Poll: You come across a broken ATM...

fletch_talon

Elite Member
Nov 6, 2008
1,461
0
41
Imagine for a moment you have a wardrobe malfunction. Your pocket rips open and your wallet falls out. The person behind you decides to pick it up and keep it and you keep on walking none the wiser.

According to quite a few people here, that's okay. Is that okay? Apparently it is, as long as the person who picks up the wallet is much poorer than the person who dropped it.
 

Playful Pony

Clop clop!
Sep 11, 2012
531
0
0
I'd take it all, and any guilt I would drown in chocolatecakeicecream... Agh they make that one so good...
 

geK0

New member
Jun 24, 2011
1,846
0
0
Alandoril said:
geK0 said:
I voted no

not sure how honest that is

Ethical dilemmas aside, in a real-life situation I'd probably consider the risks of taking a bank's money too great.
And yet they have no trouble taking our money. Save your guilt for something that deserves it.
I'm not the type of person who tries to rationalize his way around ethical dilemmas with poor excuses like "oh the bank deserves it".

If you don't like bank fees, keep your money under your mattress.
 

DarthSka

New member
Mar 28, 2011
325
0
0
All I can say is I would PROBABLY give it back, but the temptation might win the day if it actually happens. In the end it's money that does not belong to me and I know for a fact who it belongs to. It would be different if I was just walking along and I found a 100 dollar bill on the sidewalk as it could come from anyone and anywhere.
 

Silvianoshei

New member
May 26, 2011
284
0
0
Nope. Too easy to trace bills these days for one thing, the feds would be on your ass unless you laundered the hell out of it. Good luck finding a money launderer who will take you seriously, and not just run off with the bills. You're just some average joe, and his reputation won't be hurt since you aren't in contact with his regular clientele-

I should probably stop talking.

For reals though: I wouldn't. I have money, and I don't feel like I need to take anything from anyone.
 

Berithil

Maintenence Man of the Universe
Mar 19, 2009
1,600
0
0
I confess it would be tempting, but I wouldn't keep it. It's still stealing, even if no one is watching.
 

Brainwreck

New member
Dec 2, 2012
256
0
0
Yes, I would take the free money that in the context of this theoretical question would not ever implicate me in any way. Wouldn't feel guilty either.

I'm nobody's moral compass, and I don't hold myself to particularly high ideals either. 'Don't hurt others too badly' is pretty much it for moral questions.
 
Aug 1, 2010
2,768
0
0
MagunBFP said:
Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
I'd keep it in a second if I had a guarantee I wouldn't be caught.

The only doubt that would come into it would be my paranoia of being seen in another camera seeing the reflection off of someone's eyeball or something.

Without a guarantee and just knowing the one camera was broken? Depends on other factors like people in sight, other cameras in sight, amount of money etc.

Morality would never enter the equation as every single person has their own version or right and wrong and in MY version, it's fine to take a relatively small amount of money from multi-billion dollar corporation that has done nothing but steal and screw the country for the last decade.

MagunBFP said:
Wow, its amazing how many of you would be thieves given the oppurtunity. Sadly its not surprising that despite the banks listing their fees and charges AND you having the option of changing banks AND you signing and agreeing to the banks fee structures before you actually open the account so many of you have said it would be justified and the banks deserve to be stolen from.

For those short sighted amongst us who believe this would be a victimless crime and that because the money is insured no one loses at, think ahead... the banks pay insurance premiums, the more they claim on the insurance they higher the premiums go up, the bank won't let higher running costs cut into its profits so it will raise its fees/justify raising interest rates. Guess who ends up paying more because of your greed?
First, just because we know about and agreed to the fees and whatnot doesn't mean they aren't bullshit thievery tactics.

Second, we're not talking about ripping the banks off for the insane amounts it would take to effect us. The hypothetical is 1 ATM and 1 person getting less than two hundred thousand dollars. The premiums aren't going to go up because of that.
Who is going to guarantee that you won't get caught? Anyone who can make that promise is a witness to your theft, which makes them a possible risk because they might identify you.

If you think the fees and charges are bullshit why don't you go to a different bank? Or if they're all evil keep your money in your matress. You want the security and convience of a bank you have to pay for it, they're not charities they are a business and like other business are in it for the money just like you and everyone else. Your justification of "it's ok to steal from them, they're rich and therefore evil" is just an excuse to make you feel rightous when you'd just be a theif. If you have to be gauranteed that no one could possibly make you responsible for your actions how can you even suggest the have the moral high ground?

If the bank makes a claim on their insurance for the money then the premium is going to go up thats how insurance works, if you're more of a risk/liability you pay for it. Even worse would be if the bank decided to wear the cost and not involve insurance, the additional security the have to pay for to prevent it from happening again will see a bigger increase in fees. As for the third option, that the bank might just wipe the $200,000 and not worry about it at all, I suggest you try missing a loan payment or two and see how forgiving they over just $200
Well now you're just being silly.

It says right in the OP: For this exercise, there is no connection that would point this at you. You could walk away with the money and no one would know it was you.

So read a bit more.

Second, just because they're a business doesn't mean I should just bend over and say "Well, they gotta make money!" No. Fuck that. They have to be held to a standard the same as any other business. Granted, the position that rich = evil is stupid. However, equally stupid is the opposing position that being a business means everything they do is their right and the costumers just have to take it or leave.

Third, I wouldn't feel righteous either way. I simply wouldn't care because in the modern world, most if not all banks are extremely unkind entities. They take houses, sell bad investments and generally screw people. Does that make it morally right? Probably not. If upon reading the article that someone (me) had taken money from an ATM, you wanted to shed a tear and damn me to hell, you have the right. I would feel nothing.

Finally, I get what you're saying, but I'm just not seeing fees going up from that tiny of an amount. If they did, myself and many others would simply change banks as you suggested originally. The bank would know this would happen and I doubt they would be willing to lose people over 200,000 dollars or less. It just doesn't make sense from an economic perspective. There's also a massive difference between a loan that they can hold you to and crack down on, and a chunk of money they can do nothing about.
 

EeveeElectro

Cats.
Aug 3, 2008
7,055
0
0
Take it, no guilt.

I get shat on so much whenever something good happens, I'll grab it by both hands. Also I really need the money.
 

-Samurai-

New member
Oct 8, 2009
2,294
0
0
A few months ago, I'd have given it back.

But now? I'd call it long overdue good luck, feel like shit about it, and pay my bills.
 

babinro

New member
Sep 24, 2010
2,518
0
0
Yes.

This has enough moral ambiguity that I don't feel as though I'm stealing it directly from someone. Nor would my actions really cause people to lose their jobs or the bank to shut down. I realize it's wrong and yet I can justify the crime.

I'd look at it with the same moral lens as internet piracy. I wouldn't tell on someone who illegally downloaded a movie because I feel the action caused no real lingering harm.

Note: If I was financially well off then the answer would be no.
I live off of $900.00 a month and so 'free' money would be very helpful.
 

MagunBFP

New member
Sep 7, 2012
169
0
0
Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
Well now you're just being silly.

It says right in the OP: For this exercise, there is no connection that would point this at you. You could walk away with the money and no one would know it was you.

So read a bit more.

Second, just because they're a business doesn't mean I should just bend over and say "Well, they gotta make money!" No. Fuck that. They have to be held to a standard the same as any other business. Granted, the position that rich = evil is stupid. However, equally stupid is the opposing position that being a business means everything they do is their right and the costumers just have to take it or leave.

Third, I wouldn't feel righteous either way. I simply wouldn't care because in the modern world, most if not all banks are extremely unkind entities. They take houses, sell bad investments and generally screw people. Does that make it morally right? Probably not. If upon reading the article that someone (me) had taken money from an ATM, you wanted to shed a tear and damn me to hell, you have the right. I would feel nothing.

Finally, I get what you're saying, but I'm just not seeing fees going up from that tiny of an amount. If they did, myself and many others would simply change banks as you suggested originally. The bank would know this would happen and I doubt they would be willing to lose people over 200,000 dollars or less. It just doesn't make sense from an economic perspective. There's also a massive difference between a loan that they can hold you to and crack down on, and a chunk of money they can do nothing about.
So I reread the OP and you are 100% correct the OP says that no connection would be make to you, but it still says nothing about you knowing it or having guarantees of this. There's no voice of God telling your hypothetical self the rules of the hypothetical scenario. In the interests of not being silly though if you can honestly think of a situation in public where you would know 100% that you couldn't be caught for breaking the law then I'll just accept your awareness of the future.

The position that the consumer should just accept the terms of the business or leave is stupid? Why? No one is forcing you to accept the terms, there are no guns to kittens heads saying open an account or the kitten gets it. You say if fees go up people will switch banks, so you accept that you don't have to bank with this bank that you've decided is ripping you off even though they told you everything about their fees and you accepted it.

Yes banks aren't nice, no one is going to disagree with you there, that being said they take homes from people who can't/won't/aren't paying for them, I do feel for the people who loss their homes to the banks, but it was spelt out in black and white that if you don't pay the bank will take the house back. Yes the bank lent the money in the first place, but where is the personal responsibility for borrowing too much and not budgeting for interest increases, loss of a job, unforseen circumstances, etc? Two wrongs don't make a right, and stealing from someone just because they've done other people wrong still doesn't make it ok. If you're going to steal the money don't hide behind "the banks are evil and steal from everyone so its not bad to steal from them" because that's bullshit, at least be honest, you'd steal because you're greedy and want money that you don't have to work for.

Your last point... again you're assuming you and everyone else in this scenario would have some sort of meta-knowledge, just like in real life you wouldn't know why the bank increased its fees, just that it did, or maybe it'd increase its interest rates. From your posts so far it seems far more likely that you wouldn't change anything you'd suck it up, and ***** and resent the banks for taking more money from you. If more people did actually vote with their feet we would see some big changes in the banking industry, sadly though alot of people talk big but just don't follow through.

As for being unable to do anything about missing money... I've laid out two possible options, increase fees (even if its just 5 cents, a bank with 1 million customers each paying 5 cents more would make an extra $200,000 in just 4 months) or increase interest. Additionally they could not increase staff pay for a quarter, charge more for other services, cut spending on more profit creating works, etc. There's alot a multi-billion dollar company can do to get back that money and you wouldn't even notice.
 
Aug 1, 2010
2,768
0
0
MagunBFP said:
Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
Well now you're just being silly.

It says right in the OP: For this exercise, there is no connection that would point this at you. You could walk away with the money and no one would know it was you.

So read a bit more.

Second, just because they're a business doesn't mean I should just bend over and say "Well, they gotta make money!" No. Fuck that. They have to be held to a standard the same as any other business. Granted, the position that rich = evil is stupid. However, equally stupid is the opposing position that being a business means everything they do is their right and the costumers just have to take it or leave.

Third, I wouldn't feel righteous either way. I simply wouldn't care because in the modern world, most if not all banks are extremely unkind entities. They take houses, sell bad investments and generally screw people. Does that make it morally right? Probably not. If upon reading the article that someone (me) had taken money from an ATM, you wanted to shed a tear and damn me to hell, you have the right. I would feel nothing.

Finally, I get what you're saying, but I'm just not seeing fees going up from that tiny of an amount. If they did, myself and many others would simply change banks as you suggested originally. The bank would know this would happen and I doubt they would be willing to lose people over 200,000 dollars or less. It just doesn't make sense from an economic perspective. There's also a massive difference between a loan that they can hold you to and crack down on, and a chunk of money they can do nothing about.
So I reread the OP and you are 100% correct the OP says that no connection would be make to you, but it still says nothing about you knowing it or having guarantees of this. There's no voice of God telling your hypothetical self the rules of the hypothetical scenario. In the interests of not being silly though if you can honestly think of a situation in public where you would know 100% that you couldn't be caught for breaking the law then I'll just accept your awareness of the future.

The position that the consumer should just accept the terms of the business or leave is stupid? Why? No one is forcing you to accept the terms, there are no guns to kittens heads saying open an account or the kitten gets it. You say if fees go up people will switch banks, so you accept that you don't have to bank with this bank that you've decided is ripping you off even though they told you everything about their fees and you accepted it.

Yes banks aren't nice, no one is going to disagree with you there, that being said they take homes from people who can't/won't/aren't paying for them, I do feel for the people who loss their homes to the banks, but it was spelt out in black and white that if you don't pay the bank will take the house back. Yes the bank lent the money in the first place, but where is the personal responsibility for borrowing too much and not budgeting for interest increases, loss of a job, unforseen circumstances, etc? Two wrongs don't make a right, and stealing from someone just because they've done other people wrong still doesn't make it ok. If you're going to steal the money don't hide behind "the banks are evil and steal from everyone so its not bad to steal from them" because that's bullshit, at least be honest, you'd steal because you're greedy and want money that you don't have to work for.

Your last point... again you're assuming you and everyone else in this scenario would have some sort of meta-knowledge, just like in real life you wouldn't know why the bank increased its fees, just that it did, or maybe it'd increase its interest rates. From your posts so far it seems far more likely that you wouldn't change anything you'd suck it up, and ***** and resent the banks for taking more money from you. If more people did actually vote with their feet we would see some big changes in the banking industry, sadly though alot of people talk big but just don't follow through.

As for being unable to do anything about missing money... I've laid out two possible options, increase fees (even if its just 5 cents, a bank with 1 million customers each paying 5 cents more would make an extra $200,000 in just 4 months) or increase interest. Additionally they could not increase staff pay for a quarter, charge more for other services, cut spending on more profit creating works, etc. There's alot a multi-billion dollar company can do to get back that money and you wouldn't even notice.
The whole point of a hypothetical is to determine a certain element of a decision. In this case, morality. When a person comes up with a hypothetical, they ARE that voice of god. They determine the situation. OP did this. He created a situation to find out what moral hesitation people may have, so he removed the risk of being caught.

The "accept or leave" position is stupid because not only to consumers ALWAYS have the right to hold businesses to a higher standard if their terms of business are fucked up, but in the case of banks, pretty much all of them are terrible. There is NO good option.

Granted, people fuck up and get loans they shouldn't have and whatnot. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm also not saying 2 wrongs make a right. It would still probably be objectively wrong. However, by your own admission, banks are really not very nice. This is why I would not feel bad. Yes it would be wrong. No I wouldn't have remorse or regret for doing it.
In terms of being greedy, yeah. I am. And money I haven't worked for? Who DOESN'T want money they didn't work for? Who wouldn't want to win the lottery? Other than whiny elitists I mean. But I never said I would do it just to stick it to the bank. I would do it because money buys me things that are awesome.

As for voting with your feet, again, people get screwed by banks no matter where they go. Now, when a bank does something really fucking stupid like Bank of America saying they would be charging for debit cards, I move. I did it until they canceled that plan and I would do it again. I still got screwed at my new bank, just slightly less. As I said, there is no good option.

"There's alot a multi-billion dollar company can do to get back that money and you wouldn't even notice."
My point exactly. The damage would be so tiny, I wouldn't notice and neither would anyone else.
 

Vareoth

New member
Mar 14, 2012
254
0
0
I don't know. Me and my family could really use the money but I would be stealing it. I don't know if I would stoop that low if the chance presented itself.