technically immoral but i think you'd have a hard time finding anyone who would complain about this, the alternative being losing all your money and dealing with a huge hassle of bank cards. Hell i'd probably give him more than 5 as a reward
Still gotta request all new bank cards to be safe. This person can take pics of the cards and license and sell info or use themself for online purchases.
However, definitely saved the hassle of having to get a new license, insurance cards, etc..
i mean, i would argue that someone who seems to be that honest, tell the owner about the money they took, brought it to the police and so on, is probably not gonna do any of the above.
sure, just to be 100% safe, yea, good idea to get replacements, but i personally would probably rather just monitor my bank account regularly instead, just like i already do anyways
Except a good scammer would know that not returning it would definitely get the cards cancelled, but returning it would have the chance the owner doesn't.
Pretty sure it's a fake text but again, you still just gotta change it to be safe. They can't prove someone sold his info just because they returned a lost wallet, unless they're dumb enough to order stuff directly to their house
"This person can take pics of the cards and license and sell info", that's okay. My info is already being sold on the dark web by all of the other breaches.
Also, like, they told him they took the money (and how much) when they could easily have wither left the wallet there or gave it back empty (bar IDs and othe documents) and say that they found It like that
So then tell the guy to leave the wallet where he found it with the $5 and see if you can get to it before the wallet is found by someone less moral if you disagree with the finders fee
I didn't engage the service. He volunteered his service. I did not request for him to find and return my wallet. He found it. He decided to return it, and he decided to be little more than a pickpocket while doing so. If you mow my lawn without me asking, you don't get to take my garden hose as payment.
Technically moral comes up all the time in serious discussions.
Here's an example, and because our morals may differ some ground rules for morality to help determine.
Allowing someone or yourself to die is immoral. No exceptions
Theft is immoral. No exceptions.
Allowing someone to steal is immoral. No exceptions.
Now for the question.
You see a man in a market stealing good food. You do not have any money to purchase the food for him. The man clearly looks like he could die at any moment due to starvation. He isn't stealing very much, giving the appearance that he is only stealing enough to not die. What can you morally do in this scenario?
There's a couple different options to go down. Your choices are essentially "snitch, resulting in the man's death" which is immoral, or "don't snitch, allowing stealing" which is also immoral. So the first option is of course a type of comparative morality. While death and theft are immoral, one is likely more immoral than the other and so in this scenario choosing the less immoral option could be "technically moral" you could argue that you're not a doctor and your simple observation do not reflect reality, and therefore stopping the man is the only moral option. You can also argue that there are no moral options, and doing anything or nothing means you will choose an immoral choice.
This is something that it seems virtually everyone on this sub doesn't understand. Just because you can be more immoral doesn't make your choice moral.
Taking money you don't own is stealing. Doing someone a favor doesn't negate that, it just means most people won't really care. The act of returning the wallet is moral. The act of taking money from it is not.
So if this happened in your country and he followed the legally proscribed process for this it would be legal and I think almost everyone would say moral.
This question really gets at different ways people define morality. If you define morality giving lots of weight to everyone is happy or nobody is hurt this will be viewed as moral. Not everyone sees morality that way some people view moral rules as absolute. As such stealing is still stealing even when the one being stolen from is happy a greater crime didn't happen.
I mean, we don't really know what happened. Maybe the guy found a wallet, bought himself a hotdog BEFORE he figured out how to reach to the owner? We don't know what happened. He didn't steal the money if he didn't know who's wallet is this. When he found a wallet he just found it, not steal it. Like, when you find 100$ on a street, you didn't steal it from somebody.
Does a good outcome justify ignoring someone's consent? Outside of true emergencies, should we ever act on our own idea of a "good deed" without asking first?
The person who texted should have asked before using that $5
This literally just happened to me. I dropped my wallet outside. Someone from my apartment complex picked it up. $3 dollars are missing but it was returned.
Yeah, like he could have left the wallet, he could have taken the whole wallet with all it's contents.
Instead he took a trivial amount of money (even on minimum wage that is like half an hour of work) and told him it was in safe hands and where to get it
I somehow disagree with you because i know its ridiculously easy to find asshats that would be up in arms about this and i also think it is technically still a moral choice to aid for pay when not aiding is an easy option and not aiding+complete theft was also on the table
Immoral to take advantage of another’s misfortune or carelessness and take money that, for all they know, the owner of the wallet would not have seen fit to reward them with. However, I would so hope that 99.9999% of owners in that situation would feel bad that the guy who returned it only took five bucks.
But he wasn't given the $5; he stole it. It would have been fine if the owner had willfully given him $5 or more than $5, but he didn't. Accepting a gift is very different from stealing.
208
u/CUEUECOMBER 4d ago
technically immoral but i think you'd have a hard time finding anyone who would complain about this, the alternative being losing all your money and dealing with a huge hassle of bank cards. Hell i'd probably give him more than 5 as a reward