Minor Moral Connundrum

[Neonatal RRT]

Another thought.

Let's assume for a second that this person was homeless or at least extremely poor. Let's assume that desperate people do desperate things. He/she is highly likely to steal food again, assuming this person is repeatedly being allowed to walk out the door with merchandise. Clearly, you witnessed this event, this time, but this person is likely a regular "customer".

Now, what you might do the next time you shop there is to ask to speak to the manager and get his/her thoughts on what to do. The manager may be one to have a "zero tolerance" policy and wish to have this person identified, and at the very least, banned from the store. A Whole Foods market, I am quite certain, has security cameras throughout the store. On the other hand, it may surprise you to know that there are managers that will allow a small fraction of their merchandise to be removed by the desperately poor. At this point, you don't know how to approach the situation until you speak with the manager. One may think that a few bars of chocolate is such a minor infraction and you don't want someone who is desperately poor to get hauled away in a police cruiser. Our jails are full of the poor who cannot afford bail, pay fines, or legal representation.

I know it may ultimately be a game of "Whack-a-mole" with this person being banned at one store, only to move to another store and steal until they get banned from another store, and then move on to another store. Multiply this one person by several people throughout any given business day. Shoplifting certainly can be a business killer. The consequences are not benign.

I would speak with the manager on how to approach this. If you know the exact date and time and location, I am sure there is security footage. Let the manager decide how to deal with it in the future.

 

[Human Avatar]

@Rodafina

I think the fundamental question I would be asking as us Americans

1- Why does someone have to steal food in the richest country with the most food in the world .


Many Years ago I owned my own business. I was a vendor who provided certain products to stores .

At least pertaining to America- the stores will charge back to me if someone eats out of a package at the store or if one steals a few items out of a package. Is this moral ?

If someone steals the whole item the store must eat the cost unless……

But here is the catch ! Most stores including Whole Foods-have a system called DSD now , which means the vendors must provide the store with product for free and stock the shelves full,and do not get paid until the customer buys the product and is scanned through the register!
This system is also flawed many times the stores DSD system did not line up with my product that was delivered. The stores answer to this is this your problem not ours. You take the loss .

So if it was chocolate bars ,it was the factory who made the product who will take the loss. Or the vendor who provided the product not the store. It all depends on the product.


The stores have direct policy that is designed to steal money from the vendors who provide the store with food.

This is not a justification of the thieves actions .But with my own personal experience and understanding how stores maximize store profits by making policies that steal from workers and vendors . I would have ignored it .

It would be hard to understand the morals of thieves stealing from thieves .

If it was a small family owned store I would have said something .

I sold my business because logically I could not take the stores stealing from me , and also the factories making policies which promoted them stealing profits from me .

To Maximize profits for the stores shareholders policy is made to steal from everyone possible.

 

[Knower of nothing]

It is immoral to steal. It is also immoral to not give to the needy when you have extra. It is tragic that the needy assume no generosity will be afforded to them and so they don't bother asking. Imagine your situation but the man asks you if you would be okay with paying for his food?
This isn't much of a conundrum. The man committed a wrong doing and you a minor one by letting it slide, however in our world where it is impossible to live morally to begin with we can only measure by the scale. I don't think the scale here is a big deal but my opinion is irrelevant, only the opinion of the one who the wrongdoing was committed against has a say. The clean solution would be calling him out and then just paying for his share but I wouldn't have the guts for this in the moment myself.

I know of a custom in the past by land owners to leave behind some part of their harvest for others. Also know about grocery store workers that sometimes give their left overs to the homeless. We can't make the big businesses step up in the ways that we know they can sadly.

 

[Metalhead]

I dunno, the only time I ever shoplifted in my life was when I was 12, I had a couple of pieces of candy that both cost a quarter each, and the checkout line was full of drama, so I just walked out of the store with those two pieces of candy. I felt too much guilt over that, so I know shoplifting just isn't for me.

 

[Atrapa Almas]

It is wrong to steal no matter what.

It is illegal to steal no matter what.

Is it wrong? Is it inmoral?

Hard to say. For sure, stealing do has a cost. If it had Zero cost, everybody could steal without consecuences.

Since as a society we cant afford everybody to steal, stealing do neccesary have a cost. Unfortunally financial knowledge is not mandatory on schools and those things may be difficult to figure out by ourselves.

In Spain there are many people who do steal under a certain amount of money of the supermarkets everyday. Law allow them to steal small quantities without being a crime so they do it. Most of the times are women who do this, they put aluminium paper in the inside of their bags and steal some things. Every single day.

They are from a marginated community but its difficult to know if they steal because they are marginated or if they are marginated because they steal for a living.

My personal view on the topic is that if a society cant guarantee every single citizen who wants to work a salary, or access to basic resources like food, clothes, places to sleep, medical care... Then some form of stealing must be allowed to let this people have a decent living.

On the other hand, on a society that grant those services to their population, stealing should not be allowed.

In the case you are describing, the wise thing is what you did. I dont know what I would have done, If it was bread or some basic food what she was stealing I would have probably paid for it. But expensive chocolates are not basic food.

 

[Rodafina]

So interesting to read everybody’s responses! The variety of answers and opinions here sums up why I felt like this was a bit of a conundrum.

A couple of relevant follow up thoughts that I’ve had are the following:

I definitely would have taken different action if this was a small business or a “mom and pop shop.”

I also would’ve taken action if it was someone stealing from another individual, like from their bag or forcibly taking something from them.

I thought about purchasing the things for him, but I felt like if I did that it would still get him into trouble and potentially put me in an unsafe situation speaking with him privately.

I did find it interesting that he was taking chocolate and not more basic food items. I am not saying those who are desperate or poor or homeless don’t also deserve chocolate, but somehow there is a difference in stealing bread versus stealing candy, but I’m not really sure.

I do think my comment “it is wrong to steal no matter what” is too extreme and the definitions of stealing and the circumstances of each specific event could change the validity of that statement.

Lastly, thank you all for sharing your thoughts and opinions here. I found it really interesting to read the diverse perspectives and take in the advice that was offered.

 

[VictorR]

For me, the crucial factor in determining whether I need to take intervening action is if there's risk of injury or death.

1. Is there an immediate risk of injury or death if I don't do something? (e.g. someone is wielding a weapon)
If yes, take action.
If no, proceed to #2.

2. Is there a potential (and significant) risk of injury or death if I don't do something? (e.g. a hole in the ground that's not properly fenced/marked off.
If yes, take action.
If no, proceed to #3.

3. Could the action lead to significant risk of injury of death?
If yes (e.g. suspected theft in progress), do not take action yourself but consider seeking assistance when it's safe if you feel so compelled.
If no (e.g. someone asking for help carrying groceries to their vehicle), consider taking action.

For me, this would be a no-action in the circumstances.

Each place is different, but where I am, lots of people (not all, I should note) that live rough have a combination of mental health and substance abuse concerns. It's generally recommended to avoid any sort of contact or interaction, and just to steer clear in general since sometimes there are unprovoked attacks.

Just several months ago, a mental health and outreach police officer was stabbed to death at a homeless camp in my city. And that's someone who's trained to work with, de-escalte, and try to help those in need, which makes it all the more tragic.

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/...th-homeless-died-bravely-commissioner-5973701
If it was a mom-and-pop type store, I would have said something afterwards, if/when it was safe (e.g. I was confident that they would not send someone to chase the individual down), but with a larger company, and one owned by a FAANG no less, I'm pretty sure shrinkage is something they've built into their pricing, and they likely watch for such things, but have their own internal guidance on what is worth pursuing or not.

I haven't been to one since COVID, but I recall them as a store that sold $7-10 loaves of bread, and had pretty healthy business, so at the end of the day, the losses are likely just being passed on, and so it's their discerning paying customers who make up for those who engage in five-finger-discounts.

 

[Human Avatar]

@Rodafina

You’re completely justified in your thoughts and actions. I would have been thinking the same thing just from a different angle because of personal experience.

You remind me so much of myself to even staring at the ceiling awkwardly. That is me .

Not matter what the perspective I think we can agree, it is a paradox

 

[Thinx]

Who knows what the experience of that individual was of life that informed their actions? Behind and beyond our supposed systems of law there are unacknowledged systems of privilege and institutional abuse that are what we need to be wrestling with. Let's think bigger.

 

[Metalhead]

That's one detail of the story worth noticing, he stole chocolate bars. Had he stolen bread or food, maybe it could have been seen differently but stealing chocolate... I think I vote to haul him away.

If he was stealing cheap American Hershey’s chocolate, I would place him in an institution for having bad taste in candy.

 

[foliodoe]

We can also look at it like this; let's say I steal a lot in the stores you usually shop at. The stores raise the prices because of the loss I cause them. You then have to pay more for the goods you buy. That means I'm basically sticking my hand into your pocket and stealing your money.

The stores are already raising prices regardless of how much theft occurs. And the store is already sticking their hand into your pocket by arbitrarily assigning prices based on things like demand and profit margins rather than the actual value of the goods. I agree with what you're saying, but I think you're not following your own logic all the way to its conclusion!

 

[foliodoe]

Not correct.

If a baker sells the bread they bake for exactly the same price that's required to bake the bread which would include:

>Ingredients
>Equipment
>Utilities
>Taxes
>Insurance
>Packaging
>Advertising
>Payroll (ie employee pay)
>Rent or Mortgage
>Losses (botched batches, etc)
>Vendors
>Suppliers
>Repairs
>Maintenance and upkeep
>Licensing
>Accounting
>Consumables (e.g. office supplies, bags, etc)
>Uniforms

If the baker sells the bread for EXACTLY the cost of the above...how does the baker get paid themselves? How do they pay their own personal bills? How do they buy their own food? How do they save for their own retirement? How to support their own family? How do they expand their business? How do they afford new and better equipment when the equipment they use breaks and can no longer be repaired?

This isn't how the world works, though. We're not talking about a baker selling bread they made personally. We're talking about a shop that's just selling something that was made in a factory somewhere a thousand miles away. There's no need to draw up these analogies in order to just understand the situation for what it is.

Everything you've described here is part of the cost. Anything that's being taken after the fact is theft.
Out of all the things you listed, I noticed you didn't mention "what if the people selling the bread just want to put more money in their pocket because they can"

 

[Aspychata]

Where l live, guys steal 6-pack of beer. So the store l worked at, high end tourist beach area, they just filed a no trespass against him. The 7-11 l went to in my residential area, the police brought a guy in handcuffs with his bag of stolen beer. He may have had priors. I don't know. Wal-Mart has this very problem. We were told at my small store, don't do anything because you don't want to get hurt. However we helped out one homeless guy because he just was a prior teacher, who hit depression.

I think we can always help out homeless where we live, but these big corporate places have cameras, and unmarked security, so l can't get that attached to what's happening. Alot of people get jumped in store parking lots, so getting safely to my car probably is more important.

 

[Forest Cat]

The stores are already raising prices regardless of how much theft occurs. And the store is already sticking their hand into your pocket by arbitrarily assigning prices based on things like demand and profit margins rather than the actual value of the goods. I agree with what you're saying, but I think you're not following your own logic all the way to its conclusion!

It's just the society we live in isn't it, that's how it works. Everyone works to get a profit. If I want bread, I go to the store and buy it, knowing someone makes money on it. When I sell something, I get a profit. Part of my point is that stealing makes it more expensive. So if you steal in a store I use, you take my money. And if I steal, I take your money.

 

[Judge]

What do you think?

What would you have done?

Probably the same thing- nothing.

Consider the following:

1) Cause and effect. Shoplifting causes prices to go up. Some do it out of poverty, others do it for kicks, and many do it as a criminal enterprise (boosting).

2) Conversely, profits go up as prices rise beyond the rate of inflation. Where it's highly unlikely that prices will drop when inflation is eventually curbed. And pacifying shareholders always keeps prices up even when the economy is doing well. And perhaps above all to consider "what the market will bear" usually indicative of unreasonable markups for pure profit. That for most publicly-traded corporations, it's all about preserving profit margins and always passing on the cost to consumers- no matter what.

3) Insurers will leverage all kinds of expensive stipulations to establish that a business is being forthright and aggressive over internal and external loss control. All conditions established to maintain business insurance. Where proprietors inevitably pass on the costs to their customers. Yet for all the money they pour into loss prevention, there's never any guarantees that they pay off. And getting physically aggressive with suspects amounts to a disaster in terms of their business liability.

4) The personal injury/liability factor. Accusing someone of shoplifting can backfire on you if you wrongfully accuse someone of a crime. The Good Samaritan Act may not come into play under such circumstances. Where it's best to leave it as a matter between law enforcement and proprietors as to whether or not they want to apprehend and potentially prosecute someone for non-violent shoplifting.

Sadly it is indeed a moral conundrum. Where doing nothing is likely the optimal choice under the circumstances. Especially given the loss of some candy bars. Which is likely already built into a corporate profit margin unless you're talking about "mom & pop" stores. With proprietors foolish enough to keep their firearms behind the counter.

 

[foliodoe]

It's just the society we live in isn't it, that's how it works. Everyone works to get a profit. If I want bread, I go to the store and buy it, knowing someone makes money on it. When I sell something, I get a profit. Part of my point is that stealing makes it more expensive. So if you steal in a store I use, you take my money. And if I steal, I take your money.

I think corporate greed and the nature of capitalism has more of an impact on prices than theft. Not to mention all the people who work in loss prevention and security would be out of a job if no one stole. Theft creates jobs

 

[Magna]

This isn't how the world works, though. We're not talking about a baker selling bread they made personally. We're talking about a shop that's just selling something that was made in a factory somewhere a thousand miles away. There's no need to draw up these analogies in order to just understand the situation for what it is.

Everything you've described here is part of the cost. Anything that's being taken after the fact is theft.
Out of all the things you listed, I noticed you didn't mention "what if the people selling the bread just want to put more money in their pocket because they can"

That is how the world works. Small business is the largest employer in the U.S. by a large margin. Small businesses are owned by individuals.

You made a blanket/universal statement: "Every time you buy something above its actual cost, you're the victim of theft." < That is patently false.

You're side stepping this fact in a major way.

Also to your question:

"what if the people selling the bread just want to put more money in their pocket because they can"

Just want "more money" (I assume you mean excessive) according to whom and whose measure? More money to save for the potential financial uncertainty of the future and the uncertainty of the potentially skyrocketing cost of healthcare and custodial care when they become elderly, for example? You may or many not know but right now today, the cost for nursing home care for one person in an average nursing home facility is: $10,000 PER MONTH in the U.S. Charging an excessive amount for the bread according to you, then?

 

[foliodoe]

That is how the world works. Small business is the largest employer in the U.S. by a large margin. Small businesses are owned by individuals.

You made a blanket/universal statement: "Every time you buy something above its actual cost, you're the victim of theft." < That is patently false.

You're side stepping this fact in a major way.

Also to your question:


Just want "more money" (I assume you mean excessive) according to whom and whose measure? More money to save for the potential financial uncertainty of the future and the uncertainty of the potentially skyrocketing cost of healthcare and custodial care when they become elderly, for example? You may or many not know but right now today, the cost for nursing home care for one person in an average nursing home facility is: $10,000 PER MONTH in the U.S. Charging an excessive amount for the bread according to you, then?

I don't understand what the cost of nursing homes has to do with the price of hypothetical bread or how either of those things relate to the real-world scenario being discussed in this post.

 

[Forest Cat]

I think corporate greed and the nature of capitalism has more of an impact on prices than theft. Not to mention all the people who work in loss prevention and security would be out of a job if no one stole. Theft creates jobs

If everyone started stealing, our society would collapse. No one can run a grocery store if they have constant thefts and loss of revenue. Loss prevention and security costs the stores a lot of money, money they have to make up for by raising the prices. Theft is expensive, if you think the stores charge too much for goods, then you should be against theft because that makes it even more expensive.

 

[Human Avatar]

@Magna

Nursing homes in America are designed to maximize profit over care .

Profit off one’s death is very profitable. An efficient way to steal one’s hard earned money that they saved and worked for their whole life !