You pay with a ten, but get change for a twenty.

[mrmufin]

Here's the situation. You and your friend Roxy are both strapped for cash, but are having lunch together at the cafe. Three days ago she loaned you ten dollars, and she just asked if you were able to pay her back. Being pretty much broke, you told Roxy, "Sorry, babe. I'm still kinda tapped out."

The food and service are both very good at this cafe, as are the prices. The waitress brings you the check and it's for $8.87. You give the waitress your last ten dollar bill, but she brings you $11.13 in change. Are you going to point out the error to the waitress?

Regards,
mrmufin

[ST88]

I don't really want to turn this into a debate, but I'd like to address some of your points.

Since I paid for lunch, and the correct balance plus lunch equals the ten I owed to Roxy, I can consider her debt partially paid. In this scenario, I can point out the error to the waitress without having to worry about letting Roxy down.
-- Unfortunately, this doesn't work because I don't get to specify which of my ten dollars Roxy loaned to me, so it might very well have been those ten dollars I handed to the waitress. In this case, I should've asked Roxy beforehand if she was willing to use this lunch as a partial square for her debt, and it doesn't equal the right amount anyway.

What if Roxy didn't really eat much? Maybe you had the cheeseburger and she only had a coffee? It wouldn't really be fair to her in that case, now would it?

I said "partially paid." In this case, the money that I owe Roxy would be decreased by the amount of the lunch she had. By asking her beforehand if this would square part of the debt, she would have the decision to make as to what she should have, if anything, for lunch. There is a big difference between getting the liquidity of the bill from getting the credit as a product. She may decide not to have anything at all. In this case, when I appeal to her to make the decision, she could get full liquidity by maintaining the full amount of the debt.

But what if she had a cheeseburger, for which I paid, and then also demanded the $10? In this case, she would be getting the extra $4.02 (or whatever it might have been) in product, in addition to the bill, exclusively because of my good nature. This is why the above example doesn't quite work. If I had already spent the $10 that Roxy gave me and this was my own $10 (and I had the politeness to pay for lunch out of my own pocket), then it would make sense. But I don't think I get to say which $10 was exclusively hers on credit and which was mine outright. Therefore Roxy would have the right to claim not only the $10 that I spent on lunch, but also the $10 that I got back by mistake. Now, it is possible to assume that Roxy is a reasonable person, and that she would be nice about it, but that shouldn't be an issue in this question.

I've been in somewhat similar situations more than once. In actuality, I've played it both ways. Heck, I once gave a stripper a twenty and she brought me change for a fifty. I had two drinks and a lap dance before leaving the club with more money than I went in with! (I left my ethics back at the hotel that night.)

That's a whole other issue! [insert questionable smiley here]

[perfessor]

I've thought about this before, and when it happened to me about ten years ago at a Wendy's drive-thru, I stared at what was placed in my hand, and then I thought to myself, "Thanks, God." Maybe sometimes He tries to bless us and we too often refuse the gift. What's He supposed to do -- make it fall out of the sky? In theory, He may very well have duplicated the change and left the right amount in the cash register as well. Don't stare a possible miracle in the face.

Here's an interesting tale I came across recently:
"I was walking down the street and I found a wallet with a hundred dollars in it, and I was going to keep it rather than return it, but I thought: well, if I lost a hundred dollars, how would I feel? And I realized I would want to be taught a lesson."

Excuse me Xanadu, but this seems like very bass-ackward reasoning to me. I mean really - you know - you have to know - that someone else is out the money. To think otherwise is a very flimsy rationalization. And would you really rather lose $100 for a "lesson"???

The Bible - and numerous other religions as well - teach us that we should treat others the way we would like to be treated. And I would rather not lose money! That makes the decision easy,

[Corvus]

If I absolutely must stick to the wording of the ethical dilemma, I would consult with Roxy on whether or not to give her the extra $10. My conscience would not be greatly distressed if she accepts.

Just outta curiousity, is there a specific dollar amount at which your conscience might respond with distress?

No. I doubt the waitress could make such a considerable mistake. The waitress is unlikely to get fired, and the shop is unlikely to suffer too greatly from my appropriating a little money, so the act, in my eyes, is fine.

Or what if Roxy deferred the decision right back to you? You could ask the waitress for her opinion, too.

No, I'm sure she has a lot on her mind. I doubt the $10 will be missed.

[turtleguy]

i would point out the error and give the money back.

[Tigerlilly]

I would probably give it back, because if I only gave her a ten, and she gave me a twenty, the clerks cash-register would probably be outta wack, and that might harm her with some penality, and that would make her unhappy and do a disservice.

It would also be stealing from someone, with relatively little gain, and as a social rule, stealing is unethical, because it leads to unhappiness if everyone were out to steal. There would be nosecurity, no safety.

I would also be cheating the system, which, if everyone did that in the same situation, woudl undermine the institution of customer trust.

So,, as a Utilitarian (even though no real damage would be done except to the register man), I wouldn't do it for fear of decreasing net happiness and in order to coincide with the Utility RUle

[justanotherperson]

Alright, so apparently no one in the post has worked as a waiter (server or whatever you like). The money that the waitress makes is where she would get her change from and she has to pay the cashier at the end of the night for the money that is owed the restaurant, in most circumstances. Anyway, to make it short, the waitress loses the money directly from her pocket and it doesn't hurt the restaurant or her employer in any way, only her.

Stealing, no matter the amount is wrong. If you can morally steal $ 10 why not steal $ 10 million. Would you feel 1 million times more guilty. Stealing is wrong no matter what the context or the way it is done or for the reason it is done, however noble it may seem.

[Gary]

I don't really want to turn this into a debate, but I'd like to address some of your points.

Since I paid for lunch, and the correct balance plus lunch equals the ten I owed to Roxy, I can consider her debt partially paid. In this scenario, I can point out the error to the waitress without having to worry about letting Roxy down.
-- Unfortunately, this doesn't work because I don't get to specify which of my ten dollars Roxy loaned to me, so it might very well have been those ten dollars I handed to the waitress. In this case, I should've asked Roxy beforehand if she was willing to use this lunch as a partial square for her debt, and it doesn't equal the right amount anyway.

What if Roxy didn't really eat much? Maybe you had the cheeseburger and she only had a coffee? It wouldn't really be fair to her in that case, now would it?

I said "partially paid." In this case, the money that I owe Roxy would be decreased by the amount of the lunch she had. By asking her beforehand if this would square part of the debt, she would have the decision to make as to what she should have, if anything, for lunch. There is a big difference between getting the liquidity of the bill from getting the credit as a product. She may decide not to have anything at all. In this case, when I appeal to her to make the decision, she could get full liquidity by maintaining the full amount of the debt.

But what if she had a cheeseburger, for which I paid, and then also demanded the $10? In this case, she would be getting the extra $4.02 (or whatever it might have been) in product, in addition to the bill, exclusively because of my good nature. This is why the above example doesn't quite work. If I had already spent the $10 that Roxy gave me and this was my own $10 (and I had the politeness to pay for lunch out of my own pocket), then it would make sense. But I don't think I get to say which $10 was exclusively hers on credit and which was mine outright. Therefore Roxy would have the right to claim not only the $10 that I spent on lunch, but also the $10 that I got back by mistake. Now, it is possible to assume that Roxy is a reasonable person, and that she would be nice about it, but that shouldn't be an issue in this question.

I've been in somewhat similar situations more than once. In actuality, I've played it both ways. Heck, I once gave a stripper a twenty and she brought me change for a fifty. I had two drinks and a lap dance before leaving the club with more money than I went in with! (I left my ethics back at the hotel that night.)

That's a whole other issue! [insert questionable smiley here]

[Gary]

I don't really want to turn this into a debate, but I'd like to address some of your points.

Since I paid for lunch, and the correct balance plus lunch equals the ten I owed to Roxy, I can consider her debt partially paid. In this scenario, I can point out the error to the waitress without having to worry about letting Roxy down.
-- Unfortunately, this doesn't work because I don't get to specify which of my ten dollars Roxy loaned to me, so it might very well have been those ten dollars I handed to the waitress. In this case, I should've asked Roxy beforehand if she was willing to use this lunch as a partial square for her debt, and it doesn't equal the right amount anyway.

What if Roxy didn't really eat much? Maybe you had the cheeseburger and she only had a coffee? It wouldn't really be fair to her in that case, now would it?

I said "partially paid." In this case, the money that I owe Roxy would be decreased by the amount of the lunch she had. By asking her beforehand if this would square part of the debt, she would have the decision to make as to what she should have, if anything, for lunch. There is a big difference between getting the liquidity of the bill from getting the credit as a product. She may decide not to have anything at all. In this case, when I appeal to her to make the decision, she could get full liquidity by maintaining the full amount of the debt.

But what if she had a cheeseburger, for which I paid, and then also demanded the $10? In this case, she would be getting the extra $4.02 (or whatever it might have been) in product, in addition to the bill, exclusively because of my good nature. This is why the above example doesn't quite work. If I had already spent the $10 that Roxy gave me and this was my own $10 (and I had the politeness to pay for lunch out of my own pocket), then it would make sense. But I don't think I get to say which $10 was exclusively hers on credit and which was mine outright. Therefore Roxy would have the right to claim not only the $10 that I spent on lunch, but also the $10 that I got back by mistake. Now, it is possible to assume that Roxy is a reasonable person, and that she would be nice about it, but that shouldn't be an issue in this question.

I've been in somewhat similar situations more than once. In actuality, I've played it both ways. Heck, I once gave a stripper a twenty and she brought me change for a fifty. I had two drinks and a lap dance before leaving the club with more money than I went in with! (I left my ethics back at the hotel that night.)

That's a whole other issue! [insert questionable smiley here]

[Gary]

[ quote="ST88"]Since I paid for lunch, and the correct balance plus lunch equals the ten I owed to Roxy, I can consider her debt partially paid. In this scenario, I can point out the error to the waitress without having to worry about letting Roxy down.
-- Unfortunately, this doesn't work because I don't get to specify which of my ten dollars Roxy loaned to me, so it might very well have been those ten dollars I handed to the waitress. In this case, I should've asked Roxy beforehand if she was willing to use this lunch as a partial square for her debt, and it doesn't equal the right amount anyway.[/quote]What if Roxy didn't really eat much? Maybe you had the cheeseburger and she only had a coffee? It wouldn't really be fair to her in that case, now would it?I said "partially paid." In this case, the money that I owe Roxy would be decreased by the amount of the lunch she had. By asking her beforehand if this would square part of the debt, she would have the decision to make as to what she should have, if anything, for lunch.[/quote]

This seems to me to be a perfect example of how complicated life's 'small' problems can get when we use situational ethics. As with any problem, if we ask ourselves, "Can I get away with this? Let's see...." Then we've already weakened our previous convictions. How much easier the problem seems if we just say, "That's not my money!"

[Gary]

Since I paid for lunch, and the correct balance plus lunch equals the ten I owed to Roxy, I can consider her debt partially paid. In this scenario, I can point out the error to the waitress without having to worry about letting Roxy down.
-- Unfortunately, this doesn't work because I don't get to specify which of my ten dollars Roxy loaned to me, so it might very well have been those ten dollars I handed to the waitress. In this case, I should've asked Roxy beforehand if she was willing to use this lunch as a partial square for her debt, and it doesn't equal the right amount anyway.

What if Roxy didn't really eat much? Maybe you had the cheeseburger and she only had a coffee? It wouldn't really be fair to her in that case, now would it?I said "partially paid." In this case, the money that I owe Roxy would be decreased by the amount of the lunch she had. By asking her beforehand if this would square part of the debt, she would have the decision to make as to what she should have, if anything, for lunch.[/quote]

This seems to me to be a perfect example of how complicated life's 'small' problems can get when we use situational ethics. As with any problem, if we ask ourselves, "Can I get away with this? Let's see...." Then we've already weakened our previous convictions. How much easier the problem seems if we just say, "That's not my money!"