Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
The numbers are used as an illustration, I didn't have Wal-Marts quarterly reports on hand. 
I get your point on the slippery slope to rationalizing bigger and bigger moral departures, but I'd say that a pretty sizable number of people share this moral outlook on this particular issue, I just don't see it as a road to ruin.
I don't think it's necessarily based on the numbers either, I think it has more to do with seeing small shops as part of the community, friends almost, and large stores as simply profit earning corporations. It seems pretty logical to me that people would look at the corner store and think 'I don't want to take money out of that guys pocket', in fact most of the posts in this thread seem to have that view. When you get to a large corporation that impact isn't there, who's pocket are you taking money from? Shareholders? the Waltons? It either gets incredibly abstract, or it's coming from the pockets of the insanely rich. I don't blame people for treating those situations as opportunities to get back some of the profits they've paid over. It seems like a perfectly logical response to me.
As for the original question, I typically use a card and generally don't look at the receipt. Seems that when I do check it I get ripped off for often than I save, but it usually evens itself out. |
I understand why, and how many people make that rationalization. The fact that so many people are dishonest is exactly why it's not a road to ruin. That's why insurance exists, why companies create allowances for doubtful accounts, why companies hire loss prevention specialists, and actually ultimately why companies act like faceless profit earning corporations. They are only doing to people as people would do to them in return. I just don't like people pretending that because they don't steal from their direct neighbor, but have no problems stealing from a faceless stranger (Or group of millions of strangers), that somehow in the big scheme of things their actions are just.