Translate

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

a curious dilemma...





A definition of Ethics: moral principles that govern a person's behavior.

Something happened at Central Market last week that made me wonder... I'll have to tell a short story first so you will know where this is coming from.

DH and I were just finishing up grocery shopping and were heading to our car. I happened to look at the receipt in my hand and thought the amount didn't look right. We normally spend about $50 - $60 at Central Market, but this time we had bought a $15 roast as well as some salmon... so it should have been more.

Well, apparently the checker (as well as DH and I) had missed the roast on the bottom of the cart. Realizing this, I went back into the store with the roast, explained, and paid the checker. Her comment was, "Well, aren't you sweet?"

OK, that's the story. Here 's the question.
Ethically (?) speaking, not paying for a $15 roast was not an option. But... if it had been a $1 or $2 item, the truth is that I probably wouldn't have gone back.

This is my dilemma:  I don't think it should make any difference (?) if it's a $2 or $50 mistake... but it does. Why?






19 comments:

  1. Once there was a case of soda unpaid for under my cart. I went back and payed for it.
    Another time at the post office I paid for a book of stamps but later I saw there was another book stuck to it. I brought it back.

    Now if it was a small amount that would cause more work for everyone to fix than to just forget it; I would let it go.

    In another case if it would cause someone harm like losing their job because of some mistake, I would have to keep quiet about it.

    I think there are varying degrees of honesty verses practicality verses causing harm by trying to be honest. It all depends on the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Probably because a $1 isn't worth much anymore...especially if it is a Canadian dollar. :)

    All kidding aside, I think we all have a line in the sand. We subconsciously consider the harm to the store/to the person and make our decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this is true. But I'm not sure if it's the way it should be. However, I have never been a person that believes things are either black or white... shades of gray (circumstances)seem to affect everything.

      Delete
  3. A friend's daughter lived hand to mouth in LA. For cigarette money she would do things like never draw her hand back after a non-American cashier returned the change the register indicted. She would wave her hand and point, indicating "you owe me more," and the confused cashier often continued adding change until the daughter took her hand back. Her mother visited, saw her do it (habit), and was horrified. The daughter said "It's only a lie if you get caught."
    I told the story at card group a week ago. Someone reneged, realized it a round later and confessed. Someone else said something to the effect she should have been silent and got away with it. The reneger was shocked at the suggestion and the discussion went on until I told the story, whereupon the discussion was when was the truth necessary. Everyone left with their original conviction, I'm sure. The amusing part of the affair, for me, was that the person who would not have confessed reneging is the minister's husband.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joanne, I learned a long time ago that just because a person is a "church goer" doesn't make them saints. Guess we all have to find our own way and try to listen to that voice inside us. Hopefully it will steer us right.

      Delete
  4. It really is all the same but we can't help attaching a value of some sort to such ethical questions. However, as we act in even the small matters , so shall we in the big matters.If we tend our hearts and minds and desire to be honest and of good and noble character , then yes, the $2.oo is every bit as important as the $50.00.

    Great question worthy of consideration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "yes, the $2.oo is every bit as important as the $50.00" It does seem so in theory, but in reality I'm not so sure.

      Delete
  5. i agree with KathyB, it is also stealing, if we are brought up morally right it is stealing, i certainly would feel terrible if i found it once i got home & would rectify it next time at the store, especially if it's the $50. not so much for a $1 or 2.
    goes to show how honest you are too.
    thanx for sharing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the "... not so much for $1 or 2" that was the subject of my dilemma. Why does it make a difference? I think that it does, but why... is it because we are not *by the book* creatures. We consider all the circumstances and as Sasha said in the first comment, we each "have a line in the sand".

      Delete
  6. I wouldn't go back for a dollar or two, even though it would be the same ethical issue regardless of amount. However, it would cost the company more to process a refund for a very small amount -- in the person's wage, paperwork, etc.

    The other thing to toss in here is that there have been many, many times where the cashier has rung up an item and it's been more than advertised, but I've not cared to make a fuss and have her/him call someone for a price check. So I figure it all balances out in the end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we do consider all those things when making any decision - even ethical ones... because that's how we're made. People's values differ, but so do the way we process things. And I agree that when it's a small mistake ($1 or 2), I tend to also believe that all things considered, it's best to let it go. Whether this is right or wrong (ethically) I don't know...

      Delete
  7. Hmmm, I know too many people who wouldn't have gone back to the cashier at all and considered it a victory to walk out with a free roast. I would have gone back. I have pretty high moral standards and wrong is wrong. I love the Shel Silverstein poem, by the way. -Jenn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right, Jenn. And I don't judge them. I only know what is right for me.

      Delete
  8. I might have thought my time was more valuable than the dollar item, or I might unconsciously think I probably have been overcharged the same amount at some time. But I would probably let them know the next time I shopped. Conversely I have told my grocery store of a spoiled item and not even brought my receipt and they have honored it - it is a small town and folks tend to trust each other here; In california that would never have happened, nor Florida. At the home depot just the other day I was double charged for the two most expensive items and would have ended up paying three times as much as I thought I should, but I said this doesn't seem right and the checker changed it. I always look at the register and count my change since many times I would have been shorted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Linda, it has been my experience that people are mostly honest (maybe not to a fault) but mostly. The grocery stores here in this big city have always made amends when I've noticed a mistake. Maybe this is partly why I feel obligated to do the same.

      Delete
  9. I have to say if I notice a missed item before I get home I would go back in. If I get home, well unless it was a bigger item I figure my gas to get back costs more. I do see the dilemma and will need to think about this a bit more. Good thought provoking post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's a dilemma that each has to face individually.

      Delete
  10. That's why I like self-checkouts. The weight system kind of helps avoid that issue. I also rarely have a huge cart so nothing gets "lost"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DH also likes self-checkouts... me, not so much. But Central Market doesn't have one anyway.

      Delete

Thanks for reading and commenting! It makes my day...