Problem is that you open one item to be allowed to be stolen, you then set the precedent of anything being allowed to be stolen. That’s what welfare and social programs are for.
The slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. The strength of a slippery slope argument relies on the ability to show that the initial action will actually lead to the predicted outcome. The fallacy comes in when connections are drawn between unrelated concepts - an easy example of this is the argument that legalizing abortion will lead to the legalization of murder.
In this case, I think it’s pretty likely that making a certain item legal to steal will pave the way for more items to be legal to steal in the future. After all, who decides which items should fall under that law? I’m sure there will be plenty of people with very strong, differing opinions on the topic.
Would you care to provide some additional context? On some levels I agree with you, but I would be interested in hearing the rest of your thoughts on the matter.
Yeah just because stores sell food doesn’t mean they should feed people for free. There are a lot of costs involved in getting food onto the shelves such as planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, packaging, and distribution, and the costs of running the store. This especially applies to small mom and pop stores.
Same sort of thing with non-food items, track any particular item and they don’t just appear on the store shelves, it takes a lot of people and effort and materials to get them there.
Problem is that you open one item to be allowed to be stolen, you then set the precedent of anything being allowed to be stolen. That’s what welfare and social programs are for.
The distinction in the law should be different penalties, not allow one of them.
That’s why crimes do not have a set penalty but a range for the judge to… well judge taking things like that into account.
what you did there is called the “slippery slope fallacy”
The slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. The strength of a slippery slope argument relies on the ability to show that the initial action will actually lead to the predicted outcome. The fallacy comes in when connections are drawn between unrelated concepts - an easy example of this is the argument that legalizing abortion will lead to the legalization of murder. In this case, I think it’s pretty likely that making a certain item legal to steal will pave the way for more items to be legal to steal in the future. After all, who decides which items should fall under that law? I’m sure there will be plenty of people with very strong, differing opinions on the topic.
Because this tends to happen in law, especially when it sets a precedent for future cases.
Would you care to provide some additional context? On some levels I agree with you, but I would be interested in hearing the rest of your thoughts on the matter.
I would imagine that other workers in his store wouldn’t be so human and would balance out this precedent
Yeah just because stores sell food doesn’t mean they should feed people for free. There are a lot of costs involved in getting food onto the shelves such as planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, packaging, and distribution, and the costs of running the store. This especially applies to small mom and pop stores.
Same sort of thing with non-food items, track any particular item and they don’t just appear on the store shelves, it takes a lot of people and effort and materials to get them there.
Hence why stores should deliver unsold goods to food/supply banks instead of tossing it.
The cost was already made, the item gets written of for not being sold, still does some good in the end.
There may also be legal issues if the stores products gets someone sick or hurt because the store will probably get caught in the legal crossfire.