Coming back from gym to the locker room, an aquiantence of mine found a cell phone on the ground. He exclaimed about it. I suggested he turn it on and see the name. He didn't know how to turn it on, so I offered to do it. He handed the phone to me.
As the phone was turning on, another person asked about it. He suddenly snatched it from me. He said there was a reward for that phone. He wanted the reward. Could he have it?
I said no, no one was getting any reward. We were just going to give it back.
This person would not give it back despite my demands. I felt like he was doing a very wrong thing.
I confided the situation to a friend of mine. She said that she wouldn't have done anything. When I thought about it, I realized that was characteristic of her. That seemed wrong too, but not quite as bad.
So, which is worse and why?
1. Turning in the phone without a reward. 2. Turning in the phone with a reward. 3. Ignoring the phone and leaving it on the ground.
-
1 3 233% Voted for by Catavader, The Blind Bandit.
1. Naturally I feel my choice would be best. It was another person's property. It was his. Therefore, it should be given back to him. Humans operate as a system, and this would be best for the system. And what's best for humanity is best for a human too.
3. This is wrong because it does not help the system by instating correctness. However, besides inaction it does not harm the system either. This is why I deem it better than 2.
2. This is the lowest of the choices. The only worse option would be stealing without any real need. (Stealing is always damaging, but sometimes it can prevent even worse damaging) It demands an immediate personal gain in order to justify the gain of the whole and, indirectly, the person returning the phone. This is insanity. It is demanding payment for payment, a reason for correctness, a payment for morality.
-
I guessVoted for by Weydon.
1's a pretty radical choice.
2's perfectly fine, and I find it incomprehensible that it's the worst choice offered. The person who lost the phone OFFERED the reward. It's not like the finder is holding it for ransom. The only reason someone would find this to be such a despicable choice is to make themselves feel like a holy being for not wanting a reward.
3's kinda mean and lazy. Just call the person and make them come to you when most convenient.
-
1 2 3Voted for by Makessenseright.
1. Is surely the best thing to do, selflessly doing the right thing. 2. Is better than 3 because if the person wants the phone back enough to offer a reward, it is better to do that than take the chance that they will never get it. 3. Shows a total lack of caring in that situation, not in the person, but in that situation.
I like your explaination a lot, I just don't agree with it.
-
2 is the bestVoted for by UpsideDownFrown.
2 fulfills all sides psychologically. When you find the phone, hand it in, and claim the reward, you're allowing the rewarder to exercise his sense of validity. It reassures him that the phone was WORTH the reward, and that his fear over losing his phone was valid enough to allow him to give a generous prize for absolving it.
Obviously, it sounds like the best choice is just to give it back with no reward, but that would psychologically shortchange the situation.
When something like this happened to me, the finder turned down the reward, and I felt on some small level that he didn't really care about the fact that he'd done a good deed, nor was he willing to find equal ground with me socially (he finds my thing, I give him cash). Two is mutual benefit at its best.
-
1 is the best moral choice.Voted for by word warrior.
In ascending order, 3 might not help. The next person that would probably see the phone might not be honest. The cellphone might end up with someone with sticky fingers. It was best to have picked it up with the intention to return it. 2's just ok. Turning it in was the objective. But a reward shouldn't be the reason for turning it in. There won't always be a reward. What would you do if you found something worth more than a cellphone with no reward? A reward is just like an extra. The real reward would be when something so valuable that belongs to you is found and given to you without the person who turned it in asking for a reward, though you have no reward to give at that moment. 1's the best choice. It shows a morally pure heart at work. "It's not enough to do good, one must do it the right way." Good deeds without ulterior motives - this is what humanity needs.
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free