Let's hear it!

[dark_drake]

Example: http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Story?id=2754830&page=2

How does that prove anything? It was a setup by ABC in which the cashier was authorized to give that money out.

[CrAz3D]

Example: http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Story?id=2754830&page=2

How does that prove anything? It was a setup by ABC in which the cashier was authorized to give that money out.

It doesnt.  I just gave an example of how if you Google the subject you'll find that it is unethical but not illegal to keep the money.

[rabbit]

It wasn't illegal because they told him to give extra change.  THAT is consent.  You can't consent to something without knowing you're consenting, that just doesn't make sense.  And CrAz3D, you are just being stubborn.  I'm RIGHT.  Give up.

[trust]

So, in the spirit of the initial topic: I got a haircut today.

[CrAz3D]

It wasn't illegal because they told him to give extra change.  THAT is consent.  You can't consent to something without knowing you're consenting, that just doesn't make sense.  And CrAz3D, you are just being stubborn.  I'm RIGHT.  Give up.

Yeah you can consent to something.

The cashier gave it to him.  That was the consent.

[Sidoh]

Yeah you can consent to something.

The cashier gave it to him.  That was the consent.

Can you consent to something if you're unaware of it?

Also, am I selling my soul if I register as a republican so I can vote for Ron Paul in the primaries?

[CrAz3D]

Yes, you can unknowingly consent.  Just because it is a mistake on the part of the cashier doesn't mean the customer stole something.

[rabbit]

CrAz3D is a retard.  I give up.

[Sidoh]

Yes, you can unknowingly consent.  Just because it is a mistake on the part of the cashier doesn't mean the customer stole something.

So it's okay to have sex with someone because they "consent" while they're under the influence of a drug?

I totally disagree.  Incognizant consent is illegitimate consent.  In fact, I think the two words are mutually exclusive.

[CrAz3D]

Yes, you can unknowingly consent.  Just because it is a mistake on the part of the cashier doesn't mean the customer stole something.

So it's okay to have sex with someone because they "consent" while they're under the influence of a drug?

I totally disagree.  Incognizant consent is illegitimate consent.  In fact, I think the two words are mutually exclusive.

But sometimes you can unknowingly give consent that is valid, you don't always have to give it expressly.

[rabbit]

Yes, you do.  That's what consent IS.

[Sidoh]

But sometimes you can unknowingly give consent that is valid, you don't always have to give it expressly.

Yes, you do.  That's what consent IS.

[Ender]

This extra change / cashier thing is an interesting thorny issue that I think deserves its own thread. Moderators?

I think rabbit made a cogent argument and I agree that walking off with extra change and being aware of it is, by the technical definition of the word, by denotation, stealing.

While I agree that what he did is technically stealing, I am unsure of whether what he did is unethical. There are clearly many forms of stealing -- the word stealing has many connotations, after all, from armed robbery, to shoplifting, to pirating Windows and downloading illegal music -- and it is unclear which forms of stealing are unethical. I think the best way to judge the ethics involved in a form of stealing are through the consequences, as the fact that it is technically stealing does not suffice.

The two consequences of Hagen's actions are that he is

1) stealing money from Walmart
2) risking the cashier's job

The first consequence of his action is clearly ambiguous. First of all, it is comparable to downloading music illegally or pirating Windows. Second of all, this incident wouldn't even qualify for a pinprick on the biceps of Walmart's retail power; the company wouldn't even flinch, and the incident wouldn't affect the salaries of any of the other employees, as Walmart already has an excess of money. Furthermore, as it is for any big company like Walmart, it is uncertain whether Walmart deserves the excesses of money it has.

I feel that the second consequence of his action, risking the cashier's job, is also ambiguous when it comes to ethics. Does the cashier deserve to lose his or her job after making that mistake? If the cashier did it once, and with an exceptional till of $50, it is likely the cashier would do it again. The cashier could end up being a liability to the company. You cannot argue, of course, that the cashier's mistakes will roughly balance out, since more people will admit to being given too little change than too much change. Furthermore, if the cashier is fired, it will open the job to a more capable employee, who may even be in more desperate need of the job anyway.

On the other hand, is the cashier a mother or father or any other person who really needs the money to support him or herself or a family? It gets even thornier than this: if the cashier has financial troubles, are the troubles his or her fault? Was the money wasted away on drugs or gambling? Or was the cashier not granted have enough opportunities in life to be successful? Or is the cashier a high school student saving up for a nintendo DS, not at all a critical life issue.

In summary, I agree that Hagen's action is stealing by the definition of the word, but I'm not sure whether it's unethical.

Also, an issue that I didn't even touch upon is whether a person who admits to a court that he or she knowingly took extra change would be charged with consequences by the court. Like so many other ethical dilemmas, something that is stealing by definition is not necessarily stealing by the law.

[CrAz3D]

In my mind the only question is a legal question.  I see it as unquestionably unethical, though.

[CrAz3D]

Hot damn!  I FINALLY remembered what I was trying to think of!

Hagen did not have the required state of mind to commit larceny.
BASICALLY, he needed to have the intent to take/deprive the owner of something but I do not believe that he had that intent when the money came into his possession.

The intent required is that one intended to deprive the possessor of the property "permanently". Courts have held that "permanence" is not simply keeping forever; it can include the intent to deprive the possessor of economic significance, even if there are plans to return the property later. Although the mens rea of larceny is the intent to steal, the focus is on the loss to the possessor, not the gain to the defendant. Thus, even if the thief did not gain in the taking, it could still be classed as larceny if the possessor lost in the process. Further, the mens rea and actus reus must coincide. If one rents a car with intent to return, then decides to keep it, then there is no larceny (see embezzlement).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larceny