How Much is That Integrity in the Window?

[footfootfoot]

At school the other week one of my colleagues decided to flog her left-over halloween candy at .25 per, via an honor system arrangement. I laughed derisively (for a number of reasons, actually) pointing out that most of the candy would just be taken.

Lo and behold, not three days later half the candy was gone and she'd only made about 20 "sales." She was shocked to discover pilfering in this establishment.

We got to talking and I noted that while many people often won't think twice about stealing a quarter or two worth of candy, those same people would hesitate at stealing $10,000. Yet, in the first instance they are selling their integrity for twenty five cents but hesitating at selling it for the higher price.

Sure, there's the difference in opportunity and fear of punishment, but I think most people see the morality of the two things differently.

Are they different? Why?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Ah, but some people who wouldn't hesitate to embezzle millions, wouldn't think of swiping a piece of candy... that just wouldn't be right.

[footfootfoot]

My moral compass points SSE

[glatt]

I suspect the difference is the perceived loss to the victim.

Do you think the candy pilferers would also steal one of these unattended home made pies in Five Islands, ME?

[Gravdigr]

A friend of Popdigr's was selling tomatoes off a road-side table a few years ago. It was hot, I mean HOT, and he had enough of the heat, so he made a sign "Tomatoes, xx cents a pound, help yourself", went inside, and left his scale on the table, in the front yard.

He came back out the next morning to no tomatoes, and a bowl full of change. He did the math and determined that, either, someone had stolen all the paper money, or everybody cheated the scale.

People.

[BigV]

My integrity isn't one solid indivisible unit.

Now, I realize that sounds pretty shitty. But, there are shades of gray in the world. Does everything only decay, moving ever downward from some Eden-like state of perfection? When I fail in any way, am I forever unredeemable? I don't think so, and I doubt any here would think so.

glatt's suggestion that the perceived loss of the "victim" would definitely play a part. Also, footfootfoot's points about opportunity and fear of and scale of punishment are definitely at play here. your comparison of the taking of a quarter's piece of candy to the theft of $10,000 introduces the idea of a range of transgressions. I would suggest that in the first place, I haven't sold (all) my integrity for a quarter, but that I'd only sold a quarter's worth.

Comparisons can be important. Context is important. I'm sure you've heard of the example of a moral paradox that puts you in the position to make a decision to steal or not steal some medicine to save the life/health of someone dear to you. Stealing is bad, m'kay? But don't we struggle to say that with the same conviction when the life of your (hypothetical) child is in the balance? The circumstances matter.

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by BigV

The circumstances matter.

I agree, somewhat. There is the matter of 'perception'.

A door is kicked in, and a single mother's grocery money is taken.

That's wrong.

A door is kicked in, and a drug dealer's buy money is taken.

That's wrong, too, but not as wrong.

[BigV]

I must point out that I **really, really** like how you phrased your opening post, footfootfoot. When you describe the situation, then state your opinion, *then* ask, "what do you think?", I freakin love that. It is honest, neutral (*), open and engaging. I really do love that kind of conversational partner.

(*) "Neutral". Many times, I hear the same kind of setup, but then the ending has a mean hook. This is very commonly done in political conversations (on both sides) like I hear from the local Fox-?? radio station. Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, et al, they do all the same kind of setup, including the (sometimes) justifiable (p)outrage, but end it with "why do you hate america?" kind of hook.

It is not an invitation to a dialog, it's just telling, opinionmaking. "Think THIS way." I hate it. I listen to it to understand what's going on on that side of the spectrum, but it's not a serious attempt to communicate anymore than any other marketing campaign.

You are different(**), and for that I'm happy.


























(**) this statement brought to you by the understatement of the year department.

[Pico and ME]

People do it all the time in the factory I work at. They leave out unattended candy for their child's fundraiser . My husband did it with snacks and candy to raise money for his wrestling team. He left them on the break table and says he didn't notice any pilfering at all.

By the way Glatt, that red house has a serious problem....

[Clodfobble]

There was quite a lot on the different kinds and levels of dishonesty in a book I read (listened to) recently, called Predictably Irrational.

One finding, consistent across several studies, was that people were more likely to cheat or steal the farther they were removed from actual cash money. They would steal a piece of candy worth 25 cents, but not a quarter from the same location and situation. When given an opportunity to lie about how much money they were supposed to receive for a task, people lied to a certain degree to the person handing out cash, but lied far more if they were being given tokens that were then traded for cash at a different location, even if the exchange took place immediately, just a few feet down the table, in view of the person who had done the token exchange.

People also stole more, and more often, when given an opportunity to do so electronically rather than in hard cash, even when the odds of getting caught were equal. Changing a number on a screen did not feel as bad as taking physical cash, yet somehow taking a physical thing from someone also didn't feel nearly as bad as taking physical cash.

Another fascinating finding was that people could be "primed" to behave more honestly with a seemingly unconnected reminder about morality beforehand. Various groups were given a writing task, and then the opportunity to cheat on a test. When the group was told to write down all the books they were assigned to read in high school, they cheated a certain amount, but when the group was told to write down as many of the Ten Commandments as they could remember, they cheated far less, even those who were avowed atheists and/or could only remember 1 or 2 of the commandments.

According to the author of the book, your colleague should have put a small sign in front of the bowl with a solid quote about honor or honesty, preferably attributed to a well-known person (even if they never said it,) and she would not have been stolen from nearly as much.

[IamSam]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

At school the other week one of my colleagues decided to flog her left-over halloween candy at .25 per, via an honor system arrangement. I laughed derisively (for a number of reasons, actually) pointing out that most of the candy would just be taken.

Lo and behold, not three days later half the candy was gone and she'd only made about 20 "sales." She was shocked to discover pilfering in this establishment.

We got to talking and I noted that while many people often won't think twice about stealing a quarter or two worth of candy, those same people would hesitate at stealing $10,000. Yet, in the first instance they are selling their integrity for twenty five cents but hesitating at selling it for the higher price.

Sure, there's the difference in opportunity and fear of punishment, but I think most people see the morality of the two things differently.

Are they different? Why?

Around here, most people would bring in their left-over candy that they didn't want themselves and leave it for free for anyone else who wanted it. In light of that, selling the candy for a quarter seems a bit tight-fisted, maybe even a tad mean spirited - especially if the candy wasn't worth 25 cents to begin with (or was it?)

Going from that point of view, folks may have felt no special obligation to compensate the seller due more to mild feelings of resentment toward her as much as anything else. It's the PRINCIPLE of the thing, right? What's she doing with all that left over candy, anyhow? If I buy too much, I always give the extra for free to the little kids who show up at my door - not try to skim off a profit with it from the pigs who happen to skulk thru the breakroom at work.

Does this mean I'm evil?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

At school the other week one of my colleagues decided to flog her left-over halloween candy at .25per, via an honor system arrangement.

Well, there's your loophole. As long as the people who took candy without paying for it said "Trick or Treat", they're good to go.

[Sundae]

I have a very unreliable moral compass.
I really do try to match mores and morays of those I am with at the time, but it's a facade; I'm not actually feeling it, babe.

I think it came from my family. I've tried to change what I inherited, but then end up only paying lip service to ideals, or waiting to see what other people's reactions are before deciding my own actions.

My grandparents robbed their employers of leftover food and drink during the War.
They were not entitled to it, it was not condoned or even winked at. Because if you allow people to start taking food that will otherwise be wasted, said people will find ways to deliberately waste it.

My Dad brought home books for us for years when he worked as a printer. The books were rejects - poorly cut or glued etc. They could not be sold, but were instead re-pulped. It was the re-pulping bin Dad retrieved them from. See above for the reason it was not condoned by the management. Although in the end the ultimate Manager was Robert "What Pension Fund?" Maxwell, that's retrospective justification.

We were taught that stealing was wrong, but taking advantage was not. There was a air of "Well, if they're stupid enough to leave it..." Outright theft was illegal, but hooky gear was a faceless crime. It was okay to buy something from a bloke down the pub, as long as he'd lifted it from where he worked, not someone else's house.

Dad hated the Great Train Robbers because they killed a man.
They'd have been okay in his book otherwise. My Uncles despised the Krays because they were mad and violent, not because they were criminal and violent. It was okay to look after your own, but mental illness was beyond the pale.

I'd probably sneak a bit of candy if I fancied it and had no cash on me.
I wouldn't short-change the tomato man and I certainly wouldn't rob from the money already there.

But I am the person who took the money from the ATM that time (Cellar post under Anonymous a while back)
And that was someone's personal money. And they might really, really have needed it. That's a lot of tomatoes.

[DanaC]

I'd say that locking up a mother for stealing £13 of groceries to feed her and her child is a greater crime than the act of theft which precipitated the sentence.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-9002657.html

There are different kinds of theft. It isn't just about the impact on the victim (with victim meaning anything from an individual to a corporate entity) for me, it's also about the level of need in the thief.

Mr Gibbs told the court that Wright had landed in prison after she stole £13.94 worth of food out of desperate hunger as she did not have the money to pay for it because she had not been given benefit payments she was entitled to.

The story above hit the news not because of the imprisonment but because this poor woman was left, bloodied and traumatised, in the prison cell in which she had miscarried her child. She was told to clean up after herself.

The moral compass in society is totally fucked. The moral right of our societies to stand in judgement of those who steal is woefully compromised.

[Lamplighter]

I'd say that locking up a mother for stealing £13 of groceries to feed her and her child is a greater crime than the act of theft which precipitated the sentence.

Didn't some Besançon chap write a book about that ?