Ethics

Teresa, thank you for the kind words.

Eric, how about another scenario:

Little Billy wanted to buy pain medicine for his poor grandmother who was suffering miserably. He collected all of his money, but found he was just a little short. 25 cents, to be exact. Then he remembered that at his friend Jimmy's house, they had some quarters in one of their desk drawers. He went over to visit his friend, and while there, took a quarter. He then spent it on the pain medication and his grandma felt much better. But after having thinking about, he decided what he did was wrong. So he sold his favorite toy to a neighbor for 50 cents. He not only returned the quarter, but added another as a form of apology. Nobody had noticed the loss, and he returned it with extra.

Is he a criminal? Should he go to jail? Or pay a fine?

Well, he did violate their property rights. He took their property without permission. Returning it afterwards, even before they noticed, does not make it any less of a crime. They might decide, after hearing the full story, that although he violated their rights, that there's no need for a punishment. But maybe not. Maybe they'd demand some form of punishment. Even returning an extra quarter doesn't fix it, since Billy is deciding what is a reasonable rate of interest, instead of letting them decide.

What about Sally? You claim that her intention was wrong, but her action was right. But if the store had an explicit policy of "no renters", it's not simply her intention that's bad. It's her deceit. It's the fact that she made the trade under false pretenses, and the store didn't get the value they were expecting. And if we argue that such a policy is implicit, which I think it is, its still her action that's the problem, not simply her intentions.

How about if you come to my house asking for donations to help starving Objectivists. I generously give you some money, while you have no intention at all of passing it on to Objectivists. Is it fraud? According to your Sally example, it isn't fraud because you might at some point change your mind and actually pass the money on to starving Objectivists. If at any time in the future, you decide to fulfill your obligation under the transaction, it immediately ceases to be fraud. I disagree. I think it was fraud, and at a later time you are just trying to remedy it, just as Sally is just trying to remedy it afterwards.

Post 81

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 7:58pm

Joe,

I enjoyed both your examples, but unfortunately they don't accurately parallel the Sally situation. In your first example, even though it is sweet of little Billy to care so much about his granny, and even though he only took a quarter, and even though he eventually gave the money back with interest.....he is still guilty of theft. He stole someone's property. In terms of a proper punishment, he should have his allowance suspended for a week perhaps, or be grounded for a day or two. Billy has to learn that he had no business snooping through someone else's drawers, let alone stealing money.

Sally's case is not like Billy's, because she did not violate anyone's property rights. She has merchandise that she paid for. So while I'm happy to hear that Billy broke the law just to help his dear grandmother, I don't see how it applies to this discussion!

Now, in terms of collecting money for all those starving Objectivists, a lie was told in order to mislead someone into making a donation. That's fraud. It's a crime.

You believe that Sally lied to the store, because in her mind she thought she might bring the merchandise back and collect a refund. That is, she thought she might do something deceitful in the future to acquire some cash. The crime is not in the purchasing the goods, but in fraudulently bringing them back for a refund in a store that has a "No Used or Damaged Goods Accepted for Return" policy. You want to penalize her before she's committed any crime.

Let's go back to little Billy.

Billy's friends on the playground are bragging about some of the really bad things they've done. But all Billy has to tell them about is the quarter he stole for his grandmother's medicine. They jeer at him, and he swears to himself that he's gonna show up these no-goodniks. "I'll show 'em who's the baddest kid in town," he thinks. He sees a store, and he decides to go in it for one purpose only: He's gonna steal something from it. He goes into the store, looks around, and loses his nerve. He leaves with nothing.

"I gotta prove that I'm a tough guy" he thinks. So, he sees a man in line at McDonald's. He goes in and stands behind the man for one reason: He's going to spit in the man's face and push him! Won't that be bad? So, he taps the man on the back, but when the man turns around, Billy loses his nerve and just says, "Have you ever tried the Crispy McChicken sandwich? I hear it's delicious."

Frustrated, Billy decides that to be really really bad he needs to commit murder. That'll impress his hoodlum friends! So, he goes into the store to buy some rat poison. He's going to mix it in to his grandmother's medicine! He buys the rat poison, but on the way home feels ashamed and throws it in the garbage. That night, before he goes to bed, he decides he doesn't want to hang around that gang of boys anymore.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the way you want to administer justice is to declare that Billy is guilty of theft, assault, and murder. After all, those were his plans. If Sally's plan makes her guilty, then she's gonna have to be thrown in the slammer along with Billy. But in a non-Orwellian justice system, it's acknowledged that Billy and Sally did not follow through on their plans. Thus, neither of them committed a crime.

Post 82

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 8:34pm

Eric, you keeping saying the return policy is "No Used or Damaged Goods Accepted for Return". But that just makes the scenario obvious, and the act of returning the goods as a clear deceit and fraud. If you insist on that being the return policy, you'll never see the point of this discussion, because it's so obviously fraud that it distracts you.

The policy is "We accept all returns! No questions asked!". The return of slightly used goods is perfectly okay by that standard.

Now even with this wide-open policy, there are some restrictions. If you didn't purchase it in the first place, and simply stole it from the store, the policy doesn't apply to you. Returns are only for legitimately purchased goods. The wide open policy does not somehow transform a theft into a legitimate act, simply because they claim they'll accept the return for any reason at all.

Now the Billy example wasn't supposed to be a case of fraud. It was to show that even if someone tries to undo the harm they did, and even pays some compensation for the act, it doesn't make it go away. While Sally decided to change her mind and make amends, it doesn't change the initial act, which was a deceitful purchase.

You accept that a lie was used in the donation example, and that's fraud. I would need to qualify that more. It's not simply a lie that makes something fraud. Fraud is more specific. It involves a transaction where one side didn't provide the value they said they were. In the donation, the hypothetical Eric promised to support starving Objectivists as his part of the transaction. It's not any lie that causes it to be fraud, but a lie about what the person is going to get as his part of the deal.

Sally said she was really purchasing it, but she was merely "renting" it. The store wasn't receiving what they expected in the transaction. She changed her mind afterwards, just like the hypothetical Eric could, but it doesn't remove the original fraud.

It wasn't that Sally "planned" to commit fraud by returning a used good, as you keep bringing up with your "No Used or Damaged Goods Accepted for Return" policy. No. The policy accepted anything. The dishonest wasn't intended for the future. The dishonesty was in the initial "purchase". With a "no renting" policy, her action is theft. The transaction wasn't legitimate. The fact that money and goods changed hands doesn't make it legitimate or complete, just as me purchasing a fake diamond from someone who says its real isn't a legitimate purchase. It's a form of theft. She walked away with the physical property, but she didn't provide the necessary conditions for walking away with the legitimate right to that property.

As for your extended Billy example, I wouldn't say that he has committed theft, assault or murder. Again, I am not faulting Sally for intending to commit fraud by returning it with a "No Used Goods" policy. I'm faulting her for committing fraud by claiming she is purchasing the goods, when she is in fact "renting" it.

But are you suggesting that there is no such thing as conspiracy to commit murder? That you can plan to murder someone, going through all the preparations of it, but until you pull the trigger, you're not guilty of any crime?

Post 83

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 9:20pm

"Again, I am not faulting Sally for intending to commit fraud by returning it with a "No Used Goods" policy. I'm faulting her for committing fraud by claiming she is purchasing the goods, when she is in fact "renting" it. "

I get it.

Still unenforceable as law, though.

Post 84

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 9:48pm

Okay, okay, okay....I'll stop including the "No Returns on Used or Damaged Merchandise" policy. You're right, it makes the whole thing too easy.

And in return, will you forego the "We Refuse To Do Business With Renters" policy? That, too, makes it all too easy.

So, all we have is a store that welcomes all customers, and offers a "No Questions Asked" return policy. Sally is shopping there, and when she sees that they offer this terrific policy, a thought goes through her head. "Hmmm, she thinks, I can buy this now, wear it out once, then return it!"

We both agree that the plan is not virtuous. We disagree about whether or not it is a crime.

I say it is not a crime because all Sally has done is purchase a dress. You say it is a crime because of what Sally is thinking of doing in the future.

In your last post, you mention that Sally was deceitful in purchasing tthe dress, because she represented herself as a "buyer" when she is secretly contemplating the prospects of being a "renter." You go on to say that after that "crime" she needs to "make amends" to the store to compensate for her deceit. My question is....Make amends for what? The store has not suffered any damages.

Yes, I believe that conspiracy to murder is a crime. If Billy calls a hit man and pays him his entire allowance to kill his granny, he is guilty of a felony. But if all Billy has done is think about killing his grandmother, he's just a normal, all-American, grandmother-hating boy who hasn't committed a crime.

Post 85

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 10:12pm

Steven, I agree. Although there might be some exceptional cases such as a confession or something that might make it enforceable. But practically speaking, it isn't.

Eric, I don't want to put away my "No Renters" policy yet. You say it's too easy, but I wasn't aware that you agreed that the initial transaction would be fraud. Are you agreeing with that point? That if they have a "No Renters" policy, the purchase itself is where the fraud is taking place? If not, what do you mean by "makes it all too easy"? If you do agree with it, then there's just the question of whether or not this is an implicit policy or not.

I say it is a crime, not because she is simply contemplating being a renter, but because the first transaction is a rent, not a purchase. Changing her mind afterwards is just like someone who commits fraud and changes his mind, making it appear as if the act wasn't a fraud from the beginning.

You say the store hasn't been damaged. I say they have. I say that their ownership of that property allows them to decide not to let renters. Since she started as a renter, their right to transfer their property based on their own conditions was violated. The fact that they received some money in the process doesn't fix it, especially since the renter has illegitimately acquired the right to get the money back. Fraud happens even if the person committing the fraud provides some of the value he was expected to.

As for Billy:

The defense presented their case to the media that Billy had simply thought about killing his grandmother. But the facts as presented by the prosecution didn't support the story. Knowing of Billy's sociopathic tendencies (he would torture neighborhood animals), his grandmother had alerted the local rat poison stores that he might try something. On the sad day, they called her just as Billy left the store. The grandmother prepared herself. When Billy came home, smiling that repulsive, evil smile, he told his grandmother that it was time to take her medicine. He took her glass out to the kitchen, where he pulled out the rat poison and measured a large amount. His grandmother charged into the room at that point, and declared that she had found him out. Only then did Billy decide he couldn't go through with it, and declared he was ashamed of even thinking about it.

The police arrested him, and his defense team argued under the unconvincing principle that since he was simply planning to kill her, and didn't follow through with it, it doesn't amount to a crime. With conjured tears in his eyes, he testified that he really loves his grandmother, that it was the influence of unpleasant children, that he had no free will and was deterministically driven by his values, and that he was genuinely sorry. The jury decided he was only sorry that he got caught.

Post 86

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 10:45pm

Joe,

The difference is that Billy was trying to commit a crime and would have committed one had he not been caught. The person who buys the camera, uses it once and then returns it isn't trying to commit a crime, because its not a crime to buy the camera and return it. The store has authorized its customers to do just that. If they don't want to keep the camera, they have a perfect right to return it. That they bought it with the intention of returning it is irrelevant, since it makes no difference to the store whether they bought it intending to return it or bought it intending to keep it and then changed their minds. In either case, the result is the same: the customer simply returns a camera that he purchased. End of story.

- Bill

Post 87

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 11:22pm

Bill, it is only your opinion that it doesn't make a difference to the store. That's based on your opinion that they're happing to have "renters". I don't accept that.

But you haven't answered a question I had earlier. If they have an explicit policy of "No 'Renters'", would you still claim that there's no fraud and the store doesn't care?

Post 88

Friday, January 18, 2008 - 12:00am

In Post 79, Teresa wrote,

So, Bill, et al, does that mean if the shirt is damaged during the decorating process, which is completely my fault, or the machine's fault, or admin's fault for giving me incorrect instructions, or the customer's fault for giving admin the wrong information, I can actually blame the shirt, get a refund, all without moral corruption?

Of course not! Whatever gave you that idea?! In my posts, I said that the "no questions asked" policy applied to merchandise that's returned in acceptable condition.

- Bill

Post 89

Friday, January 18, 2008 - 12:20am

Bill, it is only your opinion that it doesn't make a difference to the store. That's based on your opinion that they're happing [happy] to have "renters". I don't accept that.

It's not just my opinion. In their no-questions asked return policy it doesn't make any difference, because the policy is mute with respect to the customer's intention. The policy simply says that the merchandise can be returned for any reason, so long as it's returned in acceptable condition. I'm sure they're not "happy" to have "renters" (those who buy it with the intention of returning it) any more than they're "happy" to have merchandise returned by those who didn't buy it with the intention of returning it. Obviously, they'd prefer that the customer keep what he has purchased. But since their policy allows customers to buy the merchandise and return it for any reason, it allows renters as well.

But you haven't answered a question I had earlier. If they have an explicit policy of "No 'Renters'", would you still claim that there's no fraud and the store doesn't care?

For Galt's sake, Joe, if they had an explicit policy of "No Renters," they wouldn't have a no-questions asked return policy. A person who buys a product, intending to keep it, but changes his mind and returns it, has in effect "rented" the product just as much as someone who intended to return it all along. The "rental" doesn't just apply to those who buy it with the intention of returning it; it applies to anyone who buys and returns it, whether initially intending to or not. Again, intentions are irrelevant in this context. It's what the person actually does that matters.

- Bill

Post 90

Friday, January 18, 2008 - 7:12am

Joe,
Another quibble I have with your "We Do Not Sell To Renters" policy is that in order to be effective, it must rely upon the "No Returns on Used or Damaged Goods" policy. Let me explain.

Stan gives a beautiful necklace to his girlfriend Stacy. Knowing that she doesn't always share his taste, he also gives her the sales receipt and tells her she can always take it back if she doesn't like it. Stacy decides that she'll use the necklace AND get her money back. She wears it out on the town, then she takes it back to the store for a full refund.

With your policy, the only one who could be considered guilty is Stan, because he's the one who made the purchase. But he's not guilty because he had to intention to merely "rent" the product. Stacy committed the offense by passing off used merchandise as if it is unused. She is committing fraud. But with your "renters" policy, she can only be found guilty if there is ALSO the policy of "No Returns on Used or Damaged Merchandise."

In addition, because you are focusing so much on intention, your policy fails again in the case in which someone buys a product honestly, then gets the idea to "rent" after they leave the store. For you, as long as there was honest intent while standing at the cash register, there isn't a crime.

Finally, your policy unjustly makes criminals out of people like Sally (http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/1153_2.shtml#46)

I was guilty of doing some psychologizing last night. I was thinking, "How can Joe be so smart and so clear in his thinking and yet be so wrong on this one issue?" Then it occurred to me, that maybe it's because you are so keenly aware of the moral transgression, which does take place at the point of sale, that you want to see that punished in some way.

Post 91

Friday, January 18, 2008 - 11:07am

Bill

It's not just my opinion. In their no-questions asked return policy it doesn't make any difference, because the policy is mute with respect to the customer's intention. The policy simply says that the merchandise can be returned for any reason, so long as it's returned in acceptable condition. I'm sure they're not "happy" to have "renters" (those who buy it with the intention of returning it) any more than they're "happy" to have merchandise returned by those who didn't buy it with the intention of returning it.

I'm sorry Bill I would totally dispute that.

They would be happier to make an honest customer happy, that is the latter example you give of someone that initially was going to keep the product but changed their mind.

They would not be as happy to make a dishonest customer happy, that is the former example you give of someone simply wanting to rent the product at no cost.

While I can't speak for every business, it is without question Bill that most managers and owners would rather make the customers who are honest about being dissatisfied happy by giving the customer their money back as opposed to a piece of trash that's lying about their dissatisfaction over the product.

For Galt's sake, Joe, if they had an explicit policy of "No Renters," they wouldn't have a no-questions asked return policy. A person who buys a product, intending to keep it, but changes his mind and returns it, has in effect "rented" the product just as much as someone who intended to return it all along. The "rental" doesn't just apply to those who buy it with the intention of returning it; it applies to anyone who buys and returns it, whether initially intending to or not.

So Bill correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying in regards to what is or isn't ethical behavior, a person's intentions does not matter? Or am I mistaken in characterizing your position.
(Edited by John Armaos on 1/18, 11:10am)

Post 92

Friday, January 18, 2008 - 2:35pm

Bill, for Galt's sake, you talk as if there is no difference at all between those intending merely to rent the product, and those buying it with the possibility of returning it! Of course, given that bizarre position, you don't think it's possible to have a no-renting policy combined with an open return policy. And as long as you think these are the same thing, it also makes sense that you would consider both of them morally proper. But you need to check your premises, and stop equating them.

Eric, I don't accept your quibble. Nor do I accept your opinion that I simply want to punish someone for a mere moral transgression. And as proof of both, I don't think Stacy is committing fraud, nor do I think the person who decides after the purchase to "rent" is committing fraud. In both cases, they may still be immoral (although to a lesser extent, since it didn't involve the initial deceit for instance), but no fraud was committed.

As for the Sally case, the reason I brought up the original Billy case was to show that it doesn't matter how well intended they are afterwards, and whether they make what they think are proper amends, a rights violation is still a rights violation. This thread started with people suggesting that it was actually good for the store owner. That even though he was deceived and a trade occurred with conditions he wouldn't have approved of if he wasn't deceived, he still benefitted But a trade is not made legitimate because both sides benefit. Property rights means that the owner has full control of his property. You can't take it, by force or fraud, and claim that since you paid him back, it's not a crime. Only he gets to decide the use of his property. The Sally case is still a violation of the property rights of the store owner. Her changing her mind about the fraud and paying him what he had originally asked does not transform it into a non-deceitful transaction. It still was. She obtained the goods by deceiving the store owner about the value he was going to receive. He expected her to either buy it and keep it, or buy it and change her mind. He did not want her to rent it.

You keep assuming that if the person hands over the money at the beginning, that the trade is complete. But it's not. Let me try to turn it around on you.

What if you buy a camera, because the store owner tells you he allows returns on any merchandise. After you conclude the transaction, he says "No returns". "What? You just said you take returns for any reason?" "Tough." But by your earlier argument, the transaction is complete. You received the goods that you asked for, just as the store owner received the money he asked for. Is there no fraud there?

Perhaps you were under the opinion that your purchase came with an opportunity to return the merchandise. You might even say it's fraud. But, he would claim, you got what you bought. You got your camera. That's it. The transaction is concluded.

You might argue that he never intended to allow you to return it. But he'd say, intentions don't matter, obviously. The renter's intentions don't matter. Neither does his. Sure he intentionally gave you the impression that he was intending to act one way in the future, when he had no expectations to. But how can mere intentions be fraud? Especially when you received the camera in proper condition?

But, you might argue, you had a certain expectation about what you were getting in the transaction. Well, he said, you didn't have a written, explicit contract. And he never said he'd maintain his return policy.

But, you might argue, you only made the transaction because the return policy existed. You believed it was a condition of the trade. You wouldn't have made the trade if the store owner hadn't deceived you. Well, he'd argue back, the initial transaction was completed, so it couldn't be fraud. And you can't fault him for not making another transaction in the future, even if you expected that he would. There's nothing wrong with not making a future trade.

Is this store owner committing fraud? Is the transaction legitimate, simply because money and goods changed hands? Or was the transaction conditional on the existence of an open return policy?

Post 93

Friday, January 18, 2008 - 8:42pm

Joe,

We've arrived at a point of agreement. We both agree that Stacy is not guilty of fraud. I think Bill would agree that with a "No Questions Asked" policy, there is nothing fraudulent in using a product and then returning it, as Stacy did. We also agree that a person who buys something, and then on the way home decides to "rent" it instead, is not guilty of any kind of crime, given the same liberal return policy.

I still disagree with you on Sally, and find it hard to find her guilty of fraud since she never returned a product and never asked for a refund. I understand that you think her intentions while making the purchase were suspect, but I can't conclude from that that she's a criminal.

I can see I'm starting to repeat myself in these posts, so I'm going to quit here, having done my best to make decent arguments. As always, I enjoy debating with you, and am happy when we can at least end on some point of agreement.

Eric

Post 94

Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 12:10pm

Bill, for Galt's sake, you talk as if there is no difference at all between those intending merely to rent the product, and those buying it with the possibility of returning it! Of course, given that bizarre position, you don't think it's possible to have a no-renting policy combined with an open return policy. And as long as you think these are the same thing, it also makes sense that you would consider both of them morally proper. But you need to check your premises, and stop equating them.

There's a difference between them, but it's not one that's ethically relevant. What could a "No Renting" policy possibly mean here? It could mean only that a customer is not entitled to buy the product, possess it for a certain period of time and return it for a full refund. Because a customer's intentions at the time of purchase cannot be objectively assessed, a "No Renting" policy would have to rule out returns that aren't based on a defect in the product or on the product's failure to perform as advertised. If the seller allows returns on products that aren't defective and that work as advertised, then if he isn't injured when the product is returned because the buyer has a change of heart, he isn't injured when the product is returned because the buyer intended to return it at the time of purchase.

Let me give you another example that may help to illustrate the principle. Suppose a customer walks into a store intending to steal a camera, but changes his mind once he's in the store and decides to buy it instead. Have the seller's rights been violated by the customer's initial intentions to steal the camera? No. As far as the store is concerned, there is no relevant difference between someone who enters the store intending to steal a camera but changes his mind and ends up buying it, and someone who enters the store not intending to steal the camera and ends up buying it. Since the customer's intentions at the time he enters the store cannot be ascertained, neither of these actions violates the store's policies.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 1/20, 12:22pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 1/20, 1:00pm)

Post 95

Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 1:00pm

Bill,

If they don't want to keep the camera, they have a perfect right to return it. That they bought it with the intention of returning it is irrelevant, since it makes no difference to the store whether they bought it intending to return it or bought it intending to keep it and then changed their minds. In either case, the result is the same: the customer simply returns a camera that he purchased.

You're conflating freedom-of-action (i.e., Rights) with morality. In this view that you're championing, if you have "the right" to do it, then it's automatically moral (or not "immoral"). But we have the right to chop off our noses in order to spite our faces -- and that's immoral.

Because morality doesn't require whether we've affected other people or not, some things which we have "a right" to do are wrong. As I said before (but you appear to have ignored) ...

This is an (incorrectly) under-determined, Utilitarian view of morality. Morality isn't just about avoiding lies, cheating, and stealing. Nor is it about getting away with whatever it is that someone else has been willing to put up with. Morality is about what's objectively good for you. It is about habitual action aimed at developing one's character, for better or for worse. Like Eric has said here, there can be a price to pay even if the "sheets are officially balanced" at the end of the day.

Post 96

Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 1:14pm

I wrote, "In their no-questions asked return policy it doesn't make any difference [whether the customers buys it intending to return it or not], because the policy is mute with respect to the customer's intention. The policy simply says that the merchandise can be returned for any reason, so long as it's returned in acceptable condition. I'm sure they're not "happy" to have "renters" (those who buy it with the intention of returning it) any more than they're "happy" to have merchandise returned by those who didn't buy it with the intention of returning it. John replied,

I'm sorry Bill I would totally dispute that.

They would be happier to make an honest customer happy, that is the latter example you give of someone that initially was going to keep the product but changed their mind.

They would not be as happy to make a dishonest customer happy, that is the former example you give of someone simply wanting to rent the product at no cost.

Sure, but the point I was making is that their degree of happiness with respect to the conduct of their customers has nothing to do with whether or not their rights have been violated. They would be happier if shoppers bought something instead of simply browsing the store and leaving, but that doesn't mean that shoppers who browse their store and leave without buying anything have violated their rights.

While I can't speak for every business, it is without question Bill that most managers and owners would rather make the customers who are honest about being dissatisfied happy by giving the customer their money back as opposed to a piece of trash that's lying about their dissatisfaction over the product.

You're assuming that a customer who buys a product with the intention of returning it is lying, but since the store's policy is mute with respect to the buyer's intention, the person who buys the product with the intention of returning is not lying to anyone, since he is not making any false representation.

Moreover, the fact that the seller would prefer that the customer buy the product with the intention of keeping it does not mean that the store's policy does not allow customers to buy the product with the intention of returning it. If the choice were between the customer's not buying the product and buying it with the intention of returning it, the store might very well prefer the latter on the grounds that the customer may decide to keep it.

We have to be careful to distinguish between what the store allows and what it prefers. It allows shoppers to enter the store and leave without buying anything, even though it prefers that they enter the store and buy something before leaving. It is what the store allows, not what it prefers, that determines what is ethical in this context.

I wrote, "A person who buys a product, intending to keep it, but changes his mind and returns it, has in effect 'rented' the product just as much as someone who intended to return it all along. The 'rental' doesn't just apply to those who buy it with the intention of returning it; it applies to anyone who buys and returns it, whether initially intending to or not."

So Bill correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying in regards to what is or isn't ethical behavior, a person's intentions does not matter? Or am I mistaken in characterizing your position.

Intentions matter insofar as they apply to actions that matter. So, for example, it makes an ethical difference whether I accidentally hit a pedestrian or intentionally hit him. But in the case of the customer's buying the camera with the intention of returning it versus buying it with the intention of keeping it and then later returning it, the different intentions don't matter, because the actions that accompany them don't involve any damage or injury to the seller.

- Bill

Post 97

Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 1:19pm

"Because a customer's intentions at the time of purchase cannot be objectively assessed..." Bill D.

By the store, very likely.

But the very statement of the hypothetical, on which we were asked to make an ethical judgment, includes that very intention, i.e. to temporarily give the store money, knowing they intended to use the camera then return it for a full refund.

Post 0
"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?"

---

Perhaps Warren A could weigh in, since he doesn't include the explicit words: "purchased, knowing they intend to return" only that they in fact do this. It certainly seems to be implied the way he describes the scenario.

Once again, what the store does or does not (or can or can not) know at the time of the purchase, does not determine the ethical status of the buyer.

And, in particular, with reference to your statement that there's no harm to the store -- whether true or not is beside the point, with respect to the ethics of the buyer. He may not be lying (although this is debatable and has been covered at length), he is being dishonest, i.e. faking reality, by pretending to buy the camera, knowing he intends to return it for a full refund. That the store allows this has no bearing on the ethics of the buyer.

Do you really want to argue that an action is only unethical if party A harms party B?
(Edited by Jeff Perren on 1/20, 1:27pm)

Post 98

Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 1:44pm

Jeff,

It appears that our posts crossed -- as your post 97 is a restatement of my post 95.

Ed

Post 99

Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 7:42pm