If you intentionally scan a slightly smaller lemon than you get during the self-checkout at Whole Foods, you may be “microlotting.” This newly coined term does a good job of making the distinction highly punishable crimes Robbery would happen in the situation of shoplifting and “sneaking extra lemons after buying others”.
The term “Microlooting” appeared in a The New York Times Thought podcast. The “micro” in mircolooting clearly indicates that the amount taken should be objectively insignificant. Of course, shoplifting can also involve petty theft. And it’s not in the interest of destroying the business or causing significant damage (often shoplifted baby formula). The difference is that a shoplifter can be motivated by anything from need to excitement. A micro-robber is motivated in a clear way: it’s justice. If you think the corporation you’re dealing with is at least worthy, you’re robbing that lemon. less lemon rather than what they are charging. This is a small (“micro”) rebellion against our trading system and its prices.
The defining characteristic is not need or self-interest, but the belief that our economic system is somewhat unfair, and that what is stolen serves as some measure of redress. This means that the actor feels it not as low-minded, but as high, symbolic protest.
This idea caused outrage from a number of cultural commentators. In their eyes, the idea that petty theft can ever become grandiose is insincere, hypocritical, and dangerous.
Microlooting isn’t just about pushing extra lemons
For example, Thomas Chatterton Williams, to write Atlantic, states that The of the Times The “very frivolous talk” of micro-theft causes the law itself to lose its “legitimacy”. The mechanism is as follows: if the “political and economic elite” are “perceived” to be “violating” or even “violating” the “social contract”, “ordinary people have the right to ignore the rules as they wish.” Resistance to micro-robbery, Jonathan Turley agreesthis “ethics chaos.”
The charge is this: those who try to soften us up steal, even in a roundabout way. The New York Times The podcasters who started all these reactions are rich hypocrites playing with “luxurious faith” who don’t (even) recognize the need for stable moral categories and condemn immoral behavior.
But my criticism is that these reactions to the proposed “micropayment” concept read more than morality. philosophy. Moralists see themselves as defenders of social norms and try to influence others. So they pile on as many intimidating insults (“moral depravity”!) and fears (“moral decay”! “social contract”!) as possible. It’s morally infuriating and fun to read, but it contradicts the idea that we only become moral when we see the big questions and understand what we’re doing.
Ethicists are philosophers, and conversely, they are interested in sharing the grounds for their claims, not their conclusions. Philosophy is not a gathering, but an examination of all kinds of behavior that would normally go unexamined. In this case, the question is: are corporations getting enough feedback about what we expect from them? Why we pay for lemons at the corporate checkout is a great question. And symbolic protest is not funny. Some of our political heroes have advocated symbolic protest by taking part in overthrowing oppressive regimes. In the power of the weak, Vaclav Havel argued that personal integrity is reinforced by symbolic protests and that people are all moralized by a sense of “not pretending” that the system is no longer there. And of course, it’s weird to scoff at the idea of protesting over prices in the US.
Also, an animated question The New York Times podcast: how to be moral in an immoral society is a great question, and one that actually puts philosophical ethics at the fore.
Using critical thinking to define ethics
Let me quickly show how the moralist can motivate the “common man” when it comes to micro-robbery. (7) It asks, first, to put micro-robbing in the face of our corporate pricing mechanisms to claim the goodness of symbolic protest. For example, micro-piracy can be viewed in the following form: “It would be nice to bypass this payment to read the news, because it means that I ignore how unfair it is for the community not to provide access to the news.” Or perhaps: “I have some ownership of this news.”
If the claims are made in this way, a lot can be offered in response. For example, one must consider the role that news plays in a free society. And any initial response is questioned: the reporter and journalist abandon the idea that it belongs to their jobs and explain that the payment for the story supports the entire industry.
Basic Readings in Ethics and Morality
Similarly, with micro-piracy, the risk of price gouging for other customers is also affected. And the big question is whether our current economic policies are effective and fair, and what measures are being taken. Contrary to recent critics of the debate on the ethics of micro-piracy, such questions and answers are good, do not imply negative answers, and are useful to us and to our society as an ethical tool. The question of what makes the market work is very complex and even economists ask us to join in trying to answer.
This approach is a way of rejecting Turley’s suggestion that micro-piracy can only be endorsed by those who use “emotions” and “”.anger” instead of true moral justification. The above is a true moral justification process that ordinary people engage in all the time.
Virtue Ethics in Microtheft
I don’t think the philosophical ethicist is going to base it on the overall effect if we consider micro-robbery, because that’s hard to determine in this case. It’s also not something that relies on moral psychology, which suggests that every neighbor who uses someone else’s Netflix password is a moral degenerate.
A moral theory like virtue ethics would instead focus on how you should hide your behavior and its consequences. Yes, there are societies in which Havel considers concealment of rebellion one of the most effective ways of carrying it out. But that’s not our situation in the US (yet).
I think one person is in the following place virtue ethics Justifying micro-robbery does not involve admitting that our market system needs reform and that the prices offered by corporations are not fair or based on agreed upon principles. Transactions with these corporations can be very easy for consumers to regret, even while doing so.
As we articulate the benefits we derive from markets and deal with corporations, we realize that virtue ethics means we begin to experience more than regret and mixed emotions.
The fact is that micro-robbery is carried out in secret. Usually, this is not the way we approve of our behavior. We are ashamed of what we hide. In this situation: corporations receive very little feedback from consumers on ethics, we still have no reason to hide. Rather than eating that extra lemon, the virtue ethicist suggests being a little bolder, a little louder, a little more investigative and proactive.
What behavior is consistent with a price system that appears to be unfair? A virtuous moralist recommends that it is not only brave and rebellious, but what it actually is. If we “ordinary people” can’t figure it out together, virtue ethics suggests that no one else will.
