10 ms·

> It’s kind of interesting- the asymmetry of moral expectations and entitlement. First, there is an asymmetry in power too. Amazon can afford to double check

by kartan 7y ago

> It’s kind of interesting- the asymmetry of moral expectations and entitlement. First, there is an asymmetry in power too. Amazon can afford to double check or triple check everything if it makes economic sense. Secondly, companies does not have morals. If you allow big corporations to change prices as they see fit because there is a "mistake". Companies will exploit that to their advantage with psychopathic precision. You will get your package at home and then you will be informed that the price "was a mistake" and was 10% more expensive. They will print prices in adverts and then say that it was a mistake when people gets to the shop. Companies are not human beings, as other comments already have said, to involve morality in this issue makes no sense whatsoever. The real question is: is this an efficient way of improving the consumers well being? If this rules avoid companies of abusing price changes and labeling anything as being a "mistake" and at the same time it encourages better quality on price setting and the "punishment" is not big enough to send all companies to foreclosure. Then it seems a very good deal. It makes economic sense.

readhn 7y ago
This was not a price "mistake"! This was a well executed marketing campaign - they are looking to see how much ROI they will get on such marketing move. By the next prime day there will be millions more people logged in - looking for super deals!!!! Do you really think they dont have a complex system in place that would flag this huge price discrepancy 100x before the product ships out? I dont think so.
readhn 7y ago
"Companies are not human beings" I beg to differ... Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).
- moate 7y ago
  "Human beings" =/="personhood".
  - readhn 7y ago
    Corporations are people.
    - moate 7y ago
      That's true. But that doesn't mean they're "human beings". A corporation doesn't have blood or skin or a physical human body. Again, based on our definitions here, "Human being" =/= "Person/Personhood"
danbruc 7y ago
Companies are not human beings, as other comments already have said, to involve morality in this issue makes no sense whatsoever. This argument is wrong, there is no attempt to associate morality with a company. It is the customer and only the customer holding the arguably conflicting believes that errors in favour of customers should not be corrected while errors in favour of the company should be corrected. So you can argue whether those two believes are actually morally conflicting but you can not dismiss this point based on the irrelevant point that one can not apply moral concepts to companies [1]. [1] Which may itself be a matter of dabate, after all one aspect of companies is that they are collections of people working together.
- pnutjam 7y ago
  If you make a mistake, you cancel it with a standard return policy. Amazon's "mistake" looks like bait and switch, or any number of other scams. I'm under the impression they usually cancel said orders.
  - danbruc 7y ago
    When you start going down this line of arguments, then you also have to take into account the abuse of return policies, ordering and wearing clothes once before returning them, ordering several similar items while intending to only keep the one you like the most, and that sort of thing. Also Amazon could easily add - in case it does not already exist - a policy to its terms and conditions that explicitly states that orders can be canceled in case of errors, at least as far as laws allow such policies. But there are certainly already some policies targeting fraudulent orders and whatnot.
    - def_true_false 7y ago
      > abuse of return policies, ordering and wearing clothes once before returning them, ordering several similar items while intending to only keep the one you like the most How is this considered abuse at all? The EU even mandates a 14 day return window for online shopping since you don't get to try stuff on or see the item like you would in a physical store.
bko 7y ago
> First, there is an asymmetry in power too. Amazon can afford to double check or triple check everything if it makes economic sense. There's an asymmetry because Amazon can "afford" to double check everything? How? They lists millions of items. You're only in the market for a few. They're good at inventory management, but the scale is crazy which is why this mispricing is happening. Besides, I don't see why them "being able to afford" checking has to do with someone exploiting a mispricing, from a moral sense. Are you punishing them for not doing so and creating a financial incentive to be more prudent? Seems like a stretch. > You will get your package at home and then you will be informed that the price "was a mistake" and was 10% more expensive. They will print prices in adverts and then say that it was a mistake when people gets to the shop. It's ironic that many people still believe the narrative that corporations are evil and would screw over their customers at any chance while at the same time living through the greatest upheaval of popular consumer brands in history. Amazon wouldn't do that not because of benevolence or legal reasons, but because its not in their interest to upset and screw over repeat customers for 10% and the operational headache of somehow retrieving your item. Also considering that Amazon receives billions from Prime and that would likely drive down subscriptions. Some companies practice deceptive advertising, but these are the companies that are primarily losing favor to new more honest competitors due to the competition.
- thrax 7y ago
  Repeat after me: Amazon is not a person. Why aren't you arguing against the daily electrocution of toasters?
  - bko 7y ago
    Amazon is a corporation, essentially a legal structure meant to encompass a group of investors. Investors range from its founder Jeff Bezos to small investors holding Amazon shares in pension funds and 401ks. You too can buy one share of Amazon for ~$2000 or invest in a low cost ETF that would own Amazon. The value of the stock is driven partly by expectation of future earnings. If Amazon were to lose future earnings relative to what investors believe they will receive, the stock price will likely go down. On the extreme lets say that Amazon stock goes to $0, it would reduce the wealth of the world by about $1 trillion in stock valuation. That means that $1 trillion disappears from people's accounts (with ~$100 billion disappearing from Bezos' account). This would be wealth destruction no different from simultaneously reaching into every person's wallet and removing some amount of cash and burning it. The whole "[corp] is not a person so [immoral act] is okay" is not productive.
jrs235 7y ago
>if the purchase was made in bad faith (ie- knowing Amazon mis-priced it but purchasing it anyways.) >The same behavior would happen with a company with better public trust and respect. And it’s not like anyone is selling those cameras to donate money to a warehouse worker in need. >I just think it’s amazing how frail people’s morality is, how it goes out the window when certain conditions are met. The parent wasn't talking about companies, they were talking about us people and how morality is shit these days. As to your focus in companies, they derive their morality from the people that run them. What's shit for the goose is shit for the gander. People taking the high road makes a better world.
- rapind 7y ago
  Shit begets shit. If you're buying from a local mom and pop where the owners are part of your community it's far less likely you would take advantage of the situation. People still return wallets full of money. How are they morally bankrupt? Amazon is an example of unfettered capitalism, and are seen differently in the eyes of the consumer. Right or wrong, people just don't care about a megacorps well being (and I don't blame them).
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    What is unfettered capitalism? The "unfettered" part leads me to believe this is a pejorative. Wikipedia redirects to economic liberalism, which is just free markets in opposition to planned economies. Is there anyone even remotely serious who thinks planned economies are superior? Is there a planned economy in the world that isn't in tattered ruins, impoverishing its people in the most hideous and evil fashion, while literally stealing its pittance of wealth for a few dozen autocrats in charge of the government?
    - hombre_fatal 7y ago
      I keep seeing "capitalism" leveled at Amazon as a pejorative when people seem to mean "consumerism."
    - rapind 7y ago
HeavyStorm 7y ago
> companies doesn't have morals Call it whatever you want, the way big companies like Amazon operate has moral implications and, therefore, Amazon has a moral. The fact that is isn't a single living organism but a sum of many doesn't mean it has no morals whatsoever. I do understand your line of thinking - how do we create a law that can't be exploited? Because, after all, we expect it to be exploited at some point. Although in my country the rules are the same (the lowest announced price has to be honored) there was a issue a few years ago that a product was announced at a much lower price. A judge ruled in favor of the seller. I don't really recall the details but I think the ruling was based on the fact that the law was supposed to avoid sellers exploiting buyers, but the announced price was a clear mistake. Common sense above all, I guess.
gingabriska 7y ago
"Companies are not human beings, as other comments already have said, to involve morality in this issue makes no sense whatsoever." Is society human being? Is nation a human being? If not then is it moral to deceive and cheat them too?
- tripzilch 7y ago
  It means just that it makes no sense to answer that question based on human morals ... doesn't mean the answer is set in stone. It specifically doesn't mean that one non-human entity should be treated the same as all other non-human entities. For instance an argument could be made that it can be moral to cheat the State, but not Society. It's not an argument I want to discuss now, but the point is, you can use ethics and come to different conclusions about entities that are not human beings ...
stef25 7y ago
> You will get your package at home and then you will be informed that the price "was a mistake" and was 10% more expensive Don't seem very likely. When word gets out (and it will) they'll lose customers that are much more valuable than that extra 10% they just got from you.
ldoughty 7y ago
Companies are people. They fight very hard for that label in the courts (USA)
Verdex 7y ago
I agree with both you and parent. People are uncomfortably inconsistent. If a certain rule benefits them then they'll favor it ... right until the rule becomes a problem for them or favors their adversary. Normally, I see this when people talk about their politics. On the other hand, Amazon has an unbelievable amount of power. And I think things would be a lot better if we as a society applied the spider-man rule. With great power. If a small mom and pop makes this sort of mistake, then I'm all for them correcting it and not giving away $13K equipment for $100. Maybe they were doing it maliciously, but because of how small they are the scope of their malice can only affect a small number of people. On the other hand, Amazon has the power of a first world nation state. If they make a mistake, innocently or maliciously, then the scope can affect a lot of people. Yeah, you messed up Amazon. Don't export the cost of failure onto people without the power to fight it. Pay for it yourself with your considerable resources and then resolve the issue with your considerable resources such that you don't make the mistake again. EDIT: Mom and pop might not have the resources to cover their mistake AND they might not have the resources to reasonably prevent it from happening again. And because of their lack of resources they are also on a level playing field with their customers. So if their customers feel that what was done to them was wrong, then they can reasonably challenge mom and pop in court. On the other hand, if Amazon decides that their customers are going to lose in court, then their customers are going to lose in court.
- la_barba 7y ago
  Do you make a distinction between stealing from a rich person versus a poor person?
  - miloignis 7y ago
    I would, and I imagine most people would. I don't steal, certainly, and would never unless absolutely forced to do so, but if I had to I would definitely chose to steal from someone for whom it would make less of a difference.
  - Verdex 7y ago
    I haven't really thought about it in those terms. But YES it turns out I do make a distinction. The only reason I called the police on the guy who robbed me at gunpoint was because I was concerned that he might also steal from someone who couldn't stand to lose their money AND because he was using lethal force to steal money. I didn't really enjoy the few weeks of stress that I got from being mugged. But I otherwise didn't hold it against him. He was much more polite than a person with a gun has to be. And I could afford gas at $4 a gallon (as it was at the time) where he couldn't (credit cards showed him immediately going an filling up at a gas station). If a rich guy had mugged me, I think I would have been a bit more upset about the experience.
yspeak 7y ago
Companies are not technically human but they are made up of humans.They are an organized units of humans. Just like a government or a family each with different internal rules, structure and external expectations. Of course they can be held to moral rules. They may be bound to their shareholders to make a profit but it is not without boundaries which is what morality is, a guide or brake on how to achieve ones desires and goals. Having said that pricing is not a moral issue in 99% of cases particularly in a mostly free market where there is price and quality information available. If you don't like the price don't buy it, buy it from somewhere else, or it probably reflects the supply/demand. A pricing mistake by its nature is a defect in the free market, is not legally required to be honored, and theoretically should not be honored as it skews price equilibrium. Amazon is honoring it here here and in a case like the mms for marketing purposes.

by kartan 7y ago

readhn 7y ago

This was not a price "mistake"! This was a well executed marketing campaign - they are looking to see how much ROI they will get on such marketing move. By the next prime day there will be millions more people logged in - looking for super deals!!!! Do you really think they dont have a complex system in place that would flag this huge price discrepancy 100x before the product ships out? I dont think so.

readhn 7y ago

"Companies are not human beings" I beg to differ... Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).

moate 7y ago
"Human beings" =/="personhood".
- readhn 7y ago
  Corporations are people.
  - moate 7y ago
    That's true. But that doesn't mean they're "human beings". A corporation doesn't have blood or skin or a physical human body. Again, based on our definitions here, "Human being" =/= "Person/Personhood"

danbruc 7y ago

Companies are not human beings, as other comments already have said, to involve morality in this issue makes no sense whatsoever. This argument is wrong, there is no attempt to associate morality with a company. It is the customer and only the customer holding the arguably conflicting believes that errors in favour of customers should not be corrected while errors in favour of the company should be corrected. So you can argue whether those two believes are actually morally conflicting but you can not dismiss this point based on the irrelevant point that one can not apply moral concepts to companies [1]. [1] Which may itself be a matter of dabate, after all one aspect of companies is that they are collections of people working together.

pnutjam 7y ago
If you make a mistake, you cancel it with a standard return policy. Amazon's "mistake" looks like bait and switch, or any number of other scams. I'm under the impression they usually cancel said orders.
- danbruc 7y ago
  When you start going down this line of arguments, then you also have to take into account the abuse of return policies, ordering and wearing clothes once before returning them, ordering several similar items while intending to only keep the one you like the most, and that sort of thing. Also Amazon could easily add - in case it does not already exist - a policy to its terms and conditions that explicitly states that orders can be canceled in case of errors, at least as far as laws allow such policies. But there are certainly already some policies targeting fraudulent orders and whatnot.
  - def_true_false 7y ago
    > abuse of return policies, ordering and wearing clothes once before returning them, ordering several similar items while intending to only keep the one you like the most How is this considered abuse at all? The EU even mandates a 14 day return window for online shopping since you don't get to try stuff on or see the item like you would in a physical store.

bko 7y ago

> First, there is an asymmetry in power too. Amazon can afford to double check or triple check everything if it makes economic sense. There's an asymmetry because Amazon can "afford" to double check everything? How? They lists millions of items. You're only in the market for a few. They're good at inventory management, but the scale is crazy which is why this mispricing is happening. Besides, I don't see why them "being able to afford" checking has to do with someone exploiting a mispricing, from a moral sense. Are you punishing them for not doing so and creating a financial incentive to be more prudent? Seems like a stretch. > You will get your package at home and then you will be informed that the price "was a mistake" and was 10% more expensive. They will print prices in adverts and then say that it was a mistake when people gets to the shop. It's ironic that many people still believe the narrative that corporations are evil and would screw over their customers at any chance while at the same time living through the greatest upheaval of popular consumer brands in history. Amazon wouldn't do that not because of benevolence or legal reasons, but because its not in their interest to upset and screw over repeat customers for 10% and the operational headache of somehow retrieving your item. Also considering that Amazon receives billions from Prime and that would likely drive down subscriptions. Some companies practice deceptive advertising, but these are the companies that are primarily losing favor to new more honest competitors due to the competition.

thrax 7y ago
Repeat after me: Amazon is not a person. Why aren't you arguing against the daily electrocution of toasters?
- bko 7y ago
  Amazon is a corporation, essentially a legal structure meant to encompass a group of investors. Investors range from its founder Jeff Bezos to small investors holding Amazon shares in pension funds and 401ks. You too can buy one share of Amazon for ~$2000 or invest in a low cost ETF that would own Amazon. The value of the stock is driven partly by expectation of future earnings. If Amazon were to lose future earnings relative to what investors believe they will receive, the stock price will likely go down. On the extreme lets say that Amazon stock goes to $0, it would reduce the wealth of the world by about $1 trillion in stock valuation. That means that $1 trillion disappears from people's accounts (with ~$100 billion disappearing from Bezos' account). This would be wealth destruction no different from simultaneously reaching into every person's wallet and removing some amount of cash and burning it. The whole "[corp] is not a person so [immoral act] is okay" is not productive.

jrs235 7y ago

>if the purchase was made in bad faith (ie- knowing Amazon mis-priced it but purchasing it anyways.) >The same behavior would happen with a company with better public trust and respect. And it’s not like anyone is selling those cameras to donate money to a warehouse worker in need. >I just think it’s amazing how frail people’s morality is, how it goes out the window when certain conditions are met. The parent wasn't talking about companies, they were talking about us people and how morality is shit these days. As to your focus in companies, they derive their morality from the people that run them. What's shit for the goose is shit for the gander. People taking the high road makes a better world.

rapind 7y ago
Shit begets shit. If you're buying from a local mom and pop where the owners are part of your community it's far less likely you would take advantage of the situation. People still return wallets full of money. How are they morally bankrupt? Amazon is an example of unfettered capitalism, and are seen differently in the eyes of the consumer. Right or wrong, people just don't care about a megacorps well being (and I don't blame them).
- merpnderp 7y ago
  What is unfettered capitalism? The "unfettered" part leads me to believe this is a pejorative. Wikipedia redirects to economic liberalism, which is just free markets in opposition to planned economies. Is there anyone even remotely serious who thinks planned economies are superior? Is there a planned economy in the world that isn't in tattered ruins, impoverishing its people in the most hideous and evil fashion, while literally stealing its pittance of wealth for a few dozen autocrats in charge of the government?
  - hombre_fatal 7y ago
    I keep seeing "capitalism" leveled at Amazon as a pejorative when people seem to mean "consumerism."
  - rapind 7y ago

HeavyStorm 7y ago

> companies doesn't have morals Call it whatever you want, the way big companies like Amazon operate has moral implications and, therefore, Amazon has a moral. The fact that is isn't a single living organism but a sum of many doesn't mean it has no morals whatsoever. I do understand your line of thinking - how do we create a law that can't be exploited? Because, after all, we expect it to be exploited at some point. Although in my country the rules are the same (the lowest announced price has to be honored) there was a issue a few years ago that a product was announced at a much lower price. A judge ruled in favor of the seller. I don't really recall the details but I think the ruling was based on the fact that the law was supposed to avoid sellers exploiting buyers, but the announced price was a clear mistake. Common sense above all, I guess.

gingabriska 7y ago

"Companies are not human beings, as other comments already have said, to involve morality in this issue makes no sense whatsoever." Is society human being? Is nation a human being? If not then is it moral to deceive and cheat them too?

tripzilch 7y ago
It means just that it makes no sense to answer that question based on human morals ... doesn't mean the answer is set in stone. It specifically doesn't mean that one non-human entity should be treated the same as all other non-human entities. For instance an argument could be made that it can be moral to cheat the State, but not Society. It's not an argument I want to discuss now, but the point is, you can use ethics and come to different conclusions about entities that are not human beings ...

stef25 7y ago

> You will get your package at home and then you will be informed that the price "was a mistake" and was 10% more expensive Don't seem very likely. When word gets out (and it will) they'll lose customers that are much more valuable than that extra 10% they just got from you.

ldoughty 7y ago

Companies are people. They fight very hard for that label in the courts (USA)

Verdex 7y ago

I agree with both you and parent. People are uncomfortably inconsistent. If a certain rule benefits them then they'll favor it ... right until the rule becomes a problem for them or favors their adversary. Normally, I see this when people talk about their politics. On the other hand, Amazon has an unbelievable amount of power. And I think things would be a lot better if we as a society applied the spider-man rule. With great power. If a small mom and pop makes this sort of mistake, then I'm all for them correcting it and not giving away $13K equipment for $100. Maybe they were doing it maliciously, but because of how small they are the scope of their malice can only affect a small number of people. On the other hand, Amazon has the power of a first world nation state. If they make a mistake, innocently or maliciously, then the scope can affect a lot of people. Yeah, you messed up Amazon. Don't export the cost of failure onto people without the power to fight it. Pay for it yourself with your considerable resources and then resolve the issue with your considerable resources such that you don't make the mistake again. EDIT: Mom and pop might not have the resources to cover their mistake AND they might not have the resources to reasonably prevent it from happening again. And because of their lack of resources they are also on a level playing field with their customers. So if their customers feel that what was done to them was wrong, then they can reasonably challenge mom and pop in court. On the other hand, if Amazon decides that their customers are going to lose in court, then their customers are going to lose in court.

la_barba 7y ago
Do you make a distinction between stealing from a rich person versus a poor person?
- miloignis 7y ago
  I would, and I imagine most people would. I don't steal, certainly, and would never unless absolutely forced to do so, but if I had to I would definitely chose to steal from someone for whom it would make less of a difference.
- Verdex 7y ago
  I haven't really thought about it in those terms. But YES it turns out I do make a distinction. The only reason I called the police on the guy who robbed me at gunpoint was because I was concerned that he might also steal from someone who couldn't stand to lose their money AND because he was using lethal force to steal money. I didn't really enjoy the few weeks of stress that I got from being mugged. But I otherwise didn't hold it against him. He was much more polite than a person with a gun has to be. And I could afford gas at $4 a gallon (as it was at the time) where he couldn't (credit cards showed him immediately going an filling up at a gas station). If a rich guy had mugged me, I think I would have been a bit more upset about the experience.

yspeak 7y ago

Companies are not technically human but they are made up of humans.They are an organized units of humans. Just like a government or a family each with different internal rules, structure and external expectations. Of course they can be held to moral rules. They may be bound to their shareholders to make a profit but it is not without boundaries which is what morality is, a guide or brake on how to achieve ones desires and goals. Having said that pricing is not a moral issue in 99% of cases particularly in a mostly free market where there is price and quality information available. If you don't like the price don't buy it, buy it from somewhere else, or it probably reflects the supply/demand. A pricing mistake by its nature is a defect in the free market, is not legally required to be honored, and theoretically should not be honored as it skews price equilibrium. Amazon is honoring it here here and in a case like the mms for marketing purposes.