In my mind the only question is a legal question. I see it as unquestionably unethical, though.
You didn't answer any of my points. Wow. You successfully evaded every point I made. Congratulations ;-)
What do you refer to when you say "it" as in "it is unquestionably unethical". Are you referring to any form of stealing, as in, every form of stealing is illegal? Including downloading music illegally and pirating software? Or do you exclude downloading music illegally and pirating from stealing?
And then the question: What's the difference, ethically, between shoplifting and downloading music illegally? Consider the particular case of downloading music illegally from a struggling band in contrast to shoplifting from Walmart's. Do you think both are unethical? Consider the possibility that the illegal downloading is more unethical, as the loss is much more significant for the band than it is for an excessively rich retail chain like Walmart.
Finally I find something that says otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust_enrichment
That makes sense now.
That's a nice article you found there.
"Liability under the principle of unjust enrichment is wholly independent of liability for wrongdoing. Claims in unjust enrichment do not depend upon proof of any wrong. Having said that, it is possible that on a single set of facts a claim based on unjust enrichment and a claim based on a wrong may both be available. A claim based on unjust enrichment always results in an obligation to make restitution. A claim based on a wrong always results in an obligation to make compensation, but may additionally result in an obligation to make restitution. For discussion of restitution for wrongs, see the page on restitution."
So basically, if they can't prove that the person taking the extra change was aware of it, the person would have to return the money (restitution). If there is proof that the person taking the extra change was aware of it (committing a wrong) then there would be an obligation for compensation (analogous to penalties for stealing).
I think we can pretty much deduce from the content of this article that Hagen's action does qualify for stealing not only ethically but also by the law, as the law implies that knowingly taking the extra change is a wrongdoing that can result in legal consequences requiring compensation.
