I ordered 4 pairs of shoes online. I received 3, 1 if which was damaged.

A few days later I called to complaint about the missing shoe and the damaged shoe. They tell me nothing they can do about the damaged shoe, but will pay me back for the undelivered shoe and that they knew already as the stock had actually run out and the return was already in process.

The transaction went through today, I received payment for all 4 shoes…

So basically I got 2 shoes plus a damaged shoe for free

  • Perspectivist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    From a purely moral standpoint it seems rather obvious that the right thing to do is to contact them and let them know about the mistake. I’m quite literally unable to come up with an opposing argument.

    • ILoveUnions@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      An easy opposing argument would be if they’ve done wage theft. Which near every large company has. Or if they’ve used unethical business practices (ditto)

      • Perspectivist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        24 hours ago

        You’re shifting the question from “what’s the right thing to do?” to “does this company deserve honesty?” - which isn’t a counterargument, it’s a dodge. The idea that the company probably committed wage theft is pure speculation, and even if true, it wouldn’t justify dishonesty in return. That’s moral relativism, not ethics. The question here is simple: do you knowingly keep money that isn’t yours? Everything else is just rationalizing what one already wants to do.

        • ILoveUnions@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          23 hours ago

          I’m responding to you asking for a purely moral stance, with a possible counter argument. I’m not suggesting to take without checking, I’m suggesting check and it’s very likely they have.

          , it wouldn’t justify dishonesty in return

          It would justify not going out of your way to return money to them.

          That’s moral relativism, not ethics

          There’s no such thing as morals or ethics that are not relative. Stating that has no meaning. When discussing morals, you must be willing to debate the morals foundations themselves. Are you?

          • Perspectivist@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            21 hours ago

            It would justify not going out of your way to return money to them.

            I disagree. A moral universalist view would hold that taking what isn’t yours is wrong, full stop. You can argue there are degrees to it - that stealing from a cancer patient causes more harm than stealing from a megacorporation - but something being less bad than the alternative still doesn’t make it good or right. From a purely moral standpoint, the right thing to do is to let them know they overpaid. Treat others as you’d want to be treated yourself.