I have a conundrum and am eager to hear your thoughts:
I am very close with a manager at a local retail store (let's call it "Parget) and while out to dinner, she confided in me regarding her own moral dilemma. An employee, a father with a 2-year-old and wife, has been stealing from the store. He is struggling to make ends meet and has stolen food, clothes, and other practical things. But he has also stolen cameras and TVs. After watching countless hours of surveillance video, she is positive beyond any doubt that it is he. The day that charges were to be pressed and his firing from Parget, he found out that his sister died in an accident and had to go back home to North Carolina for a bit. He is still there (it's only been a few days). Target and management is waiting until he returns to press charges.
Here is the dilemma: He and his wife are very close friends and I babysit their son while they go to choir practice at the church. I have known them for years and they have met my entire family. Do I let him return and get arrested? Do I give him a heads-up?
Legal matters aside: when you know a friend is walking into a situation, whether they created it or not, is it your responsibility to tell them?
Would Mill allow the happiness of this man, his wife, and child outweigh the needs of a large corporation?
Would Kant believe that he simply used his job as a means for an end (food, etc.)?
Although I do feel extremely sorry for this man's predicament, he is not behaving in a morally good way. He is hurting "Parget" and all of those who work under the store in order to make gains for himself. I know most Americans are currently struggling financially more than they have in the past, but this does not mean people should resort to stealing from their employers. I understand his predicament is difficult, but he's not the only employee who is struggling. What if all of the members of the "Parget" team had kids and were struggling to make ends meet and they all began to steal merchandise to make up for it. Yes, it is understandable as to why they are stealing from the store, but those actions are not justifiable. Maybe if he put the energy he puts into stealing from the store into other jobs he could make more money legitimately. I do not believe Mill would agree with this, and I certainly believe Kant would disagree.
ReplyDeleteWow, this is a fantastic blog post. I love that you have a real world dilemma. Unfortunately, I agree with Jade, this man is not behaving in a moral just way. Mill would find that, yes, this man is acting in such a way to benefit his own pleasure and minimize pain, but the action would be unjust because it could not be "rule utilitarianism." Rule utilitarianism being that there is a category of rules of rightness/wrongness/ pain/pleasure and these principle rules would apply to the whole category of certain actions. Stealing as a rule utilitarian act would not be morally just. As for Kant, Kant would not support his actions either because one could not will universally, the act of stealing. Unfortunately, neither philosopher would agree with the acts of this man.
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent post. To add to what Jade and Liz have said, there is no doubt that the man’s actions are morally wrong. Both Mill and Kant would agree with this man’s actions. According to Mill’s Utilitarian perspective, specifically the General Happiness Principle, one must act in such a way that it causes the greatest amount of happiness/good for greatest amount of people and the least amount of pain for the greatest amount of people. This man’s actions are causing a lot of damage (financially) to this corporation. In other words, it is causing the greatest amount of pain for the greatest amount of people (the corporation as a whole).
ReplyDeleteKant would also disagree because it fails the 1st Categorical Imperative test: The maxim of his actions (stealing) cannot be willed as a universal law
I think this is a really interesting post, and it is intriguing to hear a real world situation. As everyone has already stated above, the actions of the man (while his situation is unfortunate) are not morally reprehensible. His actions do not meet the guidelines for either Mill or Kant's ethical theories. However, I am interested to know what alternatives could be given in this place in order to keep the man from engaging in activities that are a-moral? I am not in any way justifying this man's actions, it just seems that with today's flailing economy there are more and more cases of these kinds of instances happening. Again, not justifying, more just frustrated. I know there are a number of things that he could have done different in the situation, it is just disappointing that today's society puts itself into situations in which morals are put aside in order to provide for one's family.
ReplyDelete