| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/30/2006 03:31:58 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'd be back in a heartbeat, just as I'd hope others would do for me. Regardless of the size of the retailer or whatever you might think of karma, it's a single person's mistake- NOT any kind of payback or gift from above. I have gone back to stores that undercharged me by a nickel and brought the difference to them. That nickel is trivial, but the look on the cashier's faces is worth gold. ;-) |
and good for you, but I'll reiterate, your morality is not everyone's morality, it isn't black and white, and it isn't set in stone. |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 03:32:54 PM · #77 |
| If you so hate Wal-Mart that you would be willing to steal from them, you should not be shopping at their store in the first place. Your buisness ought to go to places that you value and which value you. If you feel that they are stealing from you, and it would be OK to steal from them, then it is an unhealthy place to be spending your time or money. |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 03:35:12 PM · #78 |
I college we studied Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development. He believed that we went through stages in our moral development and that you could tell which stage a person was in by their moral reasoning. The answer could be either direction... it was the reason behind the answer that indicated the stage.
Here's a quick summary of Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development
In reading the answers to this forum, the stages shine through. My question to you is, "Which stage does your answer indicate?" |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 03:38:52 PM · #79 |
I think what we are hearing is the vocal minority, people will not advocate to keep it because they know its wrong but I think it would be safe to say the majority would keep it.
I've been involved in doing payroll for a number of firms and in all the years only once has someone said they were overpaid but on an almost weekly basis people claim they are underpaid.
Message edited by author 2006-01-30 15:39:15. |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 03:39:55 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
...your morality is not everyone's morality |
I only stated what I would do. I have no control over others- only admiration and pity. ;-) |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 03:40:29 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by rjkstesch:
I college we studied Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development. He believed that we went through stages in our moral development and that you could tell which stage a person was in by their moral reasoning. The answer could be either direction... it was the reason behind the answer that indicated the stage.
Here's a quick summary of Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development
In reading the answers to this forum, the stages shine through. My question to you is, "Which stage does your answer indicate?" |
Nice writeup. Kohlberg missed one stage: DPC troll. The lowest form of social development.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2006 03:41:48 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Artyste:
...your morality is not everyone's morality |
I only stated what I would do. I have no control over others- only admiration and pity. ;-) |
Well put! That has the makings of a sig.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2006 03:42:28 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
If you so hate Wal-Mart that you would be willing to steal from them, you should not be shopping at their store in the first place. Your buisness ought to go to places that you value and which value you. If you feel that they are stealing from you, and it would be OK to steal from them, then it is an unhealthy place to be spending your time or money. |
I would not steal from wal-mart & I wouldn't correct an error they made in my favor. I also try my hardest not to shop there. I like the idea of keeping the item and dontaing the funds to someone who could use it more.
Message edited by author 2006-01-30 15:52:53.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2006 03:42:30 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by barndog:
Nice writeup. Kohlberg missed one stage: DPC troll. The lowest form of social development. |
Those are simply among the amoral.
=)
Nice brief on Kohlberg, though! |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 03:44:05 PM · #85 |
Looks like I'm a stage 3 sort of person then... ! :) |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 03:52:26 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by dpdave:
I feel your pain, and half a day of my time, looking at the pay slips is not worth $115. The fact that they are trying to make me pay for their mistake however is worth a mountain to me. Usually I'll spend a lot of time arguing before I let someone pick my pocket to pay for an error I didn't commit.
One thing to check before Saturday is refinancing rates...maybe you can actually find a better deal.
Sick 'em, Slippy. |
I agree with you on the matter of principal. If I don't do something about it, it's as good as telling them that it's OK for them to do that to me and everyone else. Sadly, I've just surfed away from another bank and their rates are higher. I refinanced my mortgage at the low point in the "V" this fall. :-(
I don't think I'll have much of a bargaining chip. But whether I get my way or not, the right thing for me to do is probably to go in to the bank and give 'er. I made a teacher cry during a parent-teacher interview while letting her know how unhappy I was with the way her class was run. Can I make a banker cry? |
If you can't make a banker cry, I can, and I do phone in specials! ;o) No offence meant, Jacko.
edit to fix the minor placement f-up.
Message edited by author 2006-01-30 15:59:27.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2006 03:55:17 PM · #87 |
| I would go back and pay for it. |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 04:07:36 PM · #88 |
They did'nt get charged either!
Wal-Mart sale
|
|
|
|
01/30/2006 04:19:30 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I agree with you on the matter of principal. If I don't do something about it, it's as good as telling them that it's OK for them to do that to me and everyone else. Sadly, I've just surfed away from another bank and their rates are higher. I refinanced my mortgage at the low point in the "V" this fall. :-(
I don't think I'll have much of a bargaining chip. But whether I get my way or not, the right thing for me to do is probably to go in to the bank and give 'er. I made a teacher cry during a parent-teacher interview while letting her know how unhappy I was with the way her class was run. Can I make a banker cry? |
reminds me of a letter I saw on the WWW earlier today:
My dear Bank Manager, I am writing to thank you for bouncing the cheque with which I endeavoured to pay my plumber last month.
By my calculations some three nano-seconds must have elapsed between his presenting the cheque, and the arrival in my account of the funds needed to honour it.
I refer, of course, to the automatic monthly deposit of my entire salary, an arrangement which, I admit, has only been in place for eight years. You are to be commended for seizing that brief window of opportunity, and also for debiting my account by way of penalty for the inconvenience I caused your bank. My thankfulness springs from the manner in which this incident has caused me to re-think my errant financial ways.
You have set me on the path of fiscal righteousness. No more will our relationship be blighted by these unpleasant incidents, for I am restructuring my affairs in 1999, taking as my model the procedures, attitudes and conduct of your very own bank.
I can think of no greater compliment, and I know you will be excited and proud to hear it.
To this end, please be advised about the following changes.
First, I have noticed that whereas I personally attend to your telephone calls and letters, when I try to contact you I am confronted by the impersonal, ever-changing, pre-recorded, faceless entity which your bank has become.
From now on I, like you, chose only to deal with a flesh and blood person.
My mortgage and loan repayments will, therefore and hereafter, no longer be automatic, but will arrive at your bank by personal cheque, addressed personally and confidentially to an employee of you branch, whom you must nominate.
You will be aware that it is an offence under the Postal Act for any other person to open such an envelope.
Please find attached an Application for Contact Status which I require your chosen employee to complete.
I am sorry it runs to eight pages, but in order that I know as much about him or her as your bank knows about me, there is no alternative.
Please note that all copies of his/her medical history must be countersigned by a Justice of the Peace, and that the mandatory details of his/her financial situation (income, debts, assets and liabilities) must be accompanied by documented proof.
In due course I will issue your employee with a PIN number which he/she must quote in all dealings with me.
I regret that it cannot be shorter than 28 digits but, again, I have modelled it on the number of button presses required to access my account balance on your phonebank service.
As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Let me level the playing field even further by introducing you to my new telephone system, which you will notice, is very much like yours.
My Authorised Contact at your bank, the only person with whom I will have any dealings, may call me at any time and be answered by an automated voice.
By pressing the buttons on the phone, he/she will be guided through an extensive set of menus: 1) to make an appointment to see me, 2) to query a missing repayment, 3) to make a general complaint or inquiry, and so on.
The contact will then be put onhold, pending the attention of my automated answering service.
While this may on occasion involve a lengthy wait, uplifting music will play for the duration. This month I have chosen the refrain from The Best of Woody Guthrie:
Oh the banks are made of marble With a guard at every door And the vaults are filled with silver That the miners sweated for!
After twenty minutes of that, our mutual contact will probably know it off by heart.
On a more serious note, we come to the matter of cost.
As your bank has often pointed out, the ongoing drive for greater efficiency comes at a cost - a cost which you have always been quick to pass on to me.
Let me repay your kindness by passing some costs back.
First, there is the matter of advertising material you send me.
This I will read for a fee of $20 per A4 page. Inquiries from your nominated contact will be billed at $5 per minute of my time spent in response.
Any debits to my account, as, for example, in the matter of the penalty for the dishonoured cheque, will be passed back to you.
My new phone number service runs at 75 cents per minute (even Woody Guthrie doesn't come free), so keep your inquiries brief and to the point.
Regrettably, but again following your example, I must also levy an establishment fee to cover the setting up of this new arrangement.
May I wish you a happy, if ever-so-slightly less prosperous, New Year.
Your humble client.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2006 04:23:35 PM · #90 |
If you didn't out the dvd player on the counter and it was your fault you just walked out with it you should return it to the store and explain what happened (otherwise it would be stealing).
-Unum |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 04:31:48 PM · #91 |
| Absolutely take it back. Even if it a large store. "stolen" or lost stock ends up coming out of your pocket anyway, when the retailer has to charge higher prices for missing things. Besides it really feels good to do the right thing. I would call them first, so they don't accuse you of stealing it in the first place if that is a concern. Double standard based on the size of the store shouldn't matter...although I am sure that the mom and pop store I work at would thank you |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 04:32:23 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by barndog:
Originally posted by rjkstesch:
I college we studied Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development. He believed that we went through stages in our moral development and that you could tell which stage a person was in by their moral reasoning. The answer could be either direction... it was the reason behind the answer that indicated the stage.
Here's a quick summary of Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development
In reading the answers to this forum, the stages shine through. My question to you is, "Which stage does your answer indicate?" |
Nice writeup. Kohlberg missed one stage: DPC troll. The lowest form of social development. |
:)) too true |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 04:33:58 PM · #93 |
It's difficult to count up the responses here but I roughly make it 25 would pay for it and about 11 would not and possibly another 2/3 are sitting on the fence!
Personally I felt that to not pay would have been stealing morally if not legally and I would have not enjoyed owning the DVD if I hadn't paid. But I agree it is a moral issue not a legal one and everyone has to decide for themselves where they stand on this. It did cross my mind not to say anything so I am not trying to take the moral high ground in this discussion, but for me I couldn't do it.
Mind you as we sit trying to work out how to use the bloody thing, I could throw it across the room!
Hopefully by next week we'll have all our pics on DVD and safe!
Anyway glad I managed to stir up some debate on this cold Monday evening!
P
:))
,
PS I don't know about Karma - My best of entry is still slowly going down - come on, surely I deserve some 10s after being a "good" girl!!!?
Message edited by author 2006-01-30 16:36:13.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2006 04:44:55 PM · #94 |
| a lot of talk about honesty here: I think the most honest are those who say that they would steal under certain conditions. |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 04:46:38 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Right and Wrong isn't a black and white subject. |
Now, let's just break down this statement, shall we :)
Is this statement correct ("Right"), or is it incorrect ("Wrong")?
If it is correct, we are saying that it could just as well be incorrect, because "Right" and "Wrong" isn't black and white. Correct?
If it is incorrect, well, you are "Wrong", and sure enough, "Right and Wrong" IS a black and white subject.
You have put forth the thesis that no thesis about Right and Wrong can be "Right", correct? Thus, your thesis is incorrect, along with all other theses about the matter. Therefore, "Right and Wrong" MAY BE a black and white subject, which means that, indeed, it CAN be WRONG to steal from a retailer, regardless of the profit/loss statement of that retailer.
Moral relativism is a dangerous slope. Leaving each of us to establish our own sense of right versus wrong is deadly, because one individual can easily extrapolate the thought about stealing along a similar curve to justify mass murder, terrorism, bank robbery, car jacking, drug trafficking, or whatever.
I challenge you that whatever wrongs Walmart or any other massive retailer may have committed, it is neither your right nor your duty to correct them in an illegal fashion. Pursue a method which is accepted by your government for this. If they have wronged you personally, file a lawsuit. Opportunistic stealing simply makes someone into the very animal they are trying to correct - a criminal. It accomplishes absolutely nothing other than making us feel as though we've "beat the man", when actually we have lowered ourselves a small notch and have less authority than ever when we accuse them of wrongdoing.
Oh, and by the way, perhaps their definition of "wrong" also differs from yours, which implies the possibility that perhaps your statement is correct, thus yielding you in the wrong in their eyes while leaving them on the moral high ground?
Hmmm. Thoughts to ponder.
All with respect. |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 05:13:04 PM · #96 |
I had something similar happen to me. I went to Staples and bought my current computer. I also got a printer and a monitor. Well, I kept having problems with the mail-in rebate for the monitor. Turns out I was never charged for it. This was about three months later. I called the store and they told me that they had realized I was never charged three days after I left the store. They had already written it off as a loss. Since the rebate was less than the monitor they didn't really care. I got a free monitor. Yeah!!!
However, there are two times that I went to Walmart and the charges have never made it to my account. This was about four months ago. I've called them and they have never found the transactions. I don't have the reciepts so I can't prove anything. All together Walmart lost about $200.
I tried to rectify the problem, but nobody ever seems to care.
If I were you I'd still try to rectify the problem. Most likely they'll tell you not to worry about it. |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 05:18:39 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by hokie:
That will be $4.87!". |
Dang!! If that was me and they really wanted to stick by it I might have been tempted to go back and wipe out the shelf, and then resell them on ebay. |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 05:30:44 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
a lot of talk about honesty here: I think the most honest are those who say that they would steal under certain conditions. |
No one said that. People are discussing whether or not they would come clean on a mistake made by a store clerk who neglected to charge for an item. There is no theft here which has been established, it was a mistake of the seller.
The moral dilemna is whether you would feel it necessary to return to the store, point out their mistake and pay for the merchandise you have received.
The merchandise was sold in good faith, bought in good faith but the monetary transaction for the merchandise never took place.
So the store is out the merchandise and the money due to their own mistake.
Are you the type of person to forgive the mistake and do what is morally right or is it a windfall in your favor and justifiable in your own mind to be "right".
|
|
|
|
01/30/2006 05:34:14 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by NathanW:
Originally posted by hokie:
That will be $4.87!". |
Dang!! If that was me and they really wanted to stick by it I might have been tempted to go back and wipe out the shelf, and then resell them on ebay. |
I couldn't think that fast!
I was dumbfounded at the time. I mean..you would have had to been there to appreciate it.
It was a typcial middle of the day, slow..nobody rushing them.
Their lack of understanding about the product I think led them to behave like this. The probably thought.."HA! What do I care if this smuck gets software that cost $29.95 for $5!"
Now if a laptop came up at $4.87 you can't tell me the same thing would have happened. |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 05:35:05 PM · #100 |
| Interestinmg discussion. Theft and mistakes are why we all pay increasing high prices for items that should be cheaper. So, do what ya feel, but remember Santa Claus is watching, and what would you tell your kids if they did the same thing. It's called integrity, do you have it or not? Take it back to the manager, they will probably give you a discount or lesser cost. If not, will you may be able to live with yourself or keep thinking about it for years. |
|
