A few days ago I was at Walmart picking up some bread (it’s the closest and most well-stocked grocery store around here). As I was walking down the bread aisle, I noticed a very “sketchy-looking” man who was obviously homeless or very poor. He was wearing a worn-down and dirty winter jacket and carried a large bag. His disheveled appearance was not a new sight to me, but what made him “sketchy” was the fact that he was secretly eating apple sauce with a plastic spoon and was standing suspiciously close the bread shelf. I usually try to give people the benefit of doubt, but I am certain that he was stealing.
At that moment, I had a strong urge to walk up and hand him $20. However after second thought I backed down thinking that he may just turn around and stab me for either 1) catching his wrong-doing, or 2) for pitying his situation and treating him like a homeless person. I decided against giving him the $20. However, that did not change the fact that he was stealing…
In a society where we all have to work hard and save up for what we want, I felt somewhat indignant about his misconduct. If he needs a job, then he should go wash cars or mop floors or join a shelter….anything! But he shouldn’t commit theft! As a law-abiding citizen, I felt obligated to notify store security about this man.
But then it hit me–What must this man be going through? From the way he was trying to be so secretive about his actions, it was clear that he knew it was wrong. Plus, he wasn’t stealing jewelry or expensive items—just simple bread and apple sauce. This was not exactly a Bernie Madoff situation.
Thus I was torn between the ethical decision of “telling on him” and the ethical decision of “letting it slide” on the grounds of human compassion. What good would come out of telling on someone who stole $3 worth of bread and apple sauce? (I gave him the benefit of doubt that he did not have more stolen goodies in his large bag). Would it make society any better?–Not by much. Would it make his life worse?–Definitely. Just think how hungry he must have been!
Thus I let it slide.
One might argue that I chose to do the wrong thing on that day. One might also argue that I chose the right action as well. Morality is quite subjective and situational. For example, we all know that lying is wrong. But what about those times when we tell our friends/relatives that they do not look fat in a certain outfit?–If the intention is to protect our loved ones, is it still wrong to lie? I would argue no.
In my Wal-mart encounter, I made my moral decision based on a cost-benefit analysis which relied on quality of life as the unit of measurement. I feel quite neutral about my decision–not exceptionally good or bad. But I wonder how I would feel today if I had chosen to either a) give the guy $20, or b) blow the whistle. Perhaps giving him $20 would have been most altruistic, but that would have also rewarded him for bad behavior… (and possibly gotten me stabbed).
There seems to be no resolution to this moral question. Such is also the situation for many businessmen, politicians, and every-day people. Thus the lesson seems to be that life is a just series of decisions…there’s really no right or wrong answer in an absolute sense. The only compass available to guide us on moral questions is how we “feel” about those decisions both during- and after the fact. And of course, how we “feel” depends on our personal values.
I vote for a National Values Holiday on which schoolchildren and senior citizens alike review and renew our personal values.