Applied Morality: A Concrete Example

I was at the self-checkout at the grocery store today when this fellow approached me with a proposal: He wants cigarettes more than food, and he's willing to use his food-stamp credit card to pay for my food (if I only refund him cash).

My first reaction to being approached by someone who I think is a moocher, is to be standoffish and somewhat stern with them (about whether "helping" them is very high up on my hierarchy of values). My red flags were already at half-mast as soon as he said "food stamps." In short, I told him to move on.

My question regards the overall morality of what I did, from a "virtue of selfishness" perspective. For instance, in contradistinction to how I reacted, I might have "made" some extra cash by dealing with this man, this man who had such a strong desire to "trade-in" his food stamps for something which he obviously, though subjectively, valued more.

Open Question: What would be a good response to this proposal?

Ed

Post 1

Friday, November 10, 2006 - 3:25pm

Have him buy the food you want with the stamps, and then pay him a discounted amount for the food after the checkout. Same result, except you don't feel guilty about directly having the symbol of government theft cross your palms.

:)

Post 2

Friday, November 10, 2006 - 4:59pm

Also be aware that the proposed transaction would be illegal, and that the (?) bum may have been an undercover plant. But as a matter of principle, I make it a point to subvert the system. I would have no problem with Aaron's suggestion, since it would be safer for you.

If it's worth the time, commit the crime.

Ted

P.S. In NYC, I once met a bum panhandling on West 4th & Sixth Ave. with the line "I'm looking to get a dime bag! Can you spare some change so I can buy weed?" I handed him a five but made him give me three dollars in change.

Post 3

Friday, November 10, 2006 - 7:08pm

He wants cigarettes more than food

Very dramatic---but kind of a leap, Ed. The guy was short of cash, and he figured out a way to get some. It doesn't mean that he was going to trade his very last foodstamp for cigarettes; he may have literally been able to afford to trade some for the cash he wanted; (maybe he would have some value left on his card afterward, or he already has enough food at home.)

Aaron suggested that you give him a lower dollar amount in cash than what the stamps he gave you were worth; that's actually how it's supposed to be done. This sort of transaction happens all the time in the ghetto (Ed...do you live in the ghetto?:-) and the only incentive for the cash-bearer is to receive a higher value in food purchases. The stamp-bearer is aware of this, and had Ed entertained this guy's proposal, he would probably would have walked away with his food purchase at half the cost. (Not saying that this is what you should have done, just that this is probably the offer you would've heard, if you'd heard him out.)

Ted pointed out that the transaction is illegal, and he's right, but if the guy was really a cop, and he approached you and offered you a deal, I doubt the charges would stick in court---it's entrapment. (Cops aren't supposed to entice you into doing something you hadn't thought of doing yourself originally and then bust you for it. Of course, cops do a lot of things they aren't supposed to...)

As far as the moral issues:

We can go on endlessly about this guy, and the way he's living his life, using the Objectivist standards. (He's a moocher on welfare, so why would you deal with someone like that on any level, and so on.) I don't see the point in doing that, though. He is so far from the Objectivist ideal that I have to judge him, and his offer, in much less stringent, much more situationally- specific terms. And here are the facts:
1) The guy was short on cash, and he wanted to buy something he couldn't get with his foodstamp card. It doesn't matter if he wanted cigarettes, or heroin, or a tryst with a prostitute. If someone has something of value, and you agree to trade with him--to your mutual benefit--then what he chooses to do with his money is his choice. Your business with him is concluded. Cigarettes may be a distasteful waste of money to most people, but Ed, let me ask you this: if he'd said that he needed to get cash for toilet paper, or diapers for his child (2 things you also can't buy with a foodstamp card), would you have characterized the guy as "wanting diapers more than food"?
2) The guy figured out a way to solve his problem that would provide a mutual benefit for himself and the other party. He had something of value to trade, and he was in the grocery store trying to find someone to trade with. I can actually respect that. (Real bums don't offer to make it worth your while...they just beg.)
3) Ed had no inclination to trade with him, but he probably had no pressing need to do so, either. An offer of more food-buying power for just a little cash would have been a much more attractive proposition to a struggling single parent, or a senior citizen on a fixed income.

So while we can all agree that this guy is not going to win any Howard Roark image awards, at least he understood that he couldn't get something for nothing. He is certainly more enterprising than a beggar, who demands charity, or a thief, who simply takes what he wants by force. (Just be glad he didn't follow you out to the parking lot, hit you over the head and take your wallet!)
:-)

Post 4

Friday, November 10, 2006 - 7:36pm

Laws have been passed recently to make it legal for plants to be sent into stores to buy items illegally. I remember specifically hearing of teens being hired to buy cigarettes. This became too controversial, so anyone under 40 has to be carded now in New York. I have had a grey streak since I was 17, and have a Steven Segal shaped receding hairline at the temples, but was getting carded in my thirties. The shop owner said I "looked young." After he knew me, he explained that the police were sending in plants.

Entrapment, like eminent domain, is used and ignored today much more than you might think.

Ted

I am a minarchist hawk, but you're pushing me up against a wall here.

Post 5

Friday, November 10, 2006 - 7:39pm

And Erica, I know people who will spend their last $7 on a pack of cigarettes. I don't smoke. But I have seen desperate smokers.

Ted

Post 6

Friday, November 10, 2006 - 8:49pm

Hi, Ted.

I know about the undercover plants in stores; they do that here in Chicago, too. But it not quite the same to me as entrapment (at least how I think of it.) If someone who looks like a teen walks into your store and you sell them cigarettes or beer, no questions asked, then you can't complain too loudly about being busted. If you are supposed to check IDs, and you don't, the cops haven't "lured" you into a crime, they've simply caught you committing one. How hard is it to ask for ID and deny sales to anyone who doesn't have one? If I want to protect myself as well as my business, that's what I would do.

When I think of entrapment, I think of someone literally enticing you to do something you weren't out to do anyway; like a guy who walks up to you with a "hot" piece of merchandise that he offers to sell to you for next to nothing. You agree, and he slaps the cuffs on. That is bullshit. You weren't in the market for stolen merchandise; the cop put the very idea in your head. But if the cops are merely "testing" you to see if you are following the law in your store, and they witness you fail to do it, well...like I said earlier: no one to blame but yourself. (I wholeheartedly agree it sucks to be spied on by the cops...but if you know they're there, you do what you're supposed to keep them off your back.) I am 36...and I get carded all the time, too---by people who don't want to go to jail, get fined, and lose their stores. (I don't look 18, either.)

And Ted, I never once implied that there aren't people who wouldn't spend their last 7 bucks for a pack; I was simply pointing out to Ed that his assumption that the guy in his situation was literally choosing cigarettes over food was a stretch, since he didn't know the guy's particular circumstances. And even if they guy was trading the last of his stamps for smokes---if he didn't require food, then he's not really choosing one over the other.

Post 7

Friday, November 10, 2006 - 8:51pm

Aaron,

Sometimes I'll ask a question like this because I am certain of the correct response -- but still I'll rhetorically ask, if only as an exercise for the reader (ie. to do some personal soul-searching).

In this case however, I actually am at odds with my gut-instinct -- which tells me not to ever 'deal' with the non-producers who are taking up space in this world. Though an immediate counterpoint to my "no deals" line of reasoning is that I could making a 'killing' off of this guy -- read: 2-to-1 on HIS 'dollar' (as Erica said above), this supposed non-producer of value.

Your answer however, which may have been nothing more than a half-hearted joke, does appear to emulate that 'certainty of correctness' to which I allude above, although you adopt the opposite conclusion. In short (whether joking or not) you have assumed that my transient, personal gain is enough to base my moral decisions upon. Another way to say this is that, if it helps me now (in any way, and at any cost) -- then it is "good."

Perhaps I'm stating your (and, by implication, Ted's, and maybe even Erica's) position too strongly -- as if I'm setting up a Straw Man to knock down later. I guess what I am doing is taking your line of reasoning out to the extreme -- in order to see if you would still 'back' it, out there.

Some, but perhaps not all, of the basic principles potentially involved in this concrete situation appear to be somewhat as follows:

1) the idea of trade for a "mutual" benefit ('mutual' is in quotes because this author does not assent to the notion that any and all folks even KNOW what it is that is in their authentic benefit)

2) the idea of utilizing government-approved theft for a personal gain

3) the idea that unjust laws are something to break whenever expedient

4) the idea that every person on this planet, no matter their past or, relatedly, their character -- is worthy of our time in a trading partnership

5) the idea that the merit of a trade can be evaluated without any reference to any future consequences of said trade

6) the idea that it's good to benefit off of another's 'felt need' (ie. desire), even if their 'desire' is potentially anti-life

7) the idea that I am not my brother's keeper, and that 2 consenting adults cannot ever be morally evaluated by any trade that they make -- as long as they both "wanted it" at the time of the transaction

Admittedly stirring up the pot here,

;-)

Ed
[7 choices folks, take your pick and run with it!]

Post 8

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 12:34am

Erica,

No, you look sixteen.

But I thought you might live in an uncorrupted area where the police are not yet hunting down thoughtcrimes and illicit happiness. What things are like 100 miles away from NYC and what they are like in NYC are as if on different planets.

I do understand your differentiation between technical entrapment and the enforcement of irrational laws but find the distinction to be based on a non-essential, in that both are non-objective law. Only actual and defined crimes, not mere illegalities, should be policed. If they the made cops illegal, who would arrest them? Just making things illegal does not make them a crime. The fact that I am saying this explicitly does not either mean that I think you don't understand.

So, Ed, how do I, Diogenes, do in your Socratic exercise? I would say, per Rand, if welfare's legal, turn it down not. His choice to smoke is obviously the sign of an Objectivist (and none of your business anyway) and your choice to trade is simply optional. No syllogism will help you there.

Ted

"Plato, on being asked what he thought of Diogenes, replied 'He is a Socrates gone mad.'" -Diogenes Laertius

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 11/11, 12:44am)

Post 9

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 2:28am

No, you look sixteen.

LOL!! Thanks...(I think.)

I do understand, and agree with, your sentiment concerning irrational laws..."mere illegalities". (Ted, I live in a city where the city council just enacted a law making foie gras illegal, for pete's sake! (Seriously. Chefs in the city are no longer allowed to sell it in their restaurants.)

It's just that throughout this entire thread, I have maintained a more reality-based approach to the hypothetical (and real life) situations presented for discussion here. (As opposed to that Ed Thompson character, who, by his own admission, is intentionally pushing all the deep philosophical buttons. :-) So when I say that a shop owner who doesn't follows the rules has no one to blame but himself when he gets busted, it's not that I agree with the cops, or their stupid laws, it's the fact that these laws unfortunately exist, there are cops specifically assigned to enforcing them (instead of hunting down rapists, child molesters, and murderers), and the shop owners have to watch out for themselves. It's irrational, and it's unjust---but it's reality. We all have to make do---at least until we can all finally agree on where we are going to recreate Galt's Gulch, that is. (I think you figured that was my true position, but I just wanted to make sure. :-) Enough on that.

So, Ed, how do I, Diogenes, do in your Socratic exercise? I would say, per Rand, if welfare's legal, turn it down not. His choice to smoke is obviously the sign of an Objectivist (and none of your business anyway) and your choice to trade is simply optional. No syllogism will help you there.

SLAM!

Well put, Ted. Perfect.
(I thought you once said you had some kind of issue creating short, concise posts that get to the heart of the matter, or something to that effect; I see no problem here.)
What say you, Ed
Erica
Chicago, IL
(The "Windy City"---and the city of illegal culinary delicacies)

P.S. Ed, don't worry. I still love you (even if you insist on wrestling philosophically with the notion of a guy who basically wanted to offer to help you get your goceries at half-price... :-)

Post 10

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 9:50am

"If it's worth the time, commit the crime."

Ted (response to post 2),

You see, that's precisely the issue: How to figure out if the crime is worth the time.

On the spot, my gut reaction to this guy (demeanor, dress, odor) was that he wasn't someone to trust. On top of that, I had the feeling that it was illegal (and had I had time to ruminate on particulars, I would have CONCLUDED so). Clerks were watching, too -- and a badged character was walking around the joint.

===========================
"I'm looking to get a dime bag! Can you spare some change so I can buy weed?" I handed him a five but made him give me three dollars in change.
===========================

One of the things that I think about when the intentionally needy approach me for some unearned value -- is how I'll feel about my own self if I were to give it to them. Rand said that every dollar is a vote. Now Ted, on net, you seem like a great guy (most probably within the top 1% of existing humans, morally); but I think that it, in this single circumstance, was 'wrong' for you to "vote" the way you did above -- with those 2 dollars of yours.

Still think highly of you, though -- as no single action can ever define a man.

Ed

Post 11

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 10:30am

Erica (response to post 3),

====================
"He wants cigarettes more than food"

Very dramatic---but kind of a leap, Ed.
====================

Agreed (ie. good point). And, now that you mention it, I realize that I shouldn't have even brought it up. This is true because of the fact that even though it IS a leap (you're completely correct), it is a leap that is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion. And the reason that that is true is because the discussion then presumes the faulty "I'm my brother's keeper" premise.

Another way to say this is that, if it's true that he wants cigarettes more than food, then it is my moral imperative to impede his wishes -- as if I were his "keeper" of the "objective" value for him.

====================
This sort of transaction happens all the time in the ghetto (Ed...do you live in the ghetto?:-)
====================

I don't know, do I? ;-)

====================
We can go on endlessly about this guy, and the way he's living his life, using the Objectivist standards. (He's a moocher on welfare, so why would you deal with someone like that on any level, and so on.) I don't see the point in doing that, though. He is so far from the Objectivist ideal that I have to judge him, and his offer, in much less stringent, much more situationally- specific terms.
====================

Good point, but my "defense" to this is that Rand (or, if you will: "logic") would say that one must always integrate particulars -- and never deal with reality in "parts." In this sense, the evaluation of the man's morality is for the purpose of self-protection. People get where they are, in large part, by "being" a certain way. Could this man be trusted in any valuable financial transaction? This was my situational dilemma.

====================
... if he'd said that he needed to get cash for toilet paper, or diapers for his child (2 things you also can't buy with a foodstamp card), would you have characterized the guy as "wanting diapers more than food"?
====================

Addressed at the top.

====================
So while we can all agree that this guy is not going to win any Howard Roark image awards, at least he understood that he couldn't get something for nothing. He is certainly more enterprising than a beggar, who demands charity, or a thief, who simply takes what he wants by force. (Just be glad he didn't follow you out to the parking lot, hit you over the head and take your wallet!)
====================

No. He won't win any rewards. And yes, he's more enterprising than any "mere" beggar. I admit these things. But, puhleeze, he'd have to do a little more than hit me over the head (I trained as a boxer once, remember?) in order to get MY wallet! Chances are, I'd friggen' knock the remaining teeth out of his mouth before his head even hit the pavement -- if he attempted to initiate force against me, that is.

;-)

So Erica, I hope you like the rough-guy type.

Roughly yours, ;-)

Ed

Post 12

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 12:25pm

Ed,

So long as you are generally rational, trust your gut. There is a reason why we have gut feelings. Read Antonio Damasio's (a neuropsycholgist) Descartes' Error. It explains why Rand's theory of emotions was right, and argues that one cannot split mind from body or reason from emotion. Gut feelings tell us what we really think before we have had the time to work out our explicit reasons. Second guessing is almost always a mistake.

As for the bum, the laugh he gave me was worth the two dollars I gave him. In fact, it was the laugh that he gave me that gave the value to the two dollars, which in themselves were strips of paper. For that two dollars I have gotten years of enjoyment. Had I turned him down, I would have had five minutes of feeling morally superior, and that joy would be long forgotten. As for the morality thing, don't put me on a pedestal. I may make a good argument on paper. But that doesn't mean I don't suffer from the occasional bout of akrasia

Post 13

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 12:30pm

Erica,

Yes, 16 was a compliment. My insults are usually less subtle. As for rough guys, if you like them, forget Ed. I've got him beat hands down. Or tied. Read here.

Ted

Post 14

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 2:46pm

"Plato, on being asked what he thought of Diogenes, replied 'He is a Socrates gone mad.'" -Diogenes Laertius

Ted (response to post 8),

=======================
So, Ed, how do I, Diogenes, do in your Socratic exercise? I would say, per Rand, if welfare's legal, turn it down not. His choice to smoke is obviously the sign of an Objectivist (and none of your business anyway) and your choice to trade is simply optional. No syllogism will help you there.
=======================

Oh really? I'm not quite sure you yet know who it is that you are challenging here, friend. How's this, Ted? ...

If welfare (a redistribution of wealth, earmarked for the welfare of the "needy") is legal, then one should make profitable deals with welfare recipients, redistributing the initial "redistribution," in a personally-profitable manner.
Welfare is legal.
============
Therefore, one should make profitable deals with its recipients.

The argument is a non sequitur. It does not follow that if an initial redistribution of wealth, earmarked for a certain specific need of the "needy" is legal -- then one should, in the course of increasing one's wealth, subversively interfere with this initial redistribution. For instance, said re-redistribution might be illegal -- which this one is. So Ted, no syllogism will get YOU "there," buddy. In fact, the only thing that can get you "there" is your own brazenness.

;-)

Ed

Post 15

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 3:01pm

Ed,

I don't accept the validity of this premise anyway: "If welfare (a redistribution of wealth, earmarked for the welfare of the "needy") is legal, then one should make profitable deals with welfare recipients, redistributing the initial "redistribution," in a personally-profitable manner."

I don't see how it follows that one should seek out making margin on welfare blackmarkets. I want the argument limited to your original example. In that case, his actions are none of your business, and whether you choose to deal with him afterwards per Aaron's suggestion is again, optional. No action is ever mandatory just because it is permitted, or even profitable. It is because the action is optional that I said no syllogism would get you there. I was not insulting your reasoning power. It's like deciding what to have for dinner. You can't get to Chinese versus Italian based on first principles. So long as dealing with the bum has been accepted as moral, whether to deal with him is like choosing between Italian and Chinese. It's an option, a "whim" if you wish to call it so. Without whims, none of us would even be able to choose what TV show to watch. Only demonstrably self-destructive whims and forever-unexamined whims are to be feared.

Ted

Post 16

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 3:06pm

"So long as you are generally rational, trust your gut."

Ted,

Your post 12 settles my spirit on any rational conflict I may have had with you. Thanks for the suggestion, by the way. As for your post 13, perhaps you should be a little more superstitious.

;-)

Ed

Post 17

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 9:28pm

Negotiate a very tough exchange rate, like much less than 50%. If he�s fidgety for a cigarette, you�ll easily put the screws to him, which will be fun. Then take the food stamps and buy him the cigarettes. Later, give the stamps to a worthy little old lady down the street.

Post 18

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 9:57pm

Feed the Beggars to the Bag Ladies?

As I said, it's optional.
So Jon L. takes the sadistic-misanthrope / random-geriatric-altruist option.
No wonder he gets on so well with cops.
:)

BTW, I am surprised there have not been more screams of outrage over these:
brutality
protection
justice

Ted

Post 19

Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 9:46am