I presently want to consider two things. The first is morality. More specifically, I want to justify to myself my skewed (by normal standards) sense of morality, and why I should not be ashamed of it. I want to discuss morality in an economic sense. Second, I want to discuss my feelings about a certain type of people, and why these people wear me down and make me uncomfortable over time. I feel that by writing down my feelings I can begin to understand both subjects.

 

            When I go to a convenience store to buy a drink, I often pick out the drink and then wait online. If I’m particularly thirsty, I sometimes open the drink and have some while I wait online. Some people balk at opening and eating retail goods while still in the store. These people would be horrified at what I now do: If I have finished the drink, or if I no longer want it, and I am still waiting to pay, I sometimes walk back into the store, put the drink down, and walk out without paying. Obviously this applies to candy and other food items besides drinks. I’ve dubbed it ‘Eli’s law of lines.’ As is obvious, by any moral standard I am stealing. However, I no longer feel any qualms about this.

            As I proceed to justify my theft, do I make my motivations clearer to the observer or only more pitiful? I feel very strongly that I am right, if I can only put my feelings into words. The justification starts at capitalism: at our very definition of an economic system. In capitalism, we expect people to work for their sustenance. We don’t give very many handouts (though that seems to be changing), and working members of society receive money equal to society’s opinion of their worth, at least in theory. The most important feature of capitalism is that it is not idealistic. It doesn’t expect anyone to do anything out of thanks, or a feeling of charity. It doesn’t expect morals, nor does it need them. Why, then, does society place such value in such strictly defined morals? In fact, perhaps it doesn’t. More likely, it (and by ‘it’ I mean ‘everyone’) says it does, but knows it doesn’t. Point in case: every habitation in the country has a police force fit to control the size of the area that supports it. The government has an army and a national guard. These things exist to keep the populace in line. No one really expects people to behave all the time. Yet an upstanding citizen would never admit to theft, no matter the size of the infraction.

            Our system of economy doesn’t require anyone to refrain from stealing, either. In fact, historically, capitalism is only a glorified barter system. And barter only came about when people found it more beneficial to trade than to steal, pillage, and fight. Back then, when it was less beneficial to barter, people stole. In other words, when the risks of theft weighed less than the time, waste, corruption, or trouble of barter, one stole. I submit that nothing has changed today. Obviously stores expect people to steal. They have elaborate anti-theft systems for this very purpose. Cameras, anti-theft tags, receipts, and bags – much of the shopping experience is built around security. No one is idealistic except for the politically correct.

            The truth is, consumers shouldn’t have to impose morals on themselves. They should simply weigh the consequences of stealing with the cost of the good and make an educated decision. When I wait on line, I weigh the wasted time with the risk of being yelled at, and decide to take a big bite of candy and leave the rest. If people followed my example (as I’m sure some do), the stores might eventually take the hint and keep more registers open, or automate and streamline the checkout process. Humans aren’t that different than they were hundreds of years ago. It is unrealistic to assume moralistic behavior from everyone all the time. This causes more problems than it solves. However, by letting the market adapt and solve these problems, everyone benefits.

            This answers only the question of retail morals. Next I must ask myself (and this is a harder question), what of other laws or norms? What of adultery, or murder (!)? For me at least, the first is easy. I would feel awful if I were in love with one girl and was unfaithful. I would feel even worse if the one I loved were to discover my unfaithfulness. Unfaithfulness would color a relationship and probably destroy it. However, if I were with a girl I didn’t really like, and for some unknown reason didn’t break off the relationship, there wouldn’t be as much incentive to remain faithful. I wouldn’t stay faithful simply because society says cheating is wrong. This doesn’t make sense. I would weigh the risks of discovery against the gains of a new, possibly fruitful, relationship, and make my decision.

            People of long ago killed all the time, and this has changed. We don’t often settle disputes in duels. However, I’ve just explained that my view of morality is all about risk management, and in some cases, feelings. Nothing more. I’ve said that society doesn’t effect my judgment. Would I kill? In self defense, most assuredly. In anger, possibly. For some material gain, probably not. I must say, much as it pains me, that in any case it would still be risks versus benefits. These risks might include my mental health and self-esteem as well as physical health and freedom, but I do not care about society’s mores. If each man bases his morals on those of society, who decides the original morals of society? We must each impart some fraction of our feelings back upon the common mind, and this is mine.

 

            I like most people I meet, but sometimes I meet someone who makes me uncomfortably. This can be for different reasons, but there is one type of person who bothers me on a deep level. I’m not completely sure why. This person is usually not a leader, maybe not so popular. I feel, in trying to describe this, as if I’m trying to scratch the paint off a painting and have it fall into a written summary of the painter’s purpose. Where to start? People who bother me in this subtle way are usually Jewish. Maybe it has to do with my upbringing. In my private Jewish school, these people usually came from richer families. My family was always around the middle income level there, while some kids always had more money. Their parents networked and arranged playdates and birthday parties that I never attended. This bothered me, but not in every case. I became good friends with some of these kids.

            I think I felt bothered by the exclusivity and my lack of knowledge about that section of the world, that type of person. I didn’t like being left out, but even more so, I didn’t like not understanding what I was missing.

            So now I think I understand, but I realize that I’ve been meeting people who live lives like mine in terms of income and even many other aspects, who also bother me in this subtle way. What is it? And suddenly I know: it hits me, and it sickens me. The fact that it sickens me is the worst part of all, because it shouldn’t. How could it sicken me, after all that I’ve just expressed in the first part of this essay? Idealistic people bother me. Not romantics, mind you. Not the dreamers and thinkers. The ones who bother me are idealistic without thinking about it. They accept the morals that have been instilled in them reflexively. They, perhaps unknowingly, carry this around with them proudly. At least it seems proudly to me. I’m certain that most of them don’t know. They have no idea that their morals are only propaganda, that they have such faith in such flimsiness. And now it hits me why the religious school children also often bothered me in this way, and the rich ones in particular: For one reason or another, their parents instilled morals and faiths on them more firmly. I won’t try to explain why that is here, but I feel certain that a household with more money puts a higher importance on the propagation of the family morals and faith.

            And yet, they bother me. Me, so supreme in my educated lack of morality and my triumphant faithlessness. People with faith and morals who haven’t considered the basis of their beliefs make me uncomfortable. I feel out of control, just as I did on the rare occasion that I was invited to a rich friend’s house in grade school. I don’t understand motives behind actions, and subsequently I can’t predict the future. Is this really why they sicken me? Because they aren’t rational (or at least not as rational as I am)? No. I think I’m jealous.