There was a post a few days ago about Spotifree (which mutes your ads), and everyone took it as a personal offense, every possible negative word was said about the person who made it, and the people that use it are lowlives who don't deserve anything in life if they won't cough up $10.
But now when it's Amazon losing thousands of dollars per product, it's okay because stealing from someone rich is acceptable and they should just eat their losses and move on. Do you understand that if you scale Amazon down to Spotifies size, their losses are way heftier?
I've also learned that stealing is justified if it's a machine error. So by that logic, if the receipt machine malfunctions in a store and prints out some large number, you would pay it?
Besides, if you have a moral code that specifies who it is ok to steal from, you'll need to accept another's moral code that says it's ok to steal from you.
> Stealing from corporations is stealing from people.
Sure, whatever. It's still not immoral. I also think it's okay to steal slaves from plantations. "But stealing from plantations is stealing from people!" Sure, whatever, it's still not immoral.
> Besides, if you have a moral code that specifies who it is ok to steal from, you'll need to accept another's moral code that says it's ok to steal from you.
Total non-sequitur. Let's try this: Marxists think that capitalism is stealing from workers. You think that it's moral. Therefore, if you have a moral code that says that it's okay to steal from workers, you'll need to accept another's moral code that says it's okay to steal from you. Makes sense, right? No.
It's awfully coincidental that your concept of legitimate ownership just so happens to align with the concept given to your by legal and cultural authorities. It's almost like you haven't actually bothered to think about it for yourself. Can you give me an example of a kind of ownership that you think is illegitimate?
Yes they will: https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=ClearlyErroneous
edit: rephrased for clarity
People justify stealing $16 million from the government because it is just a rounding error every day :)
No, I don't. Buying something for the listed price is perfectly ethical.
Your ethics are different. That's okay. People have different perspectives. My ethics don't require me to pay more than the asking price. I'll tip people who undercharge to the point that it's harmful to them (like albums on Bandcamp), but Amazon will be fine.
>> "People justify stealing $16 million from the government because it is just a rounding error every day :)"
I don't have the slightest idea what you're referring to here, but buying something for the price it's listed at is in no way stealing.
In previous e-commerce mistakes, negative prices were listed.
If amazon listed -$16M as the cost of the camera and put it in your bank, would it be unethical to accept that?
Till you don't know the price listed was an error on their part, but now you know so it's unethical.
If a cashier accidentally gives me a $10 instead of a $1, that’s unethical to keep. But in this situation, the error started at the advertising stage and persisted through totaling the order, processing payment, and fulfilling for delivery several hours later, all steps at which, in a traditional business, someone could have flagged the error. At this point, it’s their intentional lack of safeguards rather than unintentional mistake that’s at fault and I have no moral qualms about that.
If they start bricking devices remotely (to protect against these pricing errors), would you support it?
Just because I believe they should have controls in place, doesn’t mean I approve of any control scheme they may think of— that would be absurdity. For example, I also wouldn’t approve of them hiring thieves to get their erroneously-priced merchandise back.
Maybe that sounds like rationalization to you. Let's go back to the article...
>> "Other members spoke to Amazon customer service about their order and were told that the order would indeed ship."
That doesn't sound like a company that made a mistake. And even if it is...
>> "While many Slickdeals members remarked that the orders would almost certainly be canceled by Amazon, the retail giant does have a history of honoring some pricing errors — even those that are significant."
Where's the lack of ethics? Amazon could stop it if they wanted to. Taking a deal Amazon offered and hasn't rescinded is about as pristine as it gets, mistake or not.
As I understand every corporation, passes on the cost the customer and aims for some specific number as a margin, if their costs increase either they increase productivity of their worker, or implement cost cutting measures, or pass the cost down to customers.
Lots of people think, Amazon's loss results in Bezoz getting a haircut on his paycheck.
What if Amazon starts asking for more productivity from its warehouse workers then buying something at Amazon's loss is directly tied to how they treat their workers.
That piracy/fraud/costly mistakes increase the overall cost for consumers just doesnt happen, no large company in their right mind has additional profit potential lying around that they just dont take because they dont need to. What happens is that at some point the market segment becomes no longer profitable and companies leave that segment entirely.
You do realize businesses regularly sell products at a loss right? So at what point does the loss become so large that its unethical for the customer to buy it?
I don't think it's the customer's responsibility to decide whether an advertised price is genuine or a mistake.
The son asks: "Father, why did you tip your hat to her? She's a prostitute, not a lady."
The father replies: "Son, you are correct, she is no lady. But I am a gentleman."
To belabor the point, being an ethical person is not contingent on ethical behavior by the other party.
If a businessperson does it, they are shrewd. If a customer does it, they are unethical.
Of course if someone has no savings and lives paycheck to paycheck and lists their house, their only asset, for $540K less than it’s worth, it’s an awful situation. But that’s sort of ridiculous to consider, no?
Regarding this particular example, I would hope the bank and/or other party would read the text and notice the discrepancy...
If the company is Amazon-sized you are taking profits away from Amazon shareholders due to a mistake in the algorithms that drive Amazon's profits, which is nothing if not fair.
Would you like to live in a world where Amazon creates systems that exploit the market but individual consumers feel moral responsibility to turn a blind eye to the opportunities created by the mistakes that that system makes because they project their own humanity onto the system and apply the golden rule?