As I made the original reference, I will confirm your suspicions. I haven’t seen a Sizzler in years, and I’m not even sure there are any close to my area.
There’s something bothering me about this thread. There seems to be a lot of emphasis on the clerk having to make up the difference in the till, and that’s why you should return the money. Is there an undercurrent here that it would be okay if it wasn’t hurting the poor clerk?
I own a small-town independent bookstore. During the off-season, that $40 could well be my entire profit for the day (or more). Would it somehow be acceptable to keep the $40 if the clerk doesn’t have to cover it, knowing that the store owner is getting hosed?
Return it.
“Finders keepers” is rationalizing dishonesty and greed.
For those of you who said you’d keep it, here’s a question. A few weeks ago, on my way out of a liquor store I found a credit card/debit card on the parking lot. I checked the phone book for the name on the card and returned it to an owner who didn’t even know she had lost it.
I could have kept it. I could have charged stuff on it. I could have sold it outright to one of the low-life I know so that he could commit fraud with it. Regardless of what the law might say, those actions would have been morally okay because “finders keepers.” Right?
I think it’s more “is this a loss of real money to a real person, or is it .000002% of the annual profits of some huge corporation?”
In the former case, AFAIAC, one returns the money, period.
In the latter case, when things go the other way, the corporation has all the advantages, and you have none. So when they make a small mistake in your favor, it just balances things out a bit.
For example, I will never see the $15 from Circuit City that they sent me a rebate check for - but I didn’t notice until too late that the damned check was only valid for 30 days, and no reissues. (And that’s obviously after I’d taken the trouble of filling out and sending in the rebate paperwork.) I’d never previously seen or heard of a check valid for less than 90 days, so why would I have checked? But that’s the way it goes, because they’re big, and I’m not. So I do not feel under any obligation to correct a mistake of similar magnitude made in my favor by some other corporate entity.
I see. As long as I run my little store as a sole proprietorship, I’m a real person and you’d return any money I accidentally gave you. If my accountant recommends that I incorporate, then you’re happy to steal my money?
Whether it’s a “corporate entity” or not, there are real people behind all of the businesses out there. In the case of small businesses, the owners are often real people who are making less money than the employees. I’ve been there. The last business my wife and I owned had sales people taking home twice what we did.
It’s like the jurors who vote $10 million awards for “pain and suffering,” figuring the insurance company will pay it, so nobody gets hurt. Then they wonder why their premiums keep going up.
Well, whether or not i agree with RTFirefly’s position, i think you’re being a little disingenuous here.
RTF is clearly drawing a distinction between small businesses (whether incorporated or not) and the ubiquitous, big-box stores (BestBuy, Circuit City, Wal-Mart, etc.) that are owned by major national and multi-national corporations.
Disagree with him if you want, but at least be honest enough not to misrepresent his argument.
At taco bell the other day, I saw the girl put 6 tacos in my bag, when I was only supposed to get 4. I told her about it, and held the bag out for her so she could take the 2 out, but she said to keep it. They probably can’t take back food anyway so it would have just been thrown out.
Anyway, I think that proves to myself that I’d probably return the money. I didn’t even feel right with 2 extra tacos.
It also used to really bother me when the guy at the chinese restaurant would tell me to forget about the little bit of change (example: total was $9.05, I only had a $10 bill). It happened a lot and one day I gave him an extra buck and told him to keep it for all the times he let me get away with a few cents.
I don’t think so. I think people are just trying to illustrate why they think keeping it is so wrong–it’s not just a faceless entity. It’s never just a faceless entity.
What still pains me here is the rationalizing. There is no inner moral imperative at work here?
Clerk, no clerk, faceless corporation, whatever. Ranting on about being hungry is a bit of a sop, I am sorry.
Why is it even debatable whether or not to do the right thing?
I think most people’s morals aren’t based on abstractions like right and wrong. They’re based on empathy, on “How would you feel if…” or “Think of Little Johnny.”
I think keeping the money is wrong, but it’s wrong because of my empathy for the cashier, or the shopkeeper. In reality, they handed me something they didn’t mean to hand me. They gave it to me. Would it be wrong if it wouldn’t ever be missed? I don’t know. But because it would be missed, and it would likely cause someone harm, it becomes wrong.
Taking the money without permission is obviously wrong. But when it’s handed to you, it’s not really without permission. To use a different example, I was in a store buying an item and the cashier rang it up wrong. Very wrong. I said, “This isn’t that item, it’s another.” She just shrugged and said she didn’t care. So I just shrugged and accepted the price which was much lower than (I’m fairly sure) the item should have been priced. Was leaving with my underpriced item moral? I honestly don’t know, but I don’t feel that I made anyone a victim of my lack of diligence.
In the case of the overchange, then, I suppose my problem is the lack of awareness on the side of the cashier. If I were to say, “Oh, you gave me too much back” and the cashier waved it off, I’d walk out without a qualm.
$180. And it was my fault, and I managed to recover it, but I would not have been fired for this. As it was, I was removed from cash handling for 30 days, and had it not been recovered it would have been 90 days. This is an outlying example, but it would be absolutely unheard of for us to go a week without at least one person being over or short by more than $5.00. It happens every three or four days at least, and overages are more common than shortages.
I forgot to add this.
I cannot understand the discussion about this. You were given something that wasn’t rightfully yours. How can you possibly even consider keeping it? It’s not yours to keep. To me, it really is that simple – it’s not mine, I’ll give it back, end of discussion.
I was curious, so I did a tally.
Eighty-four people have responded.
Those who said they would keep it:
Quicksilver
Lobsang - later adjusted his opinion
Danalan
iamthewalrus(:3=
continuity eror
DarkSideoftheFloyd
Casey1505
kanicbird
caphis
Ellis Dee
**TOTAL: 10
Those who said they would give it back:**
Contrapuntal
StGermain
Tenar
Canadiangirl
JThunder
Genghis Bob
Podkayne
Dung Beetle
danceswithcats
FairyChatMom
Robot Arm
silenus
Snickers
An Arky
pravnik
DesertGeezer
SpoilerVirgin
MsPrufrock
OldBroad
Ferret Herder
dangermom
Kilvert’s Pagan
Gorgonzola
Roadfood
Zsofia
neisha
Abbie Carmichael
Adoptamom_II
Burnt Sugar
SP2263
ageless6
CBCD
guyblond
kimera
thewombat
EddyTeddyFreddy
Kalhoun
Scumpup
c_goat
Scarlett67
TroubleAgain
InvisibleWombat
Arwin
Carnac the Magnificent!
tesseract
bodypoet
matt_mcl
emarkp
Dob
AngelicGemma
Cartooniverse
drpepper
jsgoddess
GingerOfTheNorth
Diane
Bambi Hassenpfeffer
Khadaji
Nightime
zagloba
hazel-rah
mhendo
BrotherCadfael
Bricker
rjung
Tower Dweller
Carm6773
TOTAL: 66
Those who said it would depend on the circumstances:
Anaamika
gazpacho
Aesiron
Harborwolf
Cyros
cher3
muldoonthief
Machetero
TOTAL: 8
In summary:
79 percent said they would return it
12 percent said they would keep it
9 percent said it would depend
Math is not my strength. Please be kind if I’ve made a mistake, or if I’ve accidentally put someone in the wrong list. Thanks!
Thanks for doing the tally, Marge. Interesting results.
I’m not being disingenuous, mhendo. People constantly prattle on about the “evil corporations.” They don’t just specify the huge ones. Look at the exact text I quoted. Sure, he mentioned a specific large corporation in his post, but he was talking about recovering his loss from any old corporation, as if they’re all interchangeable.
If I’m misreading the undercurrent, that’s fine. I can deal with that. But don’t call me disingenuous for it.
I thank you as well, Marge. I also apologize, because my outrage is apparently misplaced. Most people would indeed return it.
Nice math work. 
Yer a swell gal with figures. Or is that a gal with a swell figure? Whichever !
I disagree with your characterization of my position.
I’ll take “Reading comprehension” for 400, thanks Alex.
Bzzt, try again.
RTF specifically mentioned, in the first line of his post, that whether or not he would take the money would depend on whether “this a loss of real money to a real person, or is it .000002% of the annual profits of some huge corporation?”
Any further reference to a corporation in his post can reasonably be interpreted—by anyone who’s not actually looking for something that isn’t there—to be referring to the same type of corporation.
On preview, I see mhendo beat me to it. (Thanks!)
I was trying to hit the ‘BIG’ point hard enough in my post (‘huge’, ‘.000002% of the profits’, Circuit City example, ‘they’re big and I’m not’) but in different ways.
And bigness is definitely the key. If that $15 rebate check had come from Wombat’s Corner Bookstore, I’d have just gone in and talked with you, and we’d have straightened it out. If you’d done extremely well and were now a 15-store chain, I’d have gone into one of those stores, and the store manager would likely be able to get the appropriate person on the phone. But if we’re talking about a chain of hundreds of stores, that becomes impossible. Any person I can talk to has no power to issue another check; instead, the real conversation is a one-sided conversation between me and the store policy. It dictates, and can’t hear me. (No sense in blistering the ears of the employee who can hear me; they’re not responsible.) On the rare day that such a lumbering dinosaur drops something of value in my path, rather than stepping on my toes as usual, it’s finders, keepers, AFAIAC.
What - right and wrong never change due to circumstance?
For instance, is it always wrong to kill another human being, or are there situations where it’s justified? We all know the answer to that one.
So does that answer apply only in life-and-death situations, or does the rightness and wrongness of more mundane acts also depend on circumstance?
Do moral imperatives always operate simplistically? I don’t think so. Maybe Americans are coming to equate morals and values with simplistic rules, but that’s because the birdbrains of the evangelical right have lately done a bang-up job of pretending they own such concepts. But that’s PR, not reality.
:rolleyes:
I wonder how many of those who said they’d return it (and especially those who quoted ‘stealing is wrong’ as the reason) have an illegal copy of Microsoft Office (or any software for that matter) on their computers?