Got one simple question which literally blew my mind in my philosophy class. On my way out, my teacher asked me and my 2 classmates (only 3 of us had the balls to take the course) if we believed in universal ethics. As both of my classmates replied 'I don't know', I said 'yes, I believe that there's a moral/ethical code each human follows or it's mind is set to follow'. Then he asked me the following question:
You are 10 years old. You have a little sister who's 6 years old. Your father died in a car accident before you were born, and your mom has brain cancer. Thus, your family is extremely poor and can barely subsist but not progress. You have to go buy some bread for your family with very little money. Once you go there, the bread seller gives you twice as bread as you paid for (unintentionally, of course). How ethical would you behave in this situation? Would you return the bread?
Therefore I do not believe in moral universalism anymore, but in moral relativism. This question is open for debate.
Why wouldn't I keep it? Maybe because I think about far too many possibilities. What if the bread seller has it just as worse as I do? What if he's only one day from losing his business?
Maybe that won't happen, but it's a possibility.
And I'd rather have the trust of the bread seller than to have just extra bread for the night. Think about it, if I were to give back the bread, he would then realize that I am trustworthy enough to make up for his mistake. Really, a lot of people would just take advantage of the opportunity, but as a result they would have lost a possible connection with the bread seller.
Maybe in the future he could be a benefit to you just because of that action, sometimes even smallest actions amount in the largest reward. Oh and things do become habit, so if you take the bread, think about that coming a habit in the future, vice-versa.