Hacker News Reader

Comment by wfme | Hacker News Reader

Hahah right except that in this case the reward is purely intrinsic for returning to pay, while leaving without anyone knowing results in an extrinsic reward ($). "Being rewarded" is generally considered extrinsic otherwise you could just not do some bad thing and claim the feeling of knowing you didn't do the bad thing is a great reward in itself.

View on HN

Dunno why you are so determined to say that my good deed (not stealing) was not rewarded. Cashier explicitly stated “honesty should be rewarded” and knocked three or four bucks off the price. Those extra dollar bills in my wallet are very much extrinsic. Why are you being so damn weird about it?

The parent you were responding to stated that people are not really rewarded for good behaviour after childhood. I'm not saying your deed was not a good one. I am saying that you are monetarily worse off for having gone back to pay and that feeling of having done the right thing, or the discount off the original price is hardly an example of good behaviour being rewarded, especially when you compare the reward for not doing the right thing. If there is only right and wrong and the reward for doing the wrong thing is greater than the reward for doing the right thing, then there really is no reward for doing the right thing.

What a pathetically sad way to view the world.

This is why I never have conversations with philosophy majors at parties. You are crawling through that same morass of specific straw man arguments that drive me nuts.

Those aren't "extra dollar bills in your wallet" any more than a tax refund is. You still paid, you just paid less. In the case where you didn't go back, you'd have had even more "extra dollar bills in your wallet."

An (absolute, not relative) reward for good behavior — i.e. a positive-ROI outcome for doing the right thing, vs. not doing the right thing — would be, for example, if you came back and told them you didn't pay, and so they gave you the drill bit for free and also gave you a nickel. Any less and it'd just be "no reward, no punishment."

Is it accurate to say your argument is that stealing something costs less than what happened? Because I’m having trouble understanding your point.

Accidentally stealing something where you don't realize that you stole it, and the store doesn't realize that you stole it, costs less than what happened. In terms of net global utility, even taking into account that your sense of morality has utility to you, it costs less. So this isn't a good example of "good behavior being rewarded" (i.e. having a net-positive outcome in global utility.)

To be clear, theft isn't theft (legally or ethically) without mens rea — if you accidentally walk out of a store with something, you haven't done anything wrong.

And if you later realize you now have possession of the thing, that doesn't mean you're suddenly guilty of theft, either. Theft is an act requiring mens rea, not a state of someone who possesses something that was at some point illegitimately dispossessed from its owner. (If the latter was true, then most people who buy anything from pawn shops would be guilty of theft, because those things were often stolen from someone at some point.)

You might, separately, see there being positive ethical value in returning an item to its owner; but this ethical value should be considered independently from the ethical cost of having stolen (or not stolen) the thing. If you think there's positive ethical value in returning things to their owners, then you'd likely feel an ethical impoetus to e.g. "steal" stolen bicycles from those piles you see on the front yards of flop houses, and bring them back to the people who own them. (Even though those people have probably bought new bicycles already, and won't know what to do with the returned ones. Even though the stolen pile of bicycles is likely just a pile of rust due to lack of maintenance.)

Once I realized it was in my pocket, it wouldn’t have been accidental theft. Not returning to pay for it would be deliberate theft. Geez.

You're falsely generalizing your specific situation into a full proof for a general ethical policy, though.

What if, instead of the same day, it had been the next day when you noticed you now had the drill bit, long after you brought it home? Would you still think you had an imperative to return it? Would it still feel like deliberate theft?

How about if you didn't notice that you had it, and it fell out of your pocket at some point on your way home, and then you realized the next day that that had happened? Would you feel an ethical wrongness that could only be righted by retracing your steps to find the store's lost drill bit, so it could be returned? Or would you accept this as just a series of accidents with neutral ethical value — like e.g. goods being damaged in shipping?

What if, instead of a drill bit, you found after you walked out of the store that you had a $5 bill stuck to your shoe? Would you feel the need to walk back inside and ask who lost the $5 bill?

Without the attempt to return the item, how would we know if the person accidentally stole it, versus lying about forgetting?

It’s a token of appreciation.

When a salesman gives you a squeeze ball or a bottle of scotch, it’s not a “bribe”. It’s an artifact that provides an excuse to talk, and perhaps anchor the conversation positively.

Likewise, the store policy of providing a discount is intended leave you with a positive memory that reinforces your action.

“Wow. I made a mistake, caught it, and the nice lady at the counter thanked me and gave me a discount.” That’s a powerful feeling.

Absolutely agree. I'm not trying to say that everyone should start stealing things because it's _cheaper_, just that the "reward" of doing the right thing is not particularly compelling if someone is already partaking in the bad behaviour.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com