Hotel Minibar Ethics Question

[Paul Hsieh]

The January 10, 2010 New York Times recently published the following interesting ethics question:

When I checked into a hotel in California, I was starving, so I ate the $6 box of Oreos from the minibar. Later that day, I walked down the street to a convenience store, bought an identical box for $2.50 and replenished the minibar before the hotel had a chance to restock it. Was this proper? My view is "no harm, no foul." In fact, my box was fresher: the Oreos I ate were going to expire three months before the box I replaced them with.

DAVID LAT, NEW YORK

The NYT's ethicist Randy Cohen answered that the hotel guest was in the wrong:

...The hotel is providing not just a product but also a service -- the convenience of having Oreos available in your room, 24/7. To create this utopia of constant confectionery access, the hotel had to pay someone to travel the world and select the finest vintage cookies, order the Oreos and stock the minibar. You enjoyed that service; you must pay the (ridiculously high) price.

For what it's worth, I've never consumed any of the items in a hotel minibar.

But I have never thought of engaging in this sort of "minibar arbitrage" either (as Tyler Cowen calls it.)

Obviously if you take the Oreos from the minibar, you must make good. The key question is whether the only way to do so is pay the $6. Or is it ethically kosher just to replace the cookies?

Feel free to post your own thoughts in the comments section!

View the full article

[DavidOdden]

The concept "property" means that the owner has the exclusive right to dispose of the thing. Therefore, you may take his property only if you have permission. It is known that you have permission to take the property in exchange for money. It is not the case that there is a general "permission to borrow as long as you replenish the stock with a functionally equivalent object".

The only ethical actions in this context would be to either pay the money, or ask the owner if you may replace the property and avoid paying the charge.

[kainscalia]

David is right. Also if the hotel accepted this sort of substitution, they wouldn't have a direct control of the items in the fridge nor the quality thereof.

[freestyle]

Just imagine going out and eating a fine dinner in a nice restaurant. Then, after the meal, you hand the Maître d' a bag of groceries consisting of all the raw ingredients contained in what you just consumed and state, "Please adjust my check and only charge me for the 'labor'".

[Jake]

Would I be correct in identifying the "cookie-replacement" morality as pragmatism?

[D'kian]

I hear some minibars use RFID tags in the merhcandise, read by a reader on the minibar, and add a charge to the room bill as soon as something is pulled out. If so, then replacing the stuff just woulnd't work anymore.

As to the example, while one would be replacing the merchandise, one would not be paying for the service. If you don't want to pay minibar prices, don't take anything out fo the minibar. Suppose you stop for gas and go to the convenience store for a coke. You wouldn't refuse to pay, drive to another store, buy a cheaper coke and give that back to the convenience store. Again, if 7-11 is too expensive, shop elsewhere.

BTW I think minibar prices are too high. But I imagine enough people make use of them to make them profitable. Otherwise hotels would lower the prices or remove the things altogether. They are a considerable expenditure, after all. There's an initial investment, depreciation, cleaning, restocking, repairs, replacements, and they use power.

Ohm the example above would be ethical if you took some cookies from a friend's house and then replaced them. You are giving back the exact same value, regardless of whether you paid less for yours. It's like borrowing a cup of sugar, assuming people still do that.