I’ve been pretty busy the past couple days, but I’ve been thinking about the OP’s question, analyzing my thoughts on the matter. I’ve not yet read any responses since I last posted. So, I’m typing this up beforehand (it’s pretty long), then I’ll go back and see what people have to say.
It seems to me that the closest analogous two scenarios thus far are: (1) the fruit consignment and (2) my example above of demographic data. I think (1) has been made clear enough to not need repeating, but I’ll re-describe (2):
I purchase something online from company A. Part of the check-out procedure is to answer some demographic questions. Some marketing firm, B, accepts the demographic data, packaging both the raw data and analyses of the data for sale. A and B have a business arrangement such that A provides the data they gather to B, while B provides one or more analyses to A. A uses the analyses to guide its advertising spending, while B is free to sell its packaged data to other entities. Of course, just like political pollsters, B’s ability to profit from their data packages depends heavily on their accuracy. I pay full value to Company A for their product. Company B receives their demographic data and A receives their analysis. But, I lie when answering the demographic questions, throwing off the true nature of the data.
What are the ethical questions, obligations, and/or faults involved in these examples? First, there is the ethical question of lying. In each case (ticket purchasing, fruit consignment, and demographic data), I think there is an ethical obligation to tell the truth, so in each of these cases I would accept (without introducing further stipulations or qualifications) that the lie was unethical.
Also playing a role in the ethics of lying: above, I made it a point to include “without any qualifications” of the basic examples. I did this because in some situations, additional qualifications matter to an ethical evaluation. Dispensing with the above examples, this is to cover situations such as “Lying is unethical”, but “Lying to hide Anne Frank from the Nazis” is completely ethical. One might also consider “just war” theory or any other numerous ethical situations to see that, contrary to the pronouncements of some, the situational context and details matter.
Then, there is the ethical question concerning financial loss. In each case, goods and services were exchanged for the agreed upon price, so there is no loss at this point in the transaction(s), and my ethical obligation of payment is satisfied. It is exactly for this reason that I feel a charge of “stealing” is, at the very least, inappropriate.
However, there is no denying that some monetary loss occurs in each case. Where exactly is the ethical fault and to whom does it attach? In the case of marketing data, I neither see nor feel any ethical obligation to make sure B’s data is accurate. That’s part and parcel of their business operation, one that is not in my purview. If they use flawed data gathering procedures and analysis – again, much like political pollsters – then the ethical fault is theirs, in that they are not satisfying their ethical obligation of supplying accurate data. IMHO, a similar principle holds in the case of box-office records and fruit inventory, although I admit that the lines are murkier, more ambiguous.
But these are just analogies, and so are not equivalent. The differences, as I see them, follow. Any one may or may not be legitimate in reaching one’s conclusion about the ethics involved; in addition, I’m just listing what comes to mind, so I’m sure that there are others:[ul]
[li]In all examples, the level of trust involved varies. That is, it seems to me that the expectation of honesty is minimal when answering personal questions online, higher than that when purchasing a ticket, and highest in the face-to-face exchange with the grocer. Thus, it seems more unethical to lie directly to the grocer than to misrepresent oneself online. It’s not clear to me whether this deserves any ethical weight at all, but I find that it affects my evaluations nonetheless.[/li][li]In the fruit and ticket examples, there is the physcial vs. intellectual property issue. That is, in every occurance, the fruit is gone. On the other hand, the ticket sale may or may not have occcurred (e.g., a person will not “pay Al Gore”), or it may actually be a financial positive for one entity (e.g., an indie filmmaker benefits or the theater owner has a net gain due to the different licenses for the films), or no financial loss occurs at all (e.g., because the films’ distribution cost does not depend on box-office records, but is a flat-rate).[/li][li]In the ticket and demographics examples, there is the matter of per-sale recompense vs. an aggregate use. That is, there is a more direct causal relationship between my lie and monetary loss in the box-office scenario; in the demographics example, that relationship is diluted by statistics (although it still exists). It seems to me that this also holds true when comparing the demographic and fruit examples.[/li][li]In the demographic and fruit examples, the third party’s product is or is not dependent on my lie. That is, growing produce is a fully separate activity from whether I buy it or not; demographic data gathering and analysis is directly tied to my accurately representing myself. I find this difference interesting in that, in my mind, it changes the ethical impact of lying. Due to the more direct relationship, in the case of demographics, the lie is worse (i.e., my ethical responsibility is higher). Intriguingly, and perhaps directly because of this, it also seems to me that the ultimate impact on the third party is less – that is, the dependence may lead to an expectation of untrustworthy results ([House]Everybody lies.[/House]). Or maybe I’m simply making shit up. ;)[/li][/ul]
In the end, I agree that the practical import of the specific OP question is so vanishingly small as to be insignificant. Furthermore, it doesn’t even apply to me, but is a (toy) theoretical question only. As I’ve repeatedly intimated, I think that lying is unethical in all but the most extreme cases. As for the ethics of causing financial loss: if others want to apply their standards to me and charge me with being unethical, I accept that determination as stated, no rationalizing or evasions required. Different premises lead to different conclusions, after all, and we simply disagree on the premises.
Now, to go back and read the thread…thanks again, Bricker for an interesting intellectual exercise.