I bought something, store made an error, ethical decision

[QuisUtDeus]

I don't really understand the purpose of the question. What am I missing that the answer is not obvious: you return the unit. Without asking. Ridiculous.

That isn't necessarily the case.  For example, by law, if you receive something in the mail you didn't order, you get to keep it.  There is a good reason for this.  Shady companies used to send crap to people they didn't order, and then bill them for it after the package was received.  By allowing people to keep it, and by keeping it yourself, it actually helps the common good.

Some companies would rather let you keep something as a matter of goodwill than incur the restocking cost.  Some things cannot be restocked once they leave the store (e.g., underwear).  On top of that, it's a pain in the ass to drive back.  Gas is almost $5 per gallon by me.  If I have to spend $10 to return a $5 item, fine, but the store can pay for it.  They have no problem charging me a restocking fee.

It's perfectly fine to call and ask.  What's not fine is just keeping it and taking advantage of another's honest mistake.

[WhollyRoaminCatholic]

Hey Rosie... was this a test or a question?

Yes. It is true but I posted it because of the disturbing answers on the other ethical retail question. People should not try to wiggle so much. This was a simple thing. Would I have gotten different responses  had I accidently been given too much from an individual or smaller store? Right is right.

I find nothing disturbing on either thread.

[miss_fluffy]

Hey Rosie... was this a test or a question?

Yes. It is true but I posted it because of the disturbing answers on the other ethical retail question. People should not try to wiggle so much. This was a simple thing. Would I have gotten different responses  had I accidently been given too much from an individual or smaller store? Right is right.

So.... it was a test then?

[WhollyRoaminCatholic]

Your original post is carefully worded that you did not technically lie.  But this thread is misleading, because it implies that you faced some ethical dilemma (which it seems that you did not).

Is that an offense to God?  To engage in deceit?

[Rosarium]

When mistakes are made, there is usually some sort of loss. The issue is doing what is right when we are able to do so.

The weird suggestions here betray a strange perception of how we should live.

It is like finding a dollar on the side walk and finding a wallet in a restaurant booth. Yes, someone lost something in both instances, but in one, we have a practical way of resolving it.

A cashier gives one too much change, it should be returned. Our "gain" is the real loss of someone else, and if it is practical, we should return the extra money. Now, in this case, it is usually related to a specific cashier on a specific shift, and something that would be difficult to resolve by giving the extra change to the service desk the next day. That is probably not helpful given how the system usually works. However, if we notice it at the time, we should correct it as soon as we can.

It is not a matter of a balanced human system or of being recognised for it, but of being just. In even the small picture, it is likely a small matter, but it will show how we make choices.

He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in that which is greater: and he that is unjust in that which is little, is unjust also in that which is greater.

He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in that which is greater: and he that is unjust in that which is little, is unjust also in that which is greater.

If then you have not been faithful in the unjust mammon; who will trust you with that which is the true? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another's; who will give you that which is your own?

[Rosarium]

Your original post is carefully worded that you did not technically lie.  But this thread is misleading, because it implies that you faced some ethical dilemma (which it seems that you did not).

It did, because I had to make a choice, while someone was trying to convince me otherwise, and there was a situational reason to do what was wrong.

Exactly how is my thread misleading? It was an "ethical decision". You see...I bought something. The store made an error. Then there was an ethical decision made. What exactly is misleading about that?

It was not a dilemma. It was a choice to do what is pleasing to the flesh or to do what is pleasing to God. That is not a dilemma. A dilemma would involve a seemingly no proper action to take.

Is that an offense to God?  To engage in deceit?

To purposefully deceive is offensive to the True God. However, poor reading comprehension is not ;)

I wrote nothing untrue and I only purposefully did not state what my decision was, to give the situation which needed to be resolved (which at the time of the post, it was) a chance to be addressed.

The issue was not how I acted, but how one (the reader) would act. It was not a test, at least, a test in the usual sense. It was a way for people to theoretically address a decision which is important.

[Rosarium]

It's perfectly fine to call and ask.  What's not fine is just keeping it and taking advantage of another's honest mistake.

Exactly.

In this situation, we did not realise the situation until I had a very good reason for leaving (I was not driving and it was raining hard, and the item was under something heavy, etc). I did not want to leave, but I knew I'd deal with it soon (I did, about an hour or so later I think).

If I did not have a ride to return it, I'd have had to have called instead because carrying it the distance was not practical.

Now, if I had opened the box and found it had extra hardware (screws), it did represent a loss to some degree, but it would be impractical to resolve it.

[WhollyRoaminCatholic]

Bah.

People were giving advice. It was misleading, even if in a legalistic sense you did not mislead.

[Rosarium]

Bah.

People were giving advice. It was misleading, even if in a legalistic sense you did not mislead.

That is not legalistic. The way I read and meant my post, it was presenting a situation in a way which was detailed enough to result in a more precise decision. It references past events, but stops short of the time when I could be writing about it (it gives the events leading up to me standing by the car in the rain). It gives a summary of points at the end for consideration.

It is, to me, clearly presented as an exercise based on an actual or plausible event.

They were considering a solution to the problem. How many really thought I needed assistance in resolving this issue? Maybe all, maybe some, or maybe none. The issue was the ethics of the possible decisions.

If people had really thought it was a real ethical decision which needed to be made, personal anecdotes would not have been given I hope. Giving examples of similar or related decisions one made is not what one does when another wants help in making a decision. Few here would find it acceptable to get personal accounts of impurity without judgement (no one said "This act of mine is mean to show what is correct/incorrect")  when confronted with someone needing help on understanding what is a sin or not.

It was not a legalistic sense. That is not what legalistic means. It was a precisely worded scenario with enough information to make a reasonable ethical evaluation.

[Rosarium]

This thread was made for general consideration so all may be more aware of potential decisions which may need to be made.

Had I been not mindful of the ethical aspect, it was have been very easy to do what was wrong. Everything was pushing me to do what was wrong, even though doing what was right took no more effort. Why would one be pushed to do something which was not easier than another, yet, was immoral?