Need help constructing an argument

[Nox]

I'm having a debate soon in one of my classes, I chose the topic and it will be "Is there anything morally wrong with stealing from Tesco"

So yeah I need some arguments to use

[The Young Pioneer]

I'm not from UK- Is Tesco like a Target? Does it have to be specifically the morality of theft at Tesco of the morality of theft in general?

[VirgJans12]

I'm not from UK- Is Tesco like a Target?

30 seconds of googling would have found you that answer, mate.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. If you take something from someone else, that's stealing. But if you're hungry and unable to buy food or whatever it can be morally approved.

[Leftsolidarity]

You could talk about how morals are bullshit. That might be hard to get by some people though.

You could discuss how it is morally correct to take what is needed to survive.

[dodger]

I'm having a debate soon in one of my classes, I chose the topic and it will be "Is there anything morally wrong with stealing from Tesco"

So yeah I need some arguments to use

Just don't get bloody caught ! Perlease....Nox.

[Ocean Seal]

I'm having a debate soon in one of my classes, I chose the topic and it will be "Is there anything morally wrong with stealing from Tesco"

So yeah I need some arguments to use

You could start with why the moral argument is actually relevant?

A scientific explanation of capitalism's necessary failure and the necessity to expropriate the capitalist class.

The people that would benefit from it.

Your opponents would most likely string up the snowball effect. To which you could say that nationalization of many industries could prove profitable.

Also in terms of just petty theft. You could make the argument that Tesco and other industries steal surplus value of labor. And how theft is abstract and it really just gives someone a "right" to own something without any basis. As in the state or the almighty gives you a "right" without really saying anything. Who gives the "right" of inheritance? Who gives the "right" to own private property? Who gave Tesco the right to own so much private property? Why wasn't I invited to the decision making process?

[Lanky Wanker]

Mention how much food is thrown away by these big companies because the items aren't sold, while people who actually need it are going hungry. Considering this, I doubt stealing one sandwich is going to really affect their huge profits.

[Red Noob]

If you're going to do a school debate, I would refrain from using terms like 'surplus value' and 'proletariat'. Be simple.

You could take the 'neither was right or wrong' route.

Ask the people you are debating 'If you were starving, would you let yourself suffer and die, or would you fight to survive? Imagine if you had a family or friends to take care of, would you think it was wrong them?'

[Zealot]

You'll need a back-up argument if they concede that the poor are allowed to steal, unless this is what the debate is about.

[The Young Pioneer]

30 seconds of googling would have found you that answer, mate.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. If you take something from someone else, that's stealing. But if you're hungry and unable to buy food or whatever it can be morally approved.

Yes, I found the Tesco website before posting, but figure it's best not to assume without asking. Ffs.

[CommieTroll]

Mention how much food is thrown away by these big companies because the items aren't sold, while people who actually need it are going hungry. Considering this, I doubt stealing one sandwich is going to really affect their huge profits.

Every year these companies estimate how much profit they will loose to shoplifting so they try to combat it by raising prices of many of their products which in turn affects the consumer

[Lanky Wanker]

Every year these companies estimate how much profit they will loose to shoplifting so they try to combat it by raising prices of many of their products which in turn affects the consumer

These fuckers don't ignore anything, do they? lol

[Blake's Baby]

Go for the relativity route. Even if stealing in general is wrong, so is witholding things that people need that you have and they don't. So stealing a plasma telly because you want a plasma telly might be wrong, but stealing milk so that a child doesn't go hungry is not only justifiable but practically obligatory. Buying things is just rationing by price and rationing by need is more humane because rationing by price elevates the status of things people have made (tins of beans, metal discs used as tokens of exchange, jewels, plasma TVs) to being more important than people themselves, which is not just immoral it's perverted and anti-human.

We'd all hit someone if it would save their life - to push them out of the way of an angry warthog, or something - so violent action can be justified to save lives, and stealing is less bad than violence, because it's only stuff and not people, and any standard of morality applies to people more than things.

Once you've got them agreeing that violent assault is a good thing, you have them, I reckon.


I'm not from UK- Is Tesco like a Target?...

By the same token, we have to ask what's Target?

[Rafiq]

Ask them where products from tesco are from, and the background of the goods "stolen".

[Firebrand]

I'd go for the demonize tesco route. Show them that the crimes tesco as a large shopping chain commits in order to maintain profit are far more serious and immoral than shoplifting.

[MotherCossack]

someone who shall remain nameless... that i know, very well, found themselves in an unfortunate predicament, not that long ago.
The shop in question was that well known clothes/fashion outlet with illusions of grandeur, called GAP.
This person was caught trying to purloin two pairs of childrens leggings, both a small size, [about age4/5].
He/she had in fact paid for one pair and three tops, but was attempting to aquire the 2 others without paying.
The reason he/she gave was that she wanted to buy each of her children the same two items but did not have enough money.
The shop security were unsympathetic, to say the least, and despite her assurances that she had not done anything like this before, very promptly contacted the police and insisted that they attend and check her story. the shop manager and security guard were sure she was about to be exposed and her criminal record revealed.
All the while enjoying her obvious distress and embarrassment.
the police followed procedure and duly checked her story, not without a degree of sympathy, in contrast to the Gap employees, who were , it seemed, deriving some pleasure from the whole episode.
the manager was heard assuring the shoplifter that if she had lied and been caught before... then he would push and do his upmost to ensure that she got the most severe sentence possible.
it soon transpired, to the disappointment of the shop staff, that the unfortunate thief had been truthful and had no record of previous misdemeanors.
the shop manager tried to push for arrest, nonetheless.
the police insisted that they had no intention of agreeing. instead issued some kind of fixed penalty notice and let the person go as soon as they were able.
gap continued to protest, quite clearly disappointed in the outcome.

think about this what you will, and judge accordingly.
i have only this to say...

1. 2 pairs of little girl's leggings, does not exactly constitute a massive heist.... the clothes were not even for her, none of it was.

2. the profit margins on what was purchased lawfully would have paid for the rest, probably at least twice!

3. why were the shop staff so unsympathetic and full of venom... is gap a closet co-op
with secret super conditions of employment..? or are the staff paid like shite, bored to the point of distraction, miserable and de-humanised?

4. is the entire episode an example of divide and rule, albeit in a slightly less linear way.

[Silleuksa]

Point out how shoplifting does not increase the burden for Tesco workers nor the consumer because I was told when I worked at a grocery store that most foodstuff companies have suggested retail prices that grocery stores very rarely if ever stray away from. Now if you were to shoplift from the manufacturer itself they could theoretically increase their prices and place a burden on the consumer but shoplifting goes on so rarely that it probably isn't even factored in when stores do their budget sheets

[Leftsolidarity]

Point out how shoplifting does not increase the burden for Tesco workers nor the consumer because I was told when I worked at a grocery store that most foodstuff companies have suggested retail prices that grocery stores very rarely if ever stray away from. Now if you were to shoplift from the manufacturer itself they could theoretically increase their prices and place a burden on the consumer but shoplifting goes on so rarely that it probably isn't even factored in when stores do their budget sheets

Shoplifting is very common and they definitely take it into consideration.

[Firebrand]

If you want to get away with shoplifting be a celebrity chef

[Oswy]

I'm having a debate soon in one of my classes, I chose the topic and it will be "Is there anything morally wrong with stealing from Tesco"

So yeah I need some arguments to use

If the system itself is immoral, in the way land and resources are monopolised and the associated means of production are monopolised, by a capitalist class, then the laws which try to control our behaviour for the benefit of that capitalist class have no legitimacy. In short, if you are trapped in a game where the rules are to the advantage of others and to the disadvantage of yourself, why should you play by the rules?

[Catma]

stuff about GAP

That's quite odd. Let me tell you some stories about old navy (a sub-company of GAP, though a low-budget alternative.)

At Old Navy, employees are trained that the best deterrent to shoplifting is good customer service. That is, to pay an inordinate amount of attention to suspected shoplifters. At larger stores, Loss Prevention agents are employed. These are employees whose function is to stop shoplifting. Their record of apprehensions and recoveries are recorded, but I don't know much about how that affects their job. They will rove around the store looking for potential staging areas, signs of shoplifting, and so forth, and encourage regular employees to keep their eyes open. Loss stats are tracked on a board in the break room - top 5 loss departments, dollar amounts, LP apprehensions/recoveries, units lost per day, etc.

I don't really understand how these guys make apprehensions. They have no legal right to hold anyone in the store. Possibly the apprehensions are the people that, like the one in your story, don't know this. The people that don't know the ins-and-outs of the system - casual shoplifters, though the experience is anything but casual for them - are the focus of all these measures. Professional shoplifters will often grab a large stack of merchandise (presumably for resale) and simply walk out the door, sometimes putting it in a bag first. If they're noticed, they drop the merchandise and run, knowing that in all likelihood they won't be chased.

I find the attitudes of the employees in your story to be shocking. Though it is somewhat rare for regular employees to encounter shoplifters, it's not completely unknown and certainly not a subject of much thought or hatred. There is an instinct to report these episodes for a pat on the head, not unlike a dog barking at people walking past its yard. For loss prevention personnel, or management, to act like that is strange indeed. They must encounter shoplifting often, and it should be a matter of course, and for management an annoying waste of time, rather than a personal affront. Especially so for such a minor theft!

Let's talk about merchandise. Old Navy employee discount is 25%, Gap 50% (employees get both of these.) Gap clothing is slightly better in terms of design, fashionability, and durability, yet is clearly sold at a much larger margin, as is apparent from the discount. Perhaps higher costs for design and marketing drive these prices; more likely the target market is simply willing to pay higher prices for the level of prestige associated with the brand. In any case, the actual clothing is not significantly more expensive to the company. The cost of two pairs of girls' leggings, which require almost no design and very little material or workmanship, would definitely be covered many times over in the profit on other items. Shipping costs are something like 50 cents/box for the truck driver, with similar costs 2 or 3 more times back to the country of origin. An efficiently packed box could hold hundreds of leggings.

One other thing about waste of merchandise. At the store I worked at, several birds made a living. In the course of a month or so, they can defecate on 3-5 large garbage bags worth of clothing. These stains can be removed, for the most part, but they are definitely set-in. The clothes would have to be sold at a discount, or they could be donated somewhere. Instead, the company pays an employee to slash each and every piece of soiled clothing, so that nobody can ever use them. They are then bagged up and thrown out. Large amounts of perfectly good (or at least usable) unsold merchandise of all kinds are destroyed en masse by retailers every day.