Subject:
|
Re: Poor Target....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 May 2002 21:54:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
478 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > We could even say that, in successfully "returning" the merchandise and
> > making the subsequent purchase, Matt committed two so-called wrongs: first,
> > he was wrong to return it; second, he was wrong to take advantage of it.
>
> I'm not so sure I see the difference you're getting at between these two--
> do you mean he was wrong to:
> 1) conceive of the notion
> 2) enact it?
> (I'd disagree with that on the basis that it's not wrong to conceive of the
> notion)
I agree with you--if I'm writing a novel, I can "conceive" of any number of
ways to commit fraud or theft or murder, but in itself that's no wrongdoing.
Though I suppose that, if I commit any of those acts, my pre-planning might
incriminate me. Hmm...
> Or perhaps:
> 1) attempt to get away with it
> 2) actually do so?
> (I'd disagree on the basis that the actual getting away with it in no way
> *further* reflects on Matt's character)
I don't think it reflects on his character either, unless it's symptomatic
of a longterm series of schemes to defraud one entity or another. As it
stands, it's more like a guy who realized a way to get a deal, so he went
through with it.
> I guess I'm not sure of the distinction between the 'returning it' and the
> 'taking advantage of it' that you mention, since they're one-in-the-same,
> AFAICT.
Poor wording. I meant the wrong was twofold:
1) "returning" merchandise to a retailer other than where
it was purchased
2) using the "ill gotten gains" from 1) to help himself to $50
worth of merchandise (ie: taking advantage of the retailer's
good faith)
I suppose (though I'll need to think about it some more) that Matt would
have been "less wrong" to "return" the items to Wal*Mart at their purchase
price, thereby making no profit at anyone else's expence. Wal*Mart might
even have made out on the deal, if their wholesale price for the item was
greater than the amount they would have paid to Matt.
On a similar note, I used to work at a hobby store at the time that the Star
Wars Trivial Pursuit game came out. Our wholesale price was (IIRC) about
$39, and we sold it for $44.95--a dismal margin, but it was supposed to be
an enticement to shoppers. However, the local Wal*Mart sold it for $34.95.
Therefore, my boss bought several copies from Wal*Mart and sold them for
$44.95. Unethical? I suppose not, since the customers could have bought it
from Wal*Mart as readily as we.
I guess my point depends on whether one accepts the commission of a act and
the subsequent concealing of that act to be two separate deeds, or whether
one act is automatically covered by the other.
More to think about...
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Poor Target....
|
| (...) Congratulations to everyone concerned in regards to their congnitive deducing skills. I had to read half the thread before I had fully figured out what Matt had done and some had already flamed him in the first few posts!! Not much to add here (...) (23 years ago, 23-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Poor Target....
|
| (...) Actually, I misspoke, but I'm not sure that's entirely your grievance with my post anyway. Rephrase above to "My guess is they're *also* mad at him..." Not to imply that people aren't mad for other reasons, which I think they are. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 23-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
13 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
|
|
|
|
