Ethical dilemma

[ghostjmf]

soda machine at my job habitually takes your money, then tells you its out of diet soda, then won't give you your money back; says "make another selection", even though they all contain sugar.

When you abandon your money in that machine, next lucky customer gets 2 sodas of their choice (not diet, though) for the price of one.

Person who used to be petty cash reimburser at my job used to bite your head off at asking for 60 cents back. Which may be why they are no longer the petty cash reimburser.

In reality, of course, you didn't really lose your money here, you just "left it in the machine". The machine was perfectly willing to sell you stuff you didn't want for your money. (Sometimes, the next customer would arrive, you'd explain your dilemma to them, & they'd pay you the 60 cents & use your "already in machine" money to get their favorite beverage).


Candy machines around here are also sometimes reluctant to release your food, but I usually do use the "2nd bag method" rather than fight the machine. Its not damage to the machine I fear, its this picture I have in my head of "machine falling over on person".


I have, in my life, run back into a store to pay for an 80-cent writing tablet I absentmindedly walked out with. Nowadays, 7 alarms probably would have gone off & I'd still be in jail.


One thing I feel bad about admitting to, so I guess I on some core level really do think is unethical, is paying a lower price for stuff because ignorant grocery store register clerks can't identify food. If the clerk asks me "what are these", I will tell them "chestnuts", & pay the high posted price. If the clerk rings them up as "mixed nuts", I take them & leave. Ditto for various veggies.

In principle, I should point out their error to them. I don't think they'd like the lecture that comes with it, though.

[Ritterskoop]

This might not be what you're looking for, but I'll take a crack at it:

Let's say that some guy has a bunch of apple trees. So many that it's impossible to know how many apples there are. He agrees that if you pick them and sell them, you can keep 15% of the proceeds. Honor system. When you let him know that you're finished, he says that you should just send him a check for his 88%. You point out that he's entitled to 85%, but he insists that the agreement was that you'd get 12%.

Since this is a hypothetical, let's stipulate a couple of assumptions, just to take them out of the equation: 1) you're absolutely certain that he agreed to give you 15%; and 2) there is no possibility that you'll be able to persuade him that he is wrong.

Let's also assume that whatever the amount of the check that you send him is, it will never be challenged.

What do you do?

If you want to try to throw in a few variables to see if that changes things, what if in one case you're pretty sure that he's making an honest mistake, and in another you're positive that he meant to screw you all along.

Now, what if the deal was cut with your minor child, and you're responsible for collecting? Two variable here: in the first case, the child is going to know exactly what happened, and in the second the child will never know anything about what you did to get his money.

Now, what if you're acting on behalf of a crew of yuppies who were just looking for a weekend adventure? Now, what if your crew is a group of impoverished people who are in danger of starving. Now, what if one of them has a child who needs medicine (or will die).

Do any of the variables make any difference?

This one is easy for me but not so easy for systems that ask "what is the right action?" Since the system I use asks "what kind of person do I want to be?" it's pretty obvious I want to be a person of integrity and keep my word, so I will honor the original agreement. The variables are not relevant to me, but I understand they are to most people, which is what makes these things interesting.

[littlebeast13]

soda machine at my job habitually takes your money, then tells you its out of diet soda, then won't give you your money back; says "make another selection", even though they all contain sugar.

When you abandon your money in that machine, next lucky customer gets 2 sodas of their choice (not diet, though) for the price of one.

Most soda machines made the last 5-10 years will tell you if a selection is sold out before you ever put a dime in it just by pushing the button. Of course, none of the machines I've seen recently will refuse to give you your money back if you hit the return button....

lb13

[earendel]

I just ran across this article on MSNBC's Web site regarding "do-gooders" and ethics.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21820808/

[mrkelley23]

I was kinda waiting to see if Saucy would chime in, but since she posted about it here, I guess she wouldn't mind.

Wouldn't her situation present a couple of opportunities for the kinds of dilemmas you describe? Granted, they're definitely "in-house" type conflicts, but I found it hard to give advice (even if she wanted it) because I was so torn about what was the "right" thing for her to do, given a boss in a government job who was taking adavantages of her position.

[wbtravis007]

Skoop wrote:

This one is easy for me but not so easy for systems that ask "what is the right action?" Since the system I use asks "what kind of person do I want to be?" it's pretty obvious I want to be a person of integrity and keep my word, so I will honor the original agreement. The variables are not relevant to me, but I understand they are to most people, which is what makes these things interesting.

I think that I didn't state the situation clearly enough. Let's say that your total apple sales were $10,000. Under the original deal (as you call it), his share would be $8,500 (85%) and your share would be $1,500 (15%). He's now insisting that he should get 88% -- (which is wrong, whether he knows that or not). He does not know what your total sales were, and never will (unless you bring it up). Should you send him the $8,500 to which he is entitled, or the $8,800 to which he would insist (now) that he's entitled if he were to be informed of what your total sales were?

I should make one other clarification: when I said that the amount of the check will not be challenged, I meant that it wouldn't be as long as he was not made aware that it represented less than 88% of the sales. If you were to send him a check for the $8,500 to which he's entitled, along with an explanation as to how you calculated his share, he would, indeed, blow his top, sue you, disparage you and your family, and get so mad that his high-blood pressure might well trigger another heart attack.

With this clarification, do you still consider it as easy as you said? If so (with respect to your own situation), would it still be the case that the other variables mention in the original hypothetical would not affect your decision about how to handle this?

[Ritterskoop]

Skoop wrote:

This one is easy for me but not so easy for systems that ask "what is the right action?" Since the system I use asks "what kind of person do I want to be?" it's pretty obvious I want to be a person of integrity and keep my word, so I will honor the original agreement. The variables are not relevant to me, but I understand they are to most people, which is what makes these things interesting.

I think that I didn't state the situation clearly enough. Let's say that your total apple sales were $10,000. Under the original deal (as you call it), his share would be $8,500 (85%) and your share would be $1,500 (15%). He's now insisting that he should get 88% -- (which is wrong, whether he knows that or not). He does not know what your total sales were, and never will (unless you bring it up). Should you send him the $8,500 to which he is entitled, or the $8,800 to which he would insist (now) that he's entitled if he were to be informed of what your total sales were?

I should make one other clarification: when I said that the amount of the check will not be challenged, I meant that it wouldn't be as long as he was not made aware that it represented less than 88% of the sales. If you were to send him a check for the $8,500 to which he's entitled, along with an explanation as to how you calculated his share, he would, indeed, blow his top, sue you, disparage you and your family, and get so mad that his high-blood pressure might well trigger another heart attack.

With this clarification, do you still consider it as easy as you said? If so (with respect to your own situation), would it still be the case that the other variables mention in the original hypothetical would not affect your decision about how to handle this?

I did misunderstand the original post.

I would give him the $8500 I promised.

His choice whether to get mad and how that affects his health.

It is still about who I want to be rather than about any particular action. Once you know who you want to be, the right action flows from that.

[Ritterskoop]

I was kinda waiting to see if Saucy would chime in, but since she posted about it here, I guess she wouldn't mind.

Wouldn't her situation present a couple of opportunities for the kinds of dilemmas you describe? Granted, they're definitely "in-house" type conflicts, but I found it hard to give advice (even if she wanted it) because I was so torn about what was the "right" thing for her to do, given a boss in a government job who was taking adavantages of her position.

Yes, there are elements of this case that might make a good one for the paper. Thanks for reminding me.

[ghostjmf]

responding to littlebeast's post, which I'd need another iteration of the board to get a copy of apparently; "topic review" here only gives 1st page to repliers.

Anyway:

Its true that if you remember to push that button before you put your money in, sometimes you'll get a "sold out" message. And sometimes you won't, even though the diet pop is sold out. However, this particular machine never gives you your unspent money back. Its been serviced periodically, but of course they fill it at the same time, so I've never needed money back just after a service call.

Now, should you getting your money back really depend on your having, before putting any money in, pushed that button that only sometimes gives an honest answer to "is my pop available today"?

Some machines have a visible rack of pop cans or bottles. This is a closed machine, so you can't do a visual check.


The live-merchant equivalent would be a clerk who takes your money (unless you ask about availability in advance & are told no), then refuses to give it back after telling you that what you want is not available.


But brains or kidneys or some other delicacy they will cook for you is! So you ought to just pick one of these.

[wbtravis007]

Skoop wrote:

This one is easy for me but not so easy for systems that ask "what is the right action?" Since the system I use asks "what kind of person do I want to be?" it's pretty obvious I want to be a person of integrity and keep my word, so I will honor the original agreement. The variables are not relevant to me, but I understand they are to most people, which is what makes these things interesting.

I think that I didn't state the situation clearly enough. Let's say that your total apple sales were $10,000. Under the original deal (as you call it), his share would be $8,500 (85%) and your share would be $1,500 (15%). He's now insisting that he should get 88% -- (which is wrong, whether he knows that or not). He does not know what your total sales were, and never will (unless you bring it up). Should you send him the $8,500 to which he is entitled, or the $8,800 to which he would insist (now) that he's entitled if he were to be informed of what your total sales were?

I should make one other clarification: when I said that the amount of the check will not be challenged, I meant that it wouldn't be as long as he was not made aware that it represented less than 88% of the sales. If you were to send him a check for the $8,500 to which he's entitled, along with an explanation as to how you calculated his share, he would, indeed, blow his top, sue you, disparage you and your family, and get so mad that his high-blood pressure might well trigger another heart attack.

With this clarification, do you still consider it as easy as you said? If so (with respect to your own situation), would it still be the case that the other variables mention in the original hypothetical would not affect your decision about how to handle this?

I did misunderstand the original post.

I would give him the $8500 I promised.

His choice whether to get mad and how that affects his health.

It is still about who I want to be rather than about any particular action. Once you know who you want to be, the right action flows from that.

Okay. Fair enough. Now let's change it up just a little.

Instead of agreeing to an 85-15 percent split, let's say that he told you just to keep track of your hours (or the hours of the others under the other variables mentioned) -- again strictly honor system -- and send him the money from the apple sales. He'd then pay you (or them) $15.00 for each hour worked. You sent him the $10,000 from the sales, and now he wants to know your hours so he can pay you (or them) the $12.00 per hour that he owes. You point out that the agreement was $15.00 per hour, but he now insists that it was $12.00. He says to add up the hours and let him know. You (or they) worked for 100 hours, and are therefore entitled to the same $1,500 that you got under the other scenario. If you put in for 100 hours, you're gonna get screwed, because he's gonna just pay you (or them) $1,200.

What do you do if it's just you who's involved?

Would the answer be different given any of the other variables?

[Ritterskoop]

If it's just me, I take the lower amount, and know something bad will happen to him if I wait long enough. But if I was too dumb to get it in writing, I share blame.

If I am protecting someone else, I tweak the numbers so they get what they are due. But that's not a dilemma. That's easy. When two virtues collide, justice is nearly always ahead of the other one (honesty, in this case).

I am treating this guy the way he has taught me to treat him.

It is hard for me to get jacked up about money conflicts as ethical issues. If you wait long enough, there'll be more money.

[mellytu74]

I have no ethical dilemma to give you.

I just like the thread and I wanted to say that I was glad to read it.

[wbtravis007]

If it's just me, I take the lower amount, and know something bad will happen to him if I wait long enough. But if I was too dumb to get it in writing, I share blame.

If I am protecting someone else, I tweak the numbers so they get what they are due. But that's not a dilemma. That's easy. When two virtues collide, justice is nearly always ahead of the other one (honesty, in this case).

I am treating this guy the way he has taught me to treat him.

It is hard for me to get jacked up about money conflicts as ethical issues. If you wait long enough, there'll be more money.

I read through this again, and have just a few of comments:

1. I didn't read your original post carefully enough to understand that you wanted real-life, current-event-type examples. Sorry.

2. I guess that I'm kind of confused about what you consider to be a dilemma, despite your explanation.

3. I thought I understood what you were saying earlier about integrity and action and what not, but now I'm not so sure that I did.

4. I don't think that it would be very hard to come up with an example of honesty trumping justice, so I'm kind of reluctant to accept your statement about those two virtues.

5. I'm hoping that you'll consider the variables that I suggested in my hypothetical a little more closely. Just for the fun of it.

6. This isn't about getting jacked up (or not) about money.

[Ritterskoop]

If it's just me, I take the lower amount, and know something bad will happen to him if I wait long enough. But if I was too dumb to get it in writing, I share blame.

If I am protecting someone else, I tweak the numbers so they get what they are due. But that's not a dilemma. That's easy. When two virtues collide, justice is nearly always ahead of the other one (honesty, in this case).

I am treating this guy the way he has taught me to treat him.

It is hard for me to get jacked up about money conflicts as ethical issues. If you wait long enough, there'll be more money.

I read through this again, and have just a few of comments:

1. I didn't read your original post carefully enough to understand that you wanted real-life, current-event-type examples. Sorry.

2. I guess that I'm kind of confused about what you consider to be a dilemma, despite your explanation.

3. I thought I understood what you were saying earlier about integrity and action and what not, but now I'm not so sure that I did.

4. I don't think that it would be very hard to come up with an example of honesty trumping justice, so I'm kind of reluctant to accept your statement about those two virtues.

5. I'm hoping that you'll consider the variables that I suggested in my hypothetical a little more closely. Just for the fun of it.

2. If you have to decide whether to cheat or not, that's not a dilemma. If you have to decide if an action is cheating, that might be a dilemma. If you have to decide between two equally compelling options because one of them is not clearly the obvious right thing, that's a dilemma.

3. Most of the Western ethical systems are based on consideration of if an action is good. This means you only think about morality now and then. I wish to consider what sort of character I want to create in myself, which means I think about morality often.

4. Honesty does sometimes trump justice. Depends how you think of justice, of course. I meant, for me, in that case, justice trumps honesty. Justice trumps family loyalty for me, also, but not for most people. I may have that way wrong, but I would not lie to protect a sibling if I knew they should be held responsible for a crime. I think it's important to treat them as rational, responsible people who can pay for whatever they did.

5. I do consider variables, like in the last go-round, I said I would tweak the numbers to protect someone vulnerable. But only someone vulnerable, not a drunk college student.

[wbtravis007]

Skoop wrote:

2. If you have to decide whether to cheat or not, that's not a dilemma. If you have to decide if an action is cheating, that might be a dilemma. If you have to decide between two equally compelling options because one of them is not clearly the obvious right thing, that's a dilemma.

Fair enough.

I thought that you had said that my hypothetical didn't present a dilemma. I guess I misinterpreted what you said.

3. Most of the Western ethical systems are based on consideration of if an action is good. This means you only think about morality now and then. I wish to consider what sort of character I want to create in myself, which means I think about morality often.

Same here. I've spent a lot of time on this.

4. Honesty does sometimes trump justice. Depends how you think of justice, of course. I meant, for me, in that case, justice trumps honesty. Justice trumps family loyalty for me, also, but not for most people. I may have that way wrong, but I would not lie to protect a sibling if I knew they should be held responsible for a crime. I think it's important to treat them as rational, responsible people who can pay for whatever they did.

This is why I considered it to be a dilemma. (The part about honesty vs. justice, that is. The stuff about loyalty is new to the discussion.)

5. I do consider variables, like in the last go-round, I said I would tweak the numbers to protect someone vulnerable. But only someone vulnerable, not a drunk college student.

I didn't say that you hadn't considered the variables. Just was hoping that you might address each one. Why you'd lie in one case but not another. As I said: just for the fun of it.

Don't worry about it, though.

Maybe some other time.




_________________
If you fail to pilot your own ship, don't be surprised at what inappropriate port you find yourself docked. - Tom Robbins

[Ritterskoop]

My guideline on lying is that it's rarely, if ever, correct to lie to protect myself. I think it is sometimes appropriate to lie to protect someone else, especially vulnerable persons.

That guideline will probably resolve most of your variables.