Are you a good person? The Shopping Cart Theory

[Pollux]

Are you a good person? It's a question that comes up now and then. We might think about it when we're alone or dealing with difficult choices. But how can we really tell if we're good? That's where the Shopping Cart Theory comes in – it's a simple idea that helps us understand what being a good person is all about. Share your thoughts!
Quote from Reddit user "Annonymous" User ID: DSfdBk9e


The shopping cart is the ultimate litmus test for whether a person is capable of self-governing.

To return the shopping cart is an easy, convenient task and one which we all recognize as the correct, appropriate thing to do. To return the shopping cart is objectively right. There are no situations other than dire emergencies in which a person is not able to return their cart. Simultaneously, it is not illegal to abandon your shopping cart. Therefore the shopping cart presents itself as the apex example of whether a person will do what is right without being forced to do it. No one will punish you for not returning the shopping cart, no one will fine you or kill you for not returning the shopping cart, you gain nothing by returning the shopping cart. You must return the shopping cart out of the goodness of your own heart. You must return the shopping cart because it is the right thing to do. Because it is correct.

A person who is unable to do this is no better than an animal, an absolute savage who can only be made to do what is right by threatening them with a law and the force that stands behind it.

The Shopping Cart is what determines whether a person is a good or bad member of society.

The main idea of this theory is: You are truly yourself when nobody's watching.
Posting this theory doesn't necessarily mean I completely agree with it, here's a couple of reasons why:

- Some people get hired just to bring back shopping carts, returning them would mean less work for them, eventually leading them to unemployment.
- I've had interactions with super-market workers who like to go out, enjoy the combination of fresh air and bright sun, while picking up carts from around the lot. Can be a true moment of relief, freedom for those workers who deal with a demanding boss and annoying customers.
- I personally will not judge people solely based on this theory, believing that some can get busy, in a hurry, or just distracted.

However do not forget, you are who you are only when no one is watching! Observe yourself, and grow self-awareness if you want to change!

[Ace]

It's a thought provoking question. What it essentially boils down to being a good person when no one is looking. That's how we can can bring positivity in the world.

[Arran]

This seems more like a debate board topic.

Some people get hired just to bring back shopping carts, returning them would mean less work for them, eventually leading them to unemployment.

Using this logic, people should commit crimes so that police have jobs.

But yes as Ace said it was thought provoking. But surely people bring back their carts back because otherwise they'd be in the way of them driving off? So it's kind of necessary for practical reasons. Here most supermarkets have you put a £1 coin in them to get one so you need to take it back to get your £1 when you reconnect it with another trolley, because the sad truth is there's enough bad people in this world who can't be trusted with basic civil decency.

I don't think if you put the cart back it makes you a good person, because you may do it because of social norms rather than because you're good, I think being good is harder than that. Going against social norms to do what's truly right, like giving up animal products to stop animals from going through unimaginable suffering, this is the real test of character and only a few percent of people are willing to go against society, risk being made fun of, give up food options to do what's truly right. A good person at minimum must 'do no harm' and that shouldn't just be to other humans but to other sentient beings, but I suppose we've all done harm to another sentient being, we could all have been better people, I guess as long as we're a good person in our own eyes, that's what matters in the end. That was definitely thought provoking.

[Ace]

This seems more like a debate board topic.

I agree, but I think I see what he was trying so say, so I'll roll with it for now and I'll explain what I think he means later.

Using this logic, people should commit crimes so that police have jobs.

I believe this is known as the broken window fallacy, or the parable of the broken window.  Basically the idea that we should celebrate it when a vandal breaks a window because the economy will be stimulated by demand for a new window. However, instead of the money being put towards something useful, it is instead spent repairing or replacing something that was working before. There is then an opportunity cost where that money could have been used towards something else productive.

I quote this from the wiki page

Show content

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented

In short, such a notion fails to account for what is unseen.

I would also like to appeal to Christian theology which tells us the following In Matthew 6 3-4:

3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

In other words, we should not make a display of our good things, but do them because they are good things, for instance returning the shopping cart even though no one will check.  I think pollux's point was if you act in such a manner, you will create more positivity in the world and that we should be the change we want to see. However, I might be wrong on that and he's free to correct me.

[Clark]

I saw this and remembered an instance when a worker at Target who's job is to collect carts saw me putting back the cart where it belongs told me to not. I was a bit surprised, I asked him why not he told me he would rather spend his time walking around the parking lot collecting carts one by  one and bringing it back to where it's supposed to be because the time goes faster and he gets in extra exercise. I started laughing and so did he but he said he is being serious. If all the carts are where they are supposed to be he has nothing to do, he told me he listens to music walks around the parking lot collecting all the carts and brings it back. He told me to just leave it around somewhere in the parking lot preferably the edges because all the other workers are like him as well. Even though at first I thought he was being sarcastic but another co-worker of his came and told me the same thing. He said if there are no random carts laying around in the big ass parking lot then there will be nothing for us to do and we will be bored. So I was convinced, and from then on when I am at that specific Target location I just leave my cart somewhere safe, not on the road or any parking space but somewhere else other than the designated spot, and I feel good about myself.

At the end of the day you are not the one deciding if you are a good person or not, it's the people around you that decide that, so if you want an answer you should be asking them not yourself.

[Ace]

This raises an interesting question about the principle-agent problem.

Investopia gives us the following definition:

 

The principal-agent problem is a conflict in priorities between a person or group and the representative authorized to act on their behalf. An agent may act in a way that is contrary to the best interests of the principal.

In this case, the worker is the agent and doesn't care about the loss of productivity in the store as they're paid the same regardless and have a preference for the trolley collecting task. However I still feel the world would be better off if we all did our duty and returned the kart.

What I find most interesting about your annacdote is the positive attitude of workers in response to "extra work" being created for them. Looking ok the bright side and taking enjoyment in a menial task is what we can learn from this story.

[Clark]

The quote about the principal-agent problem is spot on in describing the conflict here. It serves as a reminder that in many cases, the optimal solution for one party isn't always ideal for the other, and the best outcomes often require finding a balance between various interests and preferences.

To kinda circle back to the question about a person being good, I can approach it philosophically. I can tell you what doesn't make a good person, I can't tell you what makes a good person. Somewhat taking a Socrates approach haha.