The Supercilious Shopping Cart Test

For years there has been a so-called “test” that is intended to be an easy determiner of whether or not someone is a good or bad member of society. Like many philosophical exercises it seems good on the surface, but under any serious scrutiny it becomes obvious that it is significantly flawed and does little besides inflate the egos of the people whom invoke it without actually demanding anything of themselves. It is called “The Shopping Cart Test” and before addressing it’s parts, here is the text in full: 

“The shopping cart is the ultimate litmus test for whether a person is capable of self-governing. To return the shopping cart is an easy convenient task and one 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. The Shopping Cart Theory, therefore, is a great litmus test on whether a person is a good or bad member of society.” 

Juggling Premises 

Before judging the particulars of this assessment it is important to address both what it purports itself to be as well as it’s conclusion. In the beginning it asserts that “the shopping cart is the ultimate litmus test for whether a person is capable of self-governing,” yet it ends by claiming “The Shopping Cart Theory, therefore, is a great litmus test on whether or not a person is a good or bad member of society.” What happens here is that the gives a premise of what is being tested and then moves the marker while the exercise is underway. It purports to examine a persons capacity for self governance, and then switches to passing a moral judgment while an individual is examining the argument. If the exercise tests a person to see if they are capable of self-governance, then failing the test merely shows that one is incapable of self governance. But a person being incapable of self-governing is not an indication of a person being a bad member of society. There are many people who are incapable of serious self-governance who nonetheless are still good (or moral) members of society. 

Virtuous or Vicious 

As to something we do agree on. “To return the shopping cart is an easy convenient task and one we all recognize as the correct, appropriate thing to do.” Returning the cart is definitely easy, and it is also commonly recognized as correct and appropriate. However, just because something is right to do it does not follow that it is wrong to do otherwise. For instance, if your neighbors lawn is overgrown and their mower is broken, it would be the right thing to do to mow their lawn for them while they are trying to fix it. However, it would not necessarily be wrong for you not to. There is virtuous behavior and there is vicious behavior, but the lack of a particular virtue does not necessarily equate the presence of an opposing vice. There are those virtues by which a lack signifies a vice, however there are also those virtues whereby there is not necessarily a corresponding vice, but that the virtue is a virtue itself, it is virtue in excess. If practiced habitually this could even be called a heroic virtue. 

While virtue that incurs a great cost is itself heroic, heroic virtue is not limited to individual great acts. The continual and habitual practice of excess virtue which accumulated produce great inconvenience or cost to an individual can be a heroic virtue, maybe even more so than a single act. The one who practices habitual virtue incurring inconvenience and cost incurs that cost to themselves not just in a moment, or for a time, but for the whole of their life. 

There are consequently those virtues of which one must possess in order to not be vicious.

One may call the minimum virtues of which there is by nature a corresponding vice, that if one lacks the virtue it follows they are by definition vicious. While a bare possession of every minimum virtue would be necessary to be considered a virtuous person, it would not itself

make them a virtuous person. It only makes them capable of being virtuous. It would take an excess of one or more of these virtues, or possession of other excess virtues to make a person virtuous. Which excess an individual person must possess in order to be virtuous however, is a different question and one which will be addressed later. 

Objectivity 

The next claim is particularly perplexing. It is not perplexing because it make an unclear assertion, but because the assertion itself relies on a presupposition. It assumes a particular belief which may not be held by the one who hears the proposition, or even by the one who invokes the shopping cart test. The test asserts “to return the shopping cart is objectively right.” If anyone were to think about this question with any depth beyond how they may wield it as a weapon by which they may signal their moral superiority, there is a problem with this assumption. The problem is that not everyone believes in objective moral truths, not even those who make objective moral statements. 

As opposed to the view that morality is objective, there is also the view that morality is entirely subjective. Unfortunately the shopping cart test is predicated upon the prior and not on the latter, nor could it be predicated upon the latter as subjective morality is wholly insufficient for this exercise. However, it is not merely enough to assert that subjective morality would be insufficient for this argument, it must be demonstrated. 

First we must assert that objective morality refers to moral values that are intrinsic to reality, and thus being intrinsic to reality they are an object in their own right (how so is a discussion for another time). Subjective morality would be moral principles that are subject to something within reality. They are not intrinsic but subject to something else. So the question is what are these principles subject to? If they are from a person, then what part of a person? If they are from a person then they are from the mind and the mind being made of matter they are subject to matter, that is to say reality. 

But is that which is contained in the mind in accord with reality? Is it true? For to be true is to be in accord with fact and reality. But the mind creates an image of that which it observes, and that image may be in accord with fact and reality, or it may not be in accord with fact and reality, and consequently it may be true or untrue. 

So let us call that image which is contained in the mind the imagination. There is objective reality, and there is the mind, which being mad of matter is objective as well. But the imagination is subject to the mind and gives an image of how the mind perceives reality. If what is perceived in the imagination conforms to reality, then the contents are objectively true. But if what is perceived in the imagination does not conform to reality, then the contents are objectively false as they do not conform to objective reality. Now whatever is perceived in the imagination, even if it is objectively false in itself, it is also objectively true that the imagination in question perceives such a thing to be true. Thus such a proposition would be subjectively true, but objectively false. However, when what one subjectively considers to be true is objectively false, we call this error. 

The Types of Error 

Now a proposition may be objectively false for one of two reasons. The first would be a lack of information. If one has been deprived of the information needed to come to a conclusion which is in accord with fact and reality, then one would be in error due to ignorance. Ignorance is typically viewed and treated as a vice although it is not necessarily vicious nor should those who are ignorant be treated as such. I am ignorant of many things, such as anything beyond basic astrophysics or basic cellular biology. I don’t know the names of all the planets (nor do I care to), I can’t recite the books of the bible, and I don’t know the names of all the parts of the cell.  

Regarding ignorance, one must consider what of itself one should know. There is information that a person should be aware of if they want to be of use to themselves or others and a functioning member of society. Then there is information that a person should know, but has never been exposed to or even made aware that they should pursue (and this happens frequently in modern society). While they should know this information, it is often the case that the lack of knowledge may be as much or more the fault of those responsible for educating the individual as it is the individual themselves. Unfortunately, simply because one is not culpable for their lack of knowledge does not mean that they don’t suffer the consequence of that lacking.  

Now while ignorance is now always a vice, it can become a vice if it becomes willful ignorance. Willful ignorance occurs when a person when a person has the reasonable capability to become informed on a topic of relatively significant importance but they choose not to inform themselves. In this case the person is ignorant through an act of the will as

opposed to a victim of circumstance (although they can be ignorant through a combination of both). Willful ignorance can quickly become the second form of error. 

The second reason a proposition may be objectively false is due to delusion. This occurs when a person has all the information they reasonably need to come to a correct conclusion beyond willful ignorance, and they willfully decide to endorse a proposition contrary to fact and reality anyway. Mental disorders (which themselves suggest a proper order for the mind) are one of the few forms of delusion which result not in a vice, but in confusion. Otherwise, to will to believe that which is not in accord with fact and reality, especially when one has sufficient evidence to the contrary, is a vice, and thus makes its possessor vicious. 

Objectively Right or Objectively Right 

Having addressed the fact that this test refers itself to “objective right” and the types of error regarding right, we address not just what it means to be ‘objectively’ right, but also what it means to be objectively ‘right.’ We briefly touched on the idea of morality being an intrinsic value and of subjectivity. In treating of morality we must also speak of what we mean by ‘right.” 

We can speak of right in the sense of simply being correct. If one asks if the earth is round or flat, it is true that the earth is more spherical than it is flat. If one asks if the earth is the center of the universe, the truth is that it is not. If one were to ask what 1+1 equals, the answer it two. These are right statements, but they are statements of scientific or statistical fact. One might call it the empirical sense of the word. 

The other is to speak of right in the sense of due and proper. It is proper that a man not be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty or property without cause. It is right that a person not steal that which does not belong to them. It is right that a man not torture a child for their own amusement. We are not speaking of scientific or statistical facts here, we are speaking of moral truths. But for it to be morally true it must be objectively so. It must be an intrinsic moral truth which is true in every society, in every place, at every time. 

Imagine if moral truths were not intrinsic but subjective. What would they be subjective to? We already discussed the mind, but that doesn’t make it a moral truth it makes it an opinion, or a preference. What if it were subjective to society? Well societies are made up of people, and consequently their minds, and therefore morality would simply be popular opinion or preference. Then one needs to ask, “is popular preference more important than personal preference?” It doesn’t make it ‘right’ in the moral sense of the word, nor does it make it ‘right’ in the empirical sense of the world. It just makes ‘it.’ It just means that is the way it is. If popular preference prevails then that is, and if personal preference prevails then that is. But either way it makes neither right nor right. 

Other Types of Error 

So we have the true and the false, the objective and the subjective, ignorance and delusion, and finally the empirical right and the moral right. We have asserted that truth is that which is in accord with fact and reality and falsehood is that which is opposed to fact and reality (that is not in accord with it). Also that the objective is reality itself, and subjective is how we imagine that same reality. We have also established the ways the subjective imagination may be in error about objective reality, that is through error or delusion. And finally the difference between what is meant by being right empirically, and right morally. 

Yet there are two different types of error. We are not here speaking of ignorance verses delusion, but type of error common to both ignorance or delusion. Say we work in the same building and I see our coworker Billy walking down a hall that ends at a T. If I tell you Billy walked off to the right but Billy really walked off to the left, what I said is in error because it gives incorrect information about events that transpired. But imagine I tell you Billy walked off to the right and you say “There is no Billy.” Let’s say there has never been a Billy that worked at that company. Then what I said is not wrong simply because I gave incorrect information., it is wrong because there is no reality to which said information refers. In the first case I am in error because Billy did something else, in the second case I am in error because there is no Billy. 

And then we come back to the claim in the shopping cart test. “To return the shopping cart is objectively right.” This whole exercise with the shopping cart rests on the premise that morality is objective. Yet many who will invoke this test will deny objective morality and insist that morality is subjective. But as we have demonstrated, whether subject to society, or the individual, or the imagination, or the mind, if the premise does not conform to objective reality, then it is by definition false.

Many have suggested that there is no objective morality, but that moral codes are created by societies who enforce these codes through various social or punitive means. Now if there is a such thing as objective morality, then there are certain things that really were right and really were wrong to do, and each society may have been more or less correct about what that moral law was. On the other hand, if there is no objective morality, then each of these societies, as well as anyone who proposes that morality is merely subjective, are in error. They are in error in the same way that we were in error when we said Billy went to the right when in fact there was no Billy, or theologian would be wrong if there were no God. 

Regarding Consensus 

Before continuing on with the Shopping Cart Test, we need to backtrack a moment and consider a claim in light of what we have here discussed concerning objective morality. “To return the shopping cart is an easy convenient task and one we all recognize as the correct, appropriate thing to do.” As we discussed objective morality is not subjective to an imagination, a mind, a person nor even a society. Thus while it is true that it is an easy and convenient task, it is irrelevant whether or not we all recognize it as the correct, appropriate thing to do. If we all recognize it as correct and appropriate, if that is not objectively true, or there is no objective reality, then we are wrong. Consequently, if none of us recognize it as the correct and appropriate thing to do, but it is is the objectively right thing to do, we are likewise wrong. It is not our recognition that makes an action right, it is either right in itself or it is not (not taking into account the nuance considering authority). To be clear, it is correct and appropriate to return your shopping cart, but the fact we recognize that is irrelevant. 

Lack of Circumspection 

Interestingly, as much as there was to unpack in the first three sentences (which if it a surprise to you it is equally so to me), the rest of the test builds a single point which is easily addressed once the implications of the first three sentences are thoroughly examined and their implications understood. It goes on to say “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.” 

So to go through some of the smaller points quickly. “There are no situations other than dire emergencies in which a person is not able to return their cart.” This is a side tangent, but I would like to point out that this is not technically true, but not for the reason one might think. If you refer earlier in this article (heading “Objectively Right or Objectively Right”) I said “If one asks if the earth is round or flat, it is true that the earth is more spherical than it is flat.” I had originally written it as something like “If I were to say the earth is round, that would be true.” However, there would have been some insufferable twit who would have responded with a “well actually……” and an explanation as to how the world is not technically round. There is what is being said, and there is what is being asserted. Saying “the world is round” is technically wrong, but what is being asserted, that the world is more round than flat, is true. In the same way, while “there are no situations other than dire emergencies” is not technically true, what is being asserted in that sentence is true. It is a normative statement, not an exhaustive one. 

That excursion aside, the test begins to build its case. “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.” This is partly right and partly wrong, but mostly wrong. First, from this premise, even when combined with the previous premises if properly understood, it still does not follow that the shopping cart presents itself as the ‘apex’ example of whether a person will do what is right without being forced to do it. It does not even necessarily provide a good example of whether a person will do what is right without being forced to do it. It definitely doesn’t even prove a person will do what is right even when they are being forced to do it.  

Case in point is the point that was made “simultaneously, it is not illegal to abandon your shopping cart.” How many people break the law in little ways either because they don’t think the law is that important, or because they think they can get away with it. This can be little thefts, or something as simple as speeding. Speeding is a criminal act (differentiating between crime and civil violation can be done elsewhere, but it is a crime in Texas), and to intentionally speed does technically makes you a criminal (there is a whole other discussion to be had on the nuances regarding authority, and likewise a whole other discussion that can be had on what crimes makes one truly a criminal). This demonstrates a lack of circumspection on both the writer and those who so zealously hold to and promote the shopping cart test as truly revealing of a persons moral worth. For if a failure to return a shopping cart reveals someone as not being able to do what is right unless they are forced, what does speeding say about someone who is not able to do what is right even when force is threatened. Like this test says “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,” however, they will punish and fine you if they catch you speeding and that does not seem to be a deterrent. 

I say that this piece suffers from a severe lack of circumspection because it creates something of an interesting paradox. It simultaneously proves to little and proves too much. It fails to prove whether a person who fails to put back a shopping cart is incapable of doing the right thing unless they are forced, but it does prove everyone else as being worse than the person who fails to put back a shopping cart (not to mention other non-speeding issues). 

Bare and Excess Virtues 

In rounding out this discussion we must recall our earlier discussion on Virtues and Vices in conjunction with what we just said regarding the lack of circumspection. This test next asserts “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.” 

Consider what we spoke of regarding bare and excess virtue. “You gain nothing by returning the shopping cart.” This is true, but all it does is demonstrate that returning a cart is an excess virtue. It also says “you must return the shopping cart out of the goodness of your own heart.” Interestingly this is wrong for two reasons. First of all because like “You gain nothing” “you must return the shopping cart out of the goodness of your heart,” would only demonstrate an excess of virtue. Secondly, recall I stated that there is a whole discussion to be had on the nuances of authority and objective morality. I do not intend to defend the position here but simply assert that it is an objective moral truth that one is to observe the competent authorities within their sphere of authority. Likewise, there are certain established social norms that by virtue of their normalization and being themselves not contrary to the moral law, one would be morally negligent and thus vicious not to observe them depending upon the extent to which they affect society (such as if one either negligently or maliciously take advantage of a social norm, ignoring it to the detriment of the members of that society). I say “I do not intend to defend the position here”, because why the proposition is true is irrelevant to its effect on this discussion. Simply, it must be necessary that violating social norms is vicious in order for a failure to return a shopping cart to make a person vicious. If violating social norms is not a vicious or immoral act, then not returning a shopping cart cannot be for that reason. Simply requiring citing that a person must do it “out of the goodness of their heart,” as opposed to coercion is not sufficient for the reason I first gave. It only demonstrates an excess of virtue. 

This becomes problematic for many, because there are many who will deny the moral worth of social norms, and often based on subjective reasons. 

It seems unnecessary to address the next few lines, “You must return the shopping cart because it is the right thing to do. Because it is correct,” as we treated that subject ad nauseam over several sections (Virtuous or Vicious, Objectivity, The Types of Error, Objectively Right or Objectively Right and Other Types of Error). Essentially the majority of this article. 

Final Remarks 

This whole exercise concludes stating “The Shopping Cart Theory, therefore, is a great litmus test on whether a person is a good or bad member of society.” I would agree that whether or not a person returns their shopping cart can be evidence in a cumulative case to prove whether or not a person is a good or bad member of society, it is woefully sufficient to make any sort of real moral judgment, or even to judge a person as being lazy. Such a failure may have itself been vicious, but the rejection of the moral value of social norms in this day and age, along with the rejection of objective moral truths, compromises the premise. In a society of moral relativism, many people have genuinely embraced the proposition that it doesn’t really matter. While this may excuse them of moral culpability regarding returning a shopping cart, it does not necessarily excuse them of moral culpability in other areas, even some which are both legal and have consensus. And for that reason also it fails, because there are many people who do or support great evil, but still return their shopping cart. So it proves nothing. 

I would like to conclude with an anecdote from my own life, and it regards love. If you had asked me when my children were young if I loved them, I would have told you “Of course I love my children. I work hard for them. I take them on outings. I buy them gifts. I spend time with them.” But years later looking back, I have to admit now that I didn’t love my kids. I loved how they made me feel. I engaged in many vicious habits which the world (and likely many readers) considers acceptable and maybe even virtuous. I did all these things because if I did them it made me a good father. And if I was a good father I was a good person. And if I was a good person it didn’t really matter what other vices I engaged in because they didn’t make me a bad person in light of my fatherhood. Once I noticed it in myself I began to notice it in the world around me. With almost, if not, everyone. It is an epidemic in society, and of all the places I have seen it, I see it especially in this Shopping Cart Test. This test seems to be above all things, a way that people can look down their noses at others and say “O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity-greedy, dishonest, adulterous, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.” (Luke 18:11-12) except here all they say is “thank goodness I’m not like that lazybones who didn’t return their cart.” 

Should you return your cart, absolutely. Does failing to return it make you bad member of society, absolutely not. If you want to actually be a virtuous person however, I would say “return your cart, stop speeding, and stop being a supercilious prig who loves to virtue signal.”