Subject:
|
The role of ethics (was: The Free Super Chiefs)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 24 Mar 2002 13:34:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
612 times
|
| |
|
|
This whole topic comes down, in my opinion, to meaningless without agreeing on
the role of some kind of ethics.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy Scott writes:
> Note: It is against my rules to post here but because of the recent
> activity, which was caused by me, I decided to break that rule to address
> this issue and not ignore it. However, I am not here to stay...
:-)
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Trobaugh writes:
> > First comments like ” So, my Dad said, "just to spite you, I'll have my Mom
> > order 3 for herself!" and hung up the phone” isn’t really a physical threat
> > but more of an “I’ll show you that I can beat the system” kind of threat.
> > That’s just not the kind of thing I (this is just me now, you may do
> > whatever you want) would want my son bragging about.
>
> I wasn't bragging about his actions over the phone.
My first thought was that you were probably lying. After all, what adult would
say that? You claim to be fifteen and that activity seems more in line with a
fifteen year old's fancy of tough talk. But I could certainly be wrong. I am
continually surprised by the actions of people. I wonder if that will ever
cease.
> Next off, yes, we were trying to beat the system. I wanted more that 3 and
> if there is a way, yes I will use it.
Quite. Though, this does bring us back to the scenario of nipping the sets of
a delivery cart propsed by Dave! What exactly do you mean by "if there is a
way [to beat the system]...I will use it?" How far would you go? I want it
stated up front that I don't have any of these sets, so you needn't burglarize
my home for them.
> My Dad told the guy off in a rude
> manner that wasn't neccesary but wheather or not he had said that, we still
> would have had my Grandma do what she did, we still would have beat the
> system.
So?
> Okay, well McDonalds once gave me two BigMacs in my order when I only paid
> for 2.
Sounds OK to me...except for the ue of beef of course. ;-)
> I went back and they said keep it. Why, it wasn't worth it to take
> it back. So I got 2 BigMacs and a tummy ache for free. The morale: Human
> error is part of the world. If they screw up, they usually let it be.
Assuming that you meant to describe a situation in which you got more than you
ordered, you still also presented the problem back to the error source for
remediation. They told you to keep it and nothing was wrong. When I was a
teen, my buddy Mike worked at the McDonalds near where we loitered and if I'd
order a cheeseburger and a small coke, I would somehow walk away with two
quarter pounders a large fries and a large coke. We were stealing. You were
not.
To dismiss your $120 S@H situation with "error [happens]...they usually let it
be" based on a single $2 incident at a McDonalds is ludicrous. First of all
the difference in value is significant. Second, the food -- once it leaves the
vondor's hands can not be reserved so even if they took it back it would just
go in the waste can. There would be no point in their reclaiming it. And
third, assuming that someone who 'lost' something would probably just let you
have it, and using that assumption as a justification for keeping it is
negligent. If you want to do the commonly accepted 'right' thing, then call
them (which you later claim to have done) and give them the opportunity to make
things right.
Or, as seems more in keeping with your expressed stance, just suck up the fact
that you disagree with us on morality and don't mind this kind of 'stealing.'
I think it's really a stretch to call it stealing (like it's a stretch to call
IP piracy stealing), but it is something icky. And if you're comfortable with
taking things that don't really belong to you, then either don't advertise it
or accept that those hollier than thou folks out there will lambast you. Why
not just sit back and chuckle at our naiveté?
> If I found a penny on the ground and saw who dropped it, I would give it
> back.
Why?
> If I found it and no one was around, I would keep it.
I don't bother to pick them up.
> Now increase
> the value to say, $300.00. No one was around. Should I keep it? No, I
> should persue returning it. Why the change? The value.
The perceived value, I think. Remember too, that there are people for whom
$300 is as insignificant as the penny is to you. Does that change anything?
What steps should you take to return the $300? Do you believe that if you turn
it in to the police that if it isn't claimed by the rightful owner, that it
will go back to you? Don't count on it.
> The 10020's cost pittance to make and sell,
Gee, then why don't you do it?
> the $40.00 price tag makes the company lots of money.
Oh yeah? How much? From where did you figures come?
> To them, what I got was worth probably 20.00 total
> to make and market and ship.
If that were true, don't you think they'd be more profitable? Obviously this
is leading to a pathetic attempt to justify your theft. You need to get beyond
the need to do that. Either lie, cheat, and steal -- and glory in the fact
that the universe really is based on 'might makes right' or stop trying to fool
yourself and send them back.
> I paid that times 15 to get the 8 that I paid for.
Damn! You're loaded. I wish my finances at fifteen aproximated yours.
> They made up thier losses in me alone.
Hypothetical losses that you don't really know anything about...more of that
sad rationalization.
> To get the item shipped back
> will be $10.00, plus the $10.00 shipping it the items new, morally straight
> home.
I can't parse this sentence.
> TLC just doubled thier cost. It is more worthwhile to save the time,
> cost, phone bills and stress to let us keep it.
The owner of that property (TLC) should be the one to make that determination.
Remember the same logic can be used against you, too.
> Plus, we are good customers
> of TLC, we've bought over $2000.00 this year alone.
'Good' customers don't rip them off. I've spent that too, but I got what I
paid for, no more.
> I am sorry if my beliefs are wrong,
What could this possibly mean? Get over yourself dude. You are NOT sorry if
your beliefs are wrong. You might be sorry that you pointed out how you were
raping TLC. And you might be annoyed that you were called on it. But you
clearly aren't going to change your stance on it, so why even pursue the
conversation? Your beliefs aren't _wrong,_ they're just different than those
held by a bunch of other folks.
> but the company sent me something
> without charge. If the items were incorrectly addressed, delivered to the
> wrong door, were worth tons of money or billed to someone who is not us,
> then I would persue returning them.
Why? What is the material difference?
> However, this issue is different.
Show me how.
> Lego
> sent the items to me (Well, my Grandma), I was not charged, I was sent them
> by error
An error that was probably caused by your father's attempt to beat the system,
right? Does that change anything?
> and all the hassle that will come over a stupid 100.00 on a sold
> out item is not worth my time or energy and TLC won't cry over it.
So? Is that the appropriate measure of right and wrong? You must be a very
different fifteen year old than I was. Not worth your time or energy? Geez!
You'll be dead before you're 40 if you already don't have time to call S@H.
And you could have spent far less time and energy on making things right than
you did on this thread.
> Now please, will you all calm down,
Which people do you envision as less than calm? Just because people call you
on your lack of ethics doesn't mean that they're excited.
> let this thread die or enjoy as it was
> ment to be enjoyed, as a fun entertaining story that worked out for the
> better of one of your own.
One of my own. That's a hoot! I think that those readers who are advocating
the stance that your behavior was unethical would probably want to think that
'their own' included only people who did what was right.
We periodically boil threads back down to the nature of ethics and morality
here. This is another. Who's being hurt? How much? And do I care? Aren't
those the real questions that govern right and wrong? Morality is an
aesthetic. If you like a world where people help each other to build something
great out of society, then you'll work to accomplish that. If you like a world
in which people do whatever than can get away with in order to get ahead, then
you'll work toward that. The future is yours.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
| Note: It is against my rules to post here but because of the recent activity, which was caused by me, I decided to break that rule to address this issue and not ignore it. However, I am not here to stay... (...) James, Thanks for the apology. My (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
