self-checkout lanes

[goldfish]

One more "candid" comment springs to my mind... and I'm trying hard to keep it from springing forth... but for me, your "spin" is a load of hooey.

I work in a large business. If enough people steal, I'm out of a job. Stealing, big or small should be everyone's concern, period.

V

Let's say you went to a supermarket. A cashier mistakenly gives you a change that's $1.50 more than you should be receiving. You gladly chose to keep it. Do you call this act "stealing"? If yes, then we differ. I don't consider this person as a thief.

If this is not a theft in your book, but my act was, what is your reason for that distinction?

You are lumping together two different acts, a) common theft and b) pocketing a money erroneously given to a person, and calling them "stealing", are you not?

 

[goldfish]

Relativism in ethics is NOT acceptable....unless you are in Politics I guess. I have two sons I am trying to raise. Regardless of what is happening in the "real world" I would like them to know and practice absolute ethical behavior. And if not, they must accept the consequences.

and from a man too......Sorry

Do you drive at below the speed limit? If you do, my hat off. But I doubt you do. How do you explain this to your sons? Since we both are in the floral industry, how about selling the flowers from some of the South American growers who are apparently taking advantage of poor employees? We all benefit from their cheap labor. How do you explain this in absolute ethical terms?

 

[goldfish]

I wonder how the victims of Enron and the like would respond to this kind of thinking...

Just to be even more provocative, I have always thought that "victims of Enron" is a misuse of the word "victim." Many people (at least in the US) have treated this scandal as a simple dichotomy between villains (Jeff Skilling, Ken Lay, etc) and innocent "victims."

The "victims" indeed suffered, yes, but the fact is that they are the ones who chose to put all their money into a single account (Enron stock), probably out of their own greed.

I have far less sympathy for them as I do for, say, people who are being bombed for no reason other than the fact that they happen to be born in a "wrong" country.

Our (American) culture loves a simple goodguy-badguy dichotomy too much. Because of that, our own "free" (note the double quote) media play along with this non-sensical rhetoric, just because they can't afford to offend the majority of the public.

The end result is that we have been fed with an extremely simplistic view of a complex issue, just so that we feel good about ourselves. The thing has becomne so bad after 9-11. I still rememer that Bill Maher got fired from my favorite program, ABC's "Politically Incorrect" just by mentioning that 9-11 hijackers were NOT "cowards." Why do we need to feel we are good, when in fact we are neither good nor bad?

 

[bloomz]

Let's say you went to a supermarket. A cashier mistakenly gives you a change that's $1.50 more than you should be receiving. You gladly chose to keep it. Do you call this act "stealing"? If yes, then we differ. I don't consider this person as a thief.

If this is not a theft in your book, but my act was, what is your reason for that distinction?

You are lumping together two different acts, a) common theft and b) pocketing a money erroneously given to a person, and calling them "stealing", are you not?

It's stealing, sorry...

good discussion tho

and

opinions vary

 

[goldfish]

It's stealing, sorry...

I know that's what lawyers (at least in western countries) would say. It satisfies actus reus (guilty act), mens rea (guilty mind) or whatever they call it.

It simply means the act is unlawful. So are the speeding, euthanasia, jay-walking in NYC, spitting in Singapore, anti-semitic speech in Germany, (and possibly some form of abortion here in the future); those "crimes", as defined by the current laws in a jurisdiction you happen to be in, are not the same as personal ethical code.

I don't know whether you have any particular religion or not, but even if you are not religious, your philosophy might have been heavily influenced by Christianity, a dominant religion in North America. "Thou shall not steal" (isn't this 8th? don't remember).

I am one of those people who warship so-called "Consequentialism." That's where I'm coming from. Whether it's about "stealing" or wire-services or whatever, the actual consequence of my action, and the degree to which it affects me and others, is much more important to me than any sort of "principles." This is a wildly unpopular view in a religious country like the US, so I usually don't advocate it. It's not that I don't have any ethhical values (I do), but I don't hold an absolute view of right and wrong.

There's something called "Harm Principle" in Consequentialism. In a nut-shell, this ethics theory (by John Stuart Mill) states that victimless crimes are not unethical. In this view, all sorts of what many of you would consider morally reprehensible, such as gambling, are not unethical as long as it harms no one.

Finally, I don't judge people just because they happen to have a vastly different view of ethics from mine. I have been dealing with different cultures long enough to know that it's seldom wise to judge people based on what they believe. Most people are good people, even though they sometimes say things so appaling to my ears.

 

[Victoria]

Let's say you went to a supermarket. A cashier mistakenly gives you a change that's $1.50 more than you should be receiving. You gladly chose to keep it. Do you call this act "stealing"? If yes, then we differ. I don't consider this person as a thief.

If this is not a theft in your book, but my act was, what is your reason for that distinction?

You are lumping together two different acts, a) common theft and b) pocketing a money erroneously given to a person, and calling them "stealing", are you not?

Silly me.... I give the money back. Yes I really do. Having worked in a company (not so long ago), where I had to pay back the till if short, I make sure the cash person isn't getting screwed.

Stealing is stealing. There are no spins to the word. It is what it is. If you're comfortable with it, then you live with it. I'm not so therefore I don'e steal.

And the people of Enron's greedy demise were indeed victims of fraud. Big or small, the end result is the same.

 

[Sher]

It may not be stealing in the truest legal terminology but it certainly taking advantage of someone else's error and the bad karma that follows is definately not worth it. My Mom use to say that if you take advantage of a situation that might cost someone else his livelihood then you are stealing their potential from them to earn...so stand up to the plate and go pay for those extra tangerines...if not, the next time you want to return something to them, you probably won't be able to find your receipt and they will give you a store credit and some toadie will come along and continue to get more tangerines for his money and you won;t have any left to "buy"! It's bad karma Fish and you know it!
S

 

[Kristine]

Second of all, the size of the shop does matter in my book, as it relates to how much actual harm my transgression was causing. In each transaction, my "cheating" causes a loss of $1.50 for the supermarket. Perhaps I have purchased 5-6 times, so let's say a loss of $10 in total. This amount is significant in a small mom&pop shop, but not in a big supermarket where cashier's error plus actual thefts are probably thousands of dollars a day.

I equate your small cheating just like an employee Stuffing in arrangements. You do the math - just throwing out the numbers. 4 designers @ 1.50/ arr x 5 arr/hour x 7 hr /day x 5 days/week x 52 weeks/year.

Ps. I also subscribe to Christianity and even tho there are ten commandments they aren't ranked (after #1) by order of importance or seriousness of deed. Lying, cheating, murder, coveting, etc are ranked the same.

Thanks for the thought provoking topic.

 

[theRKF]

Do you drive at below the speed limit? If you do, my hat off. But I doubt you do. How do you explain this to your sons? Since we both are in the floral industry, how about selling the flowers from some of the South American growers who are apparently taking advantage of poor employees? We all benefit from their cheap labor. How do you explain this in absolute ethical terms?

Yes, I strive to stay at the legal limit. I haven't always, but since reading Romans 13 - obeying your governing authorities - I'm making the effort. It's a switch for a lifelong lead-foot like me, but it's happening. And I'm much happier about explaining life to my kids

Let's say you went to a supermarket. A cashier mistakenly gives you a change that's $1.50 more than you should be receiving. You gladly chose to keep it. Do you call this act "stealing"? If yes, then we differ. I don't consider this person as a thief.

If this is not a theft in your book, but my act was, what is your reason for that distinction?

You are lumping together two different acts, a) common theft and b) pocketing a money erroneously given to a person, and calling them "stealing", are you not?

Ya, I give the money back.

 

[flowerknife+us]

Ah!!! But there is absolutely no such thing as a VICTIMLESS CRIME.

Please name one crime that has no victim in your opinion and I will list here all that it victimizes. I'm up for the challenge!

Knife's Wife

 

[Victoria]

Ah!!! But there is absolutely no such thing as a VICTIMLESS CRIME.

Please name one crime that has no victim in your opinion and I will list here all that it victimizes. I'm up for the challenge!

Knife's Wife

Agreed... without a victim there is no crime.

V

 

[CHR]

Teen Finds $24K in Long Island Theater and Returns Every Last Dollar.

No moral relativism for this kid.

 

[goldfish]

Ah!!! But there is absolutely no such thing as a VICTIMLESS CRIME.

First of all, let me clarify one thing.

In every crime, it is possible to argue that a person who cimmit the crime is himself one of the victims. However, when we think about ethics of your action, "victim" refers only to other people who would be injured (physically or mentally) by your action.

Now, examples of victimless crimes. Easiest one: You are a single and has no denpendet to take care of. One day, you engaged in illegal gambling and lost everything. Or a more interesting example: you stole money from a bank robber who murdered a couple of people in the process.

Both actions are illegal. Who are the victims of these crimes?

 

[Victoria]

First of all, let me clarify one thing.

In every crime, it is possible to argue that a person who cimmit the crime is himself one of the victims. However, when we think about ethics of your action, "victim" refers only to other people who would be injured (physically or mentally) by your action.

Now, examples of victimless crimes. Easiest one: You are a single and has no denpendet to take care of. One day, you engaged in illegal gambling and lost everything. Or a more interesting example: you stole money from a bank robber who murdered a couple of people in the process.

Both actions are illegal. Who are the victims of these crimes?

Um... okay, I've had a couple of glasses of wine (God I'm tired)... but I would say the murdered couple sure as hel l are victims!

I, would be a victim of the "illegal" gambling ring (I know it's my choice, but if the ring is illegal then I am still a victim), and the robber is a victim of my stealing from him.

Everyone in the scenario you paint is a victim.

This is making my head hurt, so I'll say good night for now.



V

 

[CHERYL BAKIN]

moral values

I come from a small country community where I was taught "right" from "wrong" at a very early age. As I have been reading & following this thread, a few thoughts came to mind that are best explained by right out of the Webster's on-line dictionary......
1. ETHICS: The discipline dealing with what is good & bad and wht moral duty & obligation; a set of moral principals; a theory or system of values.
2. STEALING: The unlawful taking of what is not yours; taking the property of another wrongfully, with the intent of keeping it.
3. CHEATING: To deprive someone of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud; to elude, thwart or outwit; to violate the rules dishonestly.

Many of our basic principals of both our moral & legal systems are based upon religious based doctrine going back hundreds of years.

The moral outrage that many of us here feel, Goldfish, is based upon the fact that you seem to think that it was OK to cheat a "big" company, just because they made a mistake in programming, and you "took advantage" of their mistake. It is not ok....you should be ashamed of yourself....your wife was absolutely correct!!

Your statements, in my mind, fall into the category that it was Ok because the theft was a small one. what's next???? Your daughter is only "a little bit pregnant???? You only cheated "a little bit" on your taxes??? or on your wife?? When does the crime become a crime in your mind.....how "big" does it need to be to count??

They (the above) as well as your stealing of the tangerines are all wrong in my book. I hope your wife made you go in & fess up & pay for the one that you took illegally!!!

Stealing is stealing; cheating is cheating.....size or cost does not matter!

Regards,
Cheryl Bakin,
Pittsburgh, Pa.

 

[goldfish]

Silly me.... I give the money back. Yes I really do. Having worked in a company (not so long ago), where I had to pay back the till if short, I make sure the cash person isn't getting screwed.

I agree that it is an honorable thing to return the money. No question. My question though is, if you choose to keep it, are you a theif?

I'm sure that many people do as you do (return the money). To be honest with you, I most probably don't. I would say to myself "lucky!" and that's it. The only exception is if I know the shop owner or cashier. In that case, small saving ($1.50) is just not worth for the bad feeling I would have to endure whenever I meet with them. So I would return it, not because I'm thinking that's the "right thing" to do, but because I would be worse off (feel bad > $1.50) if I didn't return it.

But if that's the supermarket, especially if you are dealing with a computer, I won't have that problem at all (feel bad < $1.50). Either way, return or not return, it's a selfish decision as far as I'm concerned.

Stealing is stealing. There are no spins to the word. It is what it is. If you're comfortable with it, then you live with it. I'm not so therefore I don'e steal.

Victoria, I'm not "spinning." "Spin" is something that people do when they know they screwed up but are just trying to make the best face out of it. Since I do NOT feel I did anything particularly bad (little bit bad, but not much), I don't have to spin. All I am trying to do is to explain why I think this particular case, i.e., taking advantage of the stupid cash-register computer, does not reach to the level of unethical behavior.

You and other people say "stealing is stealing." What exactly do you mean? Do you mean that all the stealing, from a million-dollar fraud to $1 petty theft, is equally bad? They are obviously not equal; a million-dollar fraud caused more damage than a one-dollar theft. There is no justification to treat these crimes equally.

 

[Victoria]

I agree that it is an honorable thing to return the money. No question. My question though is, if you choose to keep it, are you a theif? Yes!

I'm sure that many people do as you do (return the money). To be honest with you, I most probably don't. I would say to myself "lucky!" and that's it. The only exception is if I know the shop owner or cashier. In that case, small saving ($1.50) is just not worth for the bad feeling I would have to endure whenever I meet with them. So I would return it, not because I'm thinking that's the "right thing" to do, but because I would be worse off (feel bad > $1.50) if I didn't return it. In my mind you are spinning.

But if that's the supermarket, especially if you are dealing with a computer, I won't have that problem at all (feel bad < $1.50). Either way, return or not return, it's a selfish decision as far as I'm concerned. Spin spin and spin again.



Victoria, I'm not "spinning." "Spin" is something that people do when they know they screwed up but are just trying to make the best face out of it. Since I do NOT feel I did anything particularly bad (little bit bad, but not much), I don't have to spin. All I am trying to do is to explain why I think this particular case, i.e., taking advantage of the stupid cash-register computer, does not reach to the level of unethical behavior. If you prefer, call it rationalization... by any other name, you are spinning to justify what you did, feel etc.

You and other people say "stealing is stealing." What exactly do you mean? Do you mean that all the stealing, from a million-dollar fraud to $1 petty theft, is equally bad? They are obviously not equal; a million-dollar fraud caused more damage than a one-dollar theft. There is no justification to treat these crimes equally.

I believe I said it before, stealing is stealing, big or small, it's wrong... period. If you can live with it then that's your issue... not mine.

I guess I look at it not in terms of increments... you know, steal alittle, it's ok, steal alot then off to jail you go. I would suppose that the Ken Lay's of the world, started small, got away with it and well, the rest is history.

Here's a quote for you...

"When you cheat at poker, life, or taxes, you've taken the honour and fun out of winning, and ultimately you've cheated yourself out of the finest pleasure in life: beating the other guy fair and square."

Nelson DeMille (author of the Gold Coast)

So, cheat and steal away if you choose... it's not how I choose to live however, and I'm happy and comfortable with that decision. Apples, oranges, tangerines, money... if it's not yours by legal means, then you are a thief.

V

 

[Victoria]

Carol I added to your rep, but because I wrote too much, it came through unsigned... sorry about that.

V

 

[flowerknife+us]

First of all, let me clarify one thing.

In every crime, it is possible to argue that a person who cimmit the crime is himself one of the victims. However, when we think about ethics of your action, "victim" refers only to other people who would be injured (physically or mentally) by your action.

Now, examples of victimless crimes. Easiest one: You are a single and has no denpendet to take care of. One day, you engaged in illegal gambling and lost everything. Or a more interesting example: you stole money from a bank robber who murdered a couple of people in the process.

Both actions are illegal. Who are the victims of these crimes?

I would argue that everyone is a victim of illegal gambling, period.

...your more "interesting example" about stealing from a robber is like saying...It's o.k. to rape a prostitute but not o.k. to rape someone who isn't. Why do you think it would be o.k. to steal from a robber? Let's see should I teach my teenagers it's o.k. to steal from someone as long as you know that they stole it from a store or from someone else. The moral thing to have done would be, to turn them in for robbing the bank, not rob them of the money they stole. The robber becomes the victim.

knife's wife

 

[goldfish]

I equate your small cheating just like an employee Stuffing in arrangements. You do the math - just throwing out the numbers. 4 designers @ 1.50/ arr x 5 arr/hour x 7 hr /day x 5 days/week x 52 weeks/year.

Ps. I also subscribe to Christianity and even tho there are ten commandments they aren't ranked (after #1) by order of importance or seriousness of deed. Lying, cheating, murder, coveting, etc are ranked the same.

Thanks for the thought provoking topic.

By the way, in case people are curious, I was raised in a Christian family (rarity where I came from), so I'm not totally ignorant of what I'm saying. No, I'm not a Christian, obviously. By choice, that is.

Christianity cultures (or western cultures) are harsh on deception (lying, cheating). If you look at other cultures, however, that's not always the case. For example, not telling the truth is often more acceptable in many Asian cultures under certain conditions.

Thus a doctor in China or Japan may not tell his patient that s/he has only three months to live. It's a deception, of course. However in their culture, hurting the feeling of someone is a badder thing than not telling the truth.

Are they unethical? From western standard, they are. But are they "really" unethical, whatever "really" means? What is the ethics then?

If we had the 11th commandment that says "Thou shall not speed" (just an example) but not the 8th, would we then be more harsh on someone driving a car 1 mph over the limit, than someone who stole a million bucks? It sounds ridiculous, but could be.

Now you don't even question that stealing is not just illegal but immoral. Why don't we feel that way, when we see people speeding, which by the way is causing a lot of deaths? What is the rational here?

People all over the world usually have a set of values that they don't even realize they have. And these values, believe it or not, are not universal, even though we all are taught they are.

As I said before, I do wrong-doings every single day. No question. I have given up a long time ago that it is impossible to be "right" in every situation. Because everything I do, if you think carefully, can be argued morally dubious, I have decided that the best way is to cherry-pick "less badder" behaviors and try to avoid "more badder" ones.

Religions do not help here. Religions, especially Monotheism, attempt to give us moral clarity where no such thing can exist. It is not possible to do so without invoking some kind of authority, whose ideas cannot be questioned. No paster would say, "well, it's OK to steal if the amount is tiny and blah blah" No clarity. They have to give you principles, telling us that people with principles are holier than thou.

Yet the human history tells us that people with "principles" can cause more damage than people without them. That's the tragedy that church cannot and will not address in my opinion. My way of dealing with personal ethics is admittedly outrageous, but I do believe that my way causes less damage than moral codes based on any dogma, be it a religion or ideology. Best of all, I don't feel that I am a better person than those who don't share my view, which is good. At least I am not ending up being a hypocrite.