Morals & Conscience in action

ameliorate wrote:I had an experience today that got me thinking on this topic.  I wonder what you would do in this situation.

I was in a supermarket when I saw a deluxe chocolate torte - normally around £4 - greatly reduced! Not down to £2 or so but 59p!! I could hardly believe it so I put it in my shopping basket. After I had paid for it, I looked at the receipt, to find it said "black cherry yogurt 59p". That's when I realised that someone had obviously put this label on it...perhaps intending to buy it. (There was a worker in that section when I saw the torte). I paused very briefly, since I knew it was morally wrong to keep it, but then I saw it as a lucky opportunity, i.e. my weak morals on this gave way to the precedence of greed! If it had been in a charity shop then my conscience would have kicked in. As it is I don't have a lot of respect for commercial companies who make a fat profit from consumers.

What would you have done? I realise returning it would have been problematic since, how would they know it wasn't me which changed the label in the first place?

Let me give another scenario and ask what you would do. If someone dropped a paper note of money (say £10 in UK...don't know the equivalent in other countries) and they hadn't noticed it - would you point it out to them or hope they would go away and you would take it...assuming no-one else saw this? Or would it depend on who the person was, e.g. elderly or someone well off? I would defo give it back.

Crystal wrote:Once when I was leaving a supermarket I saw my child had grabbed a small box of tissues on the way by that I obviously hadn't paid for or even known that he had grabbed. So,  I went back and explained at customer services and gave them the box. OMG 50 minutes later, one screaming child, me late to pick my other child up at school and security guards watching my every move. Wish I had just kept on walking!

Hope you enjoyed the cake!

Ha...I hear you!   Yes it was gorgeous - devoured half of it already!   

kardecian wrote:
Supermarkets are not high profit ventures. There's a lot of competition out there when it comes to supermarkets (grocery stores).  They are not high profit ventures by any stretch of the imagination. 

ameliorate wrote:I had an experience today that got me thinking on this topic.  I wonder what you would do in this situation.

I was in a supermarket when I saw a deluxe chocolate torte - normally around £4 - greatly reduced! Not down to £2 or so but 59p!! I could hardly believe it so I put it in my shopping basket. After I had paid for it, (and still in the store) I looked at the receipt, to find it said "black cherry yogurt 59p". That's when I realised that someone had obviously put this label on it...perhaps intending to buy it. (There was a worker in that section when I saw the torte). I paused very briefly, since I knew it was morally wrong to keep it, but then I saw it as a lucky opportunity, i.e. my weak morals on this gave way to the precedence of greed! If it had been in a charity shop then my conscience would have kicked in. As it is I don't have a lot of respect for commercial companies who make a fat profit from consumers.

What would you have done? I realise returning it would have been problematic since, how would they know it wasn't me which changed the label in the first place?

Let me give another scenario and ask what you would do. If someone dropped a paper note of money (say £10 in UK...don't know the equivalent in other countries) and they hadn't noticed it - would you point it out to them or hope they would go away and you would take it...assuming no-one else saw this? Or would it depend on who the person was, e.g. elderly or someone well off? I would defo give it back.

kardecian wrote:Yes, Waitrose is a fancy shmancy business.  But, I don't agree with the sentiment that it's OK to short-change a business just because it's successful. I get the impression that some feel it's OK to take advantage of those who are richer than us.  "Sharing the Wealth" should only be done voluntarily. No one deserves to be short-changed or ripped off, even the rich and successful.  Stealing is stealing, whether one is stealing from the rich or from the poor.

ameliorate wrote:

kardecian wrote:Yes, Waitrose is a fancy shmancy business.  But, I don't agree with the sentiment that it's OK to short-change a business just because it's successful. I get the impression that some feel it's OK to take advantage of those who are richer than us.  "Sharing the Wealth" should only be done voluntarily. No one deserves to be short-changed or ripped off, even the rich and successful.  Stealing is stealing, whether one is stealing from the rich or from the poor.

Would you regard what occurred (in Waitrose) as stealing?  I think it is a grey area since I didn't realise anything underhanded had occurred until after I paid for it, i.e. looked at the receipt.  You would have returned the item then and risked them not believing that it wasn't you that switched the label?

skye wrote:

ameliorate wrote:

kardecian wrote:Yes, Waitrose is a fancy shmancy business.  But, I don't agree with the sentiment that it's OK to short-change a business just because it's successful. I get the impression that some feel it's OK to take advantage of those who are richer than us.  "Sharing the Wealth" should only be done voluntarily. No one deserves to be short-changed or ripped off, even the rich and successful.  Stealing is stealing, whether one is stealing from the rich or from the poor.

Would you regard what occurred (in Waitrose) as stealing?  I think it is a grey area since I didn't realise anything underhanded had occurred until after I paid for it, i.e. looked at the receipt.  You would have returned the item then and risked them not believing that it wasn't you that switched the label?

The question of stealing comes about after the event when the realisation dawns of a mistake having been made. It wouldn't matter what they would have thought of you, you had nothing to hide as you knew the truth, in that you didn't switch the price tag.

ameliorate wrote:

skye wrote:

ameliorate wrote:

kardecian wrote:Yes, Waitrose is a fancy shmancy business.  But, I don't agree with the sentiment that it's OK to short-change a business just because it's successful. I get the impression that some feel it's OK to take advantage of those who are richer than us.  "Sharing the Wealth" should only be done voluntarily. No one deserves to be short-changed or ripped off, even the rich and successful.  Stealing is stealing, whether one is stealing from the rich or from the poor.

Would you regard what occurred (in Waitrose) as stealing?  I think it is a grey area since I didn't realise anything underhanded had occurred until after I paid for it, i.e. looked at the receipt.  You would have returned the item then and risked them not believing that it wasn't you that switched the label?

The question of stealing comes about after the event when the realisation dawns of a mistake having been made. It wouldn't matter what they would have thought of you, you had nothing to hide as you knew the truth, in that you didn't switch the price tag.

You're missing the point.  It's not about what they think of me but whether they BELIEVE that it wasn't me that switched the label, i.e. by trying to do the "right thing" and take the item back to the cashier, I may inadvertently have been seen as being the original culprit.  I wasn't prepared to take that risk....would you????

kardecian wrote:Yes, Waitrose is a fancy shmancy business.  But, I don't agree with the sentiment that it's OK to short-change a business just because it's successful. I get the impression that some feel it's OK to take advantage of those who are richer than us.  "Sharing the Wealth" should only be done voluntarily. No one deserves to be short-changed or ripped off, even the rich and successful.  Stealing is stealing, whether one is stealing from the rich or from the poor.

skye wrote:

ameliorate wrote:

skye wrote:

ameliorate wrote:

kardecian wrote:Yes, Waitrose is a fancy shmancy business.  But, I don't agree with the sentiment that it's OK to short-change a business just because it's successful. I get the impression that some feel it's OK to take advantage of those who are richer than us.  "Sharing the Wealth" should only be done voluntarily. No one deserves to be short-changed or ripped off, even the rich and successful.  Stealing is stealing, whether one is stealing from the rich or from the poor.

Would you regard what occurred (in Waitrose) as stealing?  I think it is a grey area since I didn't realise anything underhanded had occurred until after I paid for it, i.e. looked at the receipt.  You would have returned the item then and risked them not believing that it wasn't you that switched the label?

The question of stealing comes about after the event when the realisation dawns of a mistake having been made. It wouldn't matter what they would have thought of you, you had nothing to hide as you knew the truth, in that you didn't switch the price tag.

You're missing the point.  It's not about what they think of me but whether they BELIEVE that it wasn't me that switched the label, i.e. by trying to do the "right thing" and take the item back to the cashier, I may inadvertently have been seen as being the original culprit.  I wasn't prepared to take that risk....would you????

No, I don't think I am missing the point.  It seems to be that the fear of not being believed is much stronger than the act of taking the cake back to the cashier to say the wrong price was charged. I honestly can't think of one good reason as to why they would have believed you had switched the price tag? And, yes I would have taken the risk, not that I would have perceived it as being a risk. 
Whatever a person may believe or think about you in any situation is out of your control, it's their business. And it's their thoughts or beliefs only, this doesn't mean their opinions or beliefs about you are true, does it?

Lion L wrote:

kardecian wrote:Yes, Waitrose is a fancy shmancy business.  But, I don't agree with the sentiment that it's OK to short-change a business just because it's successful. I get the impression that some feel it's OK to take advantage of those who are richer than us.  "Sharing the Wealth" should only be done voluntarily. No one deserves to be short-changed or ripped off, even the rich and successful.  Stealing is stealing, whether one is stealing from the rich or from the poor.

In my opinion it is more than fair to take from the rich and give to the poor.
If sharing the wealth was only done voluntarily then the gap between the multi-billionaires and those on minimum wage would grow ever larger, as we see when the rich leave Britain for some low tax country, such as the USA, so that they don't have to give up their money to help support the NHS or state funded schools.
If the wealth is not shared fairly by the government then the people will redistribute it themselves.

ameliorate wrote:

skye wrote:

ameliorate wrote:

skye wrote:

ameliorate wrote:
Would you regard what occurred (in Waitrose) as stealing?  I think it is a grey area since I didn't realise anything underhanded had occurred until after I paid for it, i.e. looked at the receipt.  You would have returned the item then and risked them not believing that it wasn't you that switched the label?

The question of stealing comes about after the event when the realisation dawns of a mistake having been made. It wouldn't matter what they would have thought of you, you had nothing to hide as you knew the truth, in that you didn't switch the price tag.

You're missing the point.  It's not about what they think of me but whether they BELIEVE that it wasn't me that switched the label, i.e. by trying to do the "right thing" and take the item back to the cashier, I may inadvertently have been seen as being the original culprit.  I wasn't prepared to take that risk....would you????

No, I don't think I am missing the point.  It seems to be that the fear of not being believed is much stronger than the act of taking the cake back to the cashier to say the wrong price was charged. I honestly can't think of one good reason as to why they would have believed you had switched the price tag? And, yes I would have taken the risk, not that I would have perceived it as being a risk. 
Whatever a person may believe or think about you in any situation is out of your control, it's their business. And it's their thoughts or beliefs only, this doesn't mean their opinions or beliefs about you are true, does it?

Supermarkets get ripped off all the time...and you think they would have believed me?  I don't CARE what they think of me - I was concerned about the consequences of them thinking I had committed a crime and changed my mind.

Skye
You say you don't care what they think of you, yet you are concerned they would accuse you of committing a crime and you would pay the consequences...