brighid

Unless some dire circumstance arose that mitigated keeping the money for myself I would absolutely return it to it's rightful owner. It's not my property, whether it was left accidentally or otherwise. I would want the same in return.

I once had a terrifying experience leaving my purse - at a rest stop in Germany. It had all my money, my passport, my son's passport, drivers license, etc. I would have been SOL if someone had taken it, but thankfully I noticed before leaving and RAN full speed back to where I was sitting to retrieve it, to find it unmolested.

Brighid

dangin

No, more precisely, is it a behavior that is in our evolutionary past? I can't think of an animal that doesn't act in their own (or their offspring's[which is the same thing]) interest as their only course of action. Which is why I used multiple animals in these examples.

Our modern species did not evolve under the "rules" of modern life, which is why some of the rules come from the "social contract" that we had as apes, and as even earlier primates, and others come from our modern sociological constructs of one sort or another(usually religious). Our barebones social contract (don't do antisocial things or lose the support of the society from which you draw benefit) has no guidance in the case of "discovering" a windfall of assets in a completely asocial manner.

In this case finding the money is no different than finding a loose diamond, or a pure gold nugget. The fact that the alleged owner's name is available to you, allows you to do something that is socially "nice", but failing to do that does not cost you anything, and will probably profit you even more.

The person's loss should cause you no guilt, as they have only themselves to blame.

DRFseven

Do you suffer from the illusion that there are people who don't make mistakes?

Whispers, I'd return the money because it would feel right to do that. And because it would feel terrible to keep it. To relieve someone of their anxiety at having lost the purse would be very satisfying.

Sure, there are extenuating circumstances that might prompt a different response; if my child were dying for lack of that amt. of money, or if an alien or a god came down and demanded the purse on pain of zapping the planet, then, yes, I'd take it. But lacking desperate mitigating circumstances, I'd never keep someone else's money.

Alonzo Fyfe

A very brief view of my differing view:

We are all better off in a society where people do feel guilty about taking possession of things that belong to other people, and feel good about assisting others in obtaining reposession of that which is theirs.

The "feel right" and "feel terrible" that DRFseven talks about are good things to have people feel, because we are all better off when people feel such things.

Those who do otherwise -- those who do not "feel right" doing those things that suit civil society, and "feel terrible" about violating the rules of civil society, have thereby declared that they are no members of civil society.

And if they are not willing to participate in the institutions that improve the quality of life in civil society -- including the institution of returning property that is not one's own where possible -- are also not entitled to the benefits that may obtain from the participation of others in civil society. Moral and legal sanctions, then, are perfectly appropriate.

I would hope that some error or oversight would lead to the discovery that you have kept the money, and that approprite sanctions follow.

Civil society, in its interest in promoting those institutions that improve the quality of life in civil society, have every reason and right to pursue such an end.


[DRFseven: Where I differ from your view is in that you stop at the question of whether you "feel right" or "feel terrible". I hold that there is a further question to ask -- whether civil society has reason to generally promote institutions whereby its members "feel right" or "feel terrible" about that sort of thing. Does civil society generally have reason to praise and promote having its individuals "feel good" about this sort of thing?]

[Whisper: In answer to your original question, civil society does not need to involk God to promote the interests of its members. It only needs the interests of its members. Indeed, when God is involked, it is typically to the opposite effect, to restrict membership and promote interests not consistent with those of civil society. The phrases "one nation, under God" and "In God We Trust" illustrate this quite clearly -- they state, if not the fact, at least the principle that nonbelievers are to be thought of as excluded from membership. Yet, certainly, they would not endorse principles and mottos calling for the exclusion of Christians. They have, thereby, violated one of the major principles of civil society, that one should treat others as they would want those others to treat them. These policies are as immoral as keeping the money in the purse.]

Treacle Worshipper

I would return the money, because that is what I would want someone to do for me.

I've lost my purse once, when it had hardly any money it in. But it has other things in it that are just as important, if not moreso. I remember the sickening feeling when I realised I'd lost it, and the absolute relief when I got it back. (I'd left it in the library.)

TW

dangin

Yes, I agree with you, but I repeat, the action in question is separate from society. It only becomes a social act if you return the money, but on the otherhand keeping the money has no societal consequence. Keeping the money does not harm society (it harms the person who lost the money, and the harm was caused by them, and they should have no expectation of ever seeing the money again anyway) It also does not harm the finder's status within society because no one in society will ever know.

If the question was:

Would you rob a bank? The answer is no.

Would you mug someone? No.

Would you assault or rape someone for profit, fun, or for any reason? No.

Would you assist a person in mortal peril? Yes, if possible.

Would you assist a person simply having a hard time? (lost, flat tire, needing help lifting something) Yes.

Would you be vigilant in protecting someone else's young? Yes.

Would you keep money that you found in the countryside when no one else was within miles of the money. Hell yes.

DRFseven

As I've mentioned before, in my opinion civil society has good reason to promote these type of moral feelings. It seems to me that we wouldn't last long if this were not the case. However, the question, I think, was not about the possible ramifications, but about causation. The motivation for acting on a moral impulse is always going to be the uncomfortable, anxious feeling generated by the perception that a problem needs to be set right. The reasoning as to future benefits is post hoc and may or may not be correct; after all, we all know that in some environments, a case may be made for blind opportunism as the only feasible way to get ahead. No one ever finds lost money and thinks, "I must return it; the future of my society is at stake"; they simply think 'I must (or I need not) return this money."

DRFseven

Please delete this double post.

DRFseven

Once I left mine in a shopping cart in the parking lot at night. When I arrived home without it, I raced back to the store, to find a lone bag boy pushing a train of empty carts back to the store. After explaining the circumstances to him, he very kindly offered to speak to the night manager and to search the garbage cans, reasoning that purse-snatchers often take what they want out and discard the purse. He comiserated with me about it, relating how it had happened once to his mother and what a shame it was. We had no luck, and after filing a police report and notifying all the credit card companies, I went home. Later the police called and had found the purse in the bag boy's car (with everything still in it!).

meritocrat

Taking the money in this instance is NOT immoral.