Finders-Keepers

[MajorTom]

Let me start by introducing myself.

My name is Justin Robey; I am a freshman at UNC-Chapel Hill, and I have been a member of OO.net since early fall of last year. I find the amount and content of the discourse here great, and I am always interested in thoughts Objectivists have on many topics. By having conversations with real people whilst learning more about Oism through literature, I've found that my understanding of the philosophy has grown quite a bit.

That said, I'm still a neophyte. In fact, I haven't even made that great step into the scary world of philosophic non-fiction yet, but I believe I will have to ween myself off of Rand's captivating fiction this summer.

I've spent plenty of time reading topics and replying to a few, and some of you I have even talked with in the Chatroom. I've been quite timid about talking about a few things, waiting until I understood Oism a bit better before I asked a stupid question.

That said, I look forward to meeting even more of the interesting people here. Here goes...

One of my favorite ethics-testing situations is the case of the wallet.

One is walking down a sidewalk when suddenly he finds a wallet on the ground. The wallet has X amount of money in it. What does the person do?

Common choices are: keep the wallet, turn it into a police station, donate the money to charity, leave it there, etc...

What I am interested in is how an Oist would handle the situation.

My hypothesis is that if there were no ID in it at all, he would keep it, but if there were ID in it he would leave it, as it is someone else's property.

The reason I wasn't satisfied with that is that my logic falls apart when I go through the various conditions. Why does having an ID in the wallet change his ethical decision? Whose property is it when it hits the ground? What if it fell on government property? What if it was in the wilderness?

Perhaps this question is an intrinsicist oversimplification of a complicated situation. I don't know. That's why I've come here.

What would/should an Oist do if he were to come across a wallet on the ground?

[chuckleslord]

the fallacy with this is that you have rationalized that you need to have some sort of ID to allow it to be property. just because the man forgot an ID in his wallet, doesn't change the fact that it is his. he bought the wallet, he earned the money, every part of that wallet belongs to him. to say that that is instantly null and voided if he drops it somewhere is ridiculous.

now, while I cannot speak for every Oist (myself still being a Neophyte) I would turn in the wallet to the local police station. that being the only rational act to respond to such an act, unless of course the wallet had an ID with a location on it, then I would return it myself (government is always a little to slow).

anyother option is either Immoral or Irresponsible. while you could leave the wallet there(the act not consider Moral or Immoral, it is neutral in nature, it wasn't your responsibility to begin with), the others are immoral. don't take it to keep, it is not your property. don't give the money to a charity, it is not yours to give, etc.

[DavidOdden]

The primary fact is that the wallet and content are not the property of the finder, and the finder knows that it belongs to someone else. The proper assumption to make is that the wallet was accidentally lost, and that the owner wants his stuff. If there is some ID in the wallet, it may be possible to return the property to the rightful owner (and you should do so). The presence of ID does not change the property status of the wallet, it changes the possibility of returning it to the owner.

If you can't identify the owner, you should take it to the police. Under no circumstance should you donate it to charity. You also should not keep it, because, again, it is not your property. However, it is possible that the wallet is abandoned, in which case it is in fact unowned. If it is unowned then you have a legitimate claim to owning it. This determination should, however, be made according to objective rules. Taking the wallet to the police (or similar competent authority, such as the store manager) makes it maximally likely that the owner will be able to reover their property and, after a particular period of time, it can be officially deemed to be abandoned and thus claimable.

When I say that you should take it to the police, I don't mean that this is an absolute moral imperative, that you should sacrifice your life to turn it in. But 99% of the time, you should because there is no self-sacrifice. If you really can't take it to the police for whatever reason (I dunno, you're a wanted felon) then leave it for the next person, who hopefully will be moral.

[MajorTom]

Thank you for the quick and thorough responses.

When I say that you should take it to the police, I don't mean that this is an absolute moral imperative, that you should sacrifice your life to turn it in. But 99% of the time, you should because there is no self-sacrifice.

I don't quite understand how taking time to go to the police station so some careless person can get his wallet back rather than doing things that benefit your own life is not sacrifice. Is your argument that you would be achieving a value in returning the wallet? If so, what value?

[Grames]

Not my wallet, so I would leave it. The owner would likely wander back this way looking for it. If the context (wilderness, whatever) was such that the owner would likely never see it again, I'd pick it up to see if it could be returned.

I would expect the effort of returning it or letting the police handle it would be fairly trivial. Setting things right is satisfying, it keeps the world orderly and rational.

edit: Application of justice to strangers, who have a default value well above zero.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Grames

[Randroid]

I don't quite understand how taking time to go to the police station so some careless person can get his wallet back rather than doing things that benefit your own life is not sacrifice. Is your argument that you would be achieving a value in returning the wallet? If so, what value?

If you lost your wallet, wouldn't it be nice if you could go to a police station and pick it up because someone was so courteous as to drop it off there, which is, as Grames pointed out, rather trivial?

You are not obliged to do that, but if you expect or even just hope for this sort of behavior from others, it is rational to lead by example.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Randroid

[JMeganSnow]

I don't quite understand how taking time to go to the police station so some careless person can get his wallet back rather than doing things that benefit your own life is not sacrifice. Is your argument that you would be achieving a value in returning the wallet? If so, what value?

This is because, like most Objectivist neophytes, you fail to understand two important concepts: principle and context. (This is a REALLY common problem and only to be expected.)

The context of this situation is a society where you have chosen to live, where property rights are respected, and where it is proper for you to act as a responsible citizen. The principle is that you serve your own life by respecting the nature of and requirements for that kind of society, and a proper society can only exist if citizens are responsible about defending the idea of property rights. It is not a sacrifice--you are defending a greater value (the continued existence of a proper and moral society) by not picking up a few short-term transitory trinkets.

[DavidOdden]

I don't quite understand how taking time to go to the police station so some careless person can get his wallet back rather than doing things that benefit your own life is not sacrifice. Is your argument that you would be achieving a value in returning the wallet? If so, what value?

Objectivism does not hold that you should ignore other people as worthless scum; thus Objectivism does not hold that you should scoot into a parking space that someone else is aiming for, just because you can get there first. Ordinary charitable and civil behavior is perfectly consistent with Objectivism. I find the behavior of drivers (which is regionally quite variable) to be a good concretization of the idea that accumulated small actions can have a substantial impact on things that matter to your own life. I have driving in and near New Haven or Chicago, because of the cultural norms for drivers in that area. What passes for acceptable driving there is really pretty uncivilized (by the standards of my two main driving-experience towns).

In a benevolent society (which is fully compatible with Objectivism), if you lose your wallet, there is a good chance that you can retrieve it because someone found it and turned it in to the police. This is an objective value. If you decide "screw 'em, idiot ought learn how to keep ahold of his wallet", you are not acting to keep that value, and eventually that value will be lost (assuming that people in your society generally act like you).

As I said, this does not translate into a moral imperative to destroy something of value to you, in order to rain down an immediate enefit on a stranger. But I find it very hard to imagine a realistic scenario where you could not simply drop the wallet off at the cop shop. Sure, you can cook up all sorts of outlandish scenarios about an impoverished cripple who only has 5 minutes left to live, but realistically, I just don't see what the actual sacrifice is.

I also suggest that you not try rationalizing your choice by appeal to contempt for strangers -- the assumption that the owner was "careless". Maybe we should follow you around for a few days to see if you ever screw up something. If you know that the owner deserves to be deprived of his wallet, that's another matter. If not, you should assume that a stranger is in fact a potential value to you.

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

I'd hand it over to the police. Calling the owner and such would be bothersome.

A country's official ''lost and found'' register, another valid role of the government?

[MajorTom]

The context of this situation is a society where you have chosen to live, where property rights are respected, and where it is proper for you to act as a responsible citizen. The principle is that you serve your own life by respecting the nature of and requirements for that kind of society, and a proper society can only exist if citizens are responsible about defending the idea of property rights. It is not a sacrifice--you are defending a greater value (the continued existence of a proper and moral society) by not picking up a few short-term transitory trinkets.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, by not picking it up (which would probably be fine in a perfectly rational society) or by turning it in to a police station, I would be respecting the concept of property rights, which I hold to be important because of my values. Just as I shouldn't take a "misplaced" car parked somewhere unlocked with the keys in it, I shouldn't take a misplaced wallet. Whether or not it was the owner's choice to put it in a particular location doesn't matter?

Edited April 15, 2009 by MajorTom

[EC]

I'd hand it over to the police. Calling the owner and such would be bothersome.

A country's official ''lost and found'' register, another valid role of the government?

The poster said this jokingly, but this is seriously the reason why I most likely wouldn't give the wallet to the police (unless there happened to be one within a short distance). It's not the police's job to play "lost and found" but to protect your rights. Protecting your rights doesn't entail returning property to those who are to careless to refrain from losing it. Imagine the, admittedly somewhat unlikely, situation where a man is threatening your life with a gun and you call 911 and the operator replies, "Sure, we'll send an officer right out as soon as he's done returning some guy's lost wallet." (!)

If it had ID in it, I'd mail it or take it to him. If there was a phone number, I'd call the guy. If there was a cop within sight (or close to it), I'd give it to him--on the principle that protecting the rights of citizens entails protecting their property; however, as I said above it doesn't include protecting them from their own carelessness. So the police should only make an attempt to return it in their spare time as would any other citizen. If there was no ID or means of contact and no cop around, I'd probably leave the wallet just sitting there as there is nothing else I could do and the owner is probably going to attempt to retrace his steps to find it anyway. If it was still there days later, I would consider it abandoned and act accordingly.

Edited April 15, 2009 by EC

[John Link]

If the wallet contained no ID then I would be very hesitant to leave it on the ground with money in it, since I know there are people around who will take the money if they find it. A better strategy would be to leave the wallet where I found it and put in it a note saying how to contact me. Of course someone else might come by and pocket the wallet even without any money in it. And upon receiving a call from someone claiming to be the owner of the wallet I would need to determine whether he was actually the owner.

It seems like "Finders-Keepers" might not be so bad after all, provided there is no ID in the wallet.

Moral of the story: Keep track of your things, and make sure you put your ID on them for the times when you screw up.

John Link

[JMeganSnow]

Whether or not it was the owner's choice to put it in a particular location doesn't matter?

I can't see how it would, unless they explicitly *gave* it to you.

The poster said this jokingly, but this is seriously the reason why I most likely wouldn't give the wallet to the police (unless there happened to be one within a short distance). It's not the police's job to play "lost and found" but to protect your rights.

There's no reason why gov't employees can't act as a sort of clearinghouse for this kind of thing (up to the point where it becomes a nuisance). But any relatively-public centralized location can work just as well.

[MajorTom]

So in the end...

This would be in my self-interest because I would be achieving a value by respecting property rights.

One more question. What if it were a twenty-dollar bill, as opposed to a wallet?

[Chops]

One more question. What if it were a twenty-dollar bill, as opposed to a wallet?

It really depends on the context. If you just come across a $20 bill blowing with the wind and you manage to grab it, have a look around. Does anyone seem to be chasing after it, or even looking for it. If not, there's literally no way it could be returned to the previous owner, nor would there be a way for the owner to claim it, were it handed in to police.

Obviously, if you saw the person drop it, then you know who owns it and can return it accordingly.

The threshold of whether or not something can be rationally considered abandoned is dependent on the nature of the object in question. An unlocked, unoccupied car is likely not abandoned. Likewise with a wallet. But a bill floating through the air, or found embedded in the grass is safe to say it's abandoned.

Always consider the context. It's a common mistake to ask "what-ifs" separated from their context ("Is it wrong to kill someone?"). Everything has a context, it's up to you to identify the context and act accordingly.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Chops

[Jake_Ellison]

So in the end...

This would be in my self-interest because I would be achieving a value by respecting property rights.

One more question. What if it were a twenty-dollar bill, as opposed to a wallet?

I actually picked up ten bucks a while back on the sidewalk, hung around for a few minutes (probably because I was still smoking at the time and had something to do while waiting), and sure enough a kid came looking for it. It was probably his entire fortune, or someone gave it to him to buy something, and would've gotten into trouble for loosing it--giving it back made me feel all good about myself. (Not sure how it looked to the people walking by though, watching me approach a shy kid with money in my hand.)

So what I'm saying is that you should pick up smoking unless you're already doing it.

[intellectualammo]

One more question. What if it were a twenty-dollar bill, as opposed to a wallet?

I found, not too long ago, about $650 in an unmarked envelope in an area in the hospital I work at. I turned it into security and within a few hours an older couple had called the hospital and wondered if anybody had turned in said amount in said envelope, and to their surprise, they were told that someone did, me. They had went out to eat, having just cashed in hubby's paycheck and went to pay, and had no money. Luckily they knew the owners. But when they told her they had the money, the woman said "No one does things like that anymore." I do it all the time. I found a diamond earring of an ICU RN when (I gather) a patient coded and with lots of movement and people, I think her earring came out. I found it. They actually told me ahead of time to look for it when in there, but still. I also found a laptop computer stuffed in a public bathroom garbage bin (I wondered why it was heavy) and I turned it into secutiry as well, and as I was told, it was a roaming PT workers, and all her patient files or something was on it, and was going to lose her job over it, at least that's what one of the guards told me.

I turn it in for a number of reasons. I'd want someone to do that for me. It's certainly not a sacrifice for me to do so. (I think)I'm actually supposed to turn such things into security, since not only that persons belongings aren't mine, but the property(the hospital) that it is found on, isn't mine either. Plus, it feels good to do it, and most of the time pays off. I was nominated for an award for turning the money in, and many in my department really wanted to see one of us get that award, but I told them, I doubt I will get it, since I was only doing my job anyways. And I didn't get it, like I thought.

Edited April 16, 2009 by intellectualammo

[wilicyote]

I love Rand's catch all position on this question. NOTHING is a value if it is UNEARNED. So now that we are certain that we are not going to keep it, the only question is what to do -- nothing (leave it there), or act graciously (attempt to return it.) All acts of benevolance are voluntary and extremely contextual, i.e. how much effort vs. benefit in reinforcing desireable social conditions. So, in short, the answer is that it depends on the exact circumstances.

[MajorTom]

I love Rand's catch all position on this question. NOTHING is a value if it is UNEARNED. So now that we are certain that we are not going to keep it, the only question is what to do -- nothing (leave it there), or act graciously (attempt to return it.) All acts of benevolance are voluntary and extremely contextual, i.e. how much effort vs. benefit in reinforcing desireable social conditions. So, in short, the answer is that it depends on the exact circumstances.

Ok, that actually makes alot of sense. Thanks for the help everyone.

[Grames]

Ok, that actually makes alot of sense. Thanks for the help everyone.

For completeness, there should be a discussion on just when Finder's Keeper's is a valid doctrine.

It is valid when exploring the unknown and there are no established property rights. It is valid for the establishing who can assert ownership over abandoned property. Intellectual achievements such as discovering new physical principles are credited to the first person to find the new truth (which is the only way possession can apply to a universal truth).

Intellectual property such as patents and copyrights follow the pattern, with an interesting distinction. An inventor or author is the metaphysical creator of the new value while a discoverer does not metaphysically cause the discovery. A discoverer's labor creates value where there was none, and that is the source of his claim.