The Dual Morality of Stealing Food and Overcharging Students for Sustenance

As a freshman who recently received ultimate enlightenment by enrolling in Moral Philosophy, I have broken free from the matrix and thus feel obligated as a member of the intelligentsia to offer my fellow suppressed classmates the red pill.Society considers stealing to be wrong, no matter the circumstances. Whether you snatch someone else’s car or the gnomes those pagans use to ward off witches during blue moons, taking property without due compensation hurts the stability of a society built upon laws. However, we must keep in mind that not all thefts are equal. Many of us who frequent the cinema are familiar with the story of Les Misérables, whose protagonist was locked up for the crimes of stealing a loaf of bread and having the occasion and power to stop Russell Crowe from singing but not doing so. The “bad guy” in this movie was the lawman who spent years singing atrociously while trying to catch an escaped convict. Perhaps this story should make us reconsider how bad it is to sneak away those delectable creations served in a-la-carte dining halls.A shot of Josiah's dining hall, a favorite venue for the most dastardly ruffians to sneak foodUtilitarianism, popularized by John Stuart Mill, can help us decide what is justifiable. For the unenlightened, this sect of philosophy dictates that actions are right if they produce more happiness for more people than the sadness or pain they create. Apply this to our conundrum, if stealing food is obviously justifiable. For instance, imagine being in Jo’s with a heavy case of the munchies and stuffing those elegant pockets of your Canada Goose as full as you can with curly fries! The happiness a student feels when biting into those crunchy grease-sticks far outweighs any sadness created by the profit lost from the added-value version of a potato. Therefore the scales of Utility tip in favor of any dubious ruffian who "seeks to sneak."John Stuart Mill, a philosopher who based the concepts of right and wrong on happiness and pleasure. Sounds like an adrenaline junkie to meBut that’s too easy. We academics must look for more justification than the work of an intellectual lightweight like Mill. Therefore, we must also consider what Immanuel Kant would think of these rebellious rule-breakers who believe it ridiculous to pay $5.00 for a large soup from the Blue Room.Kant believed every action must come from duty and that we should make every decision as if it were supporting a universal moral law instead of being an exception to it. Translating that for those who have never had the wonderfully transformative experience of reading archaic philosophers, students are not doing anything wrong by taking food without paying, so long as they think that everyone should do the same. Therefore, as long as you think everyone should take a water cup from Andrews and fill it with that sweet nectar-of-the-gods (that most blasphemously call "Vitamin Water") and that it fulfills some higher purpose or duty, you are justified.Finally, cultural relativism dictates that because each society sets its own moral codes, other cultures should not decry their practices simply because they’re used to their own societal norms.Along this train of thought, the University staff cannot judge students who regularly sneak mozzarella sticks through the Jo’s register by saying they’re fries. However, unlike my love for my parents, this is a two-way street. If students cannot be judged by the supporters of law and order on this campus, then the judgement passed by students who foolishly think that their meal swipe should be worth more than three ounces of Ivy Room tacos is also illegitimate.Images via and via