5 ms·

I don't shoplift, but I'm appalled at the double standards that are often applied to consumers and workers compared with large companies. Amazon is selling cou

I don't shoplift, but I'm appalled at the double standards that are often applied to consumers and workers compared with large companies. Amazon is selling counterfeit products to unwitting shoppers across the United States. Large firms like this do not subject themselves to any code of ethics like we do; there is only the risk of getting penalized. Yet their business models are reliant on us acting ethically. It is one big scam that preys on human decency, so I really don't blame someone for taking extra fruit at the self-checkout after doing a cost-benefit analysis and making the profitable choice.

optimiz3 7y ago
Two wrongs don't make a right. Trying to not leave the world a worse place at the end of the day means not taking extra fruit at the self-checkout.
- aey 7y ago
  If you believe a corporation to be evil, then every possible act against them might be justifiable. This is a question of ethics. What is the right behavior to resist evil? For example, you could follow our own governments guide :) https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/simple-sabotage.html https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/...
  - koolba 7y ago
    So Amazon profiting from knockoffs means you can steal bananas from Kroger’s?
    - ratsmack 7y ago
      The problem seems to be a general lack of morals... regardless of some perceived justification.
    - SantalBlush 7y ago
      If Amazon is not held accountable for fraudulent business practices, is it ethical to hold a shoplifter accountable? The answer, in my mind, is that it is not only not ethical to do so, but it is grossly unethical to do so.
      - brigandish 7y ago
        It's not fair but we shouldn't conflate the judgement of other's actions with choosing how we ourselves act. If Amazon is not held accountable for fraudulent business practices should I then steal? No. They've no relevance to each other, I am responsible for my actions.
        SantalBlush 7y ago
        Applying a double standard between people is in itself unethical; that is my entire point. We can all choose to live by Amazon's rules, where maximizing profit without regard to ethics is acceptable, or we can live by our conventional sense of morality (which is what I want.) But insofar as we hold ordinary people to a different standard than Amazon, we are behaving unethically. The shoplifting is not central to my point.
        tomhoward 7y ago
        Your whole point hinges on the claim that Amazon routinely and deliberately acts fraudulently and is never held to account. But Amazon and companies like them are absolutely held accountable for legal breaches all the time. Here's just one recent example: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2017/05/ftc-settlement-amazon-yields-70-million-consumers-advice https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2017/05/... Companies are under constant scrutiny by various bodies and agents including regulators, consumer protection groups, media outlets, unions, review sites, consumer word of mouth - not to the simple market reality that if too many customers feel defrauded, they'll soon stop being customers. It's a huge leap to argue that since some counterfeit goods have been sold via their platform, blatant theft from them or other companies is therefore justifiable, particularly when you don't mention that those counterfeit goods were sold by third parties, and that Amazon has a formal process to refund customers who have been sold counterfeit goods and to bar such sellers from their platform: https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/201165970 https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/201165970 We all learned as children that theft and dishonesty is wrong, because in families and societies alike, things quickly break down if it becomes widespread. It's pretty simple.
- RHSeeger 7y ago
  I think that phrase is used a little more freely than it should be. It is wrong to imprison people against their will; yet we do it because those people do/will do wrong things. Two wrongs don't make a right in that case either, but we feel the second wrong is justified because of the first.
  - tjoff 7y ago
    It's not wrong to imprison people against their will. It's part of the societal contract. Not imprisoning someone when you should is, however, wrong.
    - benjaminbrodie 7y ago
      if, instead of saying "is, however, wrong" you say "is wrong, however" you can save a comma. Just some LFP offered in a kindly spirit.
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
>> Yet their business models are reliant on us acting ethically. The way I understand it, every structure in an organised society relies on people acting ethically, or in any case not going out of their way to harm each other without a very good reason. For example. If I go to the doctor I trust that she won't suggest treatments I don't need because she wants to take my money. That sort of thing. For me anyway at least one practical purpose served by morality is that it ensures a society remains functional and does not degenerate into chaos.
- 1000units 7y ago
  This is the foundation of his complaint that large firms are not ethical.
- SantalBlush 7y ago
  I've had multiple people try to explain to me why morals are necessary for society, as if I'm arguing against them. I'm not even advocating for shoplifting (though perhaps I could have phrased it better), but I think a lot of people may have intentionally misread my overall point. We are in agreement that a common sense of morality is necessary for the proper functioning of society. My issue is precisely that powerful people in our society often do not share our sense of morality, they do not live by it, and they are not adequately punished for it. They use our system of ethics against us, and that is what I find frustrating.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
    I agree- I too think that financially or politically powerful people don't live by the same rules as the rest of us. The answer of course is to band together and form units with more power than those people. Another benefit of living in a society, I guess.

optimiz3 7y ago

Two wrongs don't make a right. Trying to not leave the world a worse place at the end of the day means not taking extra fruit at the self-checkout.

aey 7y ago
If you believe a corporation to be evil, then every possible act against them might be justifiable. This is a question of ethics. What is the right behavior to resist evil? For example, you could follow our own governments guide :) https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/simple-sabotage.html https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/...
- koolba 7y ago
  So Amazon profiting from knockoffs means you can steal bananas from Kroger’s?
  - ratsmack 7y ago
    The problem seems to be a general lack of morals... regardless of some perceived justification.
  - SantalBlush 7y ago
    If Amazon is not held accountable for fraudulent business practices, is it ethical to hold a shoplifter accountable? The answer, in my mind, is that it is not only not ethical to do so, but it is grossly unethical to do so.
    - brigandish 7y ago
      It's not fair but we shouldn't conflate the judgement of other's actions with choosing how we ourselves act. If Amazon is not held accountable for fraudulent business practices should I then steal? No. They've no relevance to each other, I am responsible for my actions.
      - SantalBlush 7y ago
        Applying a double standard between people is in itself unethical; that is my entire point. We can all choose to live by Amazon's rules, where maximizing profit without regard to ethics is acceptable, or we can live by our conventional sense of morality (which is what I want.) But insofar as we hold ordinary people to a different standard than Amazon, we are behaving unethically. The shoplifting is not central to my point.
        tomhoward 7y ago
        Your whole point hinges on the claim that Amazon routinely and deliberately acts fraudulently and is never held to account. But Amazon and companies like them are absolutely held accountable for legal breaches all the time. Here's just one recent example: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2017/05/ftc-settlement-amazon-yields-70-million-consumers-advice https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2017/05/... Companies are under constant scrutiny by various bodies and agents including regulators, consumer protection groups, media outlets, unions, review sites, consumer word of mouth - not to the simple market reality that if too many customers feel defrauded, they'll soon stop being customers. It's a huge leap to argue that since some counterfeit goods have been sold via their platform, blatant theft from them or other companies is therefore justifiable, particularly when you don't mention that those counterfeit goods were sold by third parties, and that Amazon has a formal process to refund customers who have been sold counterfeit goods and to bar such sellers from their platform: https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/201165970 https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/201165970 We all learned as children that theft and dishonesty is wrong, because in families and societies alike, things quickly break down if it becomes widespread. It's pretty simple.
RHSeeger 7y ago
I think that phrase is used a little more freely than it should be. It is wrong to imprison people against their will; yet we do it because those people do/will do wrong things. Two wrongs don't make a right in that case either, but we feel the second wrong is justified because of the first.
- tjoff 7y ago
  It's not wrong to imprison people against their will. It's part of the societal contract. Not imprisoning someone when you should is, however, wrong.
  - benjaminbrodie 7y ago
    if, instead of saying "is, however, wrong" you say "is wrong, however" you can save a comma. Just some LFP offered in a kindly spirit.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

>> Yet their business models are reliant on us acting ethically. The way I understand it, every structure in an organised society relies on people acting ethically, or in any case not going out of their way to harm each other without a very good reason. For example. If I go to the doctor I trust that she won't suggest treatments I don't need because she wants to take my money. That sort of thing. For me anyway at least one practical purpose served by morality is that it ensures a society remains functional and does not degenerate into chaos.

1000units 7y ago
This is the foundation of his complaint that large firms are not ethical.
SantalBlush 7y ago
I've had multiple people try to explain to me why morals are necessary for society, as if I'm arguing against them. I'm not even advocating for shoplifting (though perhaps I could have phrased it better), but I think a lot of people may have intentionally misread my overall point. We are in agreement that a common sense of morality is necessary for the proper functioning of society. My issue is precisely that powerful people in our society often do not share our sense of morality, they do not live by it, and they are not adequately punished for it. They use our system of ethics against us, and that is what I find frustrating.
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  I agree- I too think that financially or politically powerful people don't live by the same rules as the rest of us. The answer of course is to band together and form units with more power than those people. Another benefit of living in a society, I guess.