I think the answer is rather apparent, no?

if you have to ask us whether something is immoral or not you are in trouble.

So I was at an arcade and played a game which won me 1 ticket. Kind of jokingly, I put this ticket into one of those ticket counting machines. At first, it didn't register that I had put in a ticket and wouldn't print out a receipt. After a few time pressing the print button, it finally printed a receipt which said I had put in 999,999 tickets. I scanned this into the prize machine and literally wiped the machine of all it's prizes. Is it stealing for me to do this or, since it was a faulty machine, is it the arcade's fault (making it, although not moral, also not immoral on my part)?

By the way, this wasn't me, it was a friend.. I just wrote it was me for simplicity sake but I don't want to deal with any hate mail.

Immoral.

If it had worked out the other way around (in favor of the arcade), would you question whether the arcade had an obligation to correct the error?

@Willtor Of course but I don't think that failure to act is immoral.. My belief is that if a man with 0 IQ played the same system, and he would get the same result, then it's fine. Am I completely alone in this belief?

Does your friend have zero IQ?

Is your friend a pinball wizard?

I think you're alone on this one, jgurstein... unless you're willing to support me into StP next turn?

@abgemacht:

Are _you_ a wizard?

obviously not but, in my opinion, failure to take action is not immoral.

Obviously, it's immoral. Fault does not equate for morality. Certainly, it's not your fault that the counter counted wrong. That doesn't mean that taking advantage of the error isn't immoral of you.

Back to the point about is being the other way around, if you put in 500 tickets and the machine said you put in 1, would it be moral or immoral for the arcade to not correct the mistake? After all, you don't believe that failure to act is immoral.

So... the bank's computer has an error and grandma loses $1000 from her account. She's long since lost the wherewithal to balance her checkbook, but she suddenly realizes she's going to have a hard time with this month's rent. But, of course, when an accountant working for the bank realizes the error, he has no obligation to report it...

@ jgurstein
Failure to take action can be immoral. Say a train is hurting down a track and is about to kil a person. You have the lever to switch the train to a different track, but you dont do it. The man dies. Youre failure to act is immoral.

As for the tickets case, of course it's immoral. this is outright stealing from the arcade.

@Skittles I understand your point but I don't think the cases are comparable because I don't believe that you *can't* take action, I believe that you don't have to if you don't want to. In the reverse case, you can choose to take action and demand the rest of your tickets because the arcade is actually taking your tickets bec its their machine. Even if your right about it being immoral, I really don't think those cases are comparable.

jgurstein, leaving aside the hard question about whether failing to take action is immoral, this case is trivial -- you DIDN'T fail to take action. You took the action of helping yourself to a lot of prizes that you knew you were not entitled to. This is both immoral and illegal (not that the latter is relevant or interesting in this case).

Incidentally, I know it was really your friend who did it. It was just more convenient to write "you" in the above paragraph.

Fine example of non-parent government education. It is this mentality that makes it Ok for government to steal from the successful to give to the lazy. Funny many of.tiff that colleges post immoral think government has the RESPONSIBILITY to.steal.in like manner...

Curious...

@willtor That has the same fault as the reverse arcade case.. It was the bank which stole in the first place and since the accountant is "part" of the bank, in a sense, he is letting the bank steel the money (as it was their computer that made the mistake). If, however, the Grandma had somehow put in 100$ herself and then accidentally inputted that she had put in 10$, I believe the bank has the right to keep the extra 90$ (obviously I know that banks don't work this way but this is theoretical).

@Yaks I believe that the train case is inhuman but not immoral. I believe there is a difference.

@Semck Just because you take action for your own benefit doesn't mean you also have to take action for the part that will hurt you... you can pick and choose, its not an all-for-one either take action or don't..

@Krellin didn't really understand that.

as i said at the start you are in trouble.

"@Semck Just because you take action for your own benefit doesn't mean you also have to take action for the part that will hurt you... you can pick and choose, its not an all-for-one either take action or don't.."

Now you're just making up crap. If you take action that constitutes taking something that doesn't belong to you, and to which you have no right, it is theft.

You might as well say, "Taking a bicycle from a store isn't wrong -- as long as you pay for it. But therefore, taking a bicycle from a store isn't wrong, as an action. And paying for it is a separate action. So I can just take it from the store and not pay for it, and it still won't be wrong."

@jgurstein, semck is right; you are actively taking advantage of the arcade by cheating the system, so even if you do beleive that passivity is moral in any case the actions of your freind are still immoral. By your logic, the only not-immoral thing youre friend would be doing is failing to alert the arcade of their error.

wow semck you type fast

jgurstein, this isn't even remotely morally ambiguous. How one deals with dishonest gains is the archetypal case. The guy may be your friend, but he wronged the arcade by looting them. There's no other way to slice it.

@jgurstein: "@Krellin didn't really understand that."

He's shoehorning taxes into your example because he doesn't like them and wants to show that they're just as immoral.

@semck again, I don't think the cases are comparable. Let's say, however, that you walked into the bike store and all of a sudden, the man behind the counter said, "you must be my father because he came to me in a dream last night and told me he would be coming into the store wearing a yellow hat." Looking up at your hat, you realize it is yellow and this guy obviously thinks your his reincarnated father. You then ask the guy, "can I get a bike?" The man, obviously still believing your his father, says to take one for free. Is it "immoral" to inform the guy that you are not in fact his dad? I don't think so. Because if he's the one who made a mistake, why would you have an obligation to fix it?

@Willtor so is he agreeing with me? lol

First of all, jgurstein, the point is that my example applied the principle you articulated that you can separate actions. The fact that you realize it is wrong just shows how absurd your principle is. After all -- if a clerk sees you walking out with the bike, but mistakenly thinks you paid for it, is it suddenly OK that you're stealing it because now somebody in the store made a mistake?

"Because if he's the one who made a mistake, why would you have an obligation to fix it? "

You don't have an obligation to fix his mistake. You're welcome to walk out of the store letting him think you're his dad. You're just not welcome to walk out of the store WITH HIS FREE BIKE letting him think you're his dad. Because he's not the only one who made a mistake. You did too, only you knew better and didn't say anything.

Once again: taking the bike is not inaction -- it's action.

I begin to wonder why you asked, though. Your question has instigated unanimity on webdip for the only time that I can remember. If you disagree despite the opinions and strong arguments that have been advanced, you obviously don't respect our moral opinions, and you have wasted our time.

@jgurstein:

No. He disagrees with you so drastically, he's compared your example to taxes. Not only is he not on your side, but your friend is guilty of the worst kind of evil he can imagine.

Ok I can see that I pissed off a few people and Semck, of course I want to hear your opinions or I would be wasting my time as well. But when is the last time you have known someone to argue a point and then change his philosophy because of a counter-example? It usually doesn't go down that smoothly. Now, if we all can't have a friendly debate without it turning me into a monster, then I really don't want to continue..

jgurstein, I don't think anything I said turned you into a monster. I'll admit my statement was still a little strong, though -- you are not required to change you mind merely because everybody you asked has disagreed with you.

That said, your position is completely unreasonable, and you should change your mind for that reason. Think of it like this: knowingly taking something that you have no right to is wrong. Notice that nothing about that statement refers in any way to the mistake the arcade or of any other person. It refers only to YOUR action and to YOUR mental state at the time of the action, because that is all that is relevant here. Your friend took something he knew wasn't his. End of story.

Here's something for morals, go read Deuteronomy Chapter 22. If you can't live by that, you're crazy. - [BCAC]

Stealing from an arcade is like stealing from Al Capone. Nobody cares because the victim is a thief.

Why did you ask a question for opinions if yours is firmly set? This is the philosophical equivalent to my girlfriend asking me if she should wear the blue dress or the red dress, when I answer red she says, "I think I'm going to wear the blue one."

Sorry that I didn't read to the end of the thread. I see that someone already made the same statement.

@jgurstein,
"I want to hear your opinions or I would be wasting my time as well. But when is the last time you have known someone to argue a point and then change his philosophy because of a counter-example?"

There are several problems with this. You asked for opinions. You then argue vehemently that those opinions can't be right because you disagree. And, these aren't counter examples that people like smeck are giving you. They are pointing out flaws in your logic. Your unwillingness or inability to recognize those flaws is annoying at best. You are either playing Devil's Advocate (poorly) or you truly don't understand the logic you are implementing in your argument.

And just for fun, this is quite similar to your question. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/detroit-man-gambles-away-1-5-million-accidentally-191619543.html

Interesting thing here - taking is theft, giving is not against the law.

So if the bank/machine 'gives' you money that is ok. Whereas if it takes from you then that is bad.

This is ignoring the machine as we can pretend it is not a morale agent, that it makes neither moral nor immoral decisions.

So the machine's mistakes can hurt you and thus be wrong without it intending to; or help you and thus feel right...

But we're more interested in the morality of your actions. There is a nice symmetry, it is still moral for you to give money to the machine (bank or casino) but if the machine makes a mistake are you actively giving something? You are not making a choice so it is neither moral nor immoral for you.

Here the question was about the opposite - the machine accidentally gives you money; and you actively take it. Thus you are responcible here for this immoral 'taking' - you actually had the choice to leave the prizes there and you made the immoral choice.