The act of stealing is generally recognized as immoral since it violates the owner’s rights and autonomy. However, I incline toward the utilitarian perspective on theft which states that stealing might be morally acceptable in some cases (Abumere, 2019). Utilitarianism evaluates actions based on their positive and negative value to individuals and society, implying that the ends might justify means (Abumere, 2019). In other words, if stealing does more good to the community than harm, this theft is justifiable. I personally agree with this view and think that stealing from corporations for the betterment of society is morally right.
However, it is necessary to consider all affected stakeholders in each case. For instance, if one steals too much from the company so that employees and directors suffer from theft, then stealing becomes immoral. According to utilitarianism, the harm to society will outweigh the good in this scenario, making theft morally wrong (Abumere, 2019). As a result, it is important to analyze each case separately to determine whether the act of stealing is moral or immoral, although theft is morally wrong in the majority of scenarios.
I do not support the perpetrators in the examined case since their intentions concerned only financial gain. However, I do believe that the outcome of the theft was positive for all stakeholders, making the act morally right. St. Jude acquired $1,000,00, which it could use to make the lives of children easier. At the same time, McDonald’s was praised for being a generous company that fulfilled its promise despite the acts of thieves. $1,000,000 is not significant money for the global conglomerate, and the effect of the story on its reputation outweighed the financial damage. As a result, everyone benefitted except the jailed criminals, making this theft a morally right act.
Reference
Abumere, F. A. (2019). Utilitarianism. In C. Hendricks (Eds.), Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics. Rebus Community. Web.