Ethical question about stealing

[Eagles]

Before I start this I want to make it clear that I am not trying to use this thread to justify stealing I am just legitimately curious about this from an ethical standpoint.

At my school on when you sign up for the meal plan they charge $100 for each student for new forks/knives/spoons/plates/cups because a lot of it gets stolen from the cafeteria. However they set up rules that say you are not to steal from the cafeteria.

Now here is my question if I were to to take exactly $100 worth of dishes from the cafeteria would my actions be unethical? Am I stealing or am I simply just taking what I have paid for?

[ojc02]

It would indeed be unethical.

Ultimately, you agreed to pay the $100 and use their services in the manner they described (ie not stealing the forks/knives, etc).

It doesn't matter what they use the $100 for, you agreed to pay for it and not take the stuff.

[Hopey]

What's unethical is the University charging EACH of you $100. There's no way that on average, the replacement cost of the missing dishes works out to $100 per student. It's a total cash grab by your school.

You still shouldn't steal any of their dishes...but if you were to bring a mug back to your dorm room, and then accidentally forget to return it, you shouldn't feel too guilty about it.

[PLOlover]

Obviously you should get the student government to demand that all the stuff be donated to charity at the end of the year and everything replaced, since the students are paying for it.

It seems only fair.

[arahant]

Totally ethical. The university is asking you to subsidize thieves. If you can use the stuff, take it.

Of course, the costs of theft are usually just included implicitly in ALL prices, so it's also ethical to steal from any store in proportion to your purchases from said store.

[RainDog]

[ QUOTE ]
What's unethical is the University charging EACH of you $100. There's no way that on average, the replacement cost of the missing dishes works out to $100 per student. It's a total cash grab by your school.

You still shouldn't steal any of their dishes...but if you were to bring a mug back to your dorm room, and then accidentally forget to return it, you shouldn't feel too guilty about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The University didn't force this payment. He agreed to pay it. It's part of their package. Are bottled water companies unethical for charging $1.50+ for a basic necessity of life? What about ebayers who drastically overcharge for shipping? No, I can drink tap water, shop somewhere other than that seller on Ebay, and he can go to another school. Now if the $100 was mandated by a government body it becomes unethical. You can not choose another government. Also, if one institution had a monopoly on education thus forcing this $100 in a way, it may also become "unethical".

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's unethical is the University charging EACH of you $100. There's no way that on average, the replacement cost of the missing dishes works out to $100 per student. It's a total cash grab by your school.

You still shouldn't steal any of their dishes...but if you were to bring a mug back to your dorm room, and then accidentally forget to return it, you shouldn't feel too guilty about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The University didn't force this payment. He agreed to pay it. It's part of their package. Are bottled water companies unethical for charging $1.50+ for a basic necessity of life? What about ebayers who drastically overcharge for shipping? No, I can drink tap water, shop somewhere other than that seller on Ebay, and he can go to another school. Now if the $100 was mandated by a government body it becomes unethical. You can not choose another government. Also, if one institution had a monopoly on education thus forcing this $100 in a way, it may also become "unethical".

[/ QUOTE ]
It may not be unethical, but it's certainly dishonest. A lot of folks might find dishonesty unethical.

Sounds like the policy came from a petty individual who was upset by the continuous theft and wanted to drive home a point about the cost of this, at the expense of the truth. It probably sounded pretty stupid to charge $15.37 to cover the cost of losses.

I also find it a bit sleazy. Sort of like those TV ads where you get some product for 4.95 +s/h, then s/h is 14.95...

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]

It may not be unethical, but it's certainly dishonest. A lot of folks might find dishonesty unethical.

Sounds like the policy came from a petty individual who was upset by the continuous theft and wanted to drive home a point about the cost of this, at the expense of the truth. It probably sounded pretty stupid to charge $15.37 to cover the cost of losses.

I also find it a bit sleazy. Sort of like those TV ads where you get some product for 4.95 +s/h, then s/h is 14.95...

[/ QUOTE ]

It is sleazy when they hide the s/h cost but this is completely different. There is no deception about the total price, which is all that matters. If he agreed to pay the total price and not steal the knives/forks etc then he can't steal them. If he disagrees with the new price, his option is to not purchase the plan. He does not have the option to pay the price and then steal back from them.

This would be like me buying Microsoft Office and stealing back the value of Powerpoint because I'm only going to use Word and XL. Like the meal plan, Office is sold as is, take it or leave it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It may not be unethical, but it's certainly dishonest. A lot of folks might find dishonesty unethical.

Sounds like the policy came from a petty individual who was upset by the continuous theft and wanted to drive home a point about the cost of this, at the expense of the truth. It probably sounded pretty stupid to charge $15.37 to cover the cost of losses.

I also find it a bit sleazy. Sort of like those TV ads where you get some product for 4.95 +s/h, then s/h is 14.95...

[/ QUOTE ]

It is sleazy when they hide the s/h cost but this is completely different. There is no deception about the total price, which is all that matters. If he agreed to pay the total price and not steal the knives/forks etc then he can't steal them. If he disagrees with the new price, his option is to not purchase the plan. He does not have the option to pay the price and then steal back from them.

This would be like me buying Microsoft Office and stealing back the value of Powerpoint because I'm only going to use Word and XL. Like the meal plan, Office is sold as is, take it or leave it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The sleaziness comes from the fact that the school is claiming they need to charge 100 dollars/student to cover theft, when that is clearly absurd. It would be one thing if they just charged an additionaly $100 on the meal plan, but this is itemized, they claim it goes to something that it almost certainly does not.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It may not be unethical, but it's certainly dishonest. A lot of folks might find dishonesty unethical.

Sounds like the policy came from a petty individual who was upset by the continuous theft and wanted to drive home a point about the cost of this, at the expense of the truth. It probably sounded pretty stupid to charge $15.37 to cover the cost of losses.

I also find it a bit sleazy. Sort of like those TV ads where you get some product for 4.95 +s/h, then s/h is 14.95...

[/ QUOTE ]

It is sleazy when they hide the s/h cost but this is completely different. There is no deception about the total price, which is all that matters. If he agreed to pay the total price and not steal the knives/forks etc then he can't steal them. If he disagrees with the new price, his option is to not purchase the plan. He does not have the option to pay the price and then steal back from them.

This would be like me buying Microsoft Office and stealing back the value of Powerpoint because I'm only going to use Word and XL. Like the meal plan, Office is sold as is, take it or leave it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The sleaziness comes from the fact that the school is claiming they need to charge 100 dollars/student to cover theft, when that is clearly absurd. It would be one thing if they just charged an additionaly $100 on the meal plan, but this is itemized, they claim it goes to something that it almost certainly does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my point exactly. I'm not saying that the OP should feel free to steal dishes from the cafeteria...but c'mon...thanks to their bogus explanation for the $100 charge, the University is just ASKING for people to steal from them.

The school is punishing everybody for the actions of a few individuals. This kind of thing tends to tick people off.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
The sleaziness comes from the fact that the school is claiming they need to charge 100 dollars/student to cover theft, when that is clearly absurd. It would be one thing if they just charged an additionaly $100 on the meal plan, but this is itemized, they claim it goes to something that it almost certainly does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I guess that is kinda sleazy. I don't understand the motive of the school here. Unless they were under-charging before this can't be profit maximizing. Even if they're not profit maximizing and just want to provide the service at cost - this still doesn't make any sense.

I feel like there's a bit of a punitive nature to this charge, like some university bureaucrat got pissy about the stuff going missing and wants to punish everyone.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The sleaziness comes from the fact that the school is claiming they need to charge 100 dollars/student to cover theft, when that is clearly absurd. It would be one thing if they just charged an additionaly $100 on the meal plan, but this is itemized, they claim it goes to something that it almost certainly does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I guess that is kinda sleazy. I don't understand the motive of the school here. Unless they were under-charging before this can't be profit maximizing. Even if they're not profit maximizing and just want to provide the service at cost - this still doesn't make any sense.

I feel like there's a bit of a punitive nature to this charge, like some university bureaucrat got pissy about the stuff going missing and wants to punish everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. That seems to be the common consensus, and thus the reason that most of us, while still not condoning theft, have tried to make the point that this WILL increase theft, and seems like a generally bad policy all around.

[ALawPoker]

As others have said, the school's reasons for charging the extra $100 don't matter -- you agreed to pay X price for the service.

Personally though, I never had a problem stealing from my school (with or without a theft subsidy), but I can't really explain why.

[J. Stew]

you didn't pay for ownerhip of the dishes you paid for the use of them. if the school is unethical in charging extra then that is on them. if you were to steal then you perpetuate the problem and keep the extra $ added to the meal plan higher than if you do not take what is not yours. if everyone acts like this then there is no reason to have extra money in the meal plan because no one would steal. and if many people steal then the problem gets bigger, everybody pays more. so in one way you add to the problem and in another way you decrease the problem. pretty standard imo. ethical doesn't mean equitable

[Eagles]

A few points I'll make to clarify this for people.

1. The university doesn't technically monopoly on food but they pretty much do. I would say probably every student living in residence has a meal plan.

2. The cost is hidden. I found about it but it's not like when I sign up for a meal plan they make it clear they are charging you for it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
As others have said, the school's reasons for charging the extra $100 don't matter -- you agreed to pay X price for the service.

Personally though, I never had a problem stealing from my school (with or without a theft subsidy), but I can't really explain why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it matters. Its fraud. You gave them 100 dollars to use on something they are not using it on. How can that not matter? It doesn't justify stealing, but it most certainly matters.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course it matters. Its fraud. You gave them 100 dollars to use on something they are not using it on. How can that not matter? It doesn't justify stealing, but it most certainly matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vhawk, it's nobody's business what the university is spending the contribution from the meal plan on. Students who purchase the plan agree to pay the full amount and they get a meal plan in return. If the price is too high, they don't buy it! What the heck does it matter how the contribution from the meal plan is spent by the university?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course it matters. Its fraud. You gave them 100 dollars to use on something they are not using it on. How can that not matter? It doesn't justify stealing, but it most certainly matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vhawk, it's nobody's business what the university is spending the contribution from the meal plan on. Students who purchase the plan agree to pay the full amount and they get a meal plan in return. If the price is too high, they don't buy it! What the heck does it matter how the contribution from the meal plan is spent by the university?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, just like its nobody's business whether the charity I donate money to, who explicitly says its to help starving children, spends it on booze and hookers.

[Low Key]

Ok, here's what you do. Steal a bunch of dishes. Sell them. Once you have $100 from selling them, take the rest back. Now you know how many dishes they assume each student is stealing. And you have your $100 back.

And what are these "ethicals" you mention? Does not compute.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course it matters. Its fraud. You gave them 100 dollars to use on something they are not using it on. How can that not matter? It doesn't justify stealing, but it most certainly matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vhawk, it's nobody's business what the university is spending the contribution from the meal plan on. Students who purchase the plan agree to pay the full amount and they get a meal plan in return. If the price is too high, they don't buy it! What the heck does it matter how the contribution from the meal plan is spent by the university?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, just like its nobody's business whether the charity I donate money to, who explicitly says its to help starving children, spends it on booze and hookers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that's a really huge straw man.

When you donate the money to the charity it is with the specific understanding that a certain proportion of it reaches those intended. That's the agreement - you are paying them to give slightly less money to needy people. If they don't do that they are in breach of contract.

In this case, you pay for the meal plan, you get the meal plan, end of story. You have NO right to tell the university what to do with the money they get from you.

[J. Stew]

if you're asking if it is unethical to steal knowing that they are being unethical by sneaking this into the meal plan i would say yes it is still unethical knowing what you know. you stealing (unethical) doesn't solve the problem of higher meal plan fees while you not stealing (ethical) does in your own small way. when everybody does their own ethical behavior in their own small way, the ethical conduct produces a more enjoyable environment whereas if everybody acts unethical in their own small way, rules, extra fees, security, and order is needed which is binding, not free, and not enjoyable.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course it matters. Its fraud. You gave them 100 dollars to use on something they are not using it on. How can that not matter? It doesn't justify stealing, but it most certainly matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vhawk, it's nobody's business what the university is spending the contribution from the meal plan on. Students who purchase the plan agree to pay the full amount and they get a meal plan in return. If the price is too high, they don't buy it! What the heck does it matter how the contribution from the meal plan is spent by the university?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, just like its nobody's business whether the charity I donate money to, who explicitly says its to help starving children, spends it on booze and hookers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that's a really huge straw man.

When you donate the money to the charity it is with the specific understanding that a certain proportion of it reaches those intended. That's the agreement - you are paying them to give slightly less money to needy people. If they don't do that they are in breach of contract.

In this case, you pay for the meal plan, you get the meal plan, end of story. You have NO right to tell the university what to do with the money they get from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I am misunderstanding the situation, but isn't there 100 dollars itemized on his bill specifically for this? Even if not, when the people petitioned for a 100 dollar increase in the meal plan, did they not claim that it was to replace dishes? If neither of these things are true, then I agree with you, and this thread makes no sense. But if either of these things are true, then the $100 charge is obtained under fraudulent circumstances.

[ojc02]

Nah, from the OP..

[ QUOTE ]
The cost is hidden. I found about it but it's not like when I sign up for a meal plan they make it clear they are charging you for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides, it's not separate from the cost of the meal plan. He can opt-out, he's not being forced to purchase it.

When I buy a mercedes (I wish /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) I can't tell them that they can't charge me $500 for the mirror (if that's how they itemize it). What I can do is not buy the mercedes.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Nah, from the OP..

[ QUOTE ]
The cost is hidden. I found about it but it's not like when I sign up for a meal plan they make it clear they are charging you for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides, it's not separate from the cost of the meal plan. He can opt-out, he's not being forced to purchase it.

When I buy a mercedes (I wish /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) I can't tell them that they can't charge me $500 for the mirror (if that's how they itemize it). What I can do is not buy the mercedes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I am thinking about this wrong. To me, when they make the claim that this $100 is for replacement of dishes, it implies it is a non-profit, loss-recovery policy. This makes it seem shady when they obviously do NOT spend it all on replacing the dishes. However, in your example, it is clear that they are also not spending $500 on the mirror, and that this is just markup, and yet that does not seem shady, because they are a business.

But food service at college is a business as well, so I think you are right on this one. I was wrong, and I agree that this isn't unethical on their part. I've said from the beginning that stealing the dishes was never ethical, and it obviously still isn't.

[ojc02]

Thanks vhawk, you have always been an awesome poster. I wish more people here were like you - willing to admit when they've made a (very rare) mistake. Maybe I've become cynical because of one too many never ending circular conversations with the religious folk. Heck, I'm probably guilty of being totally stubborn too. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish more people here were like you - willing to admit when they've made a (very rare) mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[DougShrapnel]

No you aren't stealing you are breaking your contract. Much worse.