Poll: You come across a broken ATM...

[MagunBFP]

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.

I'll concede the voice of God meta-knowledge as you're right it is a hypothetical situation in that it assumes all surfaces are frictionless and perfectly round (ie the sitution is not actually consitant with the universe we live in)

The "accept or leave" position is holding business up to higher standards, either the business has acceptible standards and you accept it, or it doesn't and you complain and if no change is made you leave. If something doesn't meet your basic standards you don't sign up anyway and just expect that they change to meet your approval, they already have it. If you think all banks are that bad then leave them all, take your money and hide it in your matress... you don't get the security, flexibility, easy access or electronic money/access that banks provide you with, but you're also not getting charged such "outrageous" fees.

You'd imagine that if there was currently no "good" option that some enterprising individual would come up with something better... I mean its not like you could be the change you want to see...

Your point was that if the bank tried to recover the money lost by your theft then any increases in fees or interest would result in you and other customers changing banks... now you're saying your point is that a small increase wouldn't matter to you? Dafuq??? Be consistant in your arguements... If all charges are too high already then why aren't you up in arms about any further increases? Or are they only actually that bad when you have to justify theft?

EDIT: I forgot about your rambling about the lotto. When people win the lotto they're gambling, taking money that they earnt and trying to multiply it. When people steal they take money that someone else earnt and claim it as their own. See the difference people who gamble start with their own money and then through skill/luck end up with more money. Theives don't work for what they have and yet quite often feel entitled to it because "the other guy had it coming" or "I need it more then they do" or sometimes as in your case they're just plain greedy bastards who would probably steal from anyone if the OP told them they wouldn't get caught, because your mates money is as good as the banks.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

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.

I'll concede the voice of God meta-knowledge as you're right it is a hypothetical situation in that it assumes all surfaces are frictionless and perfectly round (ie the sitution is not actually consitant with the universe we live in)

The "accept or leave" position is holding business up to higher standards, either the business has acceptible standards and you accept it, or it doesn't and you complain and if no change is made you leave. If something doesn't meet your basic standards you don't sign up anyway and just expect that they change to meet your approval, they already have it. If you think all banks are that bad then leave them all, take your money and hide it in your matress... you don't get the security, flexibility, easy access or electronic money/access that banks provide you with, but you're also not getting charged such "outrageous" fees.

You'd imagine that if there was currently no "good" option that some enterprising individual would come up with something better... I mean its not like you could be the change you want to see...

Your point was that if the bank tried to recover the money lost by your theft then any increases in fees or interest would result in you and other customers changing banks... now you're saying your point is that a small increase wouldn't matter to you? Dafuq??? Be consistant in your arguements... If all charges are too high already then why aren't you up in arms about any further increases? Or are they only actually that bad when you have to justify theft?

EDIT: I forgot about your rambling about the lotto. When people win the lotto they're gambling, taking money that they earnt and trying to multiply it. When people steal they take money that someone else earnt and claim it as their own. See the difference people who gamble start with their own money and then through skill/luck end up with more money. Theives don't work for what they have and yet quite often feel entitled to it because "the other guy had it coming" or "I need it more then they do" or sometimes as in your case they're just plain greedy bastards who would probably steal from anyone if the OP told them they wouldn't get caught, because your mates money is as good as the banks.

Hey, thanks for directly calling me a bastard.

I'll be leaving now.

 

[Luca72]

Hell yes! I wouldn't feel guilty about it at all. Dollars are just monetary notes with value artificially managed by debt. There's nothing "honorable" or "morally correct" about working hard for money versus simply getting lucky, as long as you aren't taking it from anyone else.

So in this case, the people the money belongs to are not people I take it? Why? Does being rich drain your humanity somehow?

This situation didn't imply anywhere that that money is "owned" by anyone. If the ATM was still logged into someones account and their money was being drained, I wouldn't take it. If it's just that the bills inside the ATM are suddenly not inside the ATM anymore, I would certainly take it because I'm not taking it from anyone.

Do you think that when you put money in the bank, it just sits there? And that removing some of those bills/credits detracts from the whole? Banks are insured, and they make their money by loaning it out several times over. The current standard is that for every dollar you put in the bank, the bank then loans out that dollar to nine different sources. This means that the amount of money in circulation dramatically exceeds the amount of money with real value that exists. I'm not saying it's right to steal from the rich - whether they earned it or scammed it, it's their property at this point. But individual bills have no value other than what the Federal Reserve essentially decides they have at the moment.

A simpler way to explain this - if everybody traded gold or some metal, and a gold trading machine (which would be AWESOME) started spewing out that gold, then it would be stealing to take it. Because you are actually decreasing the total value contained within the machine, and indirectly the amount owned by the bank. But bills have no actual value save for what is ascribed to them. Banks just recoup the losses and no one loses a penny, while the person who took the loose bills actually gains a profit.

Kinda reminds you why our economic system is a mess.

 

[Tiger Sora]

No. Unearned money is no money of mine. If I didn't suffer for it, I have no right to keep it.

Wether you suffered to earn it or not you suffer regardless because capitalism is heartless. Make it bleed for all it's worth Dark, ruthlessness gets you ahead.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Hell yes! I wouldn't feel guilty about it at all. Dollars are just monetary notes with value artificially managed by debt. There's nothing "honorable" or "morally correct" about working hard for money versus simply getting lucky, as long as you aren't taking it from anyone else.

So in this case, the people the money belongs to are not people I take it? Why? Does being rich drain your humanity somehow?

This situation didn't imply anywhere that that money is "owned" by anyone. If the ATM was still logged into someones account and their money was being drained, I wouldn't take it. If it's just that the bills inside the ATM are suddenly not inside the ATM anymore, I would certainly take it because I'm not taking it from anyone.

Do you think that when you put money in the bank, it just sits there? And that removing some of those bills/credits detracts from the whole? Banks are insured, and they make their money by loaning it out several times over. The current standard is that for every dollar you put in the bank, the bank then loans out that dollar to nine different sources. This means that the amount of money in circulation dramatically exceeds the amount of money with real value that exists. I'm not saying it's right to steal from the rich - whether they earned it or scammed it, it's their property at this point. But individual bills have no value other than what the Federal Reserve essentially decides they have at the moment.

A simpler way to explain this - if everybody traded gold or some metal, and a gold trading machine (which would be AWESOME) started spewing out that gold, then it would be stealing to take it. Because you are actually decreasing the total value contained within the machine, and indirectly the amount owned by the bank. But bills have no actual value save for what is ascribed to them. Banks just recoup the losses and no one loses a penny, while the person who took the loose bills actually gains a profit.

Kinda reminds you why our economic system is a mess.

Yes, since the abolition of the gold standard our currency is basically just paper (well actually, I think it is made out of cotton, but that's besides the point.) but it is used to represent value. Taking money is still taking someone's property, or at least their ability to acquire property. Even if the bank is insured then the company insuring it loses profit. Of course, I could be wrong here, I will not feign knowledge I do not have. If banks are insured directly by the Federal Reserve then they could just print more money. Of course this would lead to inflation, but on this scale it would not be significant enough to be noticeable.

 

[MagunBFP]

I'll concede the voice of God meta-knowledge as you're right it is a hypothetical situation in that it assumes all surfaces are frictionless and perfectly round (ie the sitution is not actually consitant with the universe we live in)

The "accept or leave" position is holding business up to higher standards, either the business has acceptible standards and you accept it, or it doesn't and you complain and if no change is made you leave. If something doesn't meet your basic standards you don't sign up anyway and just expect that they change to meet your approval, they already have it. If you think all banks are that bad then leave them all, take your money and hide it in your matress... you don't get the security, flexibility, easy access or electronic money/access that banks provide you with, but you're also not getting charged such "outrageous" fees.

You'd imagine that if there was currently no "good" option that some enterprising individual would come up with something better... I mean its not like you could be the change you want to see...

Your point was that if the bank tried to recover the money lost by your theft then any increases in fees or interest would result in you and other customers changing banks... now you're saying your point is that a small increase wouldn't matter to you? Dafuq??? Be consistant in your arguements... If all charges are too high already then why aren't you up in arms about any further increases? Or are they only actually that bad when you have to justify theft?

EDIT: I forgot about your rambling about the lotto. When people win the lotto they're gambling, taking money that they earnt and trying to multiply it. When people steal they take money that someone else earnt and claim it as their own. See the difference people who gamble start with their own money and then through skill/luck end up with more money. Theives don't work for what they have and yet quite often feel entitled to it because "the other guy had it coming" or "I need it more then they do" or sometimes as in your case they're just plain greedy bastards who would probably steal from anyone if the OP told them they wouldn't get caught, because your mates money is as good as the banks.

Hey, thanks for directly calling me a bastard.

I'll be leaving now.

Yes, I will call someone who steals from anyone just because they wouldn't get caught a bastard, if that upsets you I suggest you look at why it does. That being said it changes none of my other arguements about why stealing even from a bank is wrong and that by just letting them charge their fees without doing or saying anything is actually giving them your tacit approval to continue.

 

[Darken12]

No. Unearned money is no money of mine. If I didn't suffer for it, I have no right to keep it.

Wether you suffered to earn it or not you suffer regardless because capitalism is heartless. Make it bleed for all it's worth Dark, ruthlessness gets you ahead.

Meh. I'm not a materialistic person, so whatever material benefits I might gain do not outweigh the ethical downsides.

 

[Luca72]

snip

That is actually what happens - the Federal Reserve just prints more money. The bank isn't harmed in any way, and I don't believe the clients are harmed either. It's actually kind of a scary process when you read into it - the last few years have seen a move to audit the Federal Reserve, and when they attempt to do so, they find that the Federal Reserve can't even account for much of the money it's lent out. I'm talking billions of dollars. If everyone were to cash in their dollars for something of equivalent value, the economy would literally collapse.

I'm not trying to argue that it's okay to take the money just because it would only hurt someone by a fraction of a percent of a dollar - I'm saying taking that money would literally have no effect on anyone.

 

[spartan231490]

I wouldn't risk it over chump-change, but if a few grand spit out, then yeah I'd probably keep it. Hide it somewhere for a few months in case there was an investigation then make some cash purchases. I might turn in a few hundred and say that was all that came out, depends on how paranoid I was feeling that day about getting caught.

 

[Olas]

Only if I knew FOR SURE it could never be traced back to me. It's not like I'm actually stealing from anyone, the bank will just get reimbursed the money anyhow.

 

[Jamieson 90]

Take money off a bank that got us into this fucking economic crisis in the first place, whilst their staff are getting paid six digit bonuses? And I won't get caught and it's not coming out of someone's account? SHIT YOU BET I'D FUCKING TAKE IT, I'd be shuffling the lot by the lorry load into the back of my car and coming back for more, if I had a car that is.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

It's not from anyone's personal account? Is the bank insured? The cameras are broken? The money's untraceable?

... Yeah, I'd take it.

 

[General Vagueness]

I have no original thoughts and can only copy what I see others doing.

and you thought the Internet would provide something else? ha

 

[soren7550]

Fuck yeah I'd take it. I've been very unemployed for some time, and I need to get necessities, pay bills, and every once and again I'd like to get a little something for myself. Such as some underwear, or a dresser so that my clothes aren't in a bag/boxes/wherever anymore.

The only bad thing that would happen is that I'd be paranoid about being arrested.

 

[Abomination]

I'm not on any criminal databases and my picture on my passport looks a lot different than I do now so I doubt they could identify me... yeah I'd take the money and run.

I wouldn't be liable for the bank's glitch emptying someone else's account, the bank would have to reimburse that individual if that was the case.

Essentially, fuck most banks.

 

[Hawk eye1466]

Well 200,000 is more money than I had before I stood in line so yeah I'd take it, besides banks are assholes with a lot of stuff so they can afford to take a loss this one time.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

No, and it has very little to do with the moral reasoning. It is stealing, the money is not yours. If it is ever tracked back to you that the money was withdrawn and you didn't return it, you would be charged over it. The camera being broken is not even close to enough of a reason to think you'd get away with it. Especially since you used your card on that ATM at that moment.
Trust me, it would come around and bite you in the ass. We get it a lot at the department I work at. People get money that isn't theirs by mistake and spend it all, thinking they are fine. They get caught, and they get charged.

 

[Sudden Thunder]

I had a friend come across a situation like this. Went to an ATM late at night on a quiet street and found $200 sitting in the slot. He didn't hesitate to take it and head straight home. As for me, yeah I would take it, sure beats someone else taking it. If it keeps spitting out money that's a bank glitch and I'm sure they are insured.

 

[Dalisclock]

Only if it helped me finance my experimental film...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH2l0LaTi4U

 

[Yopaz]

This is a tough one, but even as poor as I am I think I don't think I would have taken it.

I know that every ATM got a camera so huge amounts would be registered so I might have turned it in and reported the problem if it was a lot in fear of discovery. I am honestly not certain what I would do in this situation. I am a honest person and I don't have the evil corporations deserve to be stolen from attitude.
If it was a small amount I think I might have kept it.