A speckled pattern plastered the floor with stride-long square tiles periodically breaking the pattern up, while similar foam squares rested on the silver grid. “Off cases”, “K’s”, “Dis-ads”, and “T-shells” littered the halls. Needless anxiety flowed through the veins of all the debaters as they all rushed from rooms to room and jubilation to dismay. Keyboards, in a formation like a cult circle, clicked in frustration.
Sitting in the corner, I contemplated my plan for the day : “1 more round to go and till then homework, Yay!! ” Sounds like a productive plan, but it is nearly impossible to get any work, other than debate, done at a tournament. At a tournament, there is always someone to cheer about or to cheer up or to chat with. I pulled out my homework an hour after the commencement of my plan, and started going through the tedious 10 part questions, but again it was left at the way side as I went to talk to others about their rounds. When I got back, there was a crumpled up 5 dollar bill left on my homework. The Lincoln looked so enticing that I pocketed it without anyone noticing, and left for my upcoming round.
After the round, I made a beeline to the snatch up the last remaining breakfast taco. I took out the crumpled dollar and as I was just about to hand it over at the stall, I pulled my hand back like I touched a hot stove. Instead, I pulled out a different bill and bought the taco. Then I thought – Is it fine to use the money that one finds? I mean finders, keepers. What if someone else finds and uses it, then wouldn’t I be stupid to not use it? But what about the off chance that the owner recovers it?
Days after the debate tournament, I was pushing the red cart through HEB’s counter, when I noticed the Red Cross jar. Overcome with moral righteousness, I pulled out the Lincoln and dropped it in the tin can. This was followed by a thank you from the cashier.
Now was the net morality of the actions positive or negative?
Utilitarians will break this argument down in 2 parts : 1st when I did not use the 5 dollar bill for buying the taco and donating the money. On the first part, proponents of Utilitarianism will argue that because I did not use the money for any personal gains, I was not selfish and did not act immorally. Secondly, they would further that at the end of the day the money helped those in need. This stems from the fact that it is important to measure morality based on the end results because helps achieve more pleasure and less suffering. Therefore, I was moral.
Kantians would counter the Utilitarian argument that I was not selfish by the fact that I obtained pleasure. Instead of gaining material pleasure, I got psychological pleasure because helping others makes one happy. Furthermore, I had no intention to donate until seeing the jar, and only did so to make myself happy. This is because I did not search for the owner once finding the money or actively find a method to donate it. Kantians would then state that under Utilitarian framework I was immoral because the owner of the 5 dollar bill was not able to buy food and went hungry, and the money would have gotten lost in the bureaucracy of the Red Cross. The net pleasure only went up for me a fractional amount compared to the net “sadness” of the owner; therefore, I was immoral. Kantians would also contend that the act of stealing is immoral because if everyone start doing it then the economy and in turn society would crumble.
So was I moral?
Conscience of Aniket 