Ethical pedants, reality check please

Great Debates
1

This is akin to one of those IMHO validation threads — while I’m fairly (obnoxiously?) fixed in my opinion of the situation, I’d like to be sure I didn’t overlook something or that my thinking is far outside the norm. But since it’s a rather esoteric ethical subject I thought it more appropriate for GD. This is a completely hypothetical situation, with absolutely no connection to the real world, no “incident” that sparked the conversation, and nothing to be gained nor lost.

The hypothetical:
**At a casino, the dealer accidentally overpays. You keep the chips. **

Describe the moral harm.

First, let’s keep the hypothetical clean. It’s a legal casino, you’re not starving for food, the casino isn’t about to go out of business, you don’t have a gambling problem, there’s no collusion between you and the dealer, etc. It’s a smallish error, and after a couple hours playing on the table it’s the only mistake you’ve seen (e.g., it’s not going to be noticed by the pit boss or cost the dealer his job).

Second, if variables make a difference, try stating both the variable and it’s alternates. For example, if it makes a difference if he’s simply overpaying or paying out on a hand/dice roll that he shouldn’t, or if the amount of overage actually does make a difference.

Third, if you simply can’t not fight the hypothetical (e.g., you just can’t accept that the risk of a dealer getting reprimanded is null), say so at the outset so it’s clear.

My .02
I the strictest sense, this can be labeled as stealing. While there may be arguments that can be made (e.g., casino signing on to the risk, equal chance of underpayment somewhere else, the possibility of overpayment is a gamble itself) that it is ethically neutral, I think those are weaker and more convoluted than simply stipulating the notion that it is a form of theft.

However, as far as moral harm is concerned, I think it is minimal to the point of being negligible. It’s difficult to quantify moral harm except to put it in relative terms: it is less harm than knowingly accepting more change than you should from a store clerk — something I think you should return to the cashier when you notice, and extraordinarily far from shoplifting an item. Considering it on par with robbery (save in name only) is, to me, absurd.

But if you can take the high road and describe it as a moral harm of greater magnitude, or disabuse me (and, I presume, others) of relative harms, have at it. If you want to get all devil’s advocaty on us, feel free to throw in a disclaimer in you don’t want people misreading what you have to say.

Underlying the question is whether this is a consistent belief (and in many ways the more interesting question). If something causes negligible moral harm, can it be said to be morally wrong in the first place? If at the end of days, all your sins and transgressions are perfectly balanced but this one act remains, does it have any affect on the scales? (insert your own analogy here as necessary)

2

The consequentialist in me wants to say that there isn’t a moral problem. But I think there is to the extent that it colors, however slightly, the way you as an actor view morality in the future. There is a benefit to not cutting corners, to not walking across the grass in the middle of the night when no one can see you and one person walking on it will do not harm. Respect for morally justifiable rules is a good thing…

A similar situation happened to me in real life recently. I needed half a pund of prosciutto, and because I was cooking with it, I asked for the Dietz & Watson. Deli employee sliced the expensive stuff by mistake. I said nothing, because I was in a rush, and thought the extra $7 would not bankrupt me. He then weighed it, and charged me for the D&W. So I received the better meat at the lower price. I am stil somewhat ashamed, 3 weeks later, that I did not say anything about it.

3

I agree with villa. The difficulty isn’t the precise money figures or the precise consequences, it’s what my relationship is with the world. Am I a person confident in my ethical standards, or am I a person whose standards are ever-shifting and dependent on consequences? I’d prefer to be the former. I’m reflexively the former (often pointing out mistakes in my favor before I have a chance really to think about them) and I like that about myself.

4

I agree with that, which is why I find it useful to differentiate between morality and ethics in the following way: morality concerns that which is between you and your conscience (or God or similar), while ethics concerns that which is between you and your fellow man.

Using that dichotomy, questions like yours become easier to analyze, in my opinion. For example, the moral issues are as you describe them — a little bit mushy, and compared to other moral conundrums almost trivial. But ethically speaking, you’ve crossed a line that is clear and not muddled at all. You are no more entitled to a dollar of someone else’s property than you are to a million dollars of it.

Interestingly perhaps, liberalism as an ethic, is deduced from the same principle.

5

I am so glad to see villa’s and jsgoddess’s responses (with which I agree). A lot of the responses in this thread were making me depressed.

Occasionally a clerk or cashier will make a mistake in making change. More often than not, the mistake is in my favor. I always correct these mistakes, not because I’m concerned that the clerk might get dinged for the shortage in the till, but just by instinct. They made a mistake, it’s not my money, here’s the correct amount. I think I would behave the same at a gambling place (I don’t gamble, so this is hypothetical).

It just makes life easier and cleaner.

Full discloser: I’ve never been tempted by having actual easy access to loads of money that isn’t mine. I hope I would behave the same way then as with small amounts.

6

Why would it not be a harm to the casino, just because it’s a much smaller amount than the casino’s total revenues? If the dealer accidentally gives me $10 too much, and I don’t correct the mistake, how is that any different, morally, from me sneaking into the casino’s cashier office and slipping a sawbuck out of the register? In both cases, it’s the same amount of harm to the casino, and the same amount of benefit to me.

7

Let me thank you on behalf of all people who run tills. Nothing more satisfing than a till that balances to the penny after a busy day.

8

A while ago we had a similar question, about getting more change than correct at a grocery store. At the time, I said that I would mention it if I noticed it at the time, but if I discovered it later, I probably wouldn’t. My reasoning was that, if the situation were reversed, and I left with too little change then returned, I wouldn’t get the money that was owed me.

Many people claimed that that wasn’t true, that I could come back and they’d count the till for me. I concede that that may be the case, so my new plan would just be to bring up the discrepancy, but not mention particulars: “Excuse me, I was in here an hour ago, and I just realized that I received incorrect change.”

If they’re willing to check the till for me on the assumption that I’m owed extra, then I’m willing to give them back the surplus. If they’re not, then I don’t see why I’m ethically obliged to give them a better deal than they’re willing to give me.

9

Agreed, which is why I tried to be clear in the OP that the notion that it’s stealing is stipulated to. The question is more focused on the relative nature of the harm given the constraints (or, for that matter, whether there is no relativity in the harm and it is as morally wrong as robbing a blind beggar).

10

The difference is that you know you have the extra change. The store doesn’t know you have been underchanged.

11

Oh, I can certainly see a good argument that it’s more wrong to steal $10 from a blind beggar than it is to steal $10 from a megacorporate casino. But that doesn’t make stealing from the casino “not wrong”, just because there’s something that’s more wrong.

12

It is not less moral to rob the poor instead of the rich.

It is not less moral to rob more than to rob a smaller amount.

At some point, of course, the amount of money stolen may become so inconsequential that it’s inconvenient for either side to bother accounting for it. Choosing to not return to a store to give back an extra nickel given in change is not an act of immorality but simply a practical recognition that neither party cares. If the judgment is that the shortchanged party cares, and would choose to have the property returned, there’s no gradation of morality simply because ten million instead of ten dollars is the amount in question.

13

My grandfather would always count his change and keep any extra, but go back when shorted. My father just doesn’t count it, assuming that it will all even out in the end. I only watch the bills to make sure there isn’t a get-change-for-the-wrong-denomination kind of mistake, in either direction.

14

Other people’s failings aren’t mine, so why base my ethical decisions on what some other would do? You can justify any action in the world if you pick the worst person to compare yourself to.

15

I’m not convinced that I’d notice a small error at a casino table.

I play in Tunica. When I make a casino run, I’ll usually hit several of the casinos on a 2-day trip. I play 3-card poker and blackjack, mostly. Some places have different payouts than others. Single-deck blackjack may pay 3-2, where a shoe game may pay 2-1. At 3-card, some places play 4 to 1 for a flush, some pay 3 to 1. Factor in that I’m usually drinking, having a good time, high fives around the table for a big hand, yadda-yadda, and a dealer could easily short me a chip, or overpay me a chip without me ever knowing. Maybe that means I’m a mark, and I oughta pay more attention. If it’s a big payout…like a straight flush or trips, then the dealer stacks up the payout and calls for the pit boss to verify the amount before I’m allowed to rake it in…I’ve never seen a mistake happen in that scenario.

16

If the noticed that the dealer underpays you, what would you do?

17

If there’s any irregularity and I noticed it, I’d keep my hands clear of the table and ask the relevant question. If the dealer didn’t know, or did not satisfy me with the answer, I think I’m entitled to call the pit boss over myself. Never had anything like that happen, though.

18

I generally correct cashiers who give me too much change. But the thing about a casino is that you’re playing a game and the object is defeat the other side. So I’m not sure it’s unethical to take advantage of your adversary’s mistakes.

19

Eh. I dunno. My object is to have a good time. I’m never going to win enough to retire, or lose enough to go hungry. Usally, I come reasonably close to breaking even…sometimes I win a little, sometimes I lose a little. The money is not really important to me. I like the action, the gals in short skirts bringing me drinks, the flashing lights, the music, the comped room and meals, getting away from the real world for a little while.

20

In general, the amount of moral harm would be proprtional to the amount you were overpaid. Semantically it may or may not be technically stealing, but it’s very close to the same equivelent moral harm. That said, I think the most important factor is hypocrasy. If you overpaid someone by the same amount and they didn’t tell you, would you feel more, the same, or less outrage than if the situation were reversed?