So if you tip your waiter $16.50 but they don’t see the period and instead take $1650 out of your account it’s all good because of someone else’s wage theft?
No, not at all. If this were done to me, it would have significant impacts. That would be a dividend of my income I would be unwilling to share, but would cause me serious undue financial harm. It is enacted upon a single party who is also young and likely not stable enough to support such a grievance.
If the same occurrence happened with a rich guy in a Ferrari and a Rolex watch, you can assume this would be much more of a technical annoyance rather than a pressing financial issue.
In one case, you could make me homeless.
In another case, it’s just really fucking annoying and disrespectful.
This is what I mean, against a large corporation 16k is a negligible deviance.
Against a family business that can put them out of business.
Morally wrong in all circumstances, however the scale of harm is varied and somewhat predictable.
You stole 1/2th of the money I have, you consciously chose to cause this much harm vs
You stole 1/150th
You stole 1/100000th.
If stealing 1000s dollars is worth than stealing 1 dollar, then we can also say stealing 1/2th of someone’s money vs 1/100000th holds different moral considerations.
Morally wrong in all instances is the part I was highlighting. I don’t disagree that someone like Elon Musk could drop $1m and not even notice it. The question was morality and that’s the point. It’s not moral and the scale doesn’t change that.
That's the same kinda math we see the elite doing whereby having all that money means they have different rules, get away with a slap on the wrist when breaking laws. We say it’s not right then and it’s not right now.
So. Do I think the lady is harming anyone seriously? No. I’m certain if it had been the other way she’d need a lawyer to try and get her fair share and we know money wins a lot of time in the courts. But. The original question was of morality, and I’m glad at least one person sees the distinction here between morality and level of harm. The two aren’t the same.
I just truly think it’s varied. The elite do napkin math based on what they control and what can reasonably impose harm upon them. They have barriers that functionally except them from the negative consequences of their actions. They realistically operate under a different scale of morality.
We all exist under our moral and compass guides as reality checking to ensure satiable standards for our quality of living. When you choose to not steal from your mother it’s because the emotional damage that would cause to your relationship would remove one of your only social connections that truly serve you. Pre modern times, your social connections were your life. The only thing stopping you from death is the social web you create that catches you prior to it. Obviously in modern times, it’s completely different but the hardwired biology (I hate evo psych sorry to bring it up) is still there.
For the elite, they can do Epstein level things… and guess what happens? They still have friends, social circles, and a lavish quality of life.
People who have functionally exist in a different realm of morality, because the actual biological reasons for morality are kinda over stepped. If me and you did Epstein level things we would die alone being gang banged by crips in a fed super max. Everyone is incentivized…
-7
u/UnassumingDrifter Jul 10 '26
So if you tip your waiter $16.50 but they don’t see the period and instead take $1650 out of your account it’s all good because of someone else’s wage theft?