Moral dilemma

larkim

Thanks for the character assassination!! That's a point I recognise myself though.

When the cornershop staff put 11 penny chews in my bag when I only ask for 10 (and they charge me for 10), am I being dishonest "bordering on thievery" when I don't return said sweet to the shop? How legitimate is it to benefit from a mistake (genuinely made, and not induced in any way) made by an employee of a company?

I have a route to moral purity easily available to me, I accept that. I'm after the sense of the "man on the Clapham omnibus" - how reasonable is it to expect me to reverse their error?

(For what its worth, my wife has one view, and I have another!)

Matt

larkim

bb999 wrote: »

And I know the theory, all these little bits add up...

I think the apposite phrase you were looking for was "every little helps"

Matt

bb999

unholyangel wrote: »

by "inefficiency" i think you mean "dishonest customers who are bordering on thievery" - being that they are using dishonest means with the intent to permanently deprive the other of their goods

No, by 'inefficiency' I mean sending out a parcel which has already been cancelled and refunded, and not having the processes in place to stop this happening

fluffnutter

larkim wrote: »

Thanks for the character assassination!! That's a point I recognise myself though.

When the cornershop staff put 11 penny chews in my bag when I only ask for 10 (and they charge me for 10), am I being dishonest "bordering on thievery" when I don't return said sweet to the shop? How legitimate is it to benefit from a mistake (genuinely made, and not induced in any way) made by an employee of a company?

I have a route to moral purity easily available to me, I accept that. I'm after the sense of the "man on the Clapham omnibus" - how reasonable is it to expect me to reverse their error?

(For what its worth, my wife has one view, and I have another!)

Matt

Everyone's moral compass is set slightly differently. It's very difficult to be black and white about many dilemmas.

What would you do if the mistake amounted to a penny?
Would you do the same thing if it amounted to a thousand pounds?
Would you hand in money you'd found in the street?
What if that money were inside a wallet with contact details?
What if you're just lost your job, Christmas was coming and you were sad you couldn't buy your children any presents?

Morality is fluid - it depends on personal circumstances and attitude. At the end of the day, you have only your own conscience to satisfy. No one can make moral decisions for other people.

Legal ones however... that's a bit different! If you knowingly keep something that's not yours, then that's theft, regardless of value. Whether you're happy breaking the law or not is back to a moral question and only one you can answer yourself....

larkim

fluffnutter wrote: »

Legal ones however... that's a bit different! If you knowingly keep something that's not yours, then that's theft, regardless of value. Whether you're happy breaking the law or not is back to a moral question and only one you can answer yourself....

Actually, theft is "dishonestly appropriat[ing] property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it", and the nub of the question is "property belonging to another" (or in your terms "something that's not yours").

In good faith I have arrived at Tescos and in good faith received something. Do the goods still belong to Tescos? Or are they "mine" at that point? Walking away from the store, I believe that I have my goods in my possession, and they believe that I have my goods in my possession. When I discover the box in fact isn't what I expected it to be, does it cease to be "mine"? The absence of a contract for me to purchase the said item from them is irrelevant as title to goods can pass without a contract (gifts for example).

I'm labouring the point only for interesting debate; as I say, I'm comfortable with what I believe in my moral compass!!

(As an aside, I reckon that if I returned the goods the scenario would be sufficiently complicated for one of two things to happen; either the store manager would say "OK, thanks - its too complicated to sort out, shall we agree that we'll give this as a gift to a local charity" or they'd !!!! up the return again and give me a new refund! Or perhaps they'd just get it right...)

A few years ago I bought an amplifier online for my stereo. I ordered an XX-20 (say) and it was delivered. Only about 6 months later I realised that what they had supplied was an XX-20 Special Edition, which retailed at 60% more than the non-special edition model. I believe in that case that it is reasonable now to assume that either the retailer has recognised his mistake, and made a business decision to let sleeping dogs lie and not upset a potential repeat customer, or that the retailer did not recognise his mistake at all but still believed he had passed title to the contents of that box to me. A paragon of virtue might still have got in touch with the retailer, but I think in a population of 60million in the UK, you could count the number of such paragons on the fingers of one hand. I might be wrong...

As an aside, a man in Liverpool (I recall, I was working there at the time) was prosecuted and imprisoned for theft from Costco when he discovered that a large plasma TV was being displayed and sold at a ridiculous price (e.g. £100 for a £1000 TV). His offence wasn't the first purchase, which I believe was held to be just a commercial risk of trading for Costco (consumers aren't generally expected to be accountable for mopping up mistakes of retailers), but he returned on 3 separate occasions to buy the same TV again and again, which he was then reselling on at a profit. Then he was held to have intentionally taken advantage of an error which he knew the company would make and that prior intent made the activity criminal.

Matt

unholyangel

larkim wrote: »

Thanks for the character assassination!! That's a point I recognise myself though.

When the cornershop staff put 11 penny chews in my bag when I only ask for 10 (and they charge me for 10), am I being dishonest "bordering on thievery" when I don't return said sweet to the shop? How legitimate is it to benefit from a mistake (genuinely made, and not induced in any way) made by an employee of a company?

I have a route to moral purity easily available to me, I accept that. I'm after the sense of the "man on the Clapham omnibus" - how reasonable is it to expect me to reverse their error?

(For what its worth, my wife has one view, and I have another!)

Matt

For what its worth i was more referring to the "customers" who actually make a living from it or who would keep the goods without question!

bb999 wrote: »

No, by 'inefficiency' I mean sending out a parcel which has already been cancelled and refunded, and not having the processes in place to stop this happening

But you were referring to loss. Their inefficiency isnt solely responsible for the loss, the customers dishonesty is because without that dishonesty, there would be no loss. To say otherwise is basically saying that scam victims are always 100% responsible for their loss because regardless of the procedures/checks etc they carry out....they still get scammed. And are you also now saying that shoplifting is the shops fault too because they dont have watertight processes to stop it? Same with murder and the police? Whats that saying? Oh yes, make something idiot proof and they'll just make a better idiot.

We should all be more forgiving of others mistakes in the hopes that the same forgiveness will be shown to us for the mistakes we ourselves make. Or are you telling me you're not human and don't make mistakes?

larkim

unholyangel wrote: »

And are you also now saying that shoplifting is the shops fault too because they dont have watertight processes to stop it? Same with murder and the police? Whats that saying? Oh yes, make something idiot proof and they'll just make a better idiot.

But the difference there is intent at the time of the transaction, and intent is a very very important factor in most criminal law situations.

unholyangel wrote: »

We should all be more forgiving of others mistakes in the hopes that the same forgiveness will be shown to us for the mistakes we ourselves make.

Fully agree!

And who is to say that in my scenario the local store boss hasn't already spotted the issue and has deducted the cost of goods from the employees salary? (Highly unlikely I know, but it does happen in some environments - you make the mistake, Mr Employee, you pay the consequences)

Matt

arcon5

Is this a moral dilema or a legal dilema?

I'm fairly certain by intending to keep them and therefore permanently deprive Tesco of goods legally theirs then it's classed as theft. So the dilema is, i'm fairly certain I will get away with this so should I commit an act of theft or return the goods ?

If you keep them, then do so under the illusion that it is wrong and your happy with that. But don't try to find justification for your actions when if you do keep them it is clear to us all that your moral compass is facing south.

halibut2209

larkim wrote: »

As an aside, a man in Liverpool (I recall, I was working there at the time) was prosecuted and imprisoned for theft from Costco when he discovered that a large plasma TV was being displayed and sold at a ridiculous price (e.g. £100 for a £1000 TV). His offence wasn't the first purchase, which I believe was held to be just a commercial risk of trading for Costco (consumers aren't generally expected to be accountable for mopping up mistakes of retailers), but he returned on 3 separate occasions to buy the same TV again and again, which he was then reselling on at a profit. Then he was held to have intentionally taken advantage of an error which he knew the company would make and that prior intent made the activity criminal.

Absolute baloney. Do you have a source for that?

jonnyd281

OP What are you going to do if you get to Tescos and they no sorry you can't have the correct item, you've already collected it?