5 ms·

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

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.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - danbruc 7y ago
      I am totally in favor of this 14 day return policy, there are good reasons why it exists. But behind every law there is also an intention and the intention behind this law was certainly not to allow you to order an expensive suit or dress, wear it at one event, and then return it without ever having had the intention to keep it. At the very best this is an gray area and it certainly is abuse because it is against the intention of the law.
    - la_barba 7y ago
      A friend of my wife is a studio photographer (in the US) and she was banned from several high end stores because she used to buy tons of clothes for a model shoot, and then return them when done. Occasionally she would keep one or two items she liked. I would tend to agree that this is abuse. I think now she rents them ... > 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. Hmm, I think the product must be unused and unworn for you to return it. I might be misremembering though..
tripzilch 7y ago
But there is such an attempt of anthropomorphisation, when you say the company is "expected to be a good sport". You don't say a herd of cows ought to be a good sport. A crying baby ought to be a good sport. That tree is being mean, casting shade. The anthill ought to return my sugar. That is why there is no conflict. Because they are not the same morally and thus not expected to be treated the same.
- foldr 7y ago
  This argument cuts both ways. If Amazon isn't a moral entity, then there's also no moral violation if they screw you over.
  - tsbertalan 7y ago
    Right, and it's not morally wrong for a mosquito to bite you, and no one would say that the bug "should have known better", but we do our best to prevent it anyway. Both entities will go precisely as far as we allow them to.
    - foldr 7y ago
      When companies like Amazon do things that are morally wrong, you never see people making this claim that moral concepts don't apply to companies. They only say it when it's convenient for them (i.e., when they want to take advantage of Amazon rather than vice versa). To compare a company's actions to those of a mosquito strikes me as quite silly. Amazon is run by people who make conscious choices and who are responsible for their actions.
      - na85 7y ago
        >When companies like Amazon do things that are morally wrong, you never see people making this claim that moral concepts don't apply to companies. I see this all the time on HN.
      - Vraxx 7y ago
        Also, that comparison is made specifically because companies have no morality and so if we want them to behave in any sort of way approximating our morals, they must be regulated to do so. Those comments are advocating a change in the way companies are treated in order to get them to behave in a more expected manner.

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.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - danbruc 7y ago
    I am totally in favor of this 14 day return policy, there are good reasons why it exists. But behind every law there is also an intention and the intention behind this law was certainly not to allow you to order an expensive suit or dress, wear it at one event, and then return it without ever having had the intention to keep it. At the very best this is an gray area and it certainly is abuse because it is against the intention of the law.
  - la_barba 7y ago
    A friend of my wife is a studio photographer (in the US) and she was banned from several high end stores because she used to buy tons of clothes for a model shoot, and then return them when done. Occasionally she would keep one or two items she liked. I would tend to agree that this is abuse. I think now she rents them ... > 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. Hmm, I think the product must be unused and unworn for you to return it. I might be misremembering though..

tripzilch 7y ago

But there is such an attempt of anthropomorphisation, when you say the company is "expected to be a good sport". You don't say a herd of cows ought to be a good sport. A crying baby ought to be a good sport. That tree is being mean, casting shade. The anthill ought to return my sugar. That is why there is no conflict. Because they are not the same morally and thus not expected to be treated the same.

foldr 7y ago
This argument cuts both ways. If Amazon isn't a moral entity, then there's also no moral violation if they screw you over.
- tsbertalan 7y ago
  Right, and it's not morally wrong for a mosquito to bite you, and no one would say that the bug "should have known better", but we do our best to prevent it anyway. Both entities will go precisely as far as we allow them to.
  - foldr 7y ago
    When companies like Amazon do things that are morally wrong, you never see people making this claim that moral concepts don't apply to companies. They only say it when it's convenient for them (i.e., when they want to take advantage of Amazon rather than vice versa). To compare a company's actions to those of a mosquito strikes me as quite silly. Amazon is run by people who make conscious choices and who are responsible for their actions.
    - na85 7y ago
      >When companies like Amazon do things that are morally wrong, you never see people making this claim that moral concepts don't apply to companies. I see this all the time on HN.
    - Vraxx 7y ago
      Also, that comparison is made specifically because companies have no morality and so if we want them to behave in any sort of way approximating our morals, they must be regulated to do so. Those comments are advocating a change in the way companies are treated in order to get them to behave in a more expected manner.