MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Alan give the laptop back?

Gekite

KidMoe wrote: »

He might as well have done, the end result is the same.

In your eyes maybe.

KidMoe

Gekite wrote: »

In your eyes maybe.

In the eyes of anyone with an ounce of moral fibre I would argue, but clearly we aren't going to change each other's minds on this.

If you could fleece someone, be it a big evil corporation or an individual out of that amount of money and sleep at night, then good for you. I certainly couldn't.

Gekite

KidMoe wrote: »

I'd quite equally apply that statement to your twisted justification of Alan's theft.

Very good, I notice that you don't feel morally bound to answer any of the points raised, instead taking the 'other' tactic of just equating Alan as some form of criminal. That's certainly not the correct moral behaviour of someone whos position had sound logical reasoning backing it up.

robellett

I took insurance from Curry's on a large electrical item, which later brokeand they couldn't repair it. I'm still awaiting the compensation from them, after 8 years - I'm mentally handicapped, and organisation is not my strong point. So, with a similar financial sum in my favour this time, I'd walk. They are in no rush to pay me back, despite many phone conversations!

stationaryace

fight, fight, fight, fight......

*sits back with a drink watching the action* :beer:


honestly, some people take this WAYYYYYYY too seriously! me, i'd pay the rest but then i would also have noticed and said something BEFORE the transaction was complete because that's just what i'm like. we all make mistakes, maybe not in the same way as this, but surely a bit of understanding is a lot better than being made to pay the hard way *i'm thinking of the cashier, since it is actually quite easy after a long shift to start doing typos*. plus, karma would probably dictate i'd have a car crash the following week :rolleyes:

KidMoe

Gekite wrote: »

Very good, I notice that you don't feel morally bound to answer any of the points raised, instead taking the 'other' tactic of just equating Alan as some form of criminal. That's certainly not the correct moral behaviour of someone whos position had sound logical reasoning backing it up.

Why should I be morally bound to answer each and every argument that you raise? That's a poor defininition of morality. I've already stated why i don't consider haggling and this dilemna to be the same. I can't be bothered to repeat myself when you aren't really reading what I'm typing anyway.

My moral code equates taking deliberate advantage of someone else's mistake is dishonest, and, in this case, equivalent to theft. Your moral code is completely internalised to ensure you gain advantages regardless of how questionable the action may be. If that's the way you want to live your life than great, but don't kid yourself it's a good example to set to others.

At this point, I'll point out two things. On internet forums, as soon as someone starts arguing semantics (as you have) you know they are effectively struggling to come up with anything sensible and it's time to make better use of your day. We are not going to agree, so what's the point of carrying on?

Two, I pressed the thanks button on your last post by mistake. Think of it as a sarcastic thanks for the entertainment.

Gekite

KidMoe wrote: »

In the eyes of anyone with an ounce of moral fibre I would argue, but clearly we aren't going to change each other's minds on this.

If you could fleece someone, be it a big evil corporation or an individual out of that amount of money and sleep at night, then good for you. I certainly couldn't.

I have more moral fibre in my little finger than most have become aware of, but my moral fibre isn't in question here. <showing indignation> Now that we got the old formalities of 'moral' conduct out of the way how about you argue it instead of resorting to morally questionable tactics!

They gladly offer it to Alan at that price and then accepted payment at that price.

Just who is fleecing who, are you so wrapped up in delusion that you no longer see clearly? You're so full of knowing what is wrong and right, that you no longer know up from down.

I can sleep at night because I have a clear conscience that has formed from a view of what is, from a knowledge that is continually forming as I ask even more questions and see the multitude of answers and possibilities that emanate from each one.

A.Jones

KidMoe wrote: »

In the eyes of anyone with an ounce of moral fibre I would argue, but clearly we aren't going to change each other's minds on this.

If you could fleece someone, be it a big evil corporation or an individual out of that amount of money and sleep at night, then good for you. I certainly couldn't.

The buyer has not fleeced a company or an individual. He has paid them the price that they asked for an item. Fleecing gives the impression that you have done something by deception. That is not the case here.

KidMoe

A.Jones wrote: »

The buyer has not fleeced a company or an individual. He has paid them the price that they asked for an item. Fleecing gives the impression that you have done something by deception. That is not the case here.

And round and round we go.

Alan has not paid the price asked for the item. The asking price was £399. Due to an error by the checkout operator he was actually charged £3.99, knowing full well the correct price was £399.

A.Jones

#140 No, the price asked for by the company was £3.99. The price asked for is the one in the contract, at the time the contract was made, at the checkout. The clue is in the question - After he'd paid, the manager came up and admited, that the laptop was legally his, but it was an obvious error by a trainee cashier on his first day.

There is no legal problem here, so just moral. Morally, I am happy paying the price that was asked for.