# Moral Question in the Consumer Arena **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 27, 2000, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915 "2000-11-27T21:12:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2000, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/21 "2000-11-28T21:58:06Z")
hey, folks, the Best Buy did \*\* not\*\*necessarily sell defective merchandise. we don’t know why it’s no longer working, remember, just that it’s under warranty. stuff happens to those things, maybe the friend did something stupid with it, maybe it just up and quit for no reason. but you can’t assume either way, given the OP. ---
**Author:** ![sdimbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdimbert/32/20204_2.png) [@sdimbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sdimbert)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2000, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/22 "2000-11-28T22:15:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > **Because I had this information, Best Buy told me to call up some 800 number they had, and they sent me a _copy_ of my reciept. > […] > If your friend can go through his checkbook, or his credit card statements, and pinpoint the appropriate Best Buy purchase, he might be able to restore his reciept that way.** We asked. You rule. 🙂 I don’t even have to call the number… they can do it at the store!!! ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2000, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/23 "2000-11-29T01:24:47Z")
Thank you, DDG. That’s what would happen-unless you had some major arse-sucking manager. And if you take it back without the receipt-you get a store credit for the lowest sales price in the last month, I believe (in most store’s it’s like that.) Also-didn’t you say your friend was at the store asking them about it before? Perhaps they’d remember him? Even from talking on the phone. We ain’t dumb. Please. We deal with better stuff all the time! ---
**Author:** ![Edlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8797f3/32.png) [@Edlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edlyn)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2000, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/24 "2000-11-29T05:49:30Z")
**Danielinthewolvesden** > [@](#): > > - Edlyn: I wish to point out that I also asked if there were any other records of the sale. Yes, so? What did you immediately follow that comment with? > [@](#): > > But, for 50$, do it the 'exchange" way. It is fair. What is unfair is them asking him for proof he bought it there, when it does not matter at all. They act as a 'agent" for that company, and will be able to return the broken phone, and it will cost them nothing. There is no reason for them not to accept his word- “the customer is always right”. You cancelled yourself out, Daniel. **Ptahlis** > [@](#): > > So Edlyn, you paragon of virtue you, mind elaborating on your ethical objections, or on why lying isn’t a moral consideration? Lying is a moral consideration, but its account is only unto The Pink Unicorn, your God or Nature. Ethics, on the otherhand, concerns man’s actions towards other men for which society may create laws to govern such interaction and to punish if deemed appropriate to do so. **jmullaney** The situation was not as you presented it. If it was, I would agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2000, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/25 "2000-11-29T14:26:07Z")
No, **sdimbert,** I’m not ashamed of you, really. 🙂 At least, not ASHAMED “ashamed”, the way I would be if you’d suggested something really ghastly and dishonest, like holding up the Best Buy at gunpoint, or running for public office. But I still maintain that it’s best to try to work something like this out with the Management, and not try to get creative. Like Guin says, they deal with “creative” types all the time, and are probably equally creative in dealing with them (although I understand that OSHA no longer allows them to use voltages higher than 1,000 watts in the back room.) ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2000, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/26 "2000-11-29T15:47:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Edlyn \* > **jmullaney** > > The situation was not as you presented it. If it was, I would agree with you. The situation is _exactly_ as I presented it. There is no need to lie in order to return the phone. Nor is there anything immoral or unethical going on here. You seem unable to see the reality of the situation, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2000, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/27 "2000-11-29T16:30:19Z")
> [@](#): > > [sup]Posted by jmullaney[/sup] > The situation is exactly as I presented it. There is no need to lie in order to return the phone. > [situation as presented] > “Hi. I bought this phone. It doesn’t work.” > “Do you have a reciept?” > “Yep.” > “Ok. Here’s your money back.” I suspect edlyn was referring to an omission here. Alter your dialogue to "Do you have a receipt _for this particular 'phone_ and the answer is either “No” or a lie. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2000, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/28 "2000-11-29T16:54:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by picmr \* > Alter your dialogue to "Do you have a receipt _for this particular 'phone_ and the answer is either “No” or a lie. Baloney! “Do you have a receipt _for this particular 'phone_?” “I have a receipt.” Where is the lie? It is not immoral to ignore a question. (Let he who has wisdom understand: as Pilate said to Jesus: “What is Truth?”) ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2000, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/29 "2000-11-29T20:13:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by picmr \* > > Alter your dialogue to "Do you have a receipt _for this particular 'phone_ and the answer is either “No” or a lie. > > Baloney! > > “Do you have a receipt _for this particular 'phone_?” > “I have a receipt.” > > Where is the lie? > > It is not immoral to ignore a question. > > (Let he who has wisdom understand: as Pilate said to Jesus: “What is Truth?”) \*\* If you read any return policy or agreement it is perfectly clear that a customer must present the receipt for the actual item being returned. By even proferring a receipt that is not in accordance with this you are perpetrating a fraud, whether or not you utter words that are inherently falsifiable. It’s like getting into a bar when you are underage. “Do you have an ID?” “Sure,” says jmullaney, handing over his older brother’s card. “But judge, I didn’t actually _lie_!” Pilate’s dodge isn’t exactly recognized as a pinnacle of ethics by the way, and invoking it doesn’t help your case. **Edlyn:** The thing is, the thread was asking about the _moral_ implications of the thing, not the ethical considerations. If ethics is all that is concerned, then the letter of the agreement is absolutely paramount. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2000, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/30 "2000-11-29T21:47:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ptahlis \* > If you read any return policy or agreement it is perfectly clear that a customer must present the receipt for the actual item being returned. People read these things? > [@](#): > > By even proferring a receipt that is not in accordance with this you are perpetrating a fraud, whether or not you utter words that are inherently falsifiable. How can it be a fraud if no one is harmed by it? > [@](#): > > It’s like getting into a bar when you are underage. I wouldn’t consider using a fake ID immoral or unethical. Illegal, yes. If a law was passed that said everyone had to wear purple on Thursdays, and you didn’t do so, your contrarywise choice of attire would not be immoral nor unethical by my standards. > [@](#): > > Pilate’s dodge isn’t exactly recognized as a pinnacle of ethics by the way, and invoking it doesn’t help your case. The point wasn’t so much Pilate’s question, as Jesus’s answer 😉 (hint: I’ve already given you the full exchange.) ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2000, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/31 "2000-11-30T02:07:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Ptahlis \* > > If you read any return policy or agreement it is perfectly clear that a customer must present the receipt for the actual item being returned. > > People read these things? They better. It would save EVERYONE a lot of grief and many customer service reps a lot of abuse. ---
**Author:** ![Edlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8797f3/32.png) [@Edlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edlyn)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/32 "2000-12-04T15:53:20Z")
I apologise for a late response. My grandson’s battle with cancer recently made another turn which necessarily limits my participation. My explanation is given for understanding, not sympathy. **Ptahlis** > [@](#): > > The thing is, the thread was asking about the moral implications of the thing, not the ethical considerations. If ethics is all that is concerned, then the letter of the agreement is absolutely paramount. Ah, I see. **jmullaney’s** position is based on the argument that no one is harmed, therefore it is neither immoral or unethical to be dishonest (deceitful/fraudulent). It may be prudent to keep this in mind: _Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ._ If scripture is considered, I offer this: _Psa 10:7 His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue [is] mischief and vanity._ and _Pro 20:17 Bread of deceit [is] sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel._ I get the impression that such action is frowned upon and hope jmullaney has excellent dental insurance. 🙂 **jmullaney** > [@](#): > > The point wasn’t so much Pilate’s question, as Jesus’s answer. Where, in scripture, is it stated that He answered Pilate’s question, my friend? ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/33 "2000-12-04T17:59:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Edlyn \* > _… afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel._ I get the impression that such action is frowned upon and hope jmullaney has excellent dental insurance. By Jove, **Edlyn** – I think I’m coming around. Still, elsewhere in Col 2: > [@](#): > > 20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: > 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? > 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. > 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence Couldn’t the bothersome fact of not retaining a receipt and thus submitting to not getting a refund for your defective merchandise be submitting to foolish rules? The requirement of having a receipt is only there to prevent people from being completely dishonest by returning merchandise for which the warrenty has expired, right? You may be right: this could be deceitful. But since you are not lying with your lips ant just trying to get what is yours by right but for a piece of paper, it is a tough call. People from more beurocratic parts of the world may argue that there are cases where bending such rules is the only way to get things done – not the rules of God but the regulations of man. > [@](#): > > Where, in scripture, is it stated that He answered Pilate’s question, my friend? That was my point. Elsewhere, Jesus does not answer questions put to him, and my point was a Christian does not have to answer every question put to him, nor, I believe, tell the “whole” truth at all times. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Zero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@Saint\_Zero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Zero)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/34 "2000-12-04T18:55:42Z")
First, I was going to say that there was too much unspecified in the original question, but since it seems that the problem is solved, I won’t go into that. 🙂 and now… Dude… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > “Do you have a receipt _for this particular 'phone_?” > “I have a receipt.” > > Where is the lie? > > It is not immoral to ignore a question. > > (Let he who has wisdom understand: as Pilate said to Jesus: “What is Truth?”) \*\* You’re lying. Still. You said you had _A_ receipt. Not the exact receipt that came with the sale of the original phone. That’s what they are refering to. Claiming that ignoring a question isn’t immoral is merely soothing your conscience using logic. We aren’t sure if God (Or whomever) is keeping score. (I suspect he is, but that’s my opinion) Ethically. Okay, tossing the realm of religion aside for the moment. If you don’t have the _exact_ same recipt that came with your phone, they aren’t obliged to do anything If you bring me a second cordless phone, and claim it doesn’t work, the **First** thing I’d do is hook it up and make sure you charged the battery. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/35 "2000-12-04T19:51:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Saint Zero \* > You’re lying. Still. I just don’t see it. Not on a moral level. “Are you Jesus of Nazareth?” “Who do you say I am?” Was Jesus lying? Perhaps by human standards. But those standards do not apply to people of the spirit at all times. Want to rachett it up a notch? What if you took a friend to the emergency room, but they would not treat him if he didn’t have an insurance card. You find a card in his wallet, but it is expired. You _know_ that he has kept his policy current, but apparently didn’t put his new card in his wallet. Would it be wrong to alter the card you do have to make it appear it was not expired, or by inaction allow your friend to die? That is an extreme, perhaps unrealistic example. But I just can’t see what the big deal is. But either way – the old free spirit saying is that a just man falls seven times a day. Sin happens. Refusing to save your dying friend because he doesn’t have the correct paperwork is a sin too (I realize that never happens in the U.S.) – so you’d actually be helping to prevent the hospital from making an even more serious error. > [@](#): > > Okay, tossing the realm of religion aside for the moment. If you don’t have the _exact_ same recipt that came with your phone, they aren’t obliged to do anything But ethically, they still sold you defective merchandise, and by their own rules, could you prove they sold you the phone they would have an ethical obligation to repair or replace it. Paperwork be damned. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/36 "2000-12-04T21:23:53Z")
. . . Might be justifiable in some extreme situations, but not when you’re returning a phone to Best Buy. Let’s compare. “This phone is broken.” _No implicit subtext; straight-forward (and true) statement._ “Do you have a receipt?” _Implicit subtext: I mean a receipt for THIS phone. I am not asking you if you have a receipt for your toaster, or for a phone you bought two years ago, or for a phone you bought at Monkey Ward’s, or, in fact, for any phone except THIS phone._ “Yes.” _Implicit subtext: Yes, I have a receipt for THIS phone._ This is a lie. You do not have a receipt for THAT phone. You have a receipt for a different phone. I would also note, parenthetically, that everyone but JMULLANEY understands this. No one else has argued that SDIMBERT’S friend would not be lying; rather they have asked whether the lie is okay, since arguably it doesn’t harm anyone. Compare to: “Are you Jesus of Nazareth?” _No subtext; straight-forward question._ “Who do you say I am?” \*Subtext: I will not answer this question. \* In the second example (the Biblical one), there is no implication of ‘yes’ and no implication of ‘no’ and therefore no lie. Jesus is not playing upon an assumption He knows or ought to know his questioner holds; He’s just refusing to answer. In contrast SDIMBERT’S friend knows or ought to know that the person at the Best Buy counter, when asking “do you have a receipt?” means “do you have a receipt for this item?” > [@](#): > > Was Jesus lying? No, He was not, for the reason given above. > [@](#): > > Perhaps by human standards. But those standards do not apply to people of the spirit at all times. There is no definition of lying under “standards of the spirit” (whatever that means) tha differs from the definition of lying “by human standards.” To lie in all cases means “to tell an untruth.” The question is when, if ever, lying is justified. But a justifiable lie is a lie just the same. > [@](#): > > Want to rachett it up a notch? A notch? Your very poor example ratchets it up a thousand notches. You seem to be saying that if lying is _ever_ justified, lying is _always_ justified. I don’t think that follows. In your emergency room example, lying might in theory be justified because a person would die if you told the truth (unlikely but, hey, it’s your example). There are no such exigent circumstances here. The guy just has to pay to have the camera repaired, just as he would if it was not under warranty. Hardly the same situation. > [@](#): > > But either way – the old free spirit saying is that a just man falls seven times a day. Sin happens. But sin is manifestly to be avoided where possible. The point is not that we do not sin, but that we ideally do not sin intentionally. If a person believed that lying is inherently a wrongful act – as opposed to a wrongful act only when it causes damage, but not wrongful when it does not – then that person should not lie, because by so doing he or she commits a wrongful act. Now, we can argue about whether a lie is always a wrongful act or not. And we can argue about whether a lie, wrongful or not, may be justified by exigent circumstances. But we should not delude ourselves that what we are talking about is not, in fact, a lie. It is. > [@](#): > > But ethically, they still sold you defective merchandise . . . I would simply point out that the OP does not say the merchandise was defective. It says only that it “stopped working.” That is not the same. A merchant (or, for that matter, a manufacturer) does not have the same obligation regarding merchandise that the customer broke as it does regarding merchandise that never worked in the first place. > [@](#): > > . . . and by their own rules, could you prove they sold you the phone they would have an ethical obligation to repair or replace it. Well, but the obvious precursor to this is that you prove you bought it at THAT STORE, because they have no obligation to repair or replace merchandise you bought somewhere else. That’s one of the reasons they want to see the receipt in the first place. Why should they undertake to fix a phone you bought at Al’s Discount Phone Barn? ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/37 "2000-12-04T21:58:40Z")
Yeah, I’m on a sinking ship alright. But if anyone can make me see the error of my ways (just in the context of this thread!) I’d be much obliged. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > Implicit subtext OK, so what if I held up the wrong receipt and asked: “Does this look like it?” There is definitely no lie there. I guess I just don’t believe your “implicit subtext” creates some moral requirement. If **he** is misunderstanding the subtext you are projecting to him, too bad for him. > [@](#): > > The question is when, if ever, lying is justified. But a justifiable lie is a lie just the same. Lying is never justified. Exigent circumstances shouldn’t make a difference. I don’t think playing with words in this case can possibly be a sin though. If he ordered you to tell him the truth that would be a different matter. How can you lie and not say anything false at the same time? > [@](#): > > The point is not that we do not sin, but that we ideally do not sin intentionally. How do you sin unintentionally? I don’t _think_ I’m being delusional here. A lie is a false statement. You haven’t made a false statement. Therefore, no lie. > [@](#): > > I would simply point out that the OP does not say the merchandise was defective. … Why should they undertake to fix a phone you bought at Al’s Discount Phone Barn? My understanding (and perhaps this is _implicit subtext_) is that he did buy the product at the store and if he merely had the receipt everything would be perfectly copasetic and he could return the product for repair or exchange. ---
**Author:** ![sdimbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdimbert/32/20204_2.png) [@sdimbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sdimbert)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/38 "2000-12-04T22:33:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > **I don’t _think_ I’m being delusional here. A lie is a false statement. You haven’t made a false statement. Therefore, no lie.** There is more than one kind of lying. I have found that the most effective sort of lie is when you tell the absolute truth, _all of it_, and do so in a way that makes people think you are lying. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/39 "2000-12-04T22:37:36Z")
> [@](#): > > OK, so what if I held up the wrong receipt and asked: “Does this look like it?” There is definitely no lie there. Isn’t there? If you are attempting to answer the _real_ question the person is asking (which, again, is not merely “Do you have a receipt [any receipt]?” but rather “Do you have a receipt for this item?”) untruthfully, then you are telling a lie. If you just handed him the receipt without saying anything at all, you would still be attempting by your actions to convey false information. In other words, you would still be lying. > [@](#): > > I guess I just don’t believe your “implicit subtext” creates some moral requirement. No one but you has asked whether the person’s actions in the hypothetical do or do not technically constitute lying. Everyone else understands that they do. The question is whether the lie is okay because in theory no damage comes from it. That is where the question of morality arises. So you can argue about whether a “moral requirement” is created, but I don’t really think you can argue that the intended effect is not to mislead the guy at the Best Buy counter. > [@](#): > > If he is misunderstanding the subtext you are projecting to him, too bad for him. “Too bad for him”? Why don’t you just break into the Best Buy and steal what you want? If they don’t catch you, too bad for them. Besides, he has not misunderstood you. He asks, in effect, do you have a receipt for this item? You answer “yes” – a lie. He didn’t misunderstand you; he heard precisely what you said, which was “yes.” The fact that you lied to him can hardly be chalked up to his failing to understand you. He understood you all too well, but you weren’t telling the truth. > [@](#): > > Lying is never justified. Exigent circumstances shouldn’t make a difference. This strikes me as a whole different topic. > [@](#): > > I don’t think playing with words in this case can possibly be a sin though. That depends on whether or not you think lying is in all cases a sin. You appear to be arguing that the “playing with words” in this case did not constitute lying; I think that is manifestly incorrect. If you, by word or actions, convey an untruth, then you are lying. You can lie by words, by actions, or by omissions. You can lie by saying something, or by failing to say something. But ultimately, if you convey an untruth, you lie. > [@](#): > > If he ordered you to tell him the truth that would be a different matter. How can you lie and not say anything false at the same time? Wait a second – are you saying that we do not have an obligation to be generally truthful to one another, unless directly ordered to do so? I fail to see how you could justify such an assertion. And, you can easily lie and not say anything false at the same time. You are at the mall. An announcement is made that a wallet has been found and may be recovered at the service desk. You go up to the desk and say “I heard you found a wallet” and put your hand out. You expect that the person facing you will make the obvious inference that the wallet is yours – or else why would you ask for it? You therefore have, by your strictly true words and voiceless actions, conveyed an untruth – ie, “the lost wallet is mine.” You have lied. > [@](#): > > How do you sin unintentionally? You tell me – hey, “sin happens,” right? > [@](#): > > A lie is a false statement. You haven’t made a false statement. Therefore, no lie. A lie is not merely a false statement. To lie is “to make an untrue statement with intent deceive” OR “to create a false or misleading impression.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. > [@](#): > > My understanding (and perhaps this is implicit subtext) is that he did buy the product at the store and if he merely had the receipt everything would be perfectly copasetic and he could return the product for repair or exchange. That’s because he represented that the product was still under warranty – i.e., to be repaired or replaced for free. If it wasn’t, then he wasn’t entitled to have it repaired or replaced for free (unless it was defective, as opposed to just broken). That is what the receipt would have established – that it was just purchased and therefore still under warranty. But there is nothing in the OP that indicates the product was defective as opposed to just broken. The facts to be established by the reciept were: (1) I purchased this item here; and (2) it is new and under warranty and ought to be replaced. Now, both these things are in fact true, or so the OP tells us. But the _receipt_ for one item does not establish these facts for a different (if identical) item, and if you allow Best Buy to think you have a receipt for the broken item when you don’t, then you are lying to them. Again, whether the lie is justifiable is another question, but it seems to me to be beyond argument that you are, in fact, lying when you return one item with a receipt for a second item and allow the company to think the two go together. ---
**Author:** ![absoul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bc8723/32.png) [@absoul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/absoul)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2000, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915/40 "2000-12-05T05:18:38Z")
Tell me what is so wrong with the following- [list=1] [li] BestBuy has payment for one phone.[/li][li] BestBuy has second non-working phone with warranty (assumming product was previously defective) from manufacturer.[/li][li] Customer has one working phone with no reciept.[/li][/list=1] The only immorality (IMHO) going on here is the BestBuy paperwork. It is the only thing standing in the way of a happy cutomer. The only reason that BestBuy has such a stringent policy on returns is their add-on “warranty” they sell. BB Sales: Would you like to purchase a two year warranty on this video card, it is only 80$? Me: Why, is it going to break? BB Sales: Well it shouldnt, but if it does we will replace it! Me: You mean you wont replace it if it isnt working? BB Sales: We will up to 30 days on all electronic returns. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-question-in-the-consumer-arena/42915.md?page=3)