# Ethical dilemma **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [October 29, 2008, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069 "2008-10-29T13:13:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/41 "2008-10-29T20:04:52Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Throwing away the pictures seems wasteful to me. However, it seems worth noting that one reason the prices are set so high may be to account for the company’s expected loss when a few sets are given away free. Thus, by giving these away free, you may be contributing to higher prices for the other parents. Leaving aside the issue of ethics, your post makes no sense from a purely logical point of view. We already know, from the OP, that the company apparently throws out unsold sets. And we can reasonably assume that they set their prices at a level that takes into account the fact that some sets will not be sold. How the OP giving a few sets to a few families has any effect whatsoever on their pricing strategy is not at all clear to me. Also, to go back to **Jodi** ’s point, this whole situation could be avoided if the company itself took responsibility for dealing with the unsold sets. If the company had the unsold sets returned to them via FedEx, they could count the returned sets, count the number of orders and the amount of money they received, and work out if there was a discrepancy. As it is, they have no way of telling whether the sets for which they received no money were given away or thrown away. There might be ethical problems with giving the pictures away, especially if the OP then has to sign a statement saying they had been destroyed, but i have no sympathy at all for the company in this case. Also, as **Marley23** correctly surmised, the cost of the printing itself is a relatively trivial part of the expenses for a company like this. The very reason they print up the sets and then sell them, rather than printing to order, is that the printing is cheap and having the sets available right away make parents more likely to buy them. ---
**Author:** ![BoBettie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@BoBettie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BoBettie)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/42 "2008-10-29T20:08:02Z")
I personally would pull a Clinton and define “destroy” for myself. I would throw them into a bag and chuck them to the curb on a non-pick up day. I would then rescue them from the curb, open them up at home, sort the ones out that I wanted to distribute and do so. I’d tell the company that I threw them away (true) and tell the families that I found them in the trash (true). Actually, I wouldn’t do any of that- I"d just take the pics, give them to the moms that I knew wanted them and sign the stupid paper. Seriously, if I end up roasting in hell for getting some pictures for someone who couldn’t afford them that were about to be destroyed anyway, then oh well. I would also bring it up at the school and ask if there’s any way to set up a small fund for these situations so that you don’t have parents next year who cannot afford even a small sheet of school pictures. (Or start one myself- raise a few hundred bucks and put it in a fund). I would then feel that my right offset my wrong and I wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep. ---
**Author:** ![AuntiePam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/43 "2008-10-29T20:09:49Z")
> [@Cub\_Mistress](#): > > You’re not going to get the preschool “in trouble” with the photographer. IME, the photographer pays the school a fee for the privilege of selling you those overpriced school photos. Think about it, 93 kids at a minimum of $60 apiece is $5580. If that’s the arrangement, then the school could lose that income (the fee paid by the photographer). ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/44 "2008-10-29T20:12:48Z")
> [@AuntiePam](#): > > If that’s the arrangement, then the school could lose that income (the fee paid by the photographer). And the worst thing is, there’s probably not a single professional photographer in the whole of the OP’s part of California who would be willing to step in and take some guaranteed income. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/45 "2008-10-29T20:17:43Z")
Give them away. Easiest decision I’ll make today. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/46 "2008-10-29T20:21:06Z")
It’s technically wrong, but it also hurts nobody and helps somebody. The photographers weren’t going to get any money from the family anyway, so there’s no loss there, and the family gets a picture of their child at a time when they need to know somebody out there gives a damn. ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/47 "2008-10-29T20:29:00Z")
> [@atomicbadgerrace](#): > > If this is the justification, then depending on the method by which the OP was instructed to “destroy them,” there is some ethical wiggle room. Were the OP told to toss the folder in the trash, then they become abandoned property. Finders keepers would seem to apply. That’s sort of what I’d do. Put them in a clean trashcan and mention to the parents that you were obliged to throw them away. In that trashcan _over there_. It really is wasteful that the photos are printed and then thrown away. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/48 "2008-10-29T20:32:30Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#): > > Give them away. Easiest decision I’ll make today. Let me expand on this, since I have time to kill… What these pictures are, are _Samples for Evaulation_. They are a sunk cost of doing business that the picture people pay. They are not “product” per se. The sets of prints people order after looking at the samples are the product. Allowing the samples to exist in no way cuts into any business they might otherwise generate. The company doesn’t care what happens to them, and in fact have expressed thier unwillingness to pay to Fed-Ex trash around the country. ---
**Author:** ![AuntiePam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/49 "2008-10-29T20:38:08Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > And the worst thing is, there’s probably not a single professional photographer in the whole of the OP’s part of California who would be willing to step in and take some guaranteed income. Of course. So let’s just have **Enola Gay** call around and find one who’s okay with giving away unsold proofs. None of us who are posting in this thread will have to deal with the consequences if **Enola Gay** gives photos to these families and someone who paid complains about it. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/50 "2008-10-29T20:39:04Z")
Also, the families- if they like the pics- can scan it and reproduce it. I wouldn’t lose a minute of sleep about scanning and reproducing a pic taken of me that I’d paid for rather than going through the photographer to buy more copies- sorry, but digital photography changed all the rules. So if you want to err on the side of the photographer a little more just give them one print (the best one). ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/51 "2008-10-29T20:45:30Z")
> [@Enola\_Gay](#): > > I have to agree about the moral absolutism. I can imagine many scenarios where lying would be the morally superior position. An extreme example: If you were living in Nazi Germany and knew where a Jewish family was hiding and were asked point blank by the gov’t if you knew anything about it. Would you be willing to lie, even sign a document testifying that you knew nothing of the situation…or would honesty be the moral high road? Personally, I’d lie thru my teeth in such a situation and in my mind,\*\* that\*\* would be the ethical thing to do. There is really no comparison. In your scenario you are under duress. Human lives are at stake. And you are being asked to tell the truth to an entity that you have no obligation to, and is morally bankrupt. If you cannot agree to follow the company’s rules, don’t agree to act as their agent. It’s really that simple. ---
**Author:** ![Cub\_Mistress](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea666f/32.png) [@Cub\_Mistress](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cub_Mistress)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/52 "2008-10-29T20:46:03Z")
> [@AuntiePam](#): > > Of course. So let’s just have **Enola Gay** call around and find one who’s okay with giving away unsold proofs. > > None of us who are posting in this thread will have to deal with the consequences if **Enola Gay** gives photos to these families and someone who paid complains about it. I think **mhendo** meant that if one photographer doesn’t like making a few thousand dollars, some other photographer will. The school is in no danger of not having a photographer next year even if the first photographer discovers someone gave away some pictures. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/53 "2008-10-29T20:49:07Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#): > > Let me expand on this, since I have time to kill… > > What these pictures are, are _Samples for Evaulation_. They are a sunk cost of doing business that the picture people pay. They are not “product” per se. The sets of prints people order after looking at the samples are the product. > > Allowing the samples to exist in no way cuts into any business they might otherwise generate. The company doesn’t care what happens to them, and in fact have expressed thier unwillingness to pay to Fed-Ex trash around the country. That’s not true, according to the OP, and my own experience. What some outfits are doing now is printing up a whole set of pictures - an 8x10, some 5x7s, 4x6s, wallets, etc. and sending the whole shebang home with the kid. You pick which sheets you want, and pay for those, and return the sheets you don’t want to the school. If you want more than they pre-printed, (like multiple 8x10s), you can order those as well, but you’re supposed to keep _and pay for_ the sheets that are in the package they gave you. ---
**Author:** ![CAT\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9dc877/32.png) [@CAT\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CAT_1)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/54 "2008-10-29T21:20:53Z")
I have been a victim of “cute kid photo blackmail” a few times and I hate it. Normally I would just follow the rules and destroy the photos, but the fact that they print stuff up, and then expect you to look at them, and say yes/no, bothers me. Last year a photographer printed a few poses of my son without me asking for them. There were 8 x 10’s no less. When I picked up my order she showed them to me, hoping I would buy them. In fact I remember asking her NOT to print any more of the poses that the 2 I ordered. I had to refuse them, but damn that bothers me. And now they are in a landfill. How wasteful. I guess I would probably go with the person who suggested you “throw them out”, and then find them later. It would still be cheating I guess, but you wouldn’t have to tell a bold faced lie. Bring back the old days of order first, print the pictures later, if you ask me! ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/55 "2008-10-29T21:36:21Z")
I wouldn’t do it. For one thing, you signed a document saying you wouldn’t do it. For another, you **are** acting as an agent for your school, whether you’re being paid or not. You don’t know what kind of deal the school has with the photographer – maybe they’re getting a commission (i.e., a kickback) on each sale, maybe they’re getting free class or staff photos, or they get to use the photos in a directory or yearbook. In any case, you violating the agreement might screw up their deal. Finally, what about the parents who are going through a rough time but decided they’d order a package and give one to grandma as her Christmas gift this year? They faced the same decisions but made a different choice. Should they be penalized for it? There are enough specials from Wal-Mart, Sears Photo, etc., that if parents want a low-price, posed photo of their kids, they can find a way to do it. Sure, throwing away the photos is a waste. But the photographer is working on commission. Any commission worker knows there will be times they put in effort and materials, but don’t make the sale. On the other hand, if you give away the demonstrater because someone wouldn’t buy the whole set, you’ve effectively taken the commission away from them. ---
**Author:** ![Sanity\_Challenged](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de053/32.png) [@Sanity\_Challenged](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sanity_Challenged)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/56 "2008-10-29T21:53:02Z")
If you want the families to have the photos that bad, why not pony up $180 and purchase a basic set for each of the 3 families? Are you still as sympathetic to the families’ desire for photos when the money is coming out of your pocket instead of the photographer’s, who has (presumably) done everything honestly and by the book? ---
**Author:** ![lobotomyboy63](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobotomyboy63/32/2900_2.png) [@lobotomyboy63](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lobotomyboy63)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/57 "2008-10-29T22:08:02Z")
> [@Enola\_Gay](#): > > I have to agree about the moral absolutism. I can imagine many scenarios where lying would be the morally superior position. An extreme example: If you were living in Nazi Germany and knew where a Jewish family was hiding and were asked point blank by the gov’t if you knew anything about it. Would you be willing to lie, even sign a document testifying that you knew nothing of the situation…or would honesty be the moral high road? Personally, I’d lie thru my teeth in such a situation and in my mind,\*\* that\*\* would be the ethical thing to do. Others may disagree and feel that would compromise their principles. But the point being, that I am generally opposed to lying and don’t make a habit of it, but there are cases where I question whether honesty really IS the best policy. I agree but your analogy doesn’t hold because nobody will die if you withhold pictures. > [@lavenderviolet](#): > > Knowing that it evidently would mean a lot to these moms, I think I would offer them the pics. What’s the worst thing that could happen if you got caught? You might get kicked out of volunteering for an elementary school? O noes. > > In my view, if this is a “crime”, it is truly a victimless crime. It would be clearly wrong if it meant you were depriving the photographer of a sale, but when you know the moms aren’t going to buy the pics then I consider it morally neutral to be like “Hey, I was just going to throw these out anyway, so I thought I’d see if you might want them”. As cited elsewhere, the company’s formula for calculating costs doesn’t factor in free photos. Actually I think a worse case scenario (possibly not the worst) is that word gets around that \*\*Enola Gay \*\*did this for some poor families. Yes, some of those who paid are pissed but also, those who paid this year figure on getting them free next year. That’s the monetary downside for the company. The problem for the OP, however, could be what we’re seeing in here. Some parents will think it was fine, laudable, whatever, to do that—others will not. The others’ opinions of you may change and I’m not one to say you should kowtow to others in that respect, but they would have a legitimate reason or two. > [@sugar\_and\_spice](#): > > I think you have to consider that you are also a representative of the school, albeit an unpaid one. I’ll be honest, if it were just between me and the company then I would probably slip a few pics out of the trash, but the school itself is also involved, and if you are a school volunteer then you should abide by school rules. And unless someone tells you otherwise, I would assume that school rules are by default to honor the agreement with the portrait company. Right, it’s a school—teaching kids to honor their word and not to take a deal if they aren’t willing to live up to it. > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Throwing away the pictures seems wasteful to me. However, it seems worth noting that one reason the prices are set so high may be to account for the company’s expected loss when a few sets are given away free. Thus, by giving these away free, you may be contributing to higher prices for the other parents. Yeah. Anybody in business will tell you the overhead can be a bear. Everything from the gas/oil/tires/insurance to drive out, the equipment to take the pictures, the training as a photographer, any advertising they do, EVERYTHING is reflected in the price. Yes, profit, too, but people forget all their costs. Bottom line, the school made the deal based on the level of quality they anticipated and the cost to the parents, compared to what prevailing competition was offering, yadda. My advice is to live up to it. ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/58 "2008-10-29T22:13:21Z")
Maybe the best thing to do is not give the photos away, but tell the company that you don’t appreciate being put in the position to throw away perfectly good photographs that the families would no doubt enjoy. It definitely shows the value of the finished product, basically zero if they don’t even want to pay ~$8 to have the photos shipped back to them. So why are they charging so much then? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/59 "2008-10-29T22:19:37Z")
> [@lobotomyboy63](#): > > I agree but your analogy doesn’t hold because nobody will die if you withhold pictures. That rather misses the point. **Enola Gay** didn’t pretend to be a heroic resister of oppression, she just said there are times lying is morally superior, and used an example she admitted was extreme. ---
**Author:** ![the\_Lady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bb73d2/32.png) [@the\_Lady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_Lady)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069/60 "2008-10-29T22:30:00Z")
I’d give them the photos. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-dilemma/470069.md?page=4)