Hypothetical Moral Dilemma. Need your thoughts!

[MarieVeronica]

I’m trying to help someone I know, with a moral dilemma. So, here is a hypothetical situation… the main characters, will be known as “Party A” and “Party B”.

Party A hires (pays) Party B to demonstrate a food product for them.

There is a good chance, that there will be leftover “product”.

Party A has instructed Party B to throw out (place in the garbage) any leftover “product”.

Party B feels that placing good food in the garbage is a sin. And decides, instead to distribute leftover food “product” to other people… so that it isn’t wasted.

IMPORTANT MORAL QUESTION:

Does Party A RELINQUISH it’s RIGHTS to leftover food “product” by instructing Party B to throw it in the garbage?

AND…

If Party B distributes, what Party A has termed “garbage”… have they stolen the leftover “product”?

---

I’m particularly interested in how the Church would view such a scenario. Thanks in advance for your thoughtful responses. God bless

 

[MarieVeronica]

Anyone?

 

[JRKH]

B is hired by A to demonstrate…the product supplied is not “given” to B therefore does not belong to B. In other words, A had not relinquished ownership. Therefore, as an employee of A, B should dispose of A’s product as instructed.

Now - if B were to ask A if it was alright for him to take any left-over product and A said yes…the matter changes.

In cases such as this the decision by A is usually prompted by one of two things.

1. Health regulations that would preclude legally giving the unused product away
2. The need to discourage theft. If an employer allows the employee to take the leftovers there can be a tendency on the part of the employee to prepare too much product specifically so that they can take it home.

If A trusts B and if there are no legal issues then perhaps A will allow B to take the leftovers. If not - well as I said, it is A’s property to be disposed of as he sees fit.

In any event…Those are my thoughts.

Peace
James

 

[St_Francis]

From the legal standpoint in the US, once something is thrown in the trash, the owner has relinquished his ownership. Barring other legal problems, such as trespassing, others are permitted to take it.

In Catholic teaching, there is an OT rule not to glean one’s fields but to leave what was not initially harvested for the poor. (Remember Ruth and Naomi.)

So I would say that the food is morally available for the taking *but *giving it to others may be problematical esp if the food is cooked. The reason your friend is instructed to toss it is that if the food is given away and there is a subsequent problem, the company could be sued.

So the entire issue could be a little tricky, one for which your friend may need local, face-to-face advice.

 

[ClearWater]

I have seen places that throw away perfectly good food, books, etc. rather than giving them away. I, also, hate to see waste. I have lived in the third world, and here, it’s not as bad as places in Africa. I think what the US wastes, daily, could feed some other countries!

I’ve also seen people throw away perfectly good clothes, dolls, etc. I once saw someone put out a really beautiful dollhouse on the curb, because they were moving. Well, I don’t even have any kids, but I went over, cleaned it up and brought it to Goodwill. Goodwill, say, will take that, sell it to some often low-income person, not charge taxes (since they are a non-profit organization) and then use that money for their numerous programs. Everybody wins.

So, in short, I know the US is strict on food. I have heard other countries, like Germany, at least in the past, separated their used food. What couldn’t be used for people, went to animals! It takes a lot of discipline to do that, and I doubt our people are disciplined enough. I see even with our attempts to recycle how you’ll inevitably have some who will throw garbage in with it, contaminating entire truckloads!

I once saw a public school throwing away brand new books! I took some home and used them for babysitting!

 

[prodigalson2011]

I’m trying to help someone I know, with a moral dilemma. So, here is a hypothetical situation… the main characters, will be known as “Party A” and “Party B”.

Party A hires (pays) Party B to demonstrate a food product for them.

There is a good chance, that there will be leftover “product”.

Party A has instructed Party B to throw out (place in the garbage) any leftover “product”.

Party B feels that placing good food in the garbage is a sin. And decides, instead to distribute leftover food “product” to other people… so that it isn’t wasted.

IMPORTANT MORAL QUESTION:

Does Party A RELINQUISH it’s RIGHTS to leftover food “product” by instructing Party B to throw it in the garbage?

AND…

If Party B distributes, what Party A has termed “garbage”… have they stolen the leftover “product”?

---

I’m particularly interested in how the Church would view such a scenario. Thanks in advance for your thoughtful responses. God bless

Before I say anything else, I would like to point out that this is in the wrong forum. It belongs in the Moral Theology forum and you would probably get more responses if it were placed there, where people who are concerned with such questions are apt to be found.

Now, in regards to your question, I would say first that this seems to indicate a very scrupulous moral conscience. If this scenario poses a serious moral dilemma to your friend, I would suggest recommending to them that they find a good spiritual director.

Secondly, I would say that if one simply “throws something away,” they are, to some extent, relinquishing their rights to that item. Whether or not we are morally justified in taking it must be discerned from the nature of the item. For instance, if one places an old piece of furniture or appliance out with the trash, oftentimes someone will pick it up before the garbage collector does. I think most people (including the Church) would find this morally unproblematic.

On the other hand, if someone “throws away” sensitive personal information (e.g. bank records, confidential correspondence), the nature of those items indicates that a desire to possess them would almost certainly be malicious and, thus, immoral. While the person should have disposed of them more responsibly, we can easily assume that they do not want that information to fall into anyone else’s possession. When it comes to old material possessions, we can also assume that they don’t really care what happens to it, or they wouldn’t throwing them away. Your scenario clearly falls into the latter category. In such cases, I think we could almost universally say that the instruction to “throw something away” implies a lack of concern with its ultimate disposal.

So, in other words, if we discern that the dispersal of the item in question poses no potential harm to its original owner or does not violate their property rights in some indirect way–for example, the food you have been given is a “secret recipe” and the owner is concerned that if distributed, it may be analyzed and stolen by another company–we can safely assume that we can choose whether to dispose of it or not on the basis of our own conscience.

Finally, I would add that the Church teaches that we are obliged to follow our consciences (though they should be well-formed), so if one feels that throwing out perfectly good food when it could be given to the needy is a sin, then one is obliged to do what he thinks is right in that situation.

Though, of course, for all this analysis, the obvious solution would be to ask these questions of the party who entrusts the food to you to begin with. If that party makes explicit that it must be thrown away, then you are accepting that as a condition of your arrangement. If it poses a moral problem to you, you might then have to decline the arrangement altogether.

 

[MarieVeronica]

Thank you, all… for your considered responses. All of you brought up good points.

I should have clarified… that the food, in question… is NOT cooked food. But wrapped sample products (granola bars, etc). So there is no issue of cooked food being wrongly handled. And in the case of an allergic reaction, it is doubtful the demo company could be sued… as the products being distributed… are name brand items.

That said, I tend to agree with the idea, that if A has not given formal permission for B to re-distribute the food samples… then, it could be a case of stealing. That is my first reaction to this scenario.

But, the one thing that made my friend wonder… was that they designated the leftovers to THE GARBAGE (in those exact words, she did show me the handbook). There is the gray area. Has A relinquished their ownership, in designating these items to the garbage? Now, she could actually… physically… throw all of this into a garbage can… AND then, retrieve it. And in that case, I guess… it wouldn’t be stealing. Does anyone “own” garbage? If the intent is to dispose of it… is it still owned? And also, after being in the garbage… would it be fit for re-distribution?

Yes… it is a very thin line. Not sure yet, what to say to my friend. But thanks for all your (name removed by moderator)ut. Additional opinions… greatly appreciated!

 

[chero23]

It’s not considered stealing, bc party a was going to throw it away. It’s like the phrase goes, somebody’s trash is somebody else treasure. Giving that food to those who don’t have the luxury to eating everyday, that food is their treasure.

 

[JRKH]

Thank you, all… for your considered responses. All of you brought up good points.

I should have clarified… that the food, in question… is NOT cooked food. But wrapped sample products (granola bars, etc). So there is no issue of cooked food being wrongly handled. And in the case of an allergic reaction, it is doubtful the demo company could be sued… as the products being distributed… are name brand items.

That said, I tend to agree with the idea, that if A has not given formal permission for B to re-distribute the food samples… then, it could be a case of stealing. That is my first reaction to this scenario.

But, the one thing that made my friend wonder… was that they designated the leftovers to THE GARBAGE (in those exact words, she did show me the handbook). There is the gray area. Has A relinquished their ownership, in designating these items to the garbage? Now, she could actually… physically… throw all of this into a garbage can… AND then, retrieve it. And in that case, I guess… it wouldn’t be stealing. Does anyone “own” garbage? If the intent is to dispose of it… is it still owned? And also, after being in the garbage… would it be fit for re-distribution?

Yes… it is a very thin line. Not sure yet, what to say to my friend. But thanks for all your (name removed by moderator)ut. Additional opinions… greatly appreciated!

Marie - you are right - it is a very thin line.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, business owners have to watch out for theft. I make no accusation here - it is simply a fact of life. So it is possible that the owners have done this to prevent anyone from being tempted to take extra so that they can take it home (or give it to friends) on the premise that “leftovers are to be trashed”.

The problem for your friend is that, as an employee of person A, they are obligated to act in “A’s” best interest and to do what “A” tells them - so long as it is legal. If they do not do as instructed, their employer is well within their rights to fire them as untrustworthy.

I agree that it is kind of a rock and a hard place…

Peace
James

 

[Cojuanco]

I’m trying to help someone I know, with a moral dilemma. So, here is a hypothetical situation… the main characters, will be known as “Party A” and “Party B”.

Party A hires (pays) Party B to demonstrate a food product for them.

There is a good chance, that there will be leftover “product”.

Party A has instructed Party B to throw out (place in the garbage) any leftover “product”.

Party B feels that placing good food in the garbage is a sin. And decides, instead to distribute leftover food “product” to other people… so that it isn’t wasted.

IMPORTANT MORAL QUESTION:

Does Party A RELINQUISH it’s RIGHTS to leftover food “product” by instructing Party B to throw it in the garbage?

AND…

If Party B distributes, what Party A has termed “garbage”… have they stolen the leftover “product”?

---

I’m particularly interested in how the Church would view such a scenario. Thanks in advance for your thoughtful responses. God bless

I would think, from my approximately one month of legal education so far, that that the property is abandoned. I mean, if you threw it in the trash, and Party C take it from the trash can, is it theft from Party A?

 

[Miss_Felicity]

Interestingly enough a college professor of mine gave us a similar moral dilemma to answer. I did not know at the time she was Catholic and this was well before I knew anything of the faith, in her particular example it was a gentleman who worked delivering cakes and other pastries to non profits and other small businesses, leftovers were to be disposed of at the end of his route. After several years as a faithful employee his son has a birthday the weekend of his delivery and there is a leftover cake, would it be wrong to take it home for his son. I don’t remember what consensus the class came to. I do remember thinking that it is not inherently wrong to take the cake but that asking to be sure couldn’t be a bad idea, my answer is the same on this: I don’t think it is inherently wrong or stealing but from the employers standpoint it could be seen as a failure to follow instruction.

 

[JRKH]

I would think, from my approximately one month of legal education so far, that that the property is abandoned. I mean, if you threw it in the trash, and Party C take it from the trash can, is it theft from Party A?

No - Party C is free to act and remove the item(s) from the trash. Such is not stealing.

The question is whether Party B has that same freedom since they are employed by Party A and party A has specifically instructed those who work for them to place leftover product into the trash. In other words, Party A does not want the product brought back - nor do they want Party B to keep the product for themselves. Hence the instruction to throw it away.

So - 1) at what point has Party A abandoned the product and 2) who has the right to claim it?
It is a tricky question…

Peace
James

 

[tafan]

I think it is fairly easy to resolve, with a little research. First of all: it is definitive catholic teaching that taking another person’s property is not theft if a reasonable person would have given it to you due to the circsyamces involved. In other words , if I as a owner unreasonably withhold something from you, it is not theft to take it. This covers the classic : “taking a loaf of bread from a rich man to feed my starving family” delima.

So the question is, is party a being reasonable in insisting the food is thrown away. One possible way that is reasonable is if it is due to a health regulation. If it is ( and I believe that is a distinct possibility in many locales). Party a is being reasonable, so it is stealing ( despite the best if intentions). If it is not, party a is not bring reasonable and as such it is not theft.

So find out why party a insists the food be thrown away and determine if that is reasonable.

 

[JRKH]

I think it is fairly easy to resolve, with a little research. First of all: it is definitive catholic teaching that taking another person’s property is not theft if a reasonable person would have given it to you due to the circsyamces involved. In other words , if I as a owner unreasonably withhold something from you, it is not theft to take it. This covers the classic : “taking a loaf of bread from a rich man to feed my starving family” delima.

So the question is, is party a being reasonable in insisting the food is thrown away. One possible way that is reasonable is if it is due to a health regulation. If it is ( and I believe that is a distinct possibility in many locales). Party a is being reasonable, so it is stealing ( despite the best if intentions). If it is not, party a is not bring reasonable and as such it is not theft.

So find out why party a insists the food be thrown away and determine if that is reasonable.

Good post.

Of course one should be prepared for the possibility of being fired for not following the terms of your employment…

Peace
James

 

[maryjk]

This question reminds me of a situation I had when my son was in the NICU.

Of course babies don’t get their own room. But each child had a place to put stuff. Supplies and the like. So when you changed a diaper, you didn’t have to the big supply closet.

AND when the baby went home, everything in their drawers went home with them. Basically, once it was open, the item couldn’t be used on anyone else.

So, the nurses, when they knew a baby was close to going home, would open bunches of supplies and put them in the drawers. They wouldn’t let anything get even close to low.

Then when a child, like my son, went home, we were sent home with dozens of diapers and other supplies. It worked great for us. But the hospital, and the insurance company was paying for all of that.

Eventually, they put a limit on what could be taken home.

In the instance in the OP, I wonder if once they open a bag/box it can’t be used another time. So, the company covers themselves by saying, toss the leftovers. Otherwise some people would open lots of extra bags, just so they can take home the leftovers.

 

[MarieVeronica]

Wow! Thanks so much, folks… for shedding light on this subject. There is a wealth of information here for me to study and consider. And hopefully, I will be able to share it, intelligently, with my friend. God bless!