Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
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 would justify not going out of your way to return money to them.
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?
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.