About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 1:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've known people who've purchased highly expensive digital cameras at Wal-Mart, only to use for a certain occasion, and then return them for their money back. Free-rental, in essence. Ethical, or unethical?

Post 1

Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 2:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Warren, good question.


Perspective:
As with books or any goods which provide us value without, themselves, losing their "inherent" value -- cameras "should" have special return policies; something like 50% or 80% money back. Something competitive with rental prices.

Caveat:
The "should" above is not an abstract moral command, it's merely a tongue-in-cheek place-holder for "effective free market mechanics."

Dilemma:
During the time that the camera was not on the shelf, the store had the money and could have invested it (until the camera was returned to the store).

Summary:
Even though I would call the "free" use of another's product immoral, the burden of fair exchange lies with the producer (it's his/her responsibility to fix the return price at a value competitive to rental cameras -- and specifically NOT to "rely on" the morality/integrity of consumers).


Ed



Post 2

Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 2:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
During the time that the camera was not on the shelf, the store had the money and could have invested it (until the camera was returned to the store).

Further, during the time the store had the money, inflation lessened its value, so the returning of it to the customer was, in fact, equivalent to a user fee - especially if the store applied that money to acquiring other goods...  so it balances out....


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 3:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yikes!

It's now a used camera. A used camera (or anything else) is worth less than a new one. The store can no longer sell it as 'new' and therefore has lost money!

This is outright theft!

It is also not the only kind of scam than "customers" engage in. Sometimes an item bought at one store has a missing piece (or maybe the customer breaks a piece) so the same item gets bought at a second store, the piece removed, and then the item is returned. "I changed my mind." -- right!!!

You would not believe the ways that "customers" abuse a "no questions asked" return policy.

Post 4

Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 4:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tacky but not dishonest.  Some high-end goods, such as paintings and oriental rugs, are sold with (often unwritten) very liberal return policies.  Some customers will decide it doesn't fit their tastes or their color schemes, and the sellers know this.  They're free to write more restrictive policies, but that cuts into their cachet.
In addition, we buy certain goods, such as cars, clothes (outerwear, anyway) and shoes fully expecting that someone will have tried them out.  At a minimum, I'd assume that any hard good not sold in a sealed container has been tried out already.

(Edited by Peter Reidy on 1/06, 3:00pm)


Post 5

Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 6:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wouldn't consider it theft or immoral as described, but its definitely cheap! I'm certain Walmart knows about this practice. They are free to change their return policy.

Post 6

Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 6:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In my view, it's OK if the camera does not suit your needs, and stealing if it does.

I do recognize the principle, referred to by Ed, that unreasonable rules are just begging to be broken--I think of the kick-plate at the bottom of warehouse doors, which is undoubtedly there through sad experience--but I wouldn't apply it here.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 1/05, 7:03pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 7:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As I understand these return policies, you can return the product for any reason within a specified period of time. So, there's nothing unethical about using it for a particular occasion and then returning it. The seller hasn't bound the customer to any restrictions governing its use, so long as the product is returned in the same condition in which it was bought.

- Bill

Post 8

Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 8:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Whoever coined "The customer is always right" slogan should have been shot. 

I agree with Rick and with Bill.  The camera scenario is a type of legalized fraud. Walmart makes the offer to be competitive. The law steps in and says Walmart can't be selective with money back guarantee offers, so they're forced to accept back used goods, with missing packaging and parts.  It's disgusting.

Yeah, I think it's immoral. It's fraud, plain and simple, but the law encourages this type of entitlement thinking in people.

People have been doing this with clothing for years.  When I worked in Juvenile Court, delinquents would come to court dressed in new suits with the tags still hanging off of them. It was obvious the kid's mom or guardian was returning the suit to the store as soon as they got out of court.  My mom worked with a lady in the 60's who would buy a new dress from an upscale department store, wear it one day, and then return it.  Tacky, and wrong, in my opinion.  


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 9:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Theresa,

I think you should re-read Bill's post before you agree. Bill says it is not unethical. I would think legalized fraud would fall under 'unethical' in your book. It sure does in mine.

Bill apparently believes that any (implied) contract whatever is ethical simply because the two parties agree. In technical philosophical terms that's known as "moral relativism" a type of subjectivism.


(Edited by Jeff Perren on 1/05, 9:08pm)


Post 10

Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 9:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff,

I think that Teresa is mixing me up with Bill. If so, then thanks, Teresa -- I take that as a compliment!

;-)


Ed


Post 11

Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 10:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff Perren writes,
Theresa [sic],

I think you should re-read Bill's post before you agree. Bill says it is not unethical. I would think legalized fraud would fall under 'unethical' in your book. It sure does in mine.
What's fraudulent about it, if the seller allows the customer to return the product for any reason? Of course, it's wrong for the law to require them to accept goods in return that they would not otherwise agree to take back. But how, under those circumstances, can one know what the store would or would not agree to voluntarily, in the absence of such legal requirements. There is simply no way to know what the store agrees to, other than what it states as its return policy. Given its statement, the buyer is entitled to accept it at face value.
Bill apparently believes that any (implied) contract whatever is ethical simply because the two parties agree.
No, I don't, but if the two parties agree, then how can the relationship be considered fraudulent, legally or otherwise?
In technical philosophical terms that's known as "moral relativism" a type of subjectivism.
If the relationship is consensual and you still consider it unethical, then the burden of proof is on you to show how the agreement is against the respective parties' self-interest. If the seller agrees to allow the buyer to return the product for a refund, because it's a way to attract business, then I fail to see how his contract with the buyer can be considered unethical?

- Bill


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Sunday, January 6, 2008 - 1:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think Bill's right - not fraud.

I would say that, in 99% of the cases, I would consider it unethical, however. Generally speaking, people choose (or should choose) honesty and integrity as values that act to further their lives, and even though the words of the policy do not give intent, your emotion, your gut tells you that its intent is not to give everyone free rentals of property. The intent is to provide the honest customer a chance to return goods that do not fit his needs or are dysfunctional in general.

I know, I know, "Your gut, you say! Well, what about your reason?"

I think that emotions exist for a reason. I would be disgusted with a person who would violate their own integrity, the spirit of the Trader Principle (value for value - and people as people with whom to trade, not as means to your end) and the spirit of the return policy for something they can obviously afford.

Post 13

Sunday, January 6, 2008 - 8:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill's question was valid, if the store's return and refund policy is "no questions asked," how could it be unethical to take advantage of it?  I think it's a good question, and difficult to disagree with on the surface. That's what I agreed with.  (Of course I agree with Ed. Can't think of a time when I haven't!) 

Most people would assume that given such a policy, the intent of the customer no longer matters. I think it does matter, regardless of the policy.

If buying for short term use, with the intent to return a product for a full refund, were the rule rather than the exception, and everyone took advantage of  policies like that, we'd be left with nothing but second hand stores. Manufacturers would stop, or severely alter their own warranties on products, and buying any kind of durable good would be a hit or miss affair.

It matters, Bill. The morality of the situation lies with the customer, not with the seller who offers blanket refund policies. 


Post 14

Sunday, January 6, 2008 - 10:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stores offer such a policy, because it's a way to attract business and because they know that most customers are not going to go to the trouble of returning a product, if they are happy with it. In other words, they are willing to accept returns from customers whose intention is simply to use the product and then return it. In their minds, the benefits of attracting customers and increasing their sales revenue outweigh the costs involved in accepting return merchandise. Under the circumstances, there is nothing unethical about a customer's taking advantage of such a policy. The store has given him permission as a way of attracting customers. Of course, if most people returned the products they bought, the store would quickly change its policy. But until that happens, the customer is at liberty to return the product as he chooses. It's not unethical, if it's in the interest of the store to have such a policy and it's in the interest of the customers to take advantage of it.

- Bill

Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Sunday, January 6, 2008 - 1:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, just because the store says it's OK doesn't make it ethical. The store's policy does not dictate my ethics.

I think it's unethical because you know the intent of the policy is not to provide free rentals. Additionally, you're just treating a producer of a good as a means to your end; you're trading no value for value.

Just like how the little sign at the restaurant says "Free Mints - Please Take!"; while in theory you can take all the mints, you're going to look like a total tool if you do.

Post 16

Sunday, January 6, 2008 - 1:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In my answer, I was assuming that the store does not have such a policy. That is, I was focused on a moral principle, not upon statistical probabilities of conditions. It is not OK to enter a store and "borrow" items to use for a while.

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Sunday, January 6, 2008 - 2:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with Bill that if the store freely chooses to have a no-questions-asked return policy, that there isn't anything fraudulent in a customer taking advantage of that.  As other posters have indicated, the store management must feel that it is ultimately to their benefit.

My moral qualm here is not over any damage done to the store, but rather damage done to the perpetrator.  

There is pride to be taken in honest ownership, and the person described in this scenario is instead choosing to be a borrower.  The psyche of a borrower is corrupted each time they set out to get something for nothing.  The joy they take in the camera or the dress or whatever item they plan to return is tainted by the fact that they know it is not theirs.  In the long-term, this has to take a toll on a person's self-esteem. 

In addition, while they may think they're getting something for free, they're actually investing the time not only "purchasing" the product, but also going through the whole hassel of returning it.  And after all that, they have nothing to show for it.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Monday, January 7, 2008 - 8:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Eric wrote:

And after all that, they have nothing to show for it.

They have the video files or memories or whatever end product they intended to experience or possess.

Whether the value of that end product exceeds the suggested cost to their sense of self-worth is another matter.


Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 11:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wanted to add my voice to the fraud and immoral side of this little debate.

Immoral seems easier.  First, the customer is "buying" it under false pretenses.  He has no intention at all to keep it.  The store is there to sell the product, not to rent it out.  Even if you claim he hasn't explicitly lied, do you think he has something to fear from telling the truth?  Would they be willing to "rent" it to him for free, losing value by the camera going from new to used as Rick pointed out in post 3?  If he can only make the deal by keeping his intentions secret, it's not a proper trade.  It's not a value for value.  At minimum it violates the trader principle, which I think Eric is getting at in post 17.  It's also dishonest, as the customer is concealing his real intentions and acting as if he is really intending to purchase the product.  And it's an attempt to gain the unearned.  It doesn't matter if the system the store sets up technically allows for abuse.  It still is abuse.

I also don't think it's reasonable to assume the store would be okay with it, even getting "interest" for a short period of time.  If they were, then let the customer offer that trade openly.  He wouldn't because he wouldn't expect them to agree.  But I want to argue against that whole methodology.  If you want to trade with someone, you do so openly and with their consent.  It's not proper to do something without their consent, and then try to show afterwards that they benefitted.  If that were the case, government could justify their taxation by claiming you use public roads!  Even if they did manage to gain financially, you took the choice out of their hands.  As actual owners of the property, they may have decided that they'd rather not make the financial gain in order to prevent you from using the camera.  They can even decide to be irrational!  You have no right to complain!  As owners, they get to set the terms of use or transferal, not you!

Does it amount to fraud?  I think so.  They aren't in the business of "renting" their products.  They're in the business of selling them.  They have a generous policy of allowing returns to help them promote sales.  My guess is that they can get you to buy the product now, knowing you could return it, and hoping you'll decide to keep it instead of going through the hassle of coming back.  This is in contrast to deciding later that you might like it, but can't be hassled to come back in.  But whatever their motivation, it's for the purpose of selling the product, not loaning it to you with collateral.  If you go in and borrow it, you're violating their intention.  You're getting away with it because you're keeping your true purpose secret.  You're not really offering value for value.  You're not even offering the value of taking it home and thinking about whether you want to keep it.  If you have no intention to keep it, you're tricking them into a transaction based on faulty information.

Can you be prosecuted?  Probably not, because it would be hard to prove, and because their policy is so relaxed.  The context of the policy should be admissible into court, but I'm doubtful it actually is, given the American approach to law that is technical and literal.  And it may be that it isn't a big enough problem for the stores to attempt to prosecute, as that might undermine the benefits of the policy for others.  But I would still argue that it was fraud.  It is a violation of their property rights, through deceit.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.