Fairness

[original PM]

the point I was trying to make was that you know those items should cost you something but you have followed the process and it has turned out something was wrong and you did not get charged

so do you have a moral obligation to tell someone at Morrisons and pay the correct amount?

[Mich the Tester]

the point I was trying to make was that you know those items should cost you something but you have followed the process and it has turned out something was wrong and you did not get charged

so do you have a moral obligation to tell someone at Morrisons and pay the correct amount?

Yes, but one wonders whether the check out girl will be intelligent enough or in fact authorised to do anything about it.

[AtW]

so do you have a moral obligation to tell someone at Morrisons and pay the correct amount?

If you are more or less sure it's a mistake then taking advantage of it is dishonest in this case.

[AtW]

Any more than buying 3 hundredweight of cheese to get the points in Tesco?

Using Tesco in the first place is big error of judgement

[original PM]

If you are more or less sure it's a mistake then taking advantage of it is dishonest in this case.

true you have a moral obligation - but no legal obligation I would imagine

[DodgyAgent]

Using Tesco in the first place is big error of judgement

Maybe but there is no law against it.

for someone who generally likes rules and laws I find it surprising that you now think it right to interfere in matters that are not clarified by law. You seem to think that because YOU see something as unfair that legislation should allow people to be prosecuted on this basis. This sort of "moralising" may in some cases be desirable (such as a murderer being "got off" on a technicality) but it is no way to run any sort of legal system.

If laws can be made that create unintended consequences then it is incumbent on legislators to get things right. As soon as we allow "fairness" to come in and prop up poor legislation then law makers will become lazy, and the interpretation of the law will become entirely subjective to those in power. This will lead to a totalitarian state that would then truly qualify as being "unfair".

You would then have to take your business to another country and we would not want that.

[original PM]

Maybe but there is no law against it.

for someone who generally likes rules and laws I find it surprising that you now think it right to interfere in matters that are not clarified by law. You seem to think that because YOU see something as unfair that legislation should allow people to be prosecuted on this basis. This sort of "moralising" may in some cases be desirable (such as a murderer being "got off" on a technicality) but it is no way to run any sort of legal system.

If laws can be made that create unintended consequences then it is incumbent on legislators to get things right. As soon as we allow "fairness" to come in and prop up poor legislation then law makers will become lazy, and the interpretation of the law will become entirely subjective to those in power. This will lead to a totalitarian state that would then truly qualify as being "unfair".

You would then have to take your business to another country and we would not want that.

Hmmm and we do not have that situation now?

[SantaClaus]

...If laws can be made that create unintended consequences then it is incumbent on legislators to get things right. As soon as we allow "fairness" to come in and prop up poor legislation then law makers will become lazy, and the interpretation of the law will become entirely subjective to those in power. This will lead to a totalitarian state that would then truly qualify as being "unfair".
...y

Hmmm and we do not have that situation now?

Yep, head over to the BN66 thread. Lazy lawmakers = retrospective legislation.

[DodgyAgent]

Hmmm and we do not have that situation now?

we do but the legislators are being made to pay (overcomplicating the tax system is an example)