 |
Comments |
|
 | Monday, February 8, 2010 at 8:13:05 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Isaac
E-mail: ijspiel(at)gmail.com
Sure, that the hotel is providing a service as well as a product is why the price is $6 instead of $2.50. But when you go to the convenience store you are hiring yourself as a contractor to the hotel, and taking over their expense providing that service. So you should be good, as long as you remember to report your work and compensation to the IRS. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 8:57:47 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Mickey D
E-mail: mikedialj(at)aol.com
This reminds me of the cavilling several years ago by people who were upset that they had to pay a service charge to an ATM of a bank that was not theirs. Their premise was that it was their money, so why should they have to pay to get it. Of course, they were evading the fact that the other bank was providing a service to them that would not be available if they didn't pay. Similarly, the hotel provided the Oreos at the moment they were desired, not later when the hotel guest walked to 7-Eleven on a full stomach to replace them. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 9:01:11 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: C. August
E-mail: titanic.deckchairs(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.titanicdeckchairs.com
Two thoughts. Many hotels have sensors so that even removing and immediately replacing an item (heck, even knocking it over momentarily) in the minibar leads to a charge.
Also, I'd be surprised if the oreo package was identical. It's quite possible that the one in the hotel minibar was labeled "Not for resale" or otherwise marked as a food service item instead of a retail item. So even though the guy put a package back, it's quite possible that the package wouldn't be able to be used by the hotel and they'd have to replace it anyway.
Just some thoughts.
Regarding the ethical argument, I would say that he used the product/service, knew what he was getting going into it, and the convenience of it was a factor in his decision. He agreed to a kind of contract by eating it, and by trying to go back on it later, he was violating the contract. He was wrong. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 9:17:41 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Shea
The hotel provides the service and gets to set the terms of the payment. Part of your contract in being a guest at the hotel is to follow their terms. Just as you can't pay the hotel in gold (even if it would be more valuable than the cash you have to pay), you can't pay them in candy bars. Unless, of course, you ask them and they are ok with it. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 9:20:23 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Shea
Another aspect to look at this from: You're not just paying for the Oreos, you're paying for the convenience of having the Oreos there. You can't just "hire yourself" without the hotel's knowledge or consent. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 9:30:55 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
I think that's a little dubious.
* On one hand, it doesn't do any real harm, considered in itself.
* On the other hand, the hotel has a legitimate interest in having its minibars stocked only by its own staff; having other people put stuff in the minibars could make them legally liable for things that were not their fault.
* In the last analysis, it's their property, and they're entitled to set rules, such as "If you eat our Oreos you pay us six dollars."
I could see setting aside property rights in a real emergency. If you're in immediate peril of death, I think it's legitimate to take what you need to save your life, and pay it back later when the emergency is over. Property rights are a means to human survival, and not an idol that demands human sacrifices. But "I was desperately hungry and had to eat the hotel's Oreos" doesn't sound like that much of an emergency to me. And we're not talking about one of those classic sophistic thought experiments where you're asked to sign yourself into slavery for a bottle of water in the desert; we're talking about trying to dodge around paying an extra $3.50 for Oreos. If you can't afford $3.50 you have no business staying in a hotel in the first place. I think an Aristotelian great-souled man would be ashamed to play that sort of game.
I don't consider that it did real harm; it's too trivial to merit legal action. But I would find a person who did that a bit unappealing. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 9:37:01 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
I'd argue that he agreed to a reasonable contract for a service. He could have gone to the convenience store before he took the item out of the mini bar. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 10:07:50 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: PDS
Is this even close? No dice regarding the replacement Oreos. Not only did you agree to use the the hotel's terms in the first place, and impliedly agreed to pay for the convenience that comes with a mini-bar (if used)it is further dishonest to pay your bill without informing the hotel of your actions.
And Paul: regarding your use of mini-bars, try a beer some time. They're good. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 10:08:37 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Tod
URL: http://Blog.ByTod.com
Petty people do those things. I knew some people who were obsessed with every little way they could get something for free, like loading up on sugar packets in a restaurant. They were just horrible, superficial people. If you had the time to drive to a store and replace the box, you should have bought your Oreos from that store in the first place.
I hear often that saving money or cutting costs is a virtue. Sometimes you hear the idea of "living well, but for less money." What a waste of time. I'd rather produce more and get what I want. One of my goals is actually to go through life as expensively as possible. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 10:50:11 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: brian0918
Isaac: "But when you go to the convenience store you are hiring yourself as a contractor to the hotel"
Did the hotel agree to hire you out for that purpose? No. So of course it is not a voluntarily agreed-upon trade. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 11:13:03 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Minroad
This reminds me of the Steven Wright one liner, "Last night somebody broke into my apartment and replaced everything with exact duplicates." |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 11:21:21 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
I've never seen a more appropriate place to quote this proverb:
God said: "Take what you want and pay for it."
I agree that by taking the Oreos, you've agreed to pay for them, not to replace them with a similar item. However, I like Tod's analysis best, as it gets to a kind of Aristotelian point about character. To engage in that kind of rule-bending penny pinching indicates a mindset unworthy of the virtuous person. Such a mindset has a broader impact on one's life than just dealing with hotel mini-bars.
That being said, I do see a virtue in being frugal, if that allows you to pursue your best-loved but low-paying career, for example. However, honest frugality is quite different from borderline looting and mooching. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 11:39:41 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: PDS
Diana:
God also said that "A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. (Ecclesiastes)"
*Nothing* better, mind you.
Thus, the virtue of the mini bar while on the road after a hard day's work. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 11:57:29 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Johnathan Reale
E-mail: jpreale4biz(at)mac.com
Regarding the reasons people offer to justify the cookie replacement, why not actually offer those reasons to a hotel manager or whomever has authority before you act against their stated policy? If they agree, you're in the clear! If not, at least you can make a decision without clouding your mind with what-ifs. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 12:45:49 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
"* In the last analysis, it's their property, and they're entitled to set rules, such as "If you eat our Oreos you pay us six dollars."
That's the nub of the ethical argument: the hotel has set terms for use of its property, and it is unethical to unilaterally override them without their consent, period... and this is not contingent on whether there was a net benefit or harm to the hotel.
I too agree with Tod, in that a lot of penny-pinchers actually lose out when you factor in the actual return of pinched pennies on the time and effort they put into it. And I say that as an avid reader of slickdeals.net and fatwallet.com. :)
And here's a frugality joke I heard (from an actual Scot):
Do you know how copper wire was invented?
Two Scots arguing over a penny. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 13:01:29 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Isaac
E-mail: ijspiel(at)gmail.com
Also, when the mini bars disappear from lack of profit, maybe the hotel will be kind enough to provide a map to the nearest 7-11! ...I meant the irs comment tongue in cheek, of course. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 13:08:08 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Mickey D
E-mail: mikedialj(at)netscape.net
@Isaac,
Yeah, after I submitted my comment, I thought that I should have pointed out that your comment was obviously humorous. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 14:59:56 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: David Robinson
E-mail: tehgregzor(at)gmail.com
Hasn't anyone here seen the problem? I believe the old adage is, can't see the forest for all the trees. But I digress, the point i'm trying to make is that if he was planning on going out anyways, why eat from the hotel minibar in the first place? Why don't you just get your oreo cookies at the convenience store and just stay away from the mini bar scam in the first place! DUH people!!! |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 15:29:52 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Fortitudine
E-mail: canadian.republic(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://www.thecanadianrepublic.blogspot.com
The fungibility of Oreos does nothing to alter the hotel's property right in that particular package. If the hotel asks for $6 in consideration for their property, they're perfectly entitled to do so. Although replacing the cookies means that the hotel suffers little real damage, the moral status of the act remains theft. To assert otherwise is to destroy the concept of a property right. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 15:58:50 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Jason Roth
E-mail: jason(at)savethehumans.com
URL: http://savethehumans.com
Shea is right. When you take the Oreos, you make a deal to pay for them. That's really the end of the story. And I think anyone who replaces the Oreos knows this. And Tod is right: people who would even think of doing this probably have purses filled with rolls and jars of jam.
It would be interesting to see if hotel management had a problem with you replacing one brand of booze for a better brand. ("Hey! Our customers would never drink Ketel One! Who stole the *$%#ing Smirnoff?!") Or replacing your room's TV with a newer model. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 16:03:05 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Trey Givens
E-mail: trey(at)treygivens.com
URL: http://treygivens.com
"STONE THE HEATHENS!" -- Something I think I heard somewhere one time.
I'm against taking the Oreos and replacing them. Even if the replacements were identical, they are not the same Oreos. You ate the $6 ones. If you wanted to eat $2 Oreos, you should have brought them with you or waited.
Like Shea above, I don't believe you get to unilaterally dictate the terms of your use of the minibar; you agreed to the terms when you checked in.
Also, it's petty and small to be miserly like that. If you're such a spendthrift, you should be accustomed to going to bed without cookies. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 16:14:51 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Kyle Haight
E-mail: khaight(at)alumni.ucsd.edu
URL: http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech/
I think there's an interesting psycho-epistemological aspect to the pro-replacement argument -- it's very concrete-bound. The idea seems to be "well, there was a box of Oreos there before, and there was one there afterwards, so nothing has really changed, so what's the big deal?" What is left out is the abstract context: the questions of ownership, trade and consent which have been raised by various others in this thread. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 16:53:45 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Alfred Centauri
E-mail: alfredcentauri(at)bellsouth.net
"If you wanted to eat $2 Oreos, you should have brought them..."
Yeah, so let's go with that. You've checked in with a package of Oreos you *know* to be identical to the package in the mini-bar.
(1) you can be ethical and eat the package you brought with you
(2) you can be un-ethical and switch the package you brought with the one in the mini-bar and eat *that* one instead.
(3) you can be ethically adventurous and take the package out of the mini-bar, toss it in bag with the one you brought, shake it a bit, pull out one package and put it inside the mini-bar and then (whew) ponder whether it is now possible to *know* whether it is ethical to eat the remaining package or not. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 19:03:28 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Mike
E-mail: michaelbahr(at)cox.net
I think there is a missing element in the discussion, which is that you have paid the hotel for control of the room during a given interval. Your minibar purchases are not assessed until you leave. Basically in paying the hotel you have paid for the right of exclusion of that room until a given point in time, at which the total price of products and services rendered becomes due.
If you broke one of their lamps and replaced it with an identical lamp before checking out, I don't think anyone here would suggest that you somehow still owe for damages. The room only reverted to being "their property" in the moral sense of our hypothetical at the time you turned in your keys to them. (This is setting aside the concept of a room license/sublicense obviously because we're looking for the abstract here, not the concrete.)
Assuming you could replace the Oreos with the IDENTICAL package (allowing for "food service" packs and such, and liability), I'm not sure you count as having actually taken anything. And I mean WITHIN the rights of the hotel. Without foul play at all, maybe this is legit. Of course that's pretty much limited to a hypo, because I don't think the foodservice package of Oreos is going to be available at 7-11, so you're out the $6.
It changes with the motion-sensored stuff; clearly the hotel considers movement of the item to be tantamount to a purchase (and they do give fair warning very obviously in most cases). Touch-move, to use the chess analogy. So there would be no question of an Oreo (or Coke, or Budweiser) replacement to the mini-bar. You knew the terms of the transaction before touching the goodies. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 19:21:22 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: Dan G.
I concur, by all metrics legally and ethically, the person in question stole $6.00 from the hotel.
In re: the penny pinchers, those that I've met tend to be penny wise and pound foolish. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 19:31:50 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: David McDivitt
E-mail: david(at)subjectivist.org
There is no ethics violation by replacing the cookies for the following reasons:
- There was no motive expressly to cheat. Because motive can only be speculated, judgment goes to accused.
- Financial settlement occurs when the maid inspects the inventory. If the motel did not implement a different type of inspection or locking mechanism, it is not the responsibility of the tenant to assume the mind and best interest of the motel, except to honor apparent protocols. Replacing the cookies does not necessarily violate protocol.
- No harm was done.
- Without no known ethical rule or precedent to the contrary the tenant cannot be said to have acted "unethically". Future actions of this nature may (might) be deemed unethical should the results of this analysis (done today) stipulate that and be duly published.
- The tenant has an ethical obligation to serve self and represent self interest. The extent of that obligation is established by the tenant, which may include exploration of safe, legitimate ways to save money.
- The cookie "object" does not necessarily identity a specific package of cookies. Such could only be done by a different inspection scheme or locking mechanism.
- Ethics do not apply in this case. Results of this analysis (done today) are not binding on the tenant, and if not binding the tenant cannot be deemed "unethical". Maybe we can find something that is unethical by further nit picking behavior. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 19:48:12 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Tod
URL: http://Blog.ByTod.com
Diana, that's a good point about frugality being a virtue when it's in the service of something greater. When I think about it more, the kind of attitude that bothers me is when frugality is a virtue unto itself. Some people think they should live a smaller life "just because."
Whether the Oreos are fungible is pretty interesting. I would say no, because you're expected to pay for them -- they are goods for sale. If you broke a lightbulb and replaced it without telling them, that would be fine. Lightbulbs are commodities and hotels generally aren't trying to sell them. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 21:25:34 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: softwareNerd
E-mail: softwarenerd(at)gmail.com
Today it's a "harmless" replacement of Oreos. Tomorrow a pirated downloaded that "I wouldn't have bought anyway". What next: move into homes when folks are on vacation, clean up and maybe leave a a few dollars on the kitchen table before one leaves. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 21:37:05 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Regarding the "broken lamp" analogy, I had a similar situation with a rental car. I skidded off a narrow road and damaged two tires. It was in a modestly-populated area so once I got the spare on (fortunately one tire was still OK enough to drive on for a bit) I pulled off at the first service station and replaced the tires. They were a different brand but of similar quality. A few days later when I turned the car back in I told them what happened and they didn't assess any further damages. However, I was upfront and let them know. I looked back at the contract and noticed that it did have a clause that indicated that tire damage was a personal uninsurable event and that the remedy would be suitable replacement (which is what I did). I suspect it might be the same with the hotel lamp, but it might depend on whether there is anything unique about it. For instance, hotel lamps are usually tied down or molded into the table. It might not be sufficient just to drive to the nearest IKEA and pick up a lamp. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 22:17:02 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: Mike Poholka
E-mail: thepoholkas(at)shaw.ca
I agree with David McDivitt. Give me a fricken break - tremendous outpouring of puritan rationalism in most of these posts. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 23:04:21 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: justin
E-mail: parasitius(at)gmail.com
I have enough trouble with the moral issue of using a McDonald's restroom when I REALLY really can't bare to eat/drink anything, my head will explode if I attempt the hotel question.
As for restrooms, if there's an explicit sign "Customers Only", I won't use it.
I prefer rest stops with a shared public restroom with the implication it can used by any general public without cost.
I wish they'd just have a quarter or nickle restroom donation box everywhere. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 23:10:34 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: Arwen
E-mail: arwen83(at)msn.com
Diana, this makes me think of your podcast where someone asked about sneaking food into a stadium (the conditions being they wouldn't pay for the stadium's food anyway, so it wasn't robbing the stadium of any money).
I see it this way. While checking in - would this person have asked "Hey, I'm starving right now, so I'd like to go eat something out of the mini-bar in my room. However, can I just replace it before I leave and avoid a charge?" No. Because we all know that 99.99% of hotels would say, "um, no."
The general understanding of the contract is: You eat the Oreos and pay us $6. The contract is NOT: You eat the Oreos and pay us $6 - unless you can replace them.
I tend to think (and this is a bit deductive I suppose), that if you need to sneak around and it feels dishonest, it usually is. In this case, if you could ask the hotel about it and they sign off or don't - then you've made the terms of the contract more clear and you don't need to sneak around one way or the other. It is the hotel's property and they get to set the terms for reimbursement. Most hotels only want to be reimbured in cash - and would not approve of this type of behavior.
If you can get a "yes" from a hotel regarding this practice, then go for it. But if you are unsure, clarify the contract. The only item of importance is how the property owner wishes to be reimbured. If he wants cash only, pay the $6. If he'll take cash or an equal replacement of the original item, then save the money and buy the orgnal item at a lower cost at a later time. I suspect most hotels only accept the former, though. :-) |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 23:14:35 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: Sajid
"I agree with David McDivitt. Give me a fricken break - tremendous outpouring of puritan rationalism in most of these posts. "
Thats nonsense. The analysis is spot on in the earlier posts. There is very little moral justification for replacing the oreos. Having said that, I wouldn't judge anybody for doing that--I've done a lot worse in my life. Just as you can penny pinch in real life, you can also penny pinch when it comes to morality (or as you say rationalism). I think everyone on here agrees that being moral on more meaningful issues is far more important than paying for the minibar oreos. But as a pure technicality, you would have to agree that the correct thing to do would be to pay for the oreos. |
|
| Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 0:15:25 mst
Comment ID: #34
Name: Freddy Ben-Zeev
E-mail: benzeev(at)comcast(dot)net
Sajid, I don't agree that this is "moral penny pinching". Morality deals with principles and there is no such thing as violating a principle "only a little". I would not judge negatively someone who did something like that because he didn't think it through. People do make mistakes even on bigger issues. But, as I can even see from some of the posters here, too many people just rationalize such actions because it feels convenient (usually blaming the hotel for its "unfair" pricing). I won't give a free pass to such people - at best they are unprincipled. |
|
| Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 8:08:24 mst
Comment ID: #35
Name: Alfred Centauri
E-mail: alfredcentauri(at)bellsouth.net
As I see it, not paying for the oreos is not practicing the Objectivist virtue of honesty.
Replacing the oreos is attempting to fake reality.
The reality is that he took the oreos from the mini-bar and consumed them thus partaking of not only the oreos but of the service the mini-bar provides.
By replacing the oreos, he is choosing to deceive the hotel staff; to lead them to believe that he did not use the mini-bar.
And, as he almost certainly believed that he would most likely be asked to pay for the oreos were his little switcheroo discovered, this doesn't seem to be merely a case of an 'honest' error. |
|
| Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 8:31:13 mst
Comment ID: #36
Name: Alfred Centauri
E-mail: alfredcentauri(at)bellsouth.net
"I have enough trouble with the moral issue of using a McDonald's restroom when I REALLY really can't bare to eat/drink anything"
justin, your thinking too hard here. Have you considered that you don't have to eat/drink what you buy there? Something from the dollar menu ought to do it. Throw it in the trash can as you leave or the woods for the wild life etc. Your bladder and your conscious will be, ahem, relieved. ;^) |
|
| Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 8:32:17 mst
Comment ID: #37
Name: brian0918
Sajid: "I think everyone on here agrees that being moral on more meaningful issues"
How do you determine what are the "more meaningful issues"? Intuition? Gut feeling? You clearly have two standards by which you judge what action to take - not simply the standard espoused by Objectivism, but also your own personal standard, which allows you to justify immoral actions which you believe have little consequence. |
|
| Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 8:54:00 mst
Comment ID: #38
Name: brian0918
I like David Odden's simple response from OO.net on this issue:
"The concept 'property' means that the owner has the exclusive right to dispose of the thing. Therefore, you may take his property only if you have permission. It is known that you have permission to take the property in exchange for money. It is not the case that there is a general 'permission to borrow as long as you replenish the stock with a functionally equivalent object'.
"The only ethical actions in this context would be to either pay the money, or ask the owner if you may replace the property and avoid paying the charge." |
|
| Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 9:57:08 mst
Comment ID: #39
Name: Alfred Centauri
E-mail: alfredcentauri(at)bellsouth.net
"The only ethical actions in this context would be to either pay the money, or ask the owner if you may replace the property and avoid paying the charge."
I agree, and this dovetails nicely with my earlier post on practicing the virtue of honesty. Replacing the Oreos without informing the owner is to deliberately mislead the owner and *that* is nothing other than initiating force against the owner.
|
|
| Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 10:22:38 mst
Comment ID: #40
Name: Mike
E-mail: michaelbahr(at)cox.net
"Replacing the oreos is attempting to fake reality."
Ah, but at what point, vis-a-vis the hotel, have you actually TAKEN the Oreos?
Again, let me reiterate that I think in practice this is a non-starter; you can't buy a "foodservice" package of Oreos at 7-11, so you can't replace with the fungible item. But supposing you could, as in the lamp example and K'POM's car example.
Essentially, until you return your room keys, the Oreos are always and simultaneously both eaten and not-eaten, from the hotel's point of view. They're Schrodinger's Oreos. How would they not be? I'm open to being convinced otherwise here but I think this argument is cogent.
I think "attempting to fake reality" would be an attempt to pass off a facsimile as a genuine replacement, an act that would be clearly crossing the moral event horizon here. |
|
| Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 10:59:09 mst
Comment ID: #41
Name: Alfred Centauri
E-mail: alfredcentauri(at)bellsouth.net
Mike, as I see it, the question of whether the Oreos exist in superposition state until you return the room keys is, while interesting, not cogent.
Your replacing the Oreos without telling the hotel staff or owner has the result that the owner believes, after you've returned the keys, that you did not use the mini-bar service when, in reality, you *did*.
And, it seems clear to me that, while replacing the Oreos, you would *know* that this act will result in the owner believing a fiction.
I don't see how one can evade the simple fact that such an act is dishonest, period. |
|
| Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 12:05:02 mst
Comment ID: #42
Name: Sajid
"Sajid, I don't agree that this is "moral penny pinching". Morality deals with principles and there is no such thing as violating a principle "only a little". I would not judge negatively someone who did something like that because he didn't think it through. People do make mistakes even on bigger issues. But, as I can even see from some of the posters here, too many people just rationalize such actions because it feels convenient (usually blaming the hotel for its "unfair" pricing). I won't give a free pass to such people - at best they are unprincipled."
On further thought I think I have to agree here. After thinking the issue through there seems no real justification not to pay for the oreos.
"How do you determine what are the "more meaningful issues"? Intuition? Gut feeling?"
Okay, I mean "more meaningful issues" to be getting a job, working hard, cultivating good friendships, making sure you pay for the hotel ROOM in full--basically things that matter more. I mean really, even if you did eat the oreos and payed for the room but skipped on the oreos, the hotel manager probably wouldn't care too much. Its still wrong to steal the oreos, just as eating a candy bar in a store while running up a 100 dollar bill and not paying for the candy bar is wrong.
But it is petty and does show something uneasy about the person. I think most people would do something like this at a younger age when you are a college student and still pinching money. The older you are, the less sense it makes. |
|
| Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 12:44:09 mst
Comment ID: #43
Name: Chris L
E-mail: notjohngalt(at)aol.com
I think part of the subtext of this example is that the price charged by the hotel isn't especially reasonable. The principled answer is not to replace the Oreos due to respect for property rights. But many may feel (incorrectly) that Oreo replacement is an appropriate response to an unjustly-set price.
I'm reminded of the Civil Rights bill, which was written to redress serious injustices, but did so by violating property rights. |
|
| Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 12:44:39 mst
Comment ID: #44
Name: Jennifer Snow
E-mail: Snowconic(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://literatrix.blogspot.com
Who eats stale old cookies out of a hotel mini-bar? Gross. If you're so hungry, order a freakin' pizza. Then try to explain to the delivery person that you intend to pay later with an identical pizza that you will purchase and then bake yourself in order to avoid the delivery charge.
Oh, wait. |
|
| Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 13:03:01 mst
Comment ID: #45
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
Ahem: for McDivitt and others of his ilk: it's not about any physical change. It's about respecting the terms set by the hotel for the use of their property. Obsession with the mere physical aspects, such as "Oreo fungibility" leads down the road eloquently illustrated by softwareNerd in #28.
Regarding the "what if I broke a lamp and replaced it" question": did you break it on purpose? If not, it's not the same question. We are discussing a willful and unilateral disregard for terms of use.
The *essence* of property rights, of freedom of association, and the moral basis of contract, is the principle of individual moral sovereignty, which boils down to: everyone is free to set terms of any relationship, and everyone is free to accept or reject such terms on part of another. The concept of "agreement" that underlies any contract, from verbal ones to billion-dollar manufacturing agreements spanning ten years, pertains directly to *agreement on terms* between individuals.
Those are the principles which ground this discussion -- so Poholka at #30, care to try again? |
|
| Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 13:05:19 mst
Comment ID: #46
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
"But many may feel (incorrectly) that Oreo replacement is an appropriate response to an unjustly-set price."
You got it right at the word "feel". |
|
| Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 14:09:33 mst
Comment ID: #47
Name: Mike
E-mail: michaelbahr(at)cox.net
Alfred: The problem with your argument is that it's the same as waiting until the poker hand is over to say "If I hadn't folded before the flop, I would have made quads." It doesn't matter. The quads never existed. You never had quads. Because you folded, you were never *going* to have quads. That's why I don't find your dismissal of the fungible-replacement theory convincing. Again: Schrodinger's Oreos. How can there be a deception when it has not been necessary to deceive? Just to put a cap on it: Suppose you told the front desk what you did. If they go to check on the Oreos, they're going to be there. What then? Once again, this is setting aside any motion-sensor scenario, as that changes the transaction.
Also, put a sock in your suggestion that I would be evading. In an intellectually honest forum such as this, I'll be god damned if I can't discuss this in the abstract without being called a "sinner." |
|
| Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 15:13:26 mst
Comment ID: #48
Name: Robert Nasir
E-mail: RobtNasir(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://RobertNasir.com
Tod: "What a waste of time. I'd rather produce more and get what I want. One of my goals is actually to go through life as expensively as possible." QUOTE OF THE DAY! I know a lot of Objectivists are young, and not yet earning tons of bux, but how refreshing to read a reminder that life's for living large ... and if anyone should have the means to do so, it's the most rational among us! Andrew Bernstein's answer to excessive frugailty sums it up well for me: "This is America, goddamnit!"
Fortitudine: "The fungibility of Oreos does nothing to alter the hotel's property right in that particular package." EWW ... ! This introduces a tricky additional consideration - you might have to check 2 or 3 7-Eleven's before you find a package with the right degree of fungus ...
softwareNerd: "Today it's a "harmless" replacement of Oreos. Tomorrow a pirated downloaded that 'I wouldn't have bought anyway'. ..." Right on.
Frankly, this is a such a trivial manner, almost a non-issue, that I'm impressed that so many folks are offering such a principled answer! Love it! |
|
| Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 16:10:15 mst
Comment ID: #49
Name: Alfred Centauri
E-mail: alfredcentauri(at)bellsouth.net
"Also, put a sock in your suggestion that I would be evading."
Oh dear, I didn't intend to imply that you were evading Mike. In fact, I intentionally switched from using the 'you' form in the argument to the 'one' form to make that clear.
Let me rephrase in a hopefully more neutral sounding way: If one replaced the Oreos knowing that this would likely mislead the owner into believing one had not used the mini-bar, one could not evade the fact that one is being dishonest.
I still hold that this is the crucial point this ethical question turns on and frankly, you lost me with the flop and quads stuff.
For me, it's simple. When you turn in the keys, you, er... one *knows* whether one used the mini-bar service or not. What the owner knows is irrelevant to the question of whether one ought to practice the virtue of honesty or not. Practicing that virtue is for one's own sake, not the owner's sake. |
|
| Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 12:29:54 mst
Comment ID: #50
Name: Amy Nasir
E-mail: amynasir(at)aol.com
URL: http://greatlakesobjectivists.com
I work in advertising and know the value of the emotional/aesthetic/convenience-oriented aspects of products. I would not have a job without these "added bonuses."
It's a wonderful world when, as a producer, you can attach attributes to the products and charge extra for them (including the hotel's offering of convenience in the mini-bar -- where you are not just paying for the snack itself, but for the package, for your own previous experiences of and positive associations with that product, for the colors and textures, for the thoughtfulness of marketing and distribution, and for the convenience of location and opportunity of eating it now, not later).
I am happy to know that we live in such a conceptual, life-loving, value-rich society, where it's not just the basic food stuff you can purchase (like Ninotchka's beets and carrots, or shopping at a place like Aldi), but all the various, life-enriching attributes of a product, including convenience.
It's a damn shame that someone would not choose to take part in these wonderful extras, but insult the good will of those who, at the hotel's marketing department, wanted to offer a convenience-based value, and scam them out of their control of how, when, and where they offer their product. |
|
| Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 13:54:09 mst
Comment ID: #51
Name: Mike Hardy
E-mail: (my last name) (at) math.umn.edu
Is it ethically _proper_ to eat a lunch consisting of oreo cookies?? |
|
| Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 16:52:55 mst
Comment ID: #52
Name: C. Andrew
E-mail: ca4papen(at)mindspring.com
No, not only oreo cookies. You need milk to complete the sacrament. Chocolate milk is optional. Coffee is heresy and you will be punished!!! |
|
| Friday, February 12, 2010 at 6:52:45 mst
Comment ID: #53
Name: mstahl16
E-mail: mstahl16(at)hotmail.com
Just don't eat the oreos. The price is unreasonable for anyone with any concept of value. By the way, this clown who writes the "ethics" column has about as much understanding of ethics as a Siberian Elk. In one recent column he opined that it is ethical to lie to health insurance companies when applying for insurance. I remember listening to Ayn Rand answer a question about lying at a lecture, beyond the Anne Frank exception there were not many more exceptions to the rule that you just don't do it. |
|
| Saturday, February 13, 2010 at 23:00:39 mst
Comment ID: #54
Name: Caroline
At a philosophical level, restocking the Oreo package in the mini-bar is just not playing it straight, however one wants to rationalize it. It's trying to squeeze through on a technicality: enjoying the benefit of convenience without paying for it.
At a practical level, it is also seems rather dumb to waste valuable travel time traveling to a store to locate a small package of Oreos. Depending on the value one places on time, going outside to get the new package of Oreos could easily cost more in time than the premium charged by the hotel. Even a person earning the minimum wage would need to complete the task in less than 30 minutes to make it worth his time. In any event, I would rather hold out for a Double-Stuf Oreo. That's a real American cookie. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Paul Hsieh
Comments
