Novemberfoxtrot

It seems you continue to want to do business with these stores. You are practicing what might be called sustainable economy. In the first case you did not be taken advantage of but limited your respomce to the issue. Some people would have burnt the store down. In the second instance, you delt fairly with the merchent. In both cases the stores are still there. You will be able to trade there again. The problems with exesive discounts and out and out thievery is the source is distroyed. You do not live where all the sources are gone.

renegade

I think that in the second instance with the drink that you have acted in a very morally upstanding way. You made a mistake in walking into the closed shop, but there was no intent to trespass, it was an accident that was allowed by the shop owner in still having the door open. I think that if the shop owner wants to shut his shop he needs to ensure that it is very clear to everyone that it is shut. I feel that most people in this instance would not have gone to the effort of leaving a note and the fact that you checked that the note was received was going over and above any unspoken moral obligation in this situation.

In the first instance I am not so sure that I agree with you that the ends justified the means. I could be wrong, but I believe that under the unspoken social contract it is agreed that where you have a dispute with someone with regards to whether you got what you paid for or not, you need to actually discuss it with them rather than take the law into your own hands. In this instance the shop owner has a case to say that you got what you paid for, notwithstanding that the paper was missing pages, and he has no further obligation. I mean generally if you pick something up from a stand in a shop, where you have the opportunity and technical ability to do a full inspection before purchase and then go and exchange money for it, I think that you have forfeited any right to a refund. In any case where there is a dispute the shop owner has the moral right to have his side of the story heard before you unilaterally decide to take restitution.

The mitigating factor is that it was only 50c involved and therefore no party was financially disadvantaged in a material way. If it was a situation that involved a dispute over say $50 000, then I think it would be clear that you were in the wrong to take the law into you own hands, without giving the other party a chance to be heard. The other thing is that you have broken the unspoken social contract and I believe that this diminishes the effectiveness of that contract because others may mistakenly believe that if they see other people breaking the social contract it is okay for them to do it as well. This would not have been the case had you kept it to yourself and nobody else had found out however now that you have outed yourself on the internet the social contract is just that tiny little bit less valuable.

But please understand that this is only my opinion on the whole situation and is not meant to be read as a blanket condemnation of your conduct. Any negative affect of your actions are tiny, and it is important to recognise that no one is perfect. The truth is that you did what you thought was right and that is the best that can be asked of anyone. Also it may be true that I have misunderstood the unwritten social contract, or that this document does not even actually exist.

fast

renegade,

Thank you for a very thoughtful post. I fully intend to let this 'digest' for a while before responding with a rebuttal. You make a lot of sense and I don't want to counter in haste with mere 'feeling'.

Thank you

fast

EssEff

Matter to whom? It seems to bother you that you acted out of revenge and held onto a resentment. I think it's your feelings that matter and not the act. The act was fair but deceitful. Trying to explain it all to a non-English speaker wouldn't have worked, nor even to any other shop owner who didn't remember the first event.

You could split the difference and drop a quarter into their give-a-penny-take-a-penny tray.

lpetrich

Some, yes, but also a lot of unwisdom. Do you follow Matthew 19:12 and consider making yourself a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven?
Like...
jonesg, what do you consider "real" atheism, and what do you consider something "passing for atheism"? And what is that "something else"?

hammodius

fast, I agree with renegade on this one.

That would show the owner the most respect, giving him a chance to evaluate your claim and act fairly. Taking a free paper bypasses the owner and says in effect that you don't trust him, therefore you'll remove him from the process and not give him a say in the matter.

The best thing to do was probably go ahead and make a fuss the very first time, while the incomplete paper you had brought in to exchange was still there on the shelf, hot evidence on your side. Since you missed that chance (and I totally relate to this, by the way, since I'm the sort who'll suck up a lot to avoid confrontation and then kick myself later), still the best thing to do would have been to explain the situation and give him the chance to make a nice gesture. Fifty cents is a small price for a store owner to pay to gain the goodwill of a regular customer.

Another good point renegade made is that the store owner might have a case after all. We're used to bringing in unsatisfactory merchandise and exchanging it, but little corner stores might not have that kind of policy, so he might have had zero obligation to give you a better paper.

I tend to think I'm right and justice is on my side, but it's entirely possible that someone else would disagree with me. If I don't give them a chance to explain their side of the story, I'm taking a step towards putting myself "above the law." It's more difficult, but I'd say better in the long run, to make a habit of talking it through.

fast

Well, let me say this. It makes a lot of sense to act in accordance with social contract.

Agreed

This is going to be a little fuzzy, but here goes.

My idea of morality as a concept separate and apart from all else necessarily ignores certain things--Like the law and social expectation. There's a difference between doing things right and doing the right thing.

I ignore all social and legal ramifications [UM, IN THIS LITTLE EXCERCISE]. I want to know what's right without the questionable and sometimes detestable judgements of others.

So, I need not give a chance to evaluate. I happened to have done it in the scenario (on the day I went to exchange it) but I need not have done it.

Yes, exactly, but the ends are no different than how they ought to have been.

Practically yes. It is normally considered the 'right way of going about it', but the accepted means are just that -- accepted, which of course falls back to social rules, rules that are indicative of society and not necessarily indicative of what's right.

How we choose to go about things, and by the way, I agree with you given our times, but these choices are because of the construct in place that again is a fabrication by other people.

This is tough one to get past. Even following my own criteria, this one is difficult. My instinct and I'll blow this out of proportion just to make a point--my instinct is of anger and hatred (remember, it's out of proportion). When all is said and done, what ought to happen is that all parties should be happy with the outcome, and I didn't quite say that right, but more importantly the ends should be 'right'. I should not come out on the losing end. My anger comes from the unknown, but it's an unknown that I'm highly suspicious of. Example, I had said 'unreasonable' in the OP. I suspect that most people are out to screw others whereby an end is not as it ought to be. How ( the means) to go about rectifying the situation is a construct born of society and law, but that’s merely procedural crap which has no place (or function) in determining the moral ends.

I am angered that things were not going as they ought to have went. The effect is that I am the one getting screwed, perhaps intentionally. Yes, I had the opportunity to examine the paper, but it's not expected I do so--it's unreasonable I do so, but regardless, what ought to ideally happen is that I get what's purportedly being sold, and If I don't, then the ends are not as they should be. How many times ought we be screwed. My answer is none. I can make the unreasonable argument that he knew about it and didn’t give a shit. The argument doesn’t have to be reasonable. All that matters is that the ends are as they are supposed to be.

Now, before someone throws an example my way showing where a means is wrong, keep in mind that some means are ends in themselves, so be careful going down that road.

I think you’re right too when it comes to how it’s expected we go about doing things.

Justice mirrors those expectations.

Of course, so long as you are the one being fucked, right? Of course, so long as they have a supposed legitament legal right, right? So long as their intentions aren’t honorable, right? I’m not talking negatively to you—just holding on to the knowledge of the ends that should never have been.

Wholly inapplicable. Sure, it’s applicable given our state of affairs, but the so called appropriate means themselves are a product of others judgements, judgements of practicality.

Given our state of affairs.

I’ve been back over what I wrote and it needs a lot of shaping up, but all I really want to do is convey the idea that the ends and the ideal we bestow upon it is closer to morality than the means dictated by others.

I have a lot of work to do to make this more intelligible – I realize that, but I just wanted to throw it out there for what it’s worth.

hammodius

This is a good point:

Ideally, the person who should "lose" on the incomplete newspaper is whoever is to blame for it missing pages in the first place. Maybe that's the printing press, or just possibly it's someone in the distribution chain who pulled out the sections that interested her and figured she could get away with passing on the rest. I can imagine how, if everyone along the line handles this correctly, we would actually come back to the responsible party. You tell the store manager, and he swaps papers with you. He phones the guy who delivers his papers and makes a complaint; that guy comes back and gives him an extra to make up for it. He goes to his office and they call the newspaper company to let them know their presses have a glitch or someone in their assembly line is sneaking out bits of newspaper to take home.

Given the small value of a newspaper, it's unlikely that this whole chain would actually happen; at some point someone's probably going to choose to swallow $0.50 instead of pressing the matter. That's fine, as long as it's their choice. The way it actually went, you came out even (got exactly what you paid for) but the store manager didn't. He got stuck with a bum paper (or maybe he resold it to some other customer, and so the new customer's the one who got screwed).

The fair thing will only happen if each party confronts the person who didn't deliver them what they paid for, all the way up the chain to the person who made the error in the first place.

fast

That's a kind thing to say, but even I know I'm stretching--I'm just not entirely convinced my stretch isn't justified.

Not so fast. Who was ORIGINALLY responsible is no excuse for me to come out on the losing end. Assuming the owner didn't know and assuming he simply didn't a shit and could care less, my beef is with him (regardless), not who can be traced back to be the original screw(or).

Ideally, it should never have happened. The world is too full of scum to assume it wasn't intentional. Regardless, either way, my concern was with him. Actually, I don't hold that quite the way I said it, but I dare not explain the me versus the conspiring world idea where it doesn't matter who I screw--besides, I have no intentions on even attempting to pull that one off.

Original! guilty evil doer. Of course I'm sorta being silly wording it like that, but each time it changes hands, a NEW responsible party is brought into the OVERALL picture, but like I said, the only picture to which is of concern to me is the single person that screwed me. Even then, I'm not concerned with him but rather the "ends".

:rolling:

Keeping this between me and store owner, I NEVER have should of been in the mix from the beginning. Unreasonable I claim that he with malice and aforethought decided that once he realized he got screwed by his suppliers, he DID NOT CARE and consciously decided to screw the next unknowing victim which happened to have been me. Can I prove any of this. Don't have to. The effect was the same, ill intention or not. IT'S what happened---I got screwed because he sold it to me. I had a reasonable expectation not to have to do business with someone that doesn't care whether his customers gets screwed.

Reconciliation. Sure, mistakes happen, but once they do, they should be immediately fixed so that the ends are as they should have been. The communication barrier prevented that. I took it upon myself to circumvent the law to achieve an end that already should have been.

How I did it isn't socially acceptable because of all the injustices that could occur (from less moral people) by going outside the normal procedures.

Imagine if we lived in a world of pure honesty. I bet if we did, then my behavior would have been totally appropriate.

Fair? Who cares about fair? I hope the newspaper goes out of business. I'm interested only in the ends. It just so happens the business between me and the owner was fair.

Anyhow, that was a little more nonsense on my part to wonder about.

premjan

Everybody's ethical environment and moral assumptions are different. Since reality cannot be evaluated as being either right or wrong, it is hard to place the blame. Even if we identify the party who was accountable for making sure all the pages were in place, we could easily muddy the waters by discussing the ecological responsibility of pulp newsprint and the economic justice of paying some people more than others.