What Shopping Cart Theory Says About Society

Shopping Cart Theory gained viral attention a few years ago. Unlike the majority of people, I found it disturbing. It goes something like this:

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

Shopping Cart Theory suggests the ultimate way to test moral goodness is to see whether or not someone will do the “right” thing in the absence of accountability, consequence, or reward.

The Fallacy of Societal Expectations:

The central flaw of the Shopping Cart Theory lies in its assumption that moral good is primarily defined by societal expectations. While it is true that many people follow societal norms, this does not guarantee or reveal genuine moral character. Simply adhering to what society says one "ought" to do does not reflect a deep sense of personal ethics but rather a conformity that allows proponents of the theory to prematurely pat themselves on the back.

A More Effective Litmus Test:

When conditions are good for doing the bad thing - can you refrain from doing the bad thing? Can you persevere in righteousness?

What about the inverse?

If conditions were bad for doing the good thing - can you do the good thing anyway? In other words, if you’d get punished for doing what was moral, could you take action?

Returning a shopping cart is only revealing that people are generally willing to do what society expects of them. This is not a moral litmus test that proves self-governance but instead generally shows the opposite - that we’re partly defined and motivated by the community and values that we identify ourselves as being a part of. In some ways, it’s the path of least resistance (granted, you’ve got to expend some calories to return the shopping cart but for many, it’s easier to do that than to buck accepted norms).

Historical Contexts Shed Light

Historically speaking, it’s easy to look back on situations where everyday people have fallen disastrously short of this test.

Think of a time when conditions were good for doing bad. Consider the sheer number of people that participated in or turned a blind eye to legal forms of slavery. We, now, in a culture that decries and denounces the idea are quick to say we’re against such things. But what if you lived in a society where it was accepted?

Look no further than pornography, prostitution, and other forms of entertainment to see modern-day forms of sex trafficking and profiting off of treating people as commodities that are “acceptable” and “legal.” What stance do you take against an evil that is generally accepted by the society around you?

Similarly, many people who have taken part in rioting/looting have done so simply because the conditions were right for doing what was wrong.

True moral character goes beyond following prevailing norms; it requires a steadfast commitment to opposing evil, even when it is widely accepted.

Think of a time when conditions were bad for doing good. In Nazi Germany for example you’d put yourself and your family in danger for helping innocent Jewish neighbors and friends. Alternatively, you’d be rewarded for turning a blind eye to the atrocities around you. What did the average citizen do? They did what most do - they chose the path of least resistance and tried to stay out of trouble. When conditions were bad for doing good, they laid low.

Shopping Cart Theory actually perpetuates this standard of morality. It encourages people to think that the “right” thing to do is simply what you’re expected to do.

Anyone can return a shopping cart (and I’d wager that most everyone does). When society decides that this is the litmus test for morality, all we’ve done is shown how ethically illiterate we’ve really become. When such a test goes “viral” we’ve proven that we have no sense of the importance of an objective standard of morality that transcends culture and that we’ve no concern for the backbone it takes to live according to our values. Shopping Cart Theory is just a free pass to feel superior regardless of how you live when it actually counts.