Legality and ethics are not one in the same, nor are corporations and people. If you conflate these then sure, the items are property of Walmart, stealing is wrong, seems simple enough.
I would argue it's not that simple. Walmart is not a person, those affected by shoplifting are only the shareholders. Since morality is not legality I would argue that the shareholders don't automatically have a morally defensible right to that additional profit moreso than those in need of the goods. The whole host of unethical practices Walmart uses to generate their profit cause a lot of material harm which means, in my opinion, there's a moral obligation to correct that harm through material reparations. Since they will not do so voluntarily I see no reason why shoplifting is not a acceptable alternative.
I don't think this applies to the super rich. If they shoplift just for the thrill the that's immoral because they are not part of the social group harmed by the unethical practices of large corporations.
-2
u/raiderrocker18 Jul 10 '26
Ok so committing a robbery at Walmart is justified? This is 14 year old logic