• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is it ethical...

Ethical?
That may be too heavy a word for the circumstance. It's a bit of mischief that doesn't have much impact. Their literature is getting distributed, which is their main goal.
 
Well, I had my friend who's a lawyer look into it. My friend can't find anything illegal about shipping oneself anything one wants for a donation of zero. In fact, my friend thinks you can even enter your real information with real addresses and phone numbers and there's nothing they can do to you.

Nowhere on the family.org website do they mention that a minimum donation of ANYTHING is required or that accepting materials mandates you to do anything else.

Post the link in a more conspicuous spot. But only after my friend gets his three copies of Narnia.
 
My conscience has no problem with this whatsoever. One shouldn't offer free stuff if one doesn't really mean it. What's the Latin for "Let the seller beware"....caveat mercantor?

:degrin:
 
Loss Leader said:
Well, I had my friend who's a lawyer look into it. My friend can't find anything illegal about shipping oneself anything one wants for a donation of zero. In fact, my friend thinks you can even enter your real information with real addresses and phone numbers and there's nothing they can do to you.

Nowhere on the family.org website do they mention that a minimum donation of ANYTHING is required or that accepting materials mandates you to do anything else.

Post the link in a more conspicuous spot. But only after my friend gets his three copies of Narnia.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't actually charging for things affect their tax-exempt status?

In any case, the website works just like the fellow says it does. I'll let you know in 7-10 days if anything actually shows up.

I'm in Canada, BTW, so if they send stuff here they'll likely send it anywhere.
 
Horatius said:
Wouldn't actually charging for things affect their tax-exempt status?
Click to expand...
Not if they call it a donation.

I am wrestling with the ethical question, but it is tempting to take advantage of this group. My fear, though, is in giving them my address. I don't want their propaganda to suddenly start showing up at my home. I would not want in any way to appear to be aligned with their views, and who knows who they give their names and addresses, too? I might end up being flooded with b.s. from other whacky groups.
 
headscratcher4 said:
http://www.foolishpeople.com/foolishpeople/2006/08/vs_bigots.html

To rip them off...sounds like fun, but?
Click to expand...

It would, in my opinion, be unethical (and immoral). FoF has to spend money on either obtaining the goods or creating them. While they give them away for 'donations', they obviously expect to make enough money to cover their costs. By just going through repeatedly and taking $100 worth of goods, you are, in effect, making it more difficult to cover their costs. Basically, you're stealing from them.

While you may not like them, and you may in fact hope that they fail in their endeavors, unethical behavior is not the answer, if for no other reason than it reduces your credibility, and increases theirs.

Marc
 
Marc L said:
It would, in my opinion, be unethical (and immoral). FoF has to spend money on either obtaining the goods or creating them. While they give them away for 'donations', they obviously expect to make enough money to cover their costs. By just going through repeatedly and taking $100 worth of goods, you are, in effect, making it more difficult to cover their costs. Basically, you're stealing from them.

While you may not like them, and you may in fact hope that they fail in their endeavors, unethical behavior is not the answer, if for no other reason than it reduces your credibility, and increases theirs.

Marc
Click to expand...
No, it is not theft, the organisation is giving away merchandise, they then ask (but do not demand) a voluntary donation in return. Before the goods are dispatched the organisation is well aware of the amount donated. If they still choose to give away goods for no financial return that is their choice. Remember, this is essentially a promotional offer, would you claim that it was immoral or steeling to sign up for a 30 day trail of AOL, and then cancel before you where billed? How is that morally different?
 
Marc L said:
By just going through repeatedly and taking $100 worth of goods, you are, in effect, making it more difficult to cover their costs. Basically, you're stealing from them.
Click to expand...

It may be a lot of things, but one thing I know is it is not theft. It's not petty theft. It's not even theft by trick. I read all of the pertinent web pages very carefully; they are giving stuff away for free. They do not demand money; They do not state that taking the gifts obligates one in any way. We are depriving them of nothing with which they will not willingly part. I have no problems with it.
 
brodski said:
No, it is not theft, the organisation is giving away merchandise, they then ask (but do not demand) a voluntary donation in return. Before the goods are dispatched the organisation is well aware of the amount donated. If they still choose to give away goods for no financial return that is their choice. Remember, this is essentially a promotional offer, would you claim that it was immoral or steeling to sign up for a 30 day trail of AOL, and then cancel before you where billed? How is that morally different?
Click to expand...

I need to cogitate on this one. It still seems like it's at least unethical, if not immoral (I take your point on theft). I was up late last night and up early this morning, so let me see if I can explain why later.

Marc
 
Haha... Would like to help, but there is actually nothing in their crap that I want. Oh well.
 
Marc L said:
I need to cogitate on this one. It still seems like it's at least unethical, if not immoral (I take your point on theft). I was up late last night and up early this morning, so let me see if I can explain why later.

Marc
Click to expand...
I can understand why it feels wrong, but I can't come up with a reason why it's any more wrong than taking other promotional items when you have little intention of buying the main product.
 
brodski said:
I can understand why it feels wrong, but I can't come up with a reason why it's any more wrong than taking other promotional items when you have little intention of buying the main product.
Click to expand...

I think this is where I'm seeing the problem. In my opinion, it's a matter of degree. Taking brodski's AOL promotion, it's one thing to take the 30 day free trial and then either subscribe or cancel. In that case, it's an expected write-off. AOL intended for you to try their product, decide if you like it, and then, hopefully, buy it.

On the other hand, imagine brodski were able to get a dozen separate free trials. He activates one as another expires, using different names, etc. Given how many free trials AOL offers, brodski could continue this for a couple of years, getting totally free access to AOL.

Now, on the one hand, it's not immoral. Like brodski mentioned with the donations, you're not taking anything that wasn't freely offered. On the other hand, I feel that it is unethical. By, essentially, cheating the system, you are taking from the company (either AOL of FoF) more than they intended to give (and, in the case of the OP's campaign, more than they may be able to give).

To use another example. You're hungry. Starving, in fact. A kindly old lady (or man, if you prefer) offers you some food. You accept. Rather, however, than just taking enough food for one meal, you raid her pantry, and stock up enough food to last you a week. You haven't stolen from her-after all, she freely offered you some food. But you have taken advantage of the offer to receive more than she expected to give, and now, she may be the one going hungry.

I suppose in the end it's a question of whether or not the ends justify the means. Several hundred dollars worth of stuff (valuable or not) according to the website mentioned in the OP, two years worth of AOL, and a week's worth of food are the ends.

Is cheating really justified in any of these situations?

Marc
 
here's my take on it;

it's not unethical. It's a free rider dilemma

(where an individual can opt out of a scheme set up for communal benefit at no immediate cost to himself, but to the detriment of the group. Examples could be hopping the turnstiles for the subway, or on a more expansive level, the reason why socialism is utopian.)

However, in this case defecting is your optimum response because you actively want the scheme to fail. So it's a free rider dilemma without the dilemma :)
 
Last edited:
Marc L said:
I think this is where I'm seeing the problem. In my opinion, it's a matter of degree. Taking brodski's AOL promotion, it's one thing to take the 30 day free trial and then either subscribe or cancel. In that case, it's an expected write-off. AOL intended for you to try their product, decide if you like it, and then, hopefully, buy it.

On the other hand, imagine brodski were able to get a dozen separate free trials. He activates one as another expires, using different names, etc. Given how many free trials AOL offers, brodski could continue this for a couple of years, getting totally free access to AOL.

Now, on the one hand, it's not immoral. Like brodski mentioned with the donations, you're not taking anything that wasn't freely offered. On the other hand, I feel that it is unethical. By, essentially, cheating the system, you are taking from the company (either AOL of FoF) more than they intended to give (and, in the case of the OP's campaign, more than they may be able to give).
Click to expand...
It is unethical in this case because it is deceptive. He must give false information to continue his free trial indefinitely. There is no such deception required to receive the things from FoF.

To use another example. You're hungry. Starving, in fact. A kindly old lady (or man, if you prefer) offers you some food. You accept. Rather, however, than just taking enough food for one meal, you raid her pantry, and stock up enough food to last you a week. You haven't stolen from her-after all, she freely offered you some food. But you have taken advantage of the offer to receive more than she expected to give, and now, she may be the one going hungry.
Click to expand...
If someone opens their pantry to me and says "take what you like", I shall do so. If there intent is to give less, it is their job to state that intent. I should not have to be a mindreader to be ethical.
 
Marc L said:
I need to cogitate on this one. It still seems like it's at least unethical, if not immoral (I take your point on theft). I was up late last night and up early this morning, so let me see if I can explain why later.

Marc
Click to expand...
How about this? Order a boat-load of stuff and give it to charity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom