Scenario #2

Return his money to him. Wouldn't you want someone to return your lost property to you?

 

I would return it to him....that voice in my head would not let me take that money.........NOW if i didnt see who drop it and it just come upon me then thats a different story.


Bless

 

Who knows, perhaps he's tipsy enough for him to give the $100 bills as a reward for returning them.

 

Keep it. He's rich, I'm beyond poor right now. Since he's in a Porche, he probably sped off before I could catch him anyway Not to mention the fact he's drinking and driving in a Porche....call it a DUI fine...that goes to me

 

Hmm, you give him his $300 and he rewards you with $600!

I LIKE THIS THINKING!

but I'd give it back. I wouldn't feel right keeping it.

 

If the street was deserted I'd be very tempted to keep them. I'm skint.

I'd like to say my morals would kick in and I'd give them back, but I think I'd be more motivated by a purely selfish mixture of fear of getting busted and bad karma. However, that slightly wussy side of me would be very tempted to give them back.

In other words, depends on how bold I'm feeling....

 

Do you still see the couple? If so, I'd return the money. If they are no longer in sight, I'd make an effort to find them in "posh hotel", whatever. It's their money and I'd try to get it back to them but I don't know if they are still within sight. More details please.

 

If he was really rich he would say keep it. Remember in school when teachers would accidentally mark things right that were wrong every so often and it would only be like 2 points difference? They would always say "because of your honesty you can have the extra 2 points". Or like on that Brady Bunch episode where they find the guy's wallet. (I'm going to far)

I would give it back. Stealing is unethical.

 

I'd keep them, just to be the only one in this thread to say the second theoretical answer

 

Do you truly think teachers did that on purpose?!

 

It's immoral to give the money back. It's immoral for him to have such money, and to have a Porsche, when others are driving Ford Pintos. Ownership, in an ethical system, demands equality across the masses. Take the money, distribute it across the proletariat.

Then steal his Porsche. Shop it and make Ford Pintos for the proletariat. Then drive a Ford Pinto to his house and say "Hey. Socialism goes hand in hand with democracay. Capitalism is contrary to democracy. The whole equality thing, you know."

Stealing from those who have is only immoral within a system that maintains haves and have nots, eh? There's immoral within the culture, but then there's the question of the morality of the culture. Democracy demands equality, capitalism demands inequality. Good thing ol' Tommy Paine and Adam Smith were writing around the same time, or I'd be tempted to say a capitalist democracy doesn't make any sense!

Let the flaming ensue.

 

A thing is only right or wrong because you say it is. A thing is not right or wrong intrinsically. "Rightness" or "wrongness" is not an intrinsic condition, it is a subjective judgement in a personal value system. So it doesn't matter what you do.

 

Well I agree that democracy must be equal by definition and capitalism is not necessarily equal, but not in the same way. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can go out and vote with the same weight as the guy with the Porsche or the ski house in Aspen or the shopping cart full of soda cans. Perhaps this man received his Porsche through means of a trust fund or maybe he worked for it. My father drives an Audi S4, but he didn't have an unequal advantage of some sort (besides being in a 1st world country). He went to North Eastern for five years on the work-study program, worked incredibly hard, got into MIT, and has been doing well ever since. And he grew up in Brooklyn, in a modest house, and went to public schools. Sure you can argue that capitalism is unequal, but you can make the same argument for pretty much anything. Why does the Homer Simpson of a Communist society make as much as the hard working people. Its unequal. Now if you are talking about overindulgence and gluttony in a world with such poverty, that's somewhat of a different matter.

You don't have to agree, but just read with an open mind and don't immediately disregard it as flaming. BTW, I'm also not saying we live without immoral people, corruption, etc.

 

I'd give it back to the couple personally; returning lost items to their rightful owners has always paid off in one way or another for me. I am usually offered a slight reward (about $10) and if not, the owners usually seem so genuinely pleased and relieved; which (selfishly) makes me feel good, too.

Why not give humanity some hope that there is good left in us?

 

What comes around goes around. Moral aside, I do always believe that to take someone else's 'something' will lead you to lose 'something' in kind the next time. You can't just escape the cycle.

 

I have few morals. I'd keep it.

 

Up until that line I had the flame thrower primed

 

I'm not sure, but I'd probably keep it. I have found 3 nice mobile phones at the Uni library, and returned them all to Uni security. I have found a watch there as well, and also returned that. I lost my wallet once and someone returned it somewhere with the money and credit card in it after several days. I didn't even have to close the CC account.........this guy didn't use my card in the 3-4 days he had it, and nothing happened since then (I had my account frozen for 8-10 days and Mastercard was checking to see if anybody tries to use it. If someone used my number, then I simply close the account). Anyway, that was amazing.

Then I lose my Sony Ericsson K700i and nobody returned it.

I'd probably return the money if I could, but if they left quickly and I couldn't find them, I wouldn't go looking for them, if you know what I mean.

 

It seems to me that a number of people who would return the money would also expect something in return. I don't know why I felt the need to point that out, it just seems ironic that people believe they're being selfless and moral by returning something that's not theirs, but, at the same time, expecting something in return.

Personally, I'd just leave it and keep on walking. I don't want to feel guilty for taking the guy's money, and I don't want to have to go to the hassle of getting it back to him. If it's really important, he'll come looking for it. If it's not, then someone else is sure to come across it - they can obsess over this moral dilemma, and I can forget about it.

 

I would give the money back to the couple no question. IMO it's just a the moral thing to do.

...but on a side note if he would have dropped the car keys...

 

Drinks on me!

 

I say, if you get to the money and the person who dropped it is no longer in sight, then keep it. But, if the person is still around when you get to the money, then you might as-well follow the Boy Scout honor code system and return it.

 

*ahem*

Finders Keepers Giving money back to rich people is uneconomical

Besides, you know darn well Alice pocketed any loose change she found in Mr. Brady's laundry