Interesting Ethical Question, Part II

[Skinner]

Poll question: Interesting Ethical Question, Part II

Someone asks the following question on an anonymous message board: "If you found a purse filled with a million dollars in cash and jewels, would you keep it or give it back?"

Anonymous person #1 says that he would give it back, because it's the right thing to do.

Anonymous person #2 says that he would keep it, because it's a lot of money and the owner probably didn't need it anyway.

My question is this:

Of these two anonymous message board posters, who do you think is more likely to be telling the truth?

[brokensymmetry]

1. Both are telling partial truths, and both are telling partial lies.

In the case of Anonymous person #1, he might give it back - but would do so because he would fear being caught in a criminal act, not because he thought it was the right thing to do.

As for Anonymous person #2, they might keep it - but it would have nothing to do with the owner's need, and everything to do with avarice.

Even when we're anonymous, we seek the approval of others; so any communication must be suspect.

[Skinner]

2. You raise a good point

I probably should have not put in the "because" qualifiers after each hypothetical answer.

[Sammy Pepys]

3. I think both are telling the truth, but with a twist...

#1 will probably, very deep down, expect to receive some kind of reward. I sure as heck would...because if I had lost something like that I would definitely hook the person who found it and saved me a lot of trouble with a little "walkin' around money."

I don't see any reason why #2 would be lying. I think if it really happened to them, they might have second thoughts and turn it in....but they probably really believe they'd just grab it and run.

[Skinner]

4. Just to clarify...

The question was not whether you believe they are both telling the truth. The question was who do you think was more likely to be telling the truth.

[Sammy Pepys]

5. My answer still wouldn't change....n/t

I still think they're equally as likely to be telling the truth.

[Demit]

6. Skinner, you're having a hard time believing that people have a conscience

That's really weird. There might be many reasons why people end up doing the right thing, including not-so-noble ones like being afraid they would be caught, but in the end they know they've done the right thing, with no need to justify it. Your people who would take the money always need to justify it.

[Skinner]

17. Sorry, but you've got me all wrong.

I do not have a hard time believing that people have a conscience. I do not have a hard time believing that people will often do the right thing when they are put in a difficult ethical situation.

Furthermore, at no point did I say I would keep the money. Go back and read all my posts again. I never said I would keep the money. I am bothered by your use of the phrase "your people who would take the money" as if I am in that group. I have given no clear indication of what I would do with the money, except to say that "I would like to think that I would give it back."

I believe my point has been lost on virtually everyone. My answer had very little to do with what I personally would or would not do. My answer was an observation about the likelihood of an honest answer in that thread, given the clear system of rewards and punishments that had already been handed out:

- Say you'll give the money back, and you are rewarded with the approval of other DUers.

- Say you might keep it, and you are called a thief and held up to contempt.

If you are in the second group, how likely is an honest response under those circumstances? Not very.

[BlooInBloo]

18. Question of fact plz?

*Are* you a thief if you keep it?

Or are you just *called* a thief if you keep it?


EDIT: The "you"'s here are all generic and not referring to any specific person, real or imagined.

[Skinner]

Touché.

I would agree that keeping a handbag filled with a million dollars in jewels is not ethical. Is it correct to call that person a thief? While I do not believe that "finding" and "taking" are ethically indistinguishable acts, I do believe it is fair to compare keeping the bag to thieving.

But that does not change my basic point, which is that for those in the "I'd keep it" camp, honesty was unlikely in that thread given the clear system of rewards and punishments already meted out.

[Demit]

25. Okay. But that's why I didn't say "you". I didn't think you.

I said "your people" because, correct me if I'm wrong, you are pretty much defending those who say, sure, I'd keep the money. And you are being openly skeptical about people's motives who say they would return it. You are skating very close to asserting that we are lying to ourselves. And assuming it is because of the "rewards" we get in a DU thread! I mean, I like it here, but I don't skew my beliefs so I can get approval from other posters.

That's why I am taking some offense at your skepticism. I have a pretty powerful sense of when I'm doing something right and when I'm doing something wrong. It was a part of me long before I discovered DU and joined up.

Of course it's a hypothetical situation and no one can say for certain what they would really do. But that's what ethics is all about--speaking in the subjunctive mood and extrapolating from what your underlying values are. I absolutely could not live with myself if I kept the money. All that I claim I am would be a farce, and I would know it. The tears might run down my face as I hand the money back, thinking what a schmuck I am! What I could have done with that money! But I know I would have to give it back.

So the actual situation might be a dilemma for a lot of people. but for many others, they know themselves, and however reluctantly they might do it, they know they would have to do the right thing.

[Skinner]

27. Yes, I am being skeptical of some who say they would return it.

My basic argument is that there would likely exist a small subset of the self-proclaimed "give it back" group who are simply lying because they know it is the socially acceptable response. But I think they are a minority.

My best guess -- and this is merely a guess -- is that most of those who say they would return it honestly believe that they would do so. But I also believe that many of them would not find the choice so simple if they ever actually faced it in real life.

I am not arguing that keeping the money is the ethical choice, nor would I do so. But I am also not completely ruling out the possibility that there may exist some ethical gray area where keeping the money might be understandable -- given various hypothetical circumstances.

[bigwillq]

7. I think #2 is more likely

telling the truth. It's an honest, from the gut response. "Yes, I would keep it."

The way this question is worded, I have to go with #2.
Since the question was posed on a message board, I feel that #1 could be lying in order to "look good" in front of the other posters.


So I'm going with #2 and maybe I am just reading too much into this! :)

[leftofthedial]

8. who would you give it back to?

is the original ownership clear or ambiguous?

[TahitiNut]

9. Ethical answer: It's not my place to make such a judgment.

I take such postings at face value, treating them for what they say and not what I infer, and continue to live in the real world where the likelihood that anyone is (knowingly) dissembling is indeterminate to me.

It brings up a side point: is what a person says 'the truth' as long as they believe it?

In order to even engage in a discussion of such a question, I suppose we'd be faced with attempting to ascertain not only whether each person BELIEVED what they were saying at the time they said it, but whether they would actually do what they're saying or not. It invites us to "play God" and presume some 'higher' knowledge of not only what they believe (mind-reading) but whether they would act as they predict (prognostication).

It just ain't my job. :shrug: I tend to withhold any judgment, yea or nay.


On edit: I also believe our thoughts regarding the veracity of others in such a context says far more about us than them. If I wanted to believe that I'd give it back but, recognizing the difficulty of such a choice, wanted to elevate myself above others in the ability to deal with such a difficult choice, I might reflect that in a self-serving opinion of the veracity of their statements. I once heard the aphorism "All judgment is self-judgment." The longer I live the more I see the insight of such an aphorism.

[johnnie]

10. I think they both would most likely be telling the truth

Their truth as they see it. Considering it is a hypothetical situation I would think the people would tell the truth as to what they think they would like to do.

Telling the truth is more of an "after the fact" type thing.

[gollygee]

11. Given that it's anonymous

I'd say they're both pretty likely to be telling the truth.

I can tell you with absolute certainty I would not keep it. I would be ashamed if my daughter saw me keep something that doesn't belong to me and rationalize it away. I wouldn't do it even if I weren't afraid of shame.

[harpo]

12. interesting question...both/neither

#1 is lying...who they gonna give it back to? They don't know who dropped it..how they gonna give it back?
#2 is assuming..."the owner probably didn't need it anyway"...trying to justify their keeping the loot...a touch of guilt I sense in their words.

[Horse with no Name]

13. Everyone has their own set of values

I believe both are telling the truth--although you do have to note that the person that is saying he would keep the money was lacking in ethics, but at least he is honest about it.
Kind of like some of our politicians today.

[Chovexani]

14. I'm more inclined to believe #2

If there's something that years and years of being on the Internets has taught me, it's that people are completely and utterly full of shit, especially when they're hiding behind a monitor.

Yes, I'm probably too young to be this cynical, but that's what happens when you see one too many people faking their deaths on Livejournal, lying about people abusing their cats in order to get money and sympathy, raising money for non-existant charities, etc.

[Greybnk48]

15. There are two questions here that are vastly different

that are sometimes inadvertently conflated. "What SHOULD you do", from a ethical perspective, and "what would YOU do in this situation?"

The answer to the question "What should you do?" is easy. Since maintaining your personal integrity has intrinsic value above all else, and money and jewels have instrumental value only, you should give it back to its rightful owner.

"What would you do in this situation?" is much tougher. Most people don't know what they would do, they only hope that they would do the right thing and return the purse and contents to its rightful owner.

You can make the question even tougher. "Would you keep the loot if you knew for a fact that you would not get caught?" The parable of "the ring of Gyges" addresses this question in Plato's Republic.

The question is what do you value more, your character/personal integrity, or material goods? Sadly, too often people are made to feel stupid or naive if they choose the former; but many hope they would.

[BlooInBloo]

16. LOLOL! Nice!

Maybe I should do some capainging?

:rofl:

EDIT: In the absence of specific knowledge to the contrary, I'd be more inclined to believe #2 was telling the truth than #1. There aren't all that many false confessions after all....

[MrPrax]

19. So what's the right answer...

A fanciful escape into altruism or acquisition motivated by self-interest?

Well since most altruists engage in "acquisition motivated by self-interest" 99% of the time, seems silly to demand 'self-less' acts when a canned scenario calls for it.

Are you asking people, 'all things being equal, would you steal something that doesn't belong to you'?

How about something tough...like

"Should people be allow to sell their own body parts?"
"Should you foreclose a farm during a famine?"
"You bought 'a million dollars in cash and jewels', from the stocks you sold whose value came from killing off a river system?"
"You invented a drug that can save people from a terrible disease, how much should you charge knowing some people will die depending on the price you set?"
"Would you vote for a proposal that would hurt people and limit some rights, but place you in a better position to be re-elected?"

Lots of altruistic acts just waiting for an ethics scenario...

[Greybnk48]

21. These aren't tough

1. No (even though I'm not a fan of paternalism).
2. This would be counterintuitive, since we can't eat money.
3. Not a question.
4. See Merck in re: to Riverblindness (google "riverblindness" and see what has been done in this situation, they call them "orphan drugs.")
5. No...period. But my political model is Russ Feingold, so I may have an advantage over some.

[MrPrax]

28. Really?

1. Yes...since all aspects of 'transplant' are motivated by profit, why should the 'raw materials' be provided for free? Doctors 'donating' their time and body for a 'good cause'? What about the attending nurses? Are the medical supplies charged less because it is a 'transplant'? Do hospitals lower their 'leasing' costs for 'transplants? Since you accept all of this, why dump on somebody seeking a just conpensation for their 'involvement'?

2. Sure, if the farm was growing tobacco...why not? If the farm was growing low-yield traditional crops and refused to grow high-yield modern GM crops, then why not use the powers of foreclosure to switch ownership and save lives?

3. Me bad--the point though...if you got the million not from a purse but from an unethical (not illegal) transaction, then what's the difference between that and the above example other than the fact this example provides a 'history' to the money and a just transaction? That's my point--why ask 'would you take something that doesn't belong to you', without establishing a just principle of ownership in the first place. It doesn't work...

4. It's a question...Where would you set the 'market price'? Based on personal need, stockholder demands, ability to pay--or 'give it away for free'...orphan drugs are ignored so resources can be better focused on 'illnesses' that affect more people. Everyone knows that...pfft

5. Goes to motiviation...you might think that people have too many rights to begin with and so in voting in a pattern that compromises them, you might be operating from an ethical position.

My point is that the above example doesn't have any context, once you provide context, the question becomes a little more difficult.
If you found out the purse was lost at sea and happen to wash up on the beach your stranded on, would this influence your decision to keep it?
If you knew that the money was to be used to buy heroin and returning it to the rightful owner, would cause harm? Would you? If you turned the moeny into the police, knowing this would get you killed? Would you?

The proper question is, "If you found a purse full of X, would leaving it for the owner to retrieve be the best solution?" Yes...and no ethical dilemma, to boot. The contents of the purse are irrelevent to ethical considerations, unless you ASSUME a uniform ethical response to the desirability of material possessions.

But the question already leads to a conclusion about 'human nature' in which the context is missing? It's old school...'would you steal something?' 'Is there any context in which you would steal?'...these are tougher questions, that simply, 'If you want a million dollars, there it is, but someone else owns it...what do you do?

[Blue Diadem]

20. I said both equally telling the truth for themselves..but I would never

open a purse or wallet I've found..I turn them over to the police and let them go through them. Personally..I don't want the responsibility of getting into a handbag or wallet that someone lost. If something is missing I sure don't want to be accused.

[northzax]

22. both are telling the truth, sorta.

as they see it. but, as you pointed out, simply having the desire to be altruistic doesn't make one so, it's how you behave in reality that matters. Poster A could think that they would want to do what they see as the right thing, but fail at the end of the day to do so. And poster B might think that they are making a rational decision, but at the end of the day might be consumed with guilt for rationalizing something they think is wrong.

You cannot know how you will behave under stress, until you are in that situation (and this is certainly a stress on the ethical system). you can think about it, plan for it, imagine the scenarios, but at crunch time, what's going to win out? you can hope for a result, but you don't actually know.

on edit: by the way, isn't this thread simply calling out other DU members? hmm? aaargh, no, don't sic Romeo on me, argh!

[Skinner]

29. It could be argued that this thread is a continuation of the other thread.

But there's no way to post a poll inside another thread, so I went ahead and did it. I was not intending to call anyone in particular out.

[Catherine Vincent]

23. They'e both lying.

Everyone knows that everybody lies on anonymous message boards. :-)

[dogday]

24. There are still people who will do the right thing

those who believe what comes around goes around....

Some would do it because it could mean trouble for them if they did not, true, and some would keep it and deny it's very existance....

[ScreamingMeemie]

26. It isn't really for us to say, is it?

How can we possibly know. It bothers me that this thread rather alludes to the opinion that the ones who say they would return are somehow more dishonest. Perhaps I read it wrong but, in reading through the thread, I fear that I'm not. I would not go so far as to call the original poster a thief.

[Neil Lisst]

30. Both equally.

The person who says they would keep it probably wouldn't.

It's easy to say one would, but a lot tougher to do in real life, I'd wager. We all have a conscience, whether we like it or not, and it tells us "no, Neil, that would not be nice!"

The person who said they would give it back because that is right may be telling the God's honest truth. Or not. Impossible to know.

So the logical answer is "equally."

[Neil Lisst]

31. This suddenly calls to mind the scene in Dumb & Dumber

Where they use IOUs to replace all the money they "found" in the briefcase.

Damn, that was a funny movie.

[sweetheart]

32. Dhamma

When that situation ever happens, in the specific case,
the truth will be self evident to that situation.

The lie is the appearance of objectivity, that
a foreknowledge of a hypothetical event is the same
as its actual context. The arrogance of the mind's
initial contextual lie, overpower's the rest of the
ethics.

The ethics are endemic to the reader and the writer,
not separatable in to a hypothetical event, but
based on real events, where other information is always
present. In that sense, the ethical frame positions
that we *can* predispose what truth is about a future
event, and that the ethical choice in a vacuum, is
the same as the decision of the administrator needs take,
if police authorities soepena audit logs for the
apparent discussion of a theft.

The ethical decision, then, would be to destroy the logs,
and apologize that they are destroyed by the data privacy
director of the LLC.

[leftstreet]

33. The jewels were stolen to begin with!

From the hands of men, women, and children forced to labor in South African diamond and gold mines. So that rich people can ponder the ethics of ownership.

Give them back to the people!

:bounce:

[izzybeans]

34. I put other because there is nothing to indicate to me

on an anonymous message board the sincerity of any post. If this is my first interaction with them, then my only point of reference are these words. I would tend to trust them and then ask questions should future interactions indicate a con job. In this case we can choose to either distrust or trust both; to pick and choose one or the other as to their trustworthiness on an anonymous message board would be arbitrary and uneven.

I choose trust because it is not in my authority to dictate the type of line someone should want to take in their life. Now if the person should lift back the veil and reveal ill intentions then we can rework the image we have of this poster.

That is of course if we are reserving judgment as to the truthfulness of the post; and not to the ethics of the "finder's keepers" dilemma itself.

[MrPrax]

36. Exactly...

In a formal 'ethics' debate, the two statements MUST BE necessarily true/truthful for the 'sake of argument'.

Why?

Exactly for what you said, the question posed provides NO way to ascertain the 'truth' value of the following responses, "keep money" "(not)keep money"...it's only one question being asked and as such you can ASSUME they are both correct.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The empressof all]

37. Locking

This is continuing a flamewar.