MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Alan give the laptop back?

Gekite

ssgarri4 wrote: »

I am suprised at the amount of people that wouldnt give the laptop back!!!! stealing is stealing on any scale and talking yourself into stealing seems very easy for alot of you!!!!!

This tactic reminds me of reading about how it was decided if a person was a witch or not.

A person would just point the finger and scream witch at them, this was then taken up by others that unwittingly got caught up in the emotive feelings of such a cry.

Hasn't our morality moved on since such dark times, or aren't we as civilised as we like to thing!

IT IS NOT STEALING. I'm not really sure how much more clear it can be put over to you or those like you!

ssgarri4 wrote: »

'Its their mistake' is not an axcuse for stealing. Honesty is something that this world lacks and that most people lack. How infuriating to know that most of you would kick me or anybody else while i was down. ( and if somebody has done that to you , it is not a reason to do it to them) treat everybody how you would love to be treated please please please!!! think!!!!

Sounds like someone that is more out of touch with reality and is suffering because the world isn't in their image.

Treating others as you would be expected to be treated is an excellent place to start learning about how to be a more moral person. May I suggest you stop calling people criminals before you have evidence to back up such a claim! And further, to stop basing your judgement on such dubious grounds. As I said in an earlier post, being able to apply good judgement is a requirement of being able to be moral. Good judgement is developed from learning from the situation rather than from imposing ones desires onto the situation.

Gekite

boxoffireworks wrote: »

I'm not saying that - merely that if Alan knows that the price is wrong and he says nothing when he hands over the incorrect amount, whether asked for or not,it's theft.

The price isn't incorrect, Alan handed over the amount asked of him.

Gekite

andy_hunk wrote: »

_boxoffireworks wrote: »

When can theft ever be morally right?

Good point

Actually, as many will have already worked out through the either the course of life, studies, reflection, etc, etc. it can indeed be morally right to steal, or more correctly to, go against the prevailing attitudes and laws of what is to be deemed as stealing.

I mean you could ask when is breaking the law morally right! When the law is unjust!

Gekite

Myken wrote: »

The key here is that he knows he's been undercharged, and that makes his behaviour dishonest. He would certainly fall foul of s.1 of the Theft Act 1968 :

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

It's dishonest, if he knows he has been undercharged and has doubts about what he should do. He appropriates one of the rights of the owner, that is the right to charge the correct price for it.

Before you ask, I teach criminal law.

I really liked this post as it was a bit more believable, but aren't your just equivocating the two concepts of dishonest here. What does the act define dishonest as being? i.e you call it dishonest, the act says dishonest but the two meanings are not the same!

Another point is that we don't know at which point Alan knew of the pricing error. It might as easily have been on picking up the receipt, or even only when the manager mentioned it to him. So he wouldn't know as you put it! You assume far too much, not the sign of good law at all. You appear to be using parts of the law and twisting them to suit you own prejudicial stance!

If he did know at some point before paying then is not mentioning something a dishonest action, in and of itself? Is not mentioning something for gain a dishonest action in and of itself? Careful of the moral maze this leads down. And is this what the act means by a dishonest action! I think you'll find it isn't. What if it didn't actually register? You are assuming that he has wilfully and with fully knowledge set out to defraud the shop of this laptop! From what we are told this is not the case.

So much for morality and treating other people with consideration, and who one would like to be treated, eh!

All I can say is that there are a few people that obviously want to be flogged before the trial!

equivocate : Verb B]-cating[/B], [B]-cated[/B to use vague or ambiguous language in order to deceive someone or to avoid telling the truth.

Gekite

robpw2 wrote: »

i agree with dan
everyone claims to have morals etc but if it happened to them how many people would honestly speak out .

Everyone does. Some peoples moral sense is more finely attuned than others, some people have bigger muscles, can do maths better, can spell better etc. etc. Some people just haven't learnt how to apply their moral sense.

robpw2 wrote: »

I did when hotel chocolat gave me 20.oo change for a 20 note when i had bought 5.oo worth chocolate i went and told them but i think if it had been me with laptop i may not have been so honest

The issue with the laptop has nothing to do with being honest or dishonest, he paid the price that was charged for it. The debate over honesty is a rather dishonest attempt to emotional blackmail others into capitulating to one particular outlook. Other dishonest actions include threats of punishment and other such consequences of loss. It is a bankrupt and morally reprehensible attempt to subvert morality to ones own ends. I can only wonder at who came up with it!

Why is it to be thought of as honest to go around correcting everyone else's mistakes?

Should I resign my next game of golf because I only won due to my opponent making a few too many mistakes with their ball handling! What does that say about tiger woods! He's made millions out of other peoples mistakes.

A.Jones

robpw2 wrote: »

i agree with dan
everyone claims to have morals etc but if it happened to them how many people would honestly speak out .

I have morals. But they might be different to other people's morals.

In this situation, my moral code is that once a deal has been agreed, paid for, and completed, it is final. I personally don't think it is moral for one of the parties to put pressure on the other party to try to change the agreement. I especially don't think it is moral, for example, if the manager tried to pressure me into returning an item by saying that he would fire the trainee, or fine them a week's wages or the cost of the item.

Other people may have a moral code that if someone makes a mistake, then they should do everything they can to put the other persons mistake right, even if that means they have to take a loss because of it. Some of these people would try to stick to their moral code, but also want or expect something back (a discount, laptop bag) for being "honest". So their actions may be guided by their moral instinct, but they are not following them strictly.

Other people have the moral code that it is wrong to bargain or ask for a discount. The price someone shows is the price the retailer wants. You can either decide to take it at that price or refuse to buy. If you want it, you have to pay that price. If you try to get a discount, it is no different to taking money from the person selling it to you. So, following their morals, they do not try for a discount.

There is no single moral code, be it religious, sexual, or financial. That is why we need laws, rather than morals, to ensure everyone behaves fairly. People cannot agree on morals.

Karina_Marshall

If the manager hadn't come and spoken to me about it, I have to be honest, I'd probably take it. However, being a coward I'd probably ask for a discount instead :rotfl:

pio1

NOPE (DO NOT SEND IT BACK!!!!)

The way I see is that the world is not a charity and if the store has made a mistake of this magnitude then tough luck.

What do you get for being moral no where, and as for my concience well everytime i used it i would have a big smile on my face knowing this laptop just cost me £3.99.

All I want to know is where this store is at!!!!!!!

mattarosa

Of course, he should give the laptop back, or pay the correct price. He knew the price was £399 so obtaining it for £3.99 by not pointing out the error was dishonest, little different from theft.

Rocketeer

It is my understanding from a legal viewpoint that a contract is based on offer and acceptance. The shop offered £3.99 and Alan accepted by handing over payment. Therefore the contract is legally binding and the shop has no right to void it.