Moral quandary

[Cairo]

Good sir, I would like to impart that it is my considered opinion that it matters not the store, nor the manufacture of your prize. This boon you have described is, most assuredly, a test of your upright character. Certainly you could keep this fantastic machinery, but at what cost?
And, prithee, do you require 32 gigs?

 

[ace_of_something]

Assuming they didn't accidentally charge you for the 32gb (cuz i've had something like that happen and said "fuck it, this is what i paid for anyway). I would probably go back if i was still close by. If I was a ways away i would tell myself "I'll do it later" and then probably forget.

 

[Grampy_bone]

I'd keep it and I think anyone who says they'd do otherwise is a lying liar.

 

[smokeybearsb]

If I kept the 32 gig I would end up using just under 8 gigabytes of memory and then never be able to fill it up again, because of some error message "There is a problem with your iPod and no more files can be added to it."
In that situation with such a difference in memory and price, I would take it back.

I want to present another moral quandary:

Situation 1: You are at a railroad track. Tied to the railroad track are five men, who can't escape. A train is coming. However, there is a lever that, if pulled, will allow you to shift the train onto an alternate track with only one man tied to it.

Do you pull the lever and make it run over the one man or simply let it run over the five men?

Situation 2: You are standing on a bridge. Below you is another railroad track with five men tied to the track. Another train is coming towards them, and will run over them. However, there is a large man standing on the bridge next to you. This man is large enough that it seems he will stop the train from running over the five men.

Do you push the man off the bridge into the path of the train or let it run over the five men?

My answers would be yes and no.

 

[Ignignoct]

I'd keep it and I think anyone who says they'd do otherwise is a lying liar.

Some of us have transcended the idea that material wealth compensates for a bankruptcy of conscience.

 

[Aesthetical Quietus]

I'd walk over to my car, put the key in the ignition and after about 10 minutes of heated self argumentation rip the keys out of the ignition grumble back into the store and inform them of their error.
I'd never be able to live with myself if I'd taken it. I won't stop regretting not taking it either though, especially once I used all 8GB.
I wouldn't buy an iPod in the first place though. MP3's are cheaper and I hate apple. [DRM retardation much?].

I'm just a damnable idiot nice guy, and the thought of willfully ripping someone off doesn't appeal to me.

+1

 

[El Taco the Rogue]

I'd decide to keep it, and then after a long, sleepless night, sprint straight back to the store, to return it. I guilt trip easy.

 

[lgrayson]

I don't want to jack the thread, but I want to present another moral quandary:

Situation 1: You are at a railroad track. Tied to the railroad track are five men, who can't escape. A train is coming. However, there is a lever that, if pulled, will allow you to shift the train onto an alternate track with only one man tied to it.

Do you pull the lever and make it run over the one man or simply let it run over the five men?

Situation 2: You are standing on a bridge. Below you is another railroad track with five men tied to the track. Another train is coming towards them, and will run over them. However, there is a large man standing on the bridge next to you. This man is large enough that it seems he will stop the train from running over the five men.

Do you push the man off the bridge into the path of the train or let it run over the five men?

My answers would be yes and no.

In both cases, I'd probably be so frozen with indecision that the train would run its course.

 

[Aesthetical Quietus]

I don't want to jack the thread, but I want to present another moral quandary:

Situation 1: You are at a railroad track. Tied to the railroad track are five men, who can't escape. A train is coming. However, there is a lever that, if pulled, will allow you to shift the train onto an alternate track with only one man tied to it.

Do you pull the lever and make it run over the one man or simply let it run over the five men?

Situation 2: You are standing on a bridge. Below you is another railroad track with five men tied to the track. Another train is coming towards them, and will run over them. However, there is a large man standing on the bridge next to you. This man is large enough that it seems he will stop the train from running over the five men.

Do you push the man off the bridge into the path of the train or let it run over the five men?

My answers would be yes and no.

Situation 1, I'd switch the tracks. 5 lives are worth more than 1.
Situation 2, You mean as in the guy would be so big that the train would hit him and stop?
'cause y'know, I've seen trains when they get going, you could put a truckload of fat guys there and it'd still end up killing those 5 guys.

 

[smokeybearsb]

I don't want to jack the thread, but I want to present another moral quandary:

Situation 1: You are at a railroad track. Tied to the railroad track are five men, who can't escape. A train is coming. However, there is a lever that, if pulled, will allow you to shift the train onto an alternate track with only one man tied to it.

Do you pull the lever and make it run over the one man or simply let it run over the five men?

Situation 2: You are standing on a bridge. Below you is another railroad track with five men tied to the track. Another train is coming towards them, and will run over them. However, there is a large man standing on the bridge next to you. This man is large enough that it seems he will stop the train from running over the five men.

Do you push the man off the bridge into the path of the train or let it run over the five men?

My answers would be yes and no.

Situation 1, I'd switch the tracks. 5 lives are worth more than 1.
Situation 2, You mean as in the guy would be so big that the train would hit him and stop?
'cause y'know, I've seen trains when they get going, you could put a truckload of fat guys there and it'd still end up killing those 5 guys.

Idk I think you just go with it and don't question it. Basically the situation is you either save five people at the expense of one in the first situation, but in the second you have to murder someone to save the other five. It's basically a question that deals with morals in society.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Take it back, with the amount of money we make off Ipods you can steal one and we won't make money off ipods for quite a while. IDR what the profit margin on the Ipod is for us but for 360s and PS3s it is about 3 bucks.... of course we charge 49.99 for a controller that cost 6 bucks to make. or 19 dollars for a case that cost 3.... anyways enough chasing rabbits.

Also for your character and the sales guys job i'd return it.

 

[Aesthetical Quietus]

I don't want to jack the thread, but I want to present another moral quandary:

Situation 1: You are at a railroad track. Tied to the railroad track are five men, who can't escape. A train is coming. However, there is a lever that, if pulled, will allow you to shift the train onto an alternate track with only one man tied to it.

Do you pull the lever and make it run over the one man or simply let it run over the five men?

Situation 2: You are standing on a bridge. Below you is another railroad track with five men tied to the track. Another train is coming towards them, and will run over them. However, there is a large man standing on the bridge next to you. This man is large enough that it seems he will stop the train from running over the five men.

Do you push the man off the bridge into the path of the train or let it run over the five men?

My answers would be yes and no.

Situation 1, I'd switch the tracks. 5 lives are worth more than 1.
Situation 2, You mean as in the guy would be so big that the train would hit him and stop?
'cause y'know, I've seen trains when they get going, you could put a truckload of fat guys there and it'd still end up killing those 5 guys.

Idk I think you just go with it and don't question it. Basically the situation is you either save five people at the expense of one in the first situation, but in the second you have to murder someone to save the other five. It's basically a question that deals with morals in society.

It's a stupid way of saying it, they should've come up with a more common sense one.
Such as:
Situation 2:
You are in the back room of an import store. In the main room there are 6 people. A man has just walked in, he is between the people and the exit. You have an exotic gun in your hands, which you have just finished inserting a clip into to make sure it is functioning properly. The man who has just walked in, you are in the back room and he can't see you, he pulls a pistol out of the back of his belt, says calmly "You fuckers are dead." and proceeds to shoot one of the other customers in the head. He then aims at another person. Do you shoot the guy to save the other 5 people or do you let the police catch him later[remembering that your life is not in danger at all because he can't see you]?

 

[chipmunk2510]

Honestly? I'd keep it. The other customer would still get his IPod either way so why bother returning it?

 

[Mookie_Magnus]

Return it and get a Zune.

I agree with this aforementioned post, Zunes rule.

Verily I would keep it, because Apple charges too much for their products already, an 8GB iPod Touch shouldn't cost that much less than a 32GB. Although, do you really need 32GB of music and Apps?

 

[somerandomguy76]

I would return it, only because of the price difference. If the price difference was, say, $20 or so, I would treasure my secret savings; but since the difference between the two items is considerably more, I would be forced to return it by what little conscience I have left.

However, I would only return it if I noticed it in the mall (I'm assuming this is in a mall), and not in the parking lot or later. I mean, I'm not a saint. Turning around, pshaw.

Nice use of the word 'erudite', by the way. 'tis truly a great word.

Agreed.

Laziness > conscience by a long shot.

 

[Eiseman]

Psh, let me tell you what I'd do.

On the one front, I'm a morally bankrupt bastard. On the other hand, my musical range doesn't hold more than even 5 gigs of memory space.

So what I'd do is return the 32G model, on credit, nab the 8G model and splurge on the remainder. Assuming the retailer doesn't catch on.

 

[GRoXERs]

I'd return it.
Keeping it could get the poor sap working the counter fired, leading to a downward spiral of alcoholism, heartbreak, and suicide.
y'know, just saying...

 

[Shas]

I don't want to jack the thread, but I want to present another moral quandary:

Situation 1: You are at a railroad track. Tied to the railroad track are five men, who can't escape. A train is coming. However, there is a lever that, if pulled, will allow you to shift the train onto an alternate track with only one man tied to it.

Do you pull the lever and make it run over the one man or simply let it run over the five men?

Situation 2: You are standing on a bridge. Below you is another railroad track with five men tied to the track. Another train is coming towards them, and will run over them. However, there is a large man standing on the bridge next to you. This man is large enough that it seems he will stop the train from running over the five men.

Do you push the man off the bridge into the path of the train or let it run over the five men?

My answers would be yes and no.

Situation 1, I'd switch the tracks. 5 lives are worth more than 1.
Situation 2, You mean as in the guy would be so big that the train would hit him and stop?
'cause y'know, I've seen trains when they get going, you could put a truckload of fat guys there and it'd still end up killing those 5 guys.

Idk I think you just go with it and don't question it. Basically the situation is you either save five people at the expense of one in the first situation, but in the second you have to murder someone to save the other five. It's basically a question that deals with morals in society.

It's a stupid way of saying it, they should've come up with a more common sense one.
Such as:
Situation 2:
You are in the back room of an import store. In the main room there are 6 people. A man has just walked in, he is between the people and the exit. You have an exotic gun in your hands, which you have just finished inserting a clip into to make sure it is functioning properly. The man who has just walked in, you are in the back room and he can't see you, he pulls a pistol out of the back of his belt, says calmly "You fuckers are dead." and proceeds to shoot one of the other customers in the head. He then aims at another person. Do you shoot the guy to save the other 5 people or do you let the police catch him later[remembering that your life is not in danger at all because he can't see you]?

That's a bit different. in the first situation 2, the large man (im assuming you push him onto a track switch and that's how it works) hasn't done anything wrong, but killing him will save others.
In the other one, where the man starts killing other people, he is endangering others rather than others being in danger by the nature of their position.

I'd probably keep it, (assuming Walmart or something) seeing as its going to get cheaper eventually anyways. Unless that clerk is constantly screwing up, he shouldn't be fired if he does his job right the rest of the time