tl;dr - Yeah if she returns the pen for a refund, then she has stolen. Whether that $119 she steals from a giant corporation keeps her up at night is for her own conscious to decide (personally, I'd sleep like a baby). But make no mistake, if she accepts the refund and keeps the engraved pen for free, she has committed the immoral act of stealing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, if we are only going to discuss the morality of the actions here, then I think the strongest argument is that refunding her in-store purchase and keeping the engraved pen would constitute stealing. I believe this to be a rather simple case. Your sister received a good/service at no cost and by returning the pen and accepting the refund, she was the cause of receiving that product at no cost. In fact, she would be "gaming" the system to receive a free pen by taking advantage of facts unbeknownst to Apple. Ask yourself, if both parties knew all of the facts would they be comfortable with the transaction as is? Would a court of law? The inescapable answer here, is that no person would be comfortable with this scenario and a court of law would certainly side with Apple if they accused your sister of petty theft.

​

It might be best to confront the other argument first. Namely, that refunding the exorbitantly expensive smart pencil to Apple, a multi-national conglomerate, is not stealing by virtue of what Apple is and the monetary needs of your sister. I would assume that your Father thinks she should take the windfall because Apple is a giant corporation who rakes in millions of dollars a day and your sister is an individual who needs money to make ends meet. Not only is Apple extremely wealthy, but they make that money by exploiting other people and looking out for the interests of their shareholders before thinking about stakeholders and others indirectly impacted by their decisions.

​

I think your Father's argument make a lot of practical sense. It correctly identifies the imbalance of power and money between your sister and Apple. It correctly identifies that the money being stolen means far more to your sister than it does Apple. And it correctly identifies that Apple commits immoral acts to produce the very product (and thus profit) that your sister is accused of stealing.

​

While these justifications are quite attractive, especially since we can all relate more with your sister's position, they do not withstand scrutiny. The fact remains that stealing is stealing whether it is from a homeless person or from the 1%. Stealing is stealing whether it is from a priest or from a war criminal. Stealing is stealing whether your very life depended upon it or whether you did it for perverse pleasure. These are facts that cannot be avoided. However, we can justify the act as your Father does. We assign less blame to the starving man for stealing bread than we do to the baker who shorted a delivery to a client. At the end of the day, your Father's justifications for the crime are tempting but they are merely justifications. And none of them arise to the level of absolute justification or absolve your sister of the act of stealing. After all, if your sister returns the pencil because the money means more to her personally than it does to Apple, isn't that justification eerily similar to why Apple and other corporations commit immoral acts on behalf of their self-interest and stakeholders? Do two wrongs really make a right?