InternationalOpinion

Is shoplifting from Walmart justifiable?

Point: Morally reprehensible, but defensible

Type “how ethical is Walmart?” into your favourite search engine. Note that the only search results with vaguely positive answers to that question will be one or two neocon think-tanks and Walmart’s own “Global Ethics” office. Indeed, among every marginally disinterested person who has seriously considered the social impact of the retail giant, consensus has been reached: Walmart is an unethical company.

Given that a hugely wealthy company like Walmart has shown itself to operate extralegally (exploiting loopholes to take advantage of government subsidies, bribing factory safety inspectors and judges in lawsuits over wage/hour abuses, sidestepping charges of human rights violations), how can such a social entity be brought to justice if not by extralegal means? When someone in your neighbourhood robs a store, they are usually apprehended by the police, fined or taken to jail. But when a store robs your neighbourhood, driving out local small businesses and driving down wages across the retail sector, what recourse is there?

In 2014, Walmart lost roughly US $7 billion to shoplifting and employee theft. Though this is just over a hundredth of the company’s sales figures for 2014, these losses are hardly insignificant — Walmart’s top brass and shareholders have certainly felt the hit. Most of these crimes are motivated by the same greed that has been the modus operandi of Walmart executives, but that may only increase the idealist’s karmic satisfaction in seeing an unethical company become the target of unethical attacks.

What prevents a context-general unjust act from also being a context-specific act of justice? It’s quite plausible that an act can be morally blameworthy in itself, that it can be the product of despicable intentions, while nonetheless also having morally desirable consequences.

Consider the popular appeal of a show like Dexter. What disturbs most people about the concept of a “criminal serial killer” is not that he’s a killer, but rather that he will inevitably make mistakes — he will kill reformable transgressors. If all his victims were the vilest sort of murderous pedophiles likely to rape and kill and keep on doing so, we might not praise Dexter’s disposing of them, but we likely wouldn’t think of it as simply wrong.

The person who steals from Walmart is in just such a position. They are morally reprehensible in every way thieves usually are, but I’m glad they’re doing what they’re doing — I think a robust moral sense should acknowledge the tension between these intuitions, rather than seeking to privilege the right over the good or vice versa.

I do not condone vigilante justice, but I might encourage all kleptos, nihilists, rebellious teens, people below the poverty line — anyone who has a reason to steal stuff anyway —  to walk into their local Walmart Supercenter, roll down their sleeves, and stick a few plastic sunglasses up them. Hell, take a camcorder. Better they steal from a thief’s house than anywhere else. On the bus ride home, they can comfort themselves in the knowledge that, as odious as their thievery was, it chipped away at something infinitely more odious. — Stephen Berendt

Counterpoint: Vigilantism not the answer

No one is trying to argue Walmart’s status as an ethical company. It isn’t one. But the issue here is not whether or not Walmart should abide by more ethical practices (it should), it’s whether or not consumers have a responsibility to act ethically (we do).

To suggest that because a corporation practices unsavory business tactics consumers have the right to punish them is to suggest that people are free to enact vengeance wherever they have been wronged — which is blatantly not true. I can’t chase down the guy who rear-ended me and smash his bumper in with a baseball bat because “he did it first” — and I’m certainly not going to march into my nearest Supercenter with an empty backpack because I was inspired into martyrdom by a TV show.

My opponent’s intention is to actively punish Walmart for their supposed crimes against humanity, but how much punishment do you think you’re actually inflicting by shoving that bag of Doritos down your pants? If you get caught, you will be prosecuted — the signs in the bathroom stalls will tell you that much — so why risk your own neck failing to prove a point to a company that doesn’t even know you exist? In this argument of ethics, you might want to consider dissenting in a way that you wouldn’t criticize your target for, and a well-thought-out protest would not only be a kosher act of defiance, but would light a fire under Walmart’s precarious throne by bringing media attention to their evident flaws. Plus you’ll get noticed by more people than just Walmart security.

Even though he denies it, my opponent is proposing vigilantism — that we take the law into our own hands and rid society of evil by restoring the natural order of mom and pop shops. But his suggestion that the only way to bring a corporation “operating extralegally” to justice is through extralegal means, not only supports vigilante justice, but also advocates for a perpetual state of lawlessness. If all crimes were treated by more crimes, we’d be in a B-grade horror movie written by a ten-year-old psychopath. If you believe Walmart to be an evil corporation, don’t shop there. If you think that by stealing items (which are likely produced by an even less ethical company than Walmart) you’re somehow getting back at Walmart for their lack of social conscience, then you may need to rethink your own concept of ethics. Walmart should be held responsible for their conduct, but so should you.

Stealing from Walmart will not teach them a lesson. Unless you manage to walk off with $7 billion in hand towels and bath salts they probably won’t even notice. Does it make you feel good? Maybe, but if that’s the ultimate goal then you might as well just stay home and scroll through Tumblr. If you want to show Walmart that you actually care about how they treat their employees, customers, and our “social existence” on the whole, then do so with the same standards you hold them by — and a little creativity wouldn’t hurt. — Lisa Szabo

What do you think? Answer our poll and leave your reasons in the comments below!

[poll id=”4″]

Related Articles

Back to top button