Deconstructing the Shopping Cart Theory: An Ethical Discussion

We have all heard of the shopping cart theory in some way or another. It gained popularity when it was shared as a “copypasta” (which, full disclosure, I don’t fully understand as a concept) and became the default virtue ethics rallying cry of the internet. While, in general, the “shopping cart theory” is harmless, it has the potential to become harmful when used as a litmus test for basic morality.

The shopping cart theory is simple. It postulates that what a person does with their shopping cart can tell you everything you need to know about their moral character. It assumes that returning the shopping cart to its appropriate resting place, usually some sort of corral, is the morally “right” thing to do. Using this assumption, it states that its the ultimate litmus test to determine if someone will choose to do the right thing when there is no benefit to them and when not doing the right thing will not cause anyone any harm or cause them any negative repercussions. It asserts that someone who does not return the cart is of morally questionable character and a “bad” member of society.

From an academic standpoint, this assertion is dishonest. However, this isn’t an academic assessment of the social theory of the shopping cart. Either way, it’s a narrow minded way of looking at morality and an unfair litmus test to put anyone under.

The biggest issue with this theory is its bias. The theory states that returning the cart is the OBJECTIVELY correct thing to do. This is the core of the theory, and the reason the theory fails. Returning the cart is morally neutral. It neither helps nor harms anyone, and has the potential to both help and harm. The same can be said for leaving the cart where it is. Any possible harm is theoretical – a schrodinger’s harm of shopping carts.

The theory also contradicts itself and presents a false equivalency. It refers to returning the shopping cart as an “easy, convenient task.” It then goes on to say that NOT returning the cart represents the full depth of a person’s moral code. THe theory establishes the shopping cart as a low-value moral object and yet asserts that it represents a high-value assessment of someone’s morality.

The reality is that there are countless reasons a person could not return the cart. Because it is such a low value task, it is easy for other priorities to take over it. The theory removes the humanity from making a decision, asserting that a small insignificant act represents the entirety of the human experience. 

There are three main schools of ethical thought: deontological, or rule based, ethics; utilitarian, or outcomes based, ethics; and virtue, or values based, ethics. This theory is the ultimate bastardization of virtue ethics. This theory dubiously purports that returning the shopping cart is both deontological and utilitarianly “correct” and therefore must be correct by virtue. This is a bastardized understanding of virtue ethics.

Virtue ethics suggests that something is moral if the person is doing it as a way to act out their values. A person can certainly believe that a good person returns the cart every time, and use the shopping cart theory as their justification. The issue comes when taking that virtue and applying it to every other person, without considering what their personal virtues are.