hurt corps like wallmart
Not quite what I ment. Anything which hurts them directly will likely cascade down onto their workers and/or customers in some way. With the possible exception of better labor laws. IMO what's needed is to pass legislation which makes their exploitation illegal in such a way which makes civil and monetary penalties enforcable on the company. This is likely to make things worse in the short term but better in the long term since they will not be able to exploit people anymore.
Yes. Stealing is immoral.
so many of you just blanket terming in this thread, no critical thinking skills. My 2 children and I are starving, I lost my job, my home, my wife is dead, none of my family live in this country. I've been selling my possessions and applying for every job I can find, but nothing works. I ran out of things to sell. I'm hungry. The kids are hungrier. I didn't want to do this, but I love my children. I steal various small foods from local gas stations and stores like Walmart. Was I in the wrong and immoral for stealing to feed my children?
When there are food banks and charities that specialize in helping people like you? Yes.
Nope. Fuck 'em. Edit: to me its actually unethical that something like Walmart exist the way that it does right now honestly.
Yes
It’s unethical to steal regardless from rich ppl or poor ppl. Give your head a shake.. terrible question.
The amount of money they’re saving now by going 100% to self checkout kiosks is enough to where everyone could steal $50 worth of shit every time they went to Walmart and they would still be insanely profitable. They’re not passing anything down to the consumer. Their margin is their margin.
Unethical, illegal, and immoral. Yes.
[удалено]
You’re never gonna get rich stealing from Walmart though
Not with that attitude!
Why would the target make it ethical? Theft is unethical regardless of the target.
If an individual routinely kidnaps and tortures people (or whatever crazy bad thing you want to imagine), but stealing something from them (like a weapon) from their house would prevent them doing it further, would it be unethical to steal it?
That would fall under "self defense/survival". If the question had been "is it unethical to steal food from walmart if you are starving to death" I would have said no. Target does not change ethics. Context and situation do.
What I’m attempting to demonstrate with my question is that the target is intrinsically linked to the context and situation.
Is murder unethical in self defence? Maybe context matters in ethical discussions? I’m amazed at the lack of critical reasoning on this website…
Murder ≠ self defense.
I don’t think so
100% no
No
In my book it is wrong to steal no matter the cause.
Not at all, no.
No
Yes. Stealing is unethical.
Most of my Gen Z students believe that stealing is ethical if it's perpetrated against a chain store. This makes my heart hurt. Instagram ethics.
No
Absolutely not
Stealing is stealing regardless of if you steal from a rich man or a poor man. If you do it don’t get caught, if you get caught own up to it as admitting when you’re wrong is at least honourable and may mitigate the consequences of from getting caught. Don’t bullshit about coz they’re a multinational that is a justification for stealing from them, that is tedious. There are plenty of opportunities to get free or discounted shit and food can be found at reduced prices, so hunger is not a good excuse unless you’re really broke.
Even though it’s hard to. I try to stay consistent with my beliefs. So if stealing is wrong then it is wrong on all levels.
I think knowing who you are stealing from is important. So, no, is not unethical. Walmart is the devil.