Is it ethical...

[headscratcher4]

http://www.foolishpeople.com/foolish...vs_bigots.html

To rip them off...sounds like fun, but?

[Apathia]

Ethical?
That may be too heavy a word for the circumstance. It's a bit of mischief that doesn't have much impact. Their literature is getting distributed, which is their main goal.

[Loss Leader]

Well, I had my friend who's a lawyer look into it. My friend can't find anything illegal about shipping oneself anything one wants for a donation of zero. In fact, my friend thinks you can even enter your real information with real addresses and phone numbers and there's nothing they can do to you.

Nowhere on the family.org website do they mention that a minimum donation of ANYTHING is required or that accepting materials mandates you to do anything else.

Post the link in a more conspicuous spot. But only after my friend gets his three copies of Narnia.

[slingblade]

My conscience has no problem with this whatsoever. One shouldn't offer free stuff if one doesn't really mean it. What's the Latin for "Let the seller beware"....caveat mercantor?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Well, I had my friend who's a lawyer look into it. My friend can't find anything illegal about shipping oneself anything one wants for a donation of zero. In fact, my friend thinks you can even enter your real information with real addresses and phone numbers and there's nothing they can do to you.

Nowhere on the family.org website do they mention that a minimum donation of ANYTHING is required or that accepting materials mandates you to do anything else.

Post the link in a more conspicuous spot. But only after my friend gets his three copies of Narnia.

Wouldn't actually charging for things affect their tax-exempt status?

In any case, the website works just like the fellow says it does. I'll let you know in 7-10 days if anything actually shows up.

I'm in Canada, BTW, so if they send stuff here they'll likely send it anywhere.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Wouldn't actually charging for things affect their tax-exempt status? .

No, it would not.

[Katana]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Wouldn't actually charging for things affect their tax-exempt status?

Not if they call it a donation.

I am wrestling with the ethical question, but it is tempting to take advantage of this group. My fear, though, is in giving them my address. I don't want their propaganda to suddenly start showing up at my home. I would not want in any way to appear to be aligned with their views, and who knows who they give their names and addresses, too? I might end up being flooded with b.s. from other whacky groups.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by slingblade

What's the Latin for "Let the seller beware"....caveat mercantor?

Caveat vendor.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by brodski

Caveat vendor.

Ah! Thanks!

[Marc L]

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

http://www.foolishpeople.com/foolish...vs_bigots.html

To rip them off...sounds like fun, but?

It would, in my opinion, be unethical (and immoral). FoF has to spend money on either obtaining the goods or creating them. While they give them away for 'donations', they obviously expect to make enough money to cover their costs. By just going through repeatedly and taking $100 worth of goods, you are, in effect, making it more difficult to cover their costs. Basically, you're stealing from them.

While you may not like them, and you may in fact hope that they fail in their endeavors, unethical behavior is not the answer, if for no other reason than it reduces your credibility, and increases theirs.

Marc

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Marc L

It would, in my opinion, be unethical (and immoral). FoF has to spend money on either obtaining the goods or creating them. While they give them away for 'donations', they obviously expect to make enough money to cover their costs. By just going through repeatedly and taking $100 worth of goods, you are, in effect, making it more difficult to cover their costs. Basically, you're stealing from them.

While you may not like them, and you may in fact hope that they fail in their endeavors, unethical behavior is not the answer, if for no other reason than it reduces your credibility, and increases theirs.

Marc

No, it is not theft, the organisation is giving away merchandise, they then ask (but do not demand) a voluntary donation in return. Before the goods are dispatched the organisation is well aware of the amount donated. If they still choose to give away goods for no financial return that is their choice. Remember, this is essentially a promotional offer, would you claim that it was immoral or steeling to sign up for a 30 day trail of AOL, and then cancel before you where billed? How is that morally different?

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Marc L

By just going through repeatedly and taking $100 worth of goods, you are, in effect, making it more difficult to cover their costs. Basically, you're stealing from them.

It may be a lot of things, but one thing I know is it is not theft. It's not petty theft. It's not even theft by trick. I read all of the pertinent web pages very carefully; they are giving stuff away for free. They do not demand money; They do not state that taking the gifts obligates one in any way. We are depriving them of nothing with which they will not willingly part. I have no problems with it.

[Marc L]

Originally Posted by brodski

No, it is not theft, the organisation is giving away merchandise, they then ask (but do not demand) a voluntary donation in return. Before the goods are dispatched the organisation is well aware of the amount donated. If they still choose to give away goods for no financial return that is their choice. Remember, this is essentially a promotional offer, would you claim that it was immoral or steeling to sign up for a 30 day trail of AOL, and then cancel before you where billed? How is that morally different?

I need to cogitate on this one. It still seems like it's at least unethical, if not immoral (I take your point on theft). I was up late last night and up early this morning, so let me see if I can explain why later.

Marc

[Morrigan]

Haha... Would like to help, but there is actually nothing in their crap that I want. Oh well.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Marc L

I need to cogitate on this one. It still seems like it's at least unethical, if not immoral (I take your point on theft). I was up late last night and up early this morning, so let me see if I can explain why later.

Marc

I can understand why it feels wrong, but I can't come up with a reason why it's any more wrong than taking other promotional items when you have little intention of buying the main product.

[Marc L]

Originally Posted by brodski

I can understand why it feels wrong, but I can't come up with a reason why it's any more wrong than taking other promotional items when you have little intention of buying the main product.

I think this is where I'm seeing the problem. In my opinion, it's a matter of degree. Taking brodski's AOL promotion, it's one thing to take the 30 day free trial and then either subscribe or cancel. In that case, it's an expected write-off. AOL intended for you to try their product, decide if you like it, and then, hopefully, buy it.

On the other hand, imagine brodski were able to get a dozen separate free trials. He activates one as another expires, using different names, etc. Given how many free trials AOL offers, brodski could continue this for a couple of years, getting totally free access to AOL.

Now, on the one hand, it's not immoral. Like brodski mentioned with the donations, you're not taking anything that wasn't freely offered. On the other hand, I feel that it is unethical. By, essentially, cheating the system, you are taking from the company (either AOL of FoF) more than they intended to give (and, in the case of the OP's campaign, more than they may be able to give).

To use another example. You're hungry. Starving, in fact. A kindly old lady (or man, if you prefer) offers you some food. You accept. Rather, however, than just taking enough food for one meal, you raid her pantry, and stock up enough food to last you a week. You haven't stolen from her-after all, she freely offered you some food. But you have taken advantage of the offer to receive more than she expected to give, and now, she may be the one going hungry.

I suppose in the end it's a question of whether or not the ends justify the means. Several hundred dollars worth of stuff (valuable or not) according to the website mentioned in the OP, two years worth of AOL, and a week's worth of food are the ends.

Is cheating really justified in any of these situations?

Marc

[andyandy]

here's my take on it;

it's not unethical. It's a free rider dilemma

(where an individual can opt out of a scheme set up for communal benefit at no immediate cost to himself, but to the detriment of the group. Examples could be hopping the turnstiles for the subway, or on a more expansive level, the reason why socialism is utopian.)

However, in this case defecting is your optimum response because you actively want the scheme to fail. So it's a free rider dilemma without the dilemma

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally Posted by Marc L

I think this is where I'm seeing the problem. In my opinion, it's a matter of degree. Taking brodski's AOL promotion, it's one thing to take the 30 day free trial and then either subscribe or cancel. In that case, it's an expected write-off. AOL intended for you to try their product, decide if you like it, and then, hopefully, buy it.

On the other hand, imagine brodski were able to get a dozen separate free trials. He activates one as another expires, using different names, etc. Given how many free trials AOL offers, brodski could continue this for a couple of years, getting totally free access to AOL.

Now, on the one hand, it's not immoral. Like brodski mentioned with the donations, you're not taking anything that wasn't freely offered. On the other hand, I feel that it is unethical. By, essentially, cheating the system, you are taking from the company (either AOL of FoF) more than they intended to give (and, in the case of the OP's campaign, more than they may be able to give).

It is unethical in this case because it is deceptive. He must give false information to continue his free trial indefinitely. There is no such deception required to receive the things from FoF.

Quote:

To use another example. You're hungry. Starving, in fact. A kindly old lady (or man, if you prefer) offers you some food. You accept. Rather, however, than just taking enough food for one meal, you raid her pantry, and stock up enough food to last you a week. You haven't stolen from her-after all, she freely offered you some food. But you have taken advantage of the offer to receive more than she expected to give, and now, she may be the one going hungry.

If someone opens their pantry to me and says "take what you like", I shall do so. If there intent is to give less, it is their job to state that intent. I should not have to be a mindreader to be ethical.

[senorpogo]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

Haha... Would like to help, but there is actually nothing in their crap that I want. Oh well.

seriously. what junk.

[Katana]

Originally Posted by Marc L

I need to cogitate on this one. It still seems like it's at least unethical, if not immoral (I take your point on theft). I was up late last night and up early this morning, so let me see if I can explain why later.

Marc

How about this? Order a boat-load of stuff and give it to charity.

[Almo]

Originally Posted by Marc L

I think this is where I'm seeing the problem. In my opinion, it's a matter of degree. Taking brodski's AOL promotion, it's one thing to take the 30 day free trial and then either subscribe or cancel. In that case, it's an expected write-off. AOL intended for you to try their product, decide if you like it, and then, hopefully, buy it.

On the other hand, imagine brodski were able to get a dozen separate free trials. He activates one as another expires, using different names, etc. Given how many free trials AOL offers, brodski could continue this for a couple of years, getting totally free access to AOL.

I don't buy this analogy, because the service you'd be getting for free would be very poor. Well, not that AOL is any good anyway, but that's another issue. Doing this would not allow you to use the same email address, so people couldn't really reach you there. You couldn't take advantage of many AOL services properly (IM, personal webspace) without a continuous account. I suppose with clever forwarding and such you could, but that would be a LOAD of hassle. In any case, I bet AOL would stop allowing the same person to keep doing that over and over and over. In the end, it's up to AOL.

What FoF really wants is thier message out there. They apparently think it's worth it to pay for Narnia just to get people to watch it; then they might read the books, and get into CS Lewis and... You get the idea.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by senorpogo

seriously. what junk.

I got three Narnia DVDs. I'm gonna sell them on Ebay and use the money to buy stuff on Ebay.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

I got three Narnia DVDs. I'm gonna sell them on Ebay and use the money to buy stuff on Ebay.

"Loss Leader" - Isn't that pretty much what this offer is? I think it's quite appropriate for you to take them to the cleaners

In this case, the product they hope you'll buy more of is their particular religious positions on a host of social issues. If you don't want that, you don't have to buy it.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Horatius

"Loss Leader" - Isn't that pretty much what this offer is? I think it's quite appropriate for you to take them to the cleaners

In this case, the product they hope you'll buy more of is their particular religious positions on a host of social issues. If you don't want that, you don't have to buy it.

Without doubt. But my screen name is derived from the term for the beginning part of an audio or computer tape before the magnetic coating begins. That's the "leader" and anything one tries to record on it is lost. In the twenty years since I adopted the handle, loss leaders have completely disappeared and now almost all tape is leaderless.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Without doubt. But my screen name is derived from the term for the beginning part of an audio or computer tape before the magnetic coating begins. That's the "leader" and anything one tries to record on it is lost. In the twenty years since I adopted the handle, loss leaders have completely disappeared and now almost all tape is leaderless.

Hey, learn something new every day!

[Wheezebucket]

I've been spreading the word all over. Hope it lasts!

[CP489]

Originally Posted by Katana

How about this? Order a boat-load of stuff and give it to charity.

I think those who recieve charity have bigger problems than preventing their kids from becoming homosexuals.

[Darat]

Looks like they've changed their policy:

Quote:

Confirm your donation amount

Focus on the Family is able to provide resources to those in need or undergoing hardship situations. Your generosity allows Focus on the Family to meet these needs.

The amount you have chosen to give is less than the suggested donation for the resources requested, as shown below: Total of Resource Request = US $ 85.00

Amount you've chosen to give = US $ 0.00

We are unable to process your request online, as the amount you've chosen to donate is less than the suggested donation. We may be able to complete your request, but need you to contact us directly at (800) A-FAMILY (232-6459) so that we may serve your resource needs directly.

If you wish, you may return to the previously screen and specify a different donation amount for these resources. Thank you!

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Darat

Looks like they've changed their policy:

I'm gonna be really upset if they don't send me my DVDs. I got in before they changed the policy.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

I'm gonna be really upset if they don't send me my DVDs. I got in before they changed the policy.

Did they send you a conformation of your order?

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by brodski

Did they send you a conformation of your order?

Yes. Same day as I placed it.

[Marc L]

Originally Posted by andyandy

here's my take on it;

it's not unethical. It's a free rider dilemma

(where an individual can opt out of a scheme set up for communal benefit at no immediate cost to himself, but to the detriment of the group. Examples could be hopping the turnstiles for the subway.

And that's not unethical, because?

Originally Posted by marquis

If someone opens their pantry to me and says "take what you like", I shall do so. If there intent is to give less, it is their job to state that intent. I should not have to be a mindreader to be ethical.

Not a mind reader, no, but I think a little common sense should apply. If you're going take more than the person can reasonably handle, you should, at the very least, verify that you can take as much as you like.

It's certainly not a black and white issue (ethics generally aren't, IMO), that's why I've been trying to be consistent in stating this as my opinion. Personally, I haven't even gone to Fof's site, nor would I criticize anyone who did (at least out loud).

Fortunately, it's all academic anyways, since they've changed their policy.

Originally Posted by Katana

How about this? Order a boat-load of stuff and give it to charity.

No good. Again, it's an 'ends justifies the means' concept. Giving the stuff to charity wouldn't justify cheating to get it. (Again, in my opinion).

Marc

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally Posted by Marc L

Not a mind reader, no, but I think a little common sense should apply. If you're going take more than the person can reasonably handle, you should, at the very least, verify that you can take as much as you like.

I agree. I just don't think being given access to someone's pantry is analogous to the FoF situation (as it was). For one thing, they can reasonably handle you taking a couple of DVDs.

Quote:

It's certainly not a black and white issue (ethics generally aren't, IMO), that's why I've been trying to be consistent in stating this as my opinion. Personally, I haven't even gone to Fof's site, nor would I criticize anyone who did (at least out loud).

I've not gone, either. But not because it is in my opinion unethical to do so, but because it is useless.

[Katana]

Originally Posted by CP489

I think those who recieve charity have bigger problems than preventing their kids from becoming homosexuals.

Too true. I thought that they would have a bit more mainstream stuff than just the Chronicles of Narnia DVD. How silly of me.