There is a version of yourself that only exists when nobody is watching. The version that drinks out of the milk carton and uses the handicapped bathroom. That version of you is not a bad person; it is simply operating in the space between rules and consequences, and it is between you and the universe. The concept of ethics is a wonderful and important one that has occupied philosophers for thousands of years.
But morality is nuanced, and context is everything. And the line between unethical and understandable is very thin. These people all did something that fell somewhere on the wrong side of the moral ledger, but they decided they were fine with that. No guilt, no apology, no 3 am crisis of conscience. Just the clean, uncomplicated peace of someone who made a choice and stands by it. We are not here to judge, just to relate.
This post may include affiliate links.
Exact same situation was described in regards to Chimp training in the documentary Project Nim.
The first person to sit down and formally wrestle with the concept of morality was Socrates, who spent the fifth century BCE wandering around Athens asking everyone deeply inconvenient questions about the nature of good and evil, until the city got so tired of it, they put him on trial and sentenced him to his end.
Which is, ironically, a fairly unethical response to a man asking ethical questions. His student, Plato, picked up the torch, and Plato's student, Aristotle, turned it into an entire philosophical system. The point is that humans have been arguing about right and wrong for over two thousand years and have not reached a consensus yet, so whatever you did, you are in very good company.
Commendable of the company to have such a program. Even more commendable that they did not shut it down or restrict it after it was used as intended.
Manager was stupid and short sighted. A restaurant without servers and dishwashers isn’t going to last long and food is generally the lowest cost item in running any food service.
For many millennials, the first real introduction to the concept of a conscience was not a philosophy class or a stern parental conversation, but rather a small, optimistic cricket in a top hat. Jiminy Cricket, the lovable wisecracking moral compass of Disney's Pinocchio, is so embedded in the cultural memory of an entire generation that the phrase "let your conscience be your guide" still lands.
What most people do not know is that in Carlo Collodi's original 1883 book, the cricket was a nameless minor character who tried to give Pinocchio advice and was immediately squashed with a mallet for his trouble. Pinocchio did not want a conscience. Disney gave him one anyway. We all know how that turned out. Although Pleasure Island did look pretty fun... Just saying.
If the OP was a reliable enough source of right answers to be copied, an additional favor might have been some personal math tutoring so she could pass tests when they were no longer classmates.
At the high school where I taught, a yearbook was considered part of the tuition package.
If you have ever stood in a fast fashion store holding a $12 top and thought "I probably should not" before buying it anyway, you are in the majority, and the data backs that up. A study of British fast fashion consumers found that nearly half openly admit they do not prioritize environmental concerns when making purchases.
Men were slightly more comfortable admitting this at 52%, while 45% of women agreed. A quarter of consumers sat diplomatically in the neutral zone. The reality is that the gap between what people believe is right and what they actually do when faced with an affordable item in their size is one of the most well-documented ethical grey areas of modern consumer life.
Since we are already here in the moral grey zone, we should probably talk about the trolley problem: the philosophical thought experiment that has been making people deeply uncomfortable at dinner parties since 1967. The setup is simple: a runaway trolley is heading toward five people tied to the tracks. You are standing next to a lever that will divert it to a different track, where only one person is tied.
Do you pull the lever? Do you actively cause one accident to prevent five? Most people say yes, pull the lever, and then immediately start feeling strange about how quickly they made that decision. The trolley problem exists not to be solved but to reveal something uncomfortable about how we make moral choices when the stakes are real. There is no right answer. That's the point.
Working two full-time jobs simultaneously occupies one of the more fascinating ethical grey areas of modern working life, and the conversation around it has exploded since remote work became mainstream. In the UK, having two jobs is not illegal, and it is not inherently unethical either, provided you are not violating any exclusivity clauses in your contract, and you are meeting the performance.
A software engineer who spends their weekends teaching dance classes is not breaking any rules. The more complicated question is the person quietly holding two full-time remote positions, attending two sets of meetings, and collecting two full salaries without either employer knowing. Whether that is entrepreneurial genius or a workplace ethics crisis is, apparently, a matter of considerable debate.
A rental car company was selling some of its excess inventory in a bank parking lot. (The bank was handling the finances.) There was a car a woman and I both wanted, but I was early enough to get the first test drive. She sneered at me "It's not who drives it first - It's who gets their money down first!" I said to myself "You know, she's right." so I never brought the car back after the test drive. I parked it a few blocks from the lot, walked back, and closed the deal with the first salesman I could find. That lady may still be at that lot waiting for her test drive.
This idea of trying to work two full-time remote jobs during the same 8 hour period took off about a year into Covid, but all the viral discussion about it alerted employers to the trend. It's one of the justifications that suspicious, overly controlling employers use for installing extremely intrusive monitoring software onto employees' remote computers.
The self-checkout machine is one of the great ethical testing grounds of modern life, and we are failing. The UK's Home Office found that supermarkets with self-service checkouts were 86% more likely to experience shoplifting than stores without them, at 52%. Which raises the question of whether the machines are creating opportunists or simply revealing ones that were always there.
Australia showed us the 'carot trick', a self-checkout technique where a shopper places an expensive item on the scales and enters the code for a loose carrot instead. Supermarkets became so aware of this specific maneuver that it was reported on nationally. In response, major chains began investing in AI surveillance technology specifically designed to catch it.
Always keep your receipts and the boxes. For at least 6 months !
They threw away vintage Tupperware? May they always have an itch they cant reach and a pebble that appears in their shoe daily (yes the same exact pebble they thought they removed the previous day)
The self-checkout carrot trick has a spiritual cousin on social media, and it goes by the name of microlooting. The trend describes the phenomenon of taking small, low-value items from large corporations and framing them as a reasonable redistribution of wealth from a billion-dollar company to a person who simply wanted one grape.
The moral logic is that it is not stealing if the corporation will never notice, if the item is negligible in value, and if the company in question has a profit margin large enough to survive the encounter comfortably. Philosophers would have a field day. The comment sections certainly did. What is fascinating about microlooting as a cultural moment is not the act itself but the complete absence of guilt attached to it.
Ah, but this IS too far; this could really hurt someone. No matter how wrong it is for someone to steal your food/drink, it's still a problem to add something potentially harmful (like any type of medicine, or dangerously strong chili peppers); and worse, it can wind up getting YOU in trouble. A better option would be to backwash a ton of spit into the bottle right before leaving it unattended. When you get back, lean over to the thief and say "I spit into that one", then ostentatiously throw the bottle away. (They can't claim that the spit harmed them, because your saliva was on the mouth of the bottle anyways. But the majority of people will find it extremely gross to drink spit, especially someone else's spit.)
So here we are, starting with Socrates and ending with someone stealing a grape from Whole Foods, and honestly, that feels like a complete and accurate summary of human moral evolution over the last two thousand years. The trolley problem remains unsolved. The fast fashion industry remains booming. The self-checkout machine remains a daily ethical referendum that most of us are quietly losing.
Are any of these people wrong? Possibly. Are they thriving? Demonstrably. The truth is that the moral grey area is not a place most of us visit occasionally; it is where a significant portion of daily life actually happens. Jiminy Cricket did his best. We just had other plans.
What is the most unethical thing you have done that you still have no regrets over? Share some juicy details in the comments!
These quickly ceased being ethically ambiguous things and became frequently self-justified evil. "I hated someone, so I did something terrible to them" or "I got away with stealing because my victim showed some humanity" is a far cry from "I didn't follow procedures because they wouldn't've been just." OTOH, a few of them aren't wrong at all, like the person who used the box her replacement product came in to send back the broken product.
These quickly ceased being ethically ambiguous things and became frequently self-justified evil. "I hated someone, so I did something terrible to them" or "I got away with stealing because my victim showed some humanity" is a far cry from "I didn't follow procedures because they wouldn't've been just." OTOH, a few of them aren't wrong at all, like the person who used the box her replacement product came in to send back the broken product.
