Quote:
Originally Posted by footfootfoot
At school the other week one of my colleagues decided to flog her left-over halloween candy at .25 per, via an honor system arrangement. I laughed derisively (for a number of reasons, actually) pointing out that most of the candy would just be taken.
Lo and behold, not three days later half the candy was gone and she'd only made about 20 "sales." She was shocked to discover pilfering in this establishment.
We got to talking and I noted that while many people often won't think twice about stealing a quarter or two worth of candy, those same people would hesitate at stealing $10,000. Yet, in the first instance they are selling their integrity for twenty five cents but hesitating at selling it for the higher price.
Sure, there's the difference in opportunity and fear of punishment, but I think most people see the morality of the two things differently.
Are they different? Why?
|
Around here, most people would bring in their left-over candy that they didn't want themselves and leave it for free for anyone else who wanted it. In light of that, selling the candy for a quarter seems a bit tight-fisted, maybe even a tad mean spirited - especially if the candy wasn't worth 25 cents to begin with (or was it?)
Going from that point of view, folks may have felt no special obligation to compensate the seller due more to mild feelings of resentment toward her as much as anything else. It's the PRINCIPLE of the thing, right? What's she doing with all that left over candy, anyhow? If I buy too much, I always give the extra for free to the little kids who show up at my door - not try to skim off a profit with it from the pigs who happen to skulk thru the breakroom at work.
Does this mean I'm evil?