Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is it immoral to keep getting refunds for books you've bought?

Rate this topic


JacobGalt

Recommended Posts

In your post, however, reasons were conspicuously absent. Expressing your opinion, and calling that an "interpretation" doesn't substitute for reasoning. A person who enters an actual discussion and only expresses opinions (and I am glossing over the begged questions, etc. in this) is offering his view as if it were to be accepted on authority.

You've dropped the context that the post of mine which you are criticizing is in reply to two posts by Jonathan where he was asking for clarification on the position I was taking:

So, your view of your morality in regard to your business dealings with others is based on whether or not you can determine if each of your specific exchanges with them is profitable to them? If so, I'd think that you'd have to spend a lot of time investigating businesses' profitability before trading with them, and not just over the issue of their product returns policies.

If you asked Jimmy how he could cut prices so low without losing money, and he told you that the book in question is one of his "loss leaders" ... wouldn't Objectivists be immoral, by the theories being advocated here in the name of Objectivism, to take advantage of the loss leader price without buying additional, full-priced books, and without determining exactly how many full-priced books they'd need to buy in order to make up for Jimmy’s loss on their purchase of the discounted title?

Perhaps a truly moral Objectivist, as defined by certain people here, should always demand to see a store’s owner or manager before shopping, and insist that he charge the Objectivist full price on all items just to make sure all purchases are properly moral based on precise "value for value" exchanges?

And what about free samples handed out in grocery stores, or free all-you-can-eat snacks or snack buffets served at bars during certain hours? Is it immoral for Objectivists to eat even a single peanut if he or she doesn't first ask to speak to the establishment’s owners in order to clearly determine whether or not they will be getting enough value from him in exchange?

If one believes in the meticulous version of the "trader principle" being advocated here in the name of Objectivism, shouldn't customers who don't partake in "free" snacks be offered a precise portion of their money back after an evening of purchasing drinks?

If it's immoral for an Objectivist to take advantage of a no-questions-asked returns policy based on OO members' interpretation of the "trader principle," or to eat even a single peanut in a bar without paying for anything, wouldn't it also be immoral to take up a bookstore's encouragement to come in and read whatever one wants?

Should a moral Objectivist perhaps determine ahead of time exactly what percentage of a book he will allow himself to read for free, quit precisely at that point and then decide whether or not he wishes to purchase the book? If so, how would he rationally determine what the quitting point should be? Exactly how far can he read before he becomes a lying, evading, fraudulent thief?

Or would a truly virtuous Objectivist not allow himself to read any part of a book other than its cover without purchasing it first?

^ All that stuff up there is him asking about my position. Not asking for support for the position, but simply asking about its application to hypothetical scenario after hypothetical scenario. My responses are precisely tailored to his questions. That is the context that you are ignoring when you try to treat my posts as a stand-alone argument. I agree that they are not. So don't try to make them into one. I agree completely that if I were attempting to support my view, rather than simply illustrate my view, those posts would rely on nothing more than the authority of my words. However, that is clearly not the context in which I was writing.

Would you criticize this site for failing to support all the arguments in it? http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've dropped the context that the post of mine which you are criticizing is in reply to two posts by Jonathan where he was asking for clarification on the position I was taking:

Perhaps you mistake rhetorical questions for a request for information? Jonathan is circumspect in his responses. I suggest that you have failed to get his point, at least some of the time, if you make this interpretation of his posts.

If you thought you were responding to specific questions, wouldn't your responses line up with them?

The difference between arguing a matter and declaring one's opinions on it is exploited with fabulous effect in Rand's writings. Look at what is said in the committee to re-design Cortland homes, or in one of James Taggart's back-room meetings, if you'd like to refresh your sensitivity to the difference.

Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you mistake rhetorical questions for a request for information?

(If RationalBiker or anyone else is wondering, no, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm sincerely interested in discovering exactly how one must behave in order to not be judged as despicable by certain Objectivists.)

Regardless, if my replies to Jonathan are missing a major point, I trust he will indicate that if he wishes it remedied.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean by using one's imagination is that if you're, say, a 24-year-old working in a cubicle, and you really don't have peer-level relationships with the people who make decisions for your or any other company, and therefore can't ask them what they think or feel about certain things and get candid responses, maybe it would be wise to use your imagination in considering that they probably know much more than you do about the consequences of their decisions, that they have much more knowledge about whether or not their policies are beneficial to them or not, and that asking yourself, "How might a company make money while having such a refunds policy?" might be a more productive approach than leaping to conclusions about others' morality.

I have to wonder about people's levels of self-awareness here. I see a lot of comments (I'd even call some of them preaching) about what a "rational man" would do, or what an "honest person" would believe, or that "only an evader" would say or do such and such. Do you seriously think that style of argument is going to be effective? Do you not realize that it's generally going to be taken as an attempt to imply that your discussion opponent isn't rational, honest, etc., and that you think that you're infallible? Do you understand that it's likely to be seen as little more than a bluff and a lame attempt to intimidate?

I also have to wonder about people's senses of proportion. Next time that you see someone wolfing down a tray of freebies and it upsets you, I'd like to politely suggest that you consider options which might be a little more subtle and proportional than "immoral," "dishonest," "fraudulent," etc. For example, you might want to try "gauche," "uncultured," "ill-bred" or "coarse." We needn't always rush to the nuclear option. Doing so makes Objectivists look, er, gauche, uncultured, ill-bred or coarse.

J

:D This won't be the first or the last time that O'ists are asked to tone down their language.

Perhaps we should start using "uncool", and "awesome!" to make ourselves more comprehensible and acceptable.

First, in the context of Objectivists debating with each other here, this vocab is necessary to fast communication of concepts.

Second, speaking to outsiders on whatever subject - art, economics, politics, ideas, etc - I for one, do adjust my language with similes and synonyms; but without diluting the principles involved.

Third, for ourselves, I am sure that each O'ist develops - through ongoing introspection - his own internal structure of 'degrees' of assessment (judgement). For instance, personally I use "evil" very selectively, for extreme applications. Another one, I do not believe that taking a "freebie" is the height of 'evasion' - my argument is centred on the increasing habit of evasion, starting with small things.

Last, why should we give a damn for those who are critical of Objectivist words; the people who have seen the truth in the tenets of O'ism will get past the words - those without sincerity and who can't face the truth, will fall away whatever language we couch it in.

I don't remember the exact wording of Rand's famous reply when she was asked why she insisted on using (that ugly word) "Selfish". She said, "for the very reason that you hate it."

She had a superlative command of English, but refused to equivocate and prevaricate. To refute or create a principle it must first be stated at its most extreme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have to wonder about people's senses of proportion. Next time that you see someone wolfing down a tray of freebies and it upsets you, I'd like to politely suggest that you consider options which might be a little more subtle and proportional than "immoral," "dishonest," "fraudulent," etc. For example, you might want to try "gauche," "uncultured," "ill-bred" or "coarse." We needn't always rush to the nuclear option. Doing so makes Objectivists look, er, gauche, uncultured, ill-bred or coarse.

J

The problem is that this thread is (for most of us anyway) an attempt to answer the OP's question.

The Op did not ask if his behavior was gauche or ill-bred. He asked if it was immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, if my replies to Jonathan are missing a major point, I trust he will indicate that if he wishes it remedied.

I don't think we need to revisit the issues to remedy anything, but I do think that you and I have miscommunicated a bit on this thread, probably partly owing to your not being in tune with my style of rhetoric, and perhaps partly to my not having as much time as I'd like to clean up and edit down my posts before submitting them.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D This won't be the first or the last time that O'ists are asked to tone down their language.

It's not an issue of toning down language, but of toning down the hyper-judgmentalism. How many free items one takes is not an issue of morality, nor is the degree to which someone takes advantage of voluntarily offered business practices. Those are merely matters of decorum or taste.

The problem is that when people try to turn matters of decorum or taste into moral issues, there's always someone who can come along and out-decorum and out-taste you, and therefore out-morally-superiorize you.

For example, people here seem to think that it's perfectly acceptable to preview a few pages or so of a book in a bookstore before deciding whether or not to purchase it. Well!!! Harrumph!!! How dare you!!!! It's dishonest, immoral, evasive and fraudulent to read any part of the interior of a book without paying for it first! Everyone knows that (well, everyone, that is, except for dishonest, immoral savages). That's what book covers are for. The titles, credits, graphics and text are there on the cover to inform the reader of everything that the seller thinks potential buyers need to know in order to make their purchasing decisions. The fact that some of the shadier bookstores let their savage customers get way with pawing through books like mindless apes is irrelevant. It's immoral -- nay, downright monstrously evil -- for both the customer and bookstore owner to rob the eventual buyer of the joy of being the first person to touch and gaze upon the pristine white pages that he's expecting, and that he has paid for with good, hard-earned money. One might as well "preview" toilet paper in a store (decorum and taste prevent me from going into detail). Etc.

I also think that hyper-judgmentalism is a leading cause of rationalization, and therefore should be avoided: When people who are quick to condemn happen to make the mistake of exhibiting the behavior that they've harshly condemned (which seems to inevitably happen), they have a tendency to then rationalize the behavior so as to appear not to have been hoisted with their own petard.

Perhaps we should start using "uncool", and "awesome!" to make ourselves more comprehensible and acceptable.

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. If you've gotten the impression that I'm trying to characterize people here as something like unpopular dorks, and I want to teach them how to fit in with the cool kids, then you've missed my point.

I frequently hear Objectivists puzzling over why Objectivism hasn't caught on. Their search for answers always seems to be directed outward, never inward. In essence, my response is, "Well, let's see. What have you tried? You've gotten up in people's faces, screamed at them that they're immoral, dishonest, fraudulent and irrational savages for disagreeing with your opinions, and you've smugly acted as if you have a monopoly on the truth regardless of how much or how little you know about any issue. All in the name of Objectivism. So, yeah, it's really perplexing that people aren't flocking to Objectivism."

I don't remember the exact wording of Rand's famous reply when she was asked why she insisted on using (that ugly word) "Selfish". She said, "for the very reason that you hate it."

She had a superlative command of English, but refused to equivocate and prevaricate. To refute or create a principle it must first be stated at its most extreme.

I think there's a massive difference between Rand's methods and those of certain fans of hers. I'd characterize it like this: Rand was an inspirational, world-class, creative dynamo who sometimes blew her top and made unfortunate and disproportionate judgments, where her hyper-judgmental fans are not inspirational, world-class, creative dynamos, but seem to have adopted Rand's vices as if they were virtues. I think that Rand earned some leeway. Her followers don't get to borrow that leeway. Personally, I'd rate Rand as being something like 95 percent positive and productive, where I'd rate a lot of her followers, at least in the realm of ideas and their propagation, as spending 95 percent of their time emulating Rand's negative 5 percent.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that this thread is (for most of us anyway) an attempt to answer the OP's question.

The Op did not ask if his behavior was gauche or ill-bred. He asked if it was immoral.

Sure, but the question "Is it immoral?" can be answered with "It depends," or "It's not a question of morality, but of the current collectively established notion of manners," or, "No, it's not immoral, but it is rather churlish in my opinion."

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean by using one's imagination is that if you're, say, a 24-year-old working in a cubicle, and you really don't have peer-level relationships with the people who make decisions for your or any other company, and therefore can't ask them what they think or feel about certain things and get candid responses, maybe it would be wise to use your imagination in considering that they probably know much more than you do about the consequences of their decisions, that they have much more knowledge about whether or not their policies are beneficial to them or not, and that asking yourself, "How might a company make money while having such a refunds policy?" might be a more productive approach than leaping to conclusions about others' morality.

The OP specifically asked the question about whether his actions were "immoral" and that is what is being answered. I suppose if he had asked whether he "should" do this the answer might have been "you should not". I submit that the OP probably knows, on some level, that his actions were wrong and that he is really asking for an explanation, otherwise there would be no question. Would you act as the titular question asks?

More importantly though, as I and others have said, Objectivist morality is primarily concerned with one's own actions and whether one can be proud of oneself -- so questioning how someone runs their business doesn't figure in to it. As I said, if a particular store has an explicitly lenient return policy, then one should feel free to use it. But you asked me to apply my own experience, and in my experience this is not the rule. In fact I have never come across such a store and this is where being honest with oneself comes in.

So my analysis that the example is "pretty straight forward" is not a "leap" (with all that implies). Rather it is a straight forward application of the virtue of honesty to a particular situation.

I see a lot of comments (I'd even call some of them preaching) about what a "rational man" would do, or what an "honest person" would believe, or that "only an evader" would say or do such and such. Do you seriously think that style of argument is going to be effective? Do you not realize that it's generally going to be taken as an attempt to imply that your discussion opponent isn't rational, honest, etc., and that you think that you're infallible? Do you understand that it's likely to be seen as little more than a bluff and a lame attempt to intimidate?

No, not at all. Seriously, there was no attempt on my part to intimidate, bluff, claim infallibility or degrade you or the questioner at all.

One very important thing I have learned while posting on this forum, which has been supremely helpful to my understanding of Objectivism and valuable to my life in general is that precision in communication is absolutely essential. There is far more miscommunication when people speak in too broad generalities or use politically correct speech because they are afraid to hurt someone's feelings. To judge someone objectively is a supreme value not an insult.

Let's look at the example you bring up to see how precision is crucially necessary. Here is what I said:

A rational man will always examine the morality of his actions.

notice how the sentence changes if I leave the "rational" out: it isn't true anymore! And I don't like to write untrue sentences. Someone, maybe even you, would have immediately jumped and, correctly, said "not all men examine the morality of their actions" and then we would have had another tangent attached to this thread requiring even more explanation and soon we are in the weeds not knowing what we were originally trying to discuss -- I've seen it happen, many times.

I don't think you should take descriptive words that are essential to communicating the correct ideas as insults, those words are necessary and not superfluous. Plus it is going to make your time here very stressful to be so defensive since these words are used constantly around here, I know I use them in almost every post.

Now here is a place where I was trying to needle you a bit:

But really, I think this is a pretty straight forward situation and in my experience stores are different from libraries and an honest person can tell which is which.

It isn't with the words "honest" or "pretty straight forward" that I am needling you though, rather it is with the whole comparison of stores to libraries. But it's a friendly needle, it is a situation that is so obvious that I was hoping you could acknowledge it as self-evident and accept as a sufficient argument.

I also have to wonder about people's senses of proportion. Next time that you see someone wolfing down a tray of freebies and it upsets you, I'd like to politely suggest that you consider options which might be a little more subtle and proportional than "immoral," "dishonest," "fraudulent," etc. For example, you might want to try "gauche," "uncultured," "ill-bred" or "coarse." We needn't always rush to the nuclear option. Doing so makes Objectivists look, er, gauche, uncultured, ill-bred or coarse.

But, again, the words you want me to use do not describe the actual situation, they are not sufficient to describe what is occurring, they are simply bad manners.

I agree with whYNOT's reply and his exposition of the word "selfish" is a great example. It would be a huge mistake to abandon the word "selfish" even though it currently has a bad connotation and is wrapped-up in a false package deal. The word "selfish" contains the essence of the Objectivist morality, now people just need to discover what it actually means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but the question "Is it immoral?" can be answered with "It depends," or "It's not a question of morality, but of the current collectively established notion of manners," or, "No, it's not immoral, but it is rather churlish in my opinion."

But Objectivist morality is intended as a code to guide the individual towards living well. This means that "immoral" in Objectivism is a much more expansive term than it is in common speech. In the context of Objectivism, saying that a certain choice is a "moral question" is synonymous with saying that the choice has some potential effect, positive or negative, on the well-being of the actor.

If I show up disheveled for a job interview, most people would see this as a stupid thing to do, but not an issue of morality. However, in the context of Objectivism, it is indeed a breach of morality (excluding extenuating circumstances, assuming the job would have been an objective value to me, etc etc), because that choice negatively impacts my life. In general, if I do something that I know will have an overall negative effect on my life, I'm engaging in immorality, whether it is something huge like holding up a liquor store, or something small like procrastinating on a school assignment until the night before.

Now all of this is not to viciously condemn those who make small deviations from a course oriented towards their well-being; I certainly make plenty of those myself. On the contrary, my intention is to stress that if you define morality as following the proper course towards your own well-being, as Objectivism does, even small deviations are, technically speaking, immoral.

This is certainly not to say that many Objectivists don't use the word in a condemning fashion, or that it hasn't been used in that way in this very thread. However, that is not always the intended interpretation of the word. In fact, if someone else points out to me that one of my actions has been immoral (i.e. detrimental to my well-being) in a respectful and helpful way, the proper response is for me to thank that person, the same way I would thank someone for pointing out a mistake I made while doing a math problem.

***Mod's Note***

This post has led to a discussion on the morality of conforming to social expectations in the area of job interviews and other areas. Because of apparent interest in this discussion, it has been split into a separate thread here:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=20258

-Dante

Edited by Dante
Split Topic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's a massive difference between Rand's methods and those of certain fans of hers. I'd characterize it like this: Rand was an inspirational, world-class, creative dynamo who sometimes blew her top and made unfortunate and disproportionate judgments, where her hyper-judgmental fans are not inspirational, world-class, creative dynamos, but seem to have adopted Rand's vices as if they were virtues. I think that Rand earned some leeway. Her followers don't get to borrow that leeway. Personally, I'd rate Rand as being something like 95 percent positive and productive, where I'd rate a lot of her followers, at least in the realm of ideas and their propagation, as spending 95 percent of their time emulating Rand's negative 5 percent.

J

Here's a problem with what you're saying- you are condemning over the top unfortunate disproportionate judgements and responses while making them yourself.

You are taking good faith assertions of the moral status of actual situations- the OP asking about the morality of his repeated puchasing books with the intention of returning them and likening it to the "evil" of eating a single happy hour peanut without buying a drink- or equating flipping through a couple pages of a book to taking an unearned value.

You have some good arguments to make (although I still believe you to be incorrect on this matter) but the tone you're taking isn't going to help anyone to understand your point of view.

So the question becomes- are you at this point just posting on this topic to berate self-proclaimed Objectivists for all their flaws? That seems a poor use of your time and the forum.

Or, if you do want to make a point wouldn't you want to consider the counterproductive nature of taking things to such outlandish extremes?

This topic has a lot of posts on it now and you've created many scenarios to promote your point. The problem I'm having with understanding your position is that none of them are closely equivelent to the scenario the OP presented (if I missed one and am incorrect would appreciate the post number so I can take a peek(which I won't be paying anyone for)). :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's a massive difference between Rand's methods and those of certain fans of hers. I'd characterize it like this: [snip]

If you would like to further elaborate your broad psychological theory on the social habits of Objectivists, please start a separate thread for that.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a problem with what you're saying- you are condemning over the top unfortunate disproportionate judgements and responses while making them yourself.

No, I'm not "condemning" anyone. I'm not claiming that anyone is immoral (or dishonest, "evading," etc.)

(If anyone objects and says that I did so at the end of my last post, well, then I guess I'll have to explain that I was obviously feigning to adopt what I took to be Dante's proposed unconventional usage of the term "immoral.")

You are taking good faith assertions of the moral status of actual situations- the OP asking about the morality of his repeated purchasing books with the intention of returning them and likening it to the "evil" of eating a single happy hour peanut without buying a drink- or equating flipping through a couple pages of a book to taking an unearned value.

My point has been that if one is following a principle of not taking unearned value, then the amount taken, or the repetition of the taking, is not relevant. If one's ethics requires one to trade "value for value," then eating a single peanut without offering value in exchange is immoral, as is listening to a radio station without purchasing from advertisers, and flipping though a book without purchasing it. If one acts according to principle, then one doesn't overlook small degrees of immorality as acceptable. Would you argue that stealing a penny from a bank is okay because it's just a penny, which is practically worthless?

You have some good arguments to make (although I still believe you to be incorrect on this matter) but the tone you're taking isn't going to help anyone to understand your point of view.

So the question becomes- are you at this point just posting on this topic to berate self-proclaimed Objectivists for all their flaws? That seems a poor use of your time and the forum.

No. When I said earlier that I'd like to see Objectivism have more influence, I meant it. I really would like to see Objectivists try a different set of tactics than the failed ones they keep repeating generation after generation.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...