Interesting. What's the reason for not caring about the lying?
quote:As an accountant in my previous life, every company I ever worked for had the policy of refunds by the same method the original payment was in. Period. It's the best way to prevent fraud like that.
Any company that allows refunds like that has poor controls in place, and likely has other types of fraud or theft happening.
It's possible the store knows about this and doesn't mind, since they lose no money.
Many stores will take things back without a receipt, although most will only give store credit. In this case, store credit is what's desired, except for the $10 reward.
Giving cash back is an open invitation to shoplifters, of course.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What's the reason for not caring about the lying?
A couple things:
quote: Matthew 5: 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
And
quote: Mosiah 4 (Book of Mormon) 16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—
18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.
It is not my place to try and judge whether or not she's lying.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not much of a question here. I absolutely would not have helped. I don't commit fraud, which is what helping this woman is.
It's not that I care whether she gets her cigarettes. She can smoke herself right to death if that's what she wants, and I see no value in lecturing her about the evils of smoking. Such lectures never work anyway, so it would be a waste of time. And sure, she'll probably find someone to help her. But that someone wouldn't be me.
quote:So selfishness is equivalent to sociopathy?
Yes. Humans are a social species, and we only thrive as a species when we work together. To be truly civilized, a person must be able to delay gratification, or even surrender it entirely now and then for the good of the community. Those who are unwilling to do that are sociopaths, and though they may thrive personally, they do so at the expense of the community.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Rather than return the items for cash for diapers, etc, I would probably just give her the money she needed, or go back in and buy her the things she asked for. That way, everything's on the up and up.
[ March 24, 2005, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was going to be my next question, Scott, but you answered it ahead of time. It seems those scripturers are much better support for a donation rather than assistance in her fraud.
posted
But surely you don't take those scriptures to mean you are obligated to give money to everyone who asks you and not question the reason. Or do you?
As I stated in a related thread, I am a person of limited means (as are we all) and I don't think it is uncharitable to use judgement to decide when those resources could be used charitably to best advantage.
Frankly, I don't see either of those scriptures as an admonition that you should not care about the lying. If you refused her assistance because "her punishments were just", that would be one thing. But refusing her petitions because you have reason to believe she is asking for you to finance her luxuries is something no fair-minded person could logically condemn you for.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea - Who says I would not pay for roads and firemen? I pay for cable rather than steal it. I have no problem funding the roads, fire department, or public libraries. As for police, they are not obligated to protect me from muggers, only to find the people who did it. No, I would not want them to come along were I being mugged, and I do not want to pay them to persecute people like me. People on welfare leech off society far more than I do.
As long as I am forced to pay for society's "services" I will use them if possible, and take back my own when I can. That is getting back what I was forced to put it. It does not mean I would opt out of both the service and the payment given the choice.
Verily - To be truly civilized, a person must never take another's property (physical or moral) by force. Take the plank out of your own eye. I might offer it freely when asked, but I will not surrender it if I can help it. A community that takes things by force does not deserve to thrive.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Danzig, I have to reject your view of civilization because history has shown us repeatedly that we as a species do not (can not?) live together the way you propose. Were there not some checks on the accumulation of wealth, Robber Barons would own the world.
There are far worse evils in the world than muggers and you'd be hard pressed to defend yourself against them without a strong government. How can that government exist without a means to pay for it?
I won't claim that there are any government programs that are flawless or that the ones in place now are completely just, but if you have a plan for a community that never takes anything by force, I'd love to see your outline of it.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Yes-- I do give money to whomever asks me, whenever I can.
See the below:
quote: Mosiah 4 24 And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.
25 And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned; and your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not received.
26 And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.
27 And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.
[ March 24, 2005, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, the thing about those threats is that I would either already be dead, or be able to defend myself. Or at the very least, willing to risk it as the price of freedom. I realize that what is right may often be unworkable. Just do not ask me to condone the actions of an immoral but relatively practical society, or feel guilty for breaking their laws. Laws at their best (which is not the case here) reflect morality, but they never define it.
And I am working on that plan, although it is probably a waste of time.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But seriously, Scott, I still don't see where the scriptures you have quoted expect you not to question the way you extend your charity. In fact, the last section you quoted seems to obigate you use good judgement, unless you equate unquestioned giving with "doing so in wisdom".
Additionally, none of those quotes obligates you to finance another person's luxuries. I'm not talking about feeding the hungry and dressing the naked and providing for the sick. I'm talking about giving money to a begger to buy booze or cigarettes, or giving money to feed someone hungry so they can use their own resources to go buy booze or cigarettes.
[edit to clarify to whom I was addressing my reply]
posted
Well, I'm not Mormon so I don't recognize what Scott quoted as scripture, but from the scriptures I believe we are supposed to be good stewards of what God has blessed us with - that includes our finances, and part of that is most definitely using good judgment to ensure our money is going where it can do the most good.
Under no circumstances do I feel morally obligated to fund someone's addictions or help them break the law.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Laws at their best (which is not the case here) reflect morality, but they never define it.
I think it could be argued that our welfare system was originally set up as a reflection of our society's moral imperative to assist those in need. The fact that the system is abused and that it is very difficult to weed out that abuse while at the same time fulfilling the purpose of the program fairly does not mean the program itself is immoral. "Imperfect" does not equate to "immoral".
Let me know when you get your plan established for the perfectly free and perfectly moral society and I'll check it out.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but it's the "wouldn't care about the lying" part that I disagreed with. I feel that I have a responsibility (to myself if no one else) to insure that my charitable efforts go to legitimate use.
Edit to add: You seemed to be quoting the scriptures as justification for the not caring about the lying part. If not, I guess I misunderstood. That was my only quibble. (I think )
posted
Well-- In that particular situation, I don't know of a way that I could really determine whether or not she's lying.
If I know someone's trying to con me, I don't give them my money. But I am pretty liberal with the benefit of the doubt.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can respect that. For me, though, living in Baltimore made me pretty cynical in that regard. I saw the con-game played way to often to be liberal with giving money. I got in the habit of always offering a way to help the stated need rather than toss money and hope they weren't lying.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But taking my money and giving it to someone who will buy food with it is wrong as well, regardless of what our society says. Society has no moral imperative to help those in need. It has the moral imperative to not steal from me or anyone else. If it does steal, I can take back as much as was stolen from me (both originally and in retrieval efforts) with a clear conscience.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that society does have a moral imperative to help those in need. I believe that individuals have a moral imperative to help those in need. I don't think the degree of "need" is the same for both society and the individual before that imperative kicks in, but I do believe it is there.
For example, if you see someone drowning and you have the ability to save them, you have a moral imperative to do so. Likewise, society has a moral imperative to help those who cannot help themselves. Now you might argue that it isn't the government's imperative to provide for welfare. Maybe it is the churches or maybe private charities. I'd be interested in a coherent arguement to that effect. However, both churches and private charities are part of "society" and therefore would be exercising under society's moral imperative. A world where no one has an obligation of any kind to his neighbor would be hard pressed to fit into any definition of "society" that I can think of.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there we will have to agree to disagree. Sure, I would try to help a drowning person, but that is my choice, not my obligation. I do believe in obligation - to not initiate force. I owe it to you and everyone to refrain from attacking you without provocation, stealing what is yours, and imposing my private morality upon you. I do not owe a man dying of thirst a drink from my well, although he need only ask to get one.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, there we will have to agree to disagree. Sure, I would try to help a drowning person, but that is my choice, not my obligation.
Really.
Let me ask you to clarify what you just said. It is purely your choice whether to prevent harm to others, presumably regardless of how much effort is involved on your part. Does the example of a child about to fall into a well, with you a couple of paces away and easily able to save him, do anything for you? Don't you think it's morally contemptible not to save the kid?
I would think very badly of someone who failed to do so, in much the same way that I'd think badly of a killer.
As for the concept of charity, government-mandated or not, it has only arisen because we've latched onto an idea of "ownership" that's developed from our social practices. These might easily have been different, if our culture so decided. In fact, my view of welfare is that it expresses a bit of society's distrust with the idea of ownership and all it entails. Your possessing something means that I am not free to use it without your leave -- an unnatural situation, and one that seems to limit my liberty.
The idea of private property has served us well in a lot of ways. It prevents conflict and lends efficiency to many of our social institutions (e.g. employment, manufacture, public service). But it also has a social cost, and I see welfare as an attempt to ameliorate part of that cost.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BookWyrm - If we are only supporting welfare because of the metaphorical gun to the head, why pretend otherwise? As far as theft goes, I would prefer the type that everyone at least admits is such, which also happens to be the type I have some chance of defending against. If someone broke into my apartment and stole everything I own, the cost of replacing all of it would be less than what I paid into Social Security last year. Welfare in the sense of food stamps and subsidized housing is pretty cheap, right? Maybe I would check the box that says take an extra three bucks for that purpose if given the option.
Destineer - Your example does nothing. It is not my fault, it is not my problem, and it is not my responsibility. Yes, I would try to save the kid, but I could not condemn any (unconnected) person for going their merry way. It takes more than inaction (barring circumstances where responsibility to act has not been voluntarily assumed) to earn my contempt.
You do have a point about ownership, though, at least (or especially) regarding ownership of land, and by extension non-renewable resources found on a given piece of land.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Danzig, it only works if we all out in, and we have chosen as a society to fund particular issues. If we had to wait for donations we wouldn't have a country to live in still, or at last not one we would recognize...and we wouldn't have hospitals and highways, supermarkets and court systems.
You participate every day in society, but you claim to have no moral obligation to anyone other than yourself.
That is a textbook example of sociopathy, although not to quite the same level as a serial murderer...you feel you have a right to steal "back" what was taken from you, but you still feel society is obligated to provide you with services that are paid for by the same taxes you avoid.
That is morally corrupt, and you deserve to be caught and punished...so that you can complain from inside jail about how your "freedoms" were tarnished outside.
posted
Why do people pay for cable when they could just steal it? If taxation was voluntary, I think people would realize that the expenses have to be paid by someone. If not at first, then after the potholes stopped getting fixed.
(As a side note, I pay my taxes. Pragmatically the costs of avoiding taxation are higher than the benefits. If you show up at my door with a gun, you can have some of my money too.)
Society is not obligated to provide me services. It is obligated to let me and everyone else keep any money I earn, and to protect me from others and others from me, should the need arise. It is not obligated to support me should I be unable or unwilling to do so myself. Nor is it obligated to build and maintain roads, fire departments, etc. However, to the extent I have been robbed, I deserve fair compensation. Thus I would take as much welfare as I personally have paid for, but no more, and if I ever realized an equivalent value in cash from getting people cigarettes, I would stop that as well.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Danzig you are not thinking selfishly enough If compassion doesn't do it for you then the following through with selfishness should. You support people on benefits short-term. They continue to be healthy citizens who consume. Their consumption rewards you by paying for whatever it is that you produce (either directly or indirectly). Payback on your investment. Then after overcoming this hiccup they then re-enter the workforce and gain even more disposable income which they also use to consume more of what you produce (again directly or indirectly). More people able to enter the work force ready to consume is good for your long-term wealth. If however they were given no help then this will affect you. As has already been mentioned stealing becomes a viable option. The only growth here is the protection of fewer and fewer resourses. I was listening to a 'industry leader' recently. This guy is well known for his scathing attacks on the unemployed and immigrants. Of course he has always paid minimal tax. He now blames the government because we currently have high employment levels and he no longer has a pool of unemployed people available to work short-term harvesting his kiwifruit. The way I see it us poor old Joe Bloggs have been subsidizing his multi-million dollar business by paying tax to support this pool of unemployed so he can have workers for a couple of months a year. That makes HIM the real bludger.
Posts: 141 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I smoke so there is no moral question for me here. If I wanted cigs and needed help to get them, I would hope someone would help me out. So I gotta go for a "do unto others" thing on this one.
posted
My first thought was, "Why didn't she go in and do the exchange herself?"
I hate cigarette smoke. I am allegic to it, my son is allergic to it and I have much less patience for smokers now than I did before I had an asthmatic child to protect. I've had two friends recently die of cancer associated with cigarette smoking, so I know that I wouldn't go in and trade her food for cigarettes. That's me and I freely admit that it stems from a personal prejudice against the nasty little things.
On the same note though, if she were obese or diabetic, I wouldn't be willing to hand her a bag of Ding-Dongs.
I used to only give food coupons or buy a meal when asked for charity from street people. But just like the above notions, they are me playing parent or referee over another person's personal decision. I now believe that my decision is whether or not to give. The receiver is responsible for using the gift wisely.
I understand the reluctance to having money taken from one's paycheck to give charity to people who don't appreciate the gift. The only thing worse than not having a gift appreciated is being denied the satisfaction of knowing that you chose to do a good thing. Yet, I would never suggest that the goverment stop taking from the many to give to the few.
As a child whose parents were on and off welfare many a time, I appreciate the fact that I was fed more often than I went hungry and I had access to antibiotics and other medicines when ear aches, raging fevers and poisoning made a doctor visit necessary. I can't even imagine being willing to deny the same basic necessities to other children.
Personally, I think that the only people who refuse to give are those who have never really been in need.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
smokers
