What would YOU do?

[NvrBlufn]

"Don't believe in God, don't believe in luck, don't believe in karma or the golden rule." What do those people believe in?

Community? They are here, after all...

Family? Everyone has one of those...

I don't understand everyone in here defending the action to take something.

We've moved on from whether this is stealing or not. It isn't that important how you define the action or if you can justify it in a way that is not stealing that is still not good for you because it's hurting someone else. We've moved on from the fact that the OP was referring to $20 dollars (not much by most gambler's standards).

The only question is whether you would return something that was given to you by mistake. You did not do anything to earn it, someone just goofed up. The reason the responses seem appalling is because it seems that most of us wouldn't. Not even $20. I admit I would REALLY be put to the test if five or ten thousand dollars or more came to me. I would think I must have done something right and this is like the universe giving me some sort of award, lol.

Also, I do think too heavily it seems about the consequences of my actions on and off the table. No "moral high ground" here. I just think that it is wrong to exploit others OFF of the tables and in life generally speaking. I do not feel it is my job to judge or punish someone else for their mistakes doing their job for instance. We're all human, we all make mistakes. I guess I really do try to give others the same break I would like to be given. I din't give much credit to "the golden rule" thing as many times as I heard it as a kid, but it really does help me to stay on the positive side of that now that I am an adult.

 

[ScottishMatt]

Look, if the guy from the cage runs up behind me, taps me on the shoulder and says that he made an error and really needs the $20 chip back for whatever ****ing reason, be it his job or anything else. Then no question would I give it back. I wouldn't go out of my way to fix his mistake though.

Either he doesn't try to correct it himself and we profit. Or he attempts to correct it and in complying, we earn yourself a friend in the casino. For me that is a win/win, and I don't even have to do anything.

 

[NvrBlufn]

I think that there is a less-than-human fallacy clouding this topic. Like, if the money comes from the casino it is okay because the casino is not a person. If the money comes from a nice charity, then the money is still not coming from a person, but at least the charity tries to help others whereas the casinos are simply here to rob and entertain.

In either instance the money came from a person unless your THIS MAN (I think his was a technological error or a ridiculous joke).

In order to make it even more human and shed some light on why it is wrong, we might as well just speculate. This is just for the sake of understanding, not argument

If you are a parent, imagine your young son or daughter has struggled to get by in life. They are finally on their own and somehow just barely making it. They've landed a job at the local casino because that was really all they could get but they are happy to have a job. One day they make a mistake and hand someone too many chips and are fired at the end of their shift. Better or worse?

Imagine it is your job and you are having a really difficult time. Spouse is leaving you for another person and you have to deal with the divorce, assets, etc. Is it so easy to push this all out of your mind the day you find out? Suppose you make a small slip up there.

Finally if all else fails and at the risk of polluting this thread with my self-absorbed nonsense some more... Perhaps the person counting your chips is thinking about their mother, dying in a hospital not far away and wanting their shift to end so they can rush to be with her hopefully before it is too late!

It is possible the person just was not very smart but they probably wouldn't have a job handling money in a casino if they were that incompetent. Chances are there is something else that's important to them distracting their mind. This is a consideration we only make if we view them all as human and compare them to ourselves and our own hardships.

No matter what I choose to believe in or anyone else here, I do not want to cost anyone their job. I don't know them or their struggle. For $20 especially, go win it at the table or go home that much poorer.

 

[DextersDad]

Honesty goes a lot further than $20.

 

[TeUnit]

hope u gave it back

 

[ScottishMatt]

I think that there is a less-than-human fallacy clouding this topic. Like, if the money comes from the casino it is okay because the casino is not a person. If the money comes from a nice charity, then the money is still not coming from a person, but at least the charity tries to help others whereas the casinos are simply here to rob and entertain.

In either instance the money came from a person unless your THIS MAN (I think his was a technological error or a ridiculous joke).

In order to make it even more human and shed some light on why it is wrong, we might as well just speculate. This is just for the sake of understanding, not argument

If you are a parent, imagine your young son or daughter has struggled to get by in life. They are finally on their own and somehow just barely making it. They've landed a job at the local casino because that was really all they could get but they are happy to have a job. One day they make a mistake and hand someone too many chips and are fired at the end of their shift. Better or worse?

Imagine it is your job and you are having a really difficult time. Spouse is leaving you for another person and you have to deal with the divorce, assets, etc. Is it so easy to push this all out of your mind the day you find out? Suppose you make a small slip up there.

Finally if all else fails and at the risk of polluting this thread with my self-absorbed nonsense some more... Perhaps the person counting your chips is thinking about their mother, dying in a hospital not far away and wanting their shift to end so they can rush to be with her hopefully before it is too late!

It is possible the person just was not very smart but they probably wouldn't have a job handling money in a casino if they were that incompetent. Chances are there is something else that's important to them distracting their mind. This is a consideration we only make if we view them all as human and compare them to ourselves and our own hardships.

No matter what I choose to believe in or anyone else here, I do not want to cost anyone their job. I don't know them or their struggle. For $20 especially, go win it at the table or go home that much poorer.

It would be the exact same as if they weren't my child. Make a mistake and you are responsible for your errors. Whether it's someone related to me or not I don't give a shit.


Sounds to me that insert this emotional process into what should be objective reasoning. As I said, I wouldn't change my opinion even if you switched the positions and say that, perhaps my brother was working in the cage. ****, even if I'm working there I wouldn't change my opinion. If I made an error and lost my job as a result, I can hardly blame it on someone else stealing. I hope you can see just how pathetic that excuse would be?

So you can try to switch positions in the hope to sway me from my perspective but the fact of the matter is, I wouldn't change a damn thing regardless of who you place in the scenario. And that is why my opinion holds more weight than those who would alter their's based upon such meaningless factors - like how much the chips are worth.


As for the casino v charity scenarios. You seem to misunderstand. It doesn't matter who the money comes from nor why. My reasoning for taking a different option with the charity hypothesis has nothing to do with what is correct. It's the exact same situation, like you said, and I wouldn't hold it against someone who decides to keep the charity money. I can see why the morally egocentric would look down upon someone who would keep the money, I myself would describe it as a dick-ish move. However there is nothing logically wrong with it.


I'll go to your level here and take an emotional POV on this. Understand this is completely hyperbolic, but we are talking morality here so scope should have no effect on judgement, unless you are a hypocrite. Let's say Obama has a daughter and she suffers from cancer. His hand accidentally slips on the button and he sets off a chain of nuclear events that destroy all of humanity (what a dick, right!). Well no, his poor daughter was suffering from cancer and we should take it easy on the guy cause it just wasn't his fault . . . (!) . . . You can claim that the casino employee doesn't deserve to lose his job because of some unknown factor. I struggle to think that you wouldn't hold it against Obama in my example. In the end, people have no claim to a job they are incapable of doing.

 

[NvrBlufn]

It would be the exact same as if they weren't my child. Make a mistake and you are responsible for your errors. Whether it's someone related to me or not I don't give a shit.

...

So you can try to switch positions in the hope to sway me from my perspective but the fact of the matter is, I wouldn't change a damn thing regardless of who you place in the scenario. And that is why my opinion holds more weight than those who would alter their's based upon such meaningless factors - like how much the chips are worth.

...

As for the casino v charity scenarios. You seem to misunderstand. It doesn't matter who the money comes from nor why. My reasoning for taking a different option with the charity hypothesis has nothing to do with what is correct. It's the exact same situation, like you said, and I wouldn't hold it against someone who decides to keep the charity money. I can see why the morally egocentric would look down upon someone who would keep the money, I myself would describe it as a dick-ish move. However there is nothing logically wrong with it.

I guess we all tend to think that way. Everyone thinks his/her own opinions hold more weight.

I'll go to your level here and take an emotional POV on this. Understand this is completely hyperbolic, but we are talking morality here so scope should have no effect on judgement, unless you are a hypocrite. Let's say Obama has a daughter and she suffers from cancer. His hand accidentally slips on the button and he sets off a chain of nuclear events that destroy all of humanity (what a dick, right!). Well no, his poor daughter was suffering from cancer and we should take it easy on the guy cause it just wasn't his fault . . . (!) . . . You can claim that the casino employee doesn't deserve to lose his job because of some unknown factor. I struggle to think that you wouldn't hold it against Obama in my example. In the end, people have no claim to a job they are incapable of doing.

I wouldn't hold it against him. Since we would all be dead, I wouldn't be holding anything! :shot:

Obama does have a daughter by the way. Two daughters. You might be making the point that family concerns should never factor in with one's employment, especially the presidency but you would be wrong. I dare say every recent president has been affected by their familial issues and I suppose it wasn't any different throughout history. Clinton's sex scandal was a family issue, Bush's pre-occupation with the Middle East was a family issue, Obama... well he has two daughters, we'll see.

We're not talking about global disaster here. No one is going to die for this error (A person would have to be pretty callous not to have a heart in any of those situations though). I think all in all you are just diverting the blame to the one who made the initial mistake, but two wrongs don't make a right. You seem stubbornly set in your position and I wouldn't try to sway that, but I think it is just an ongoing debate people will have over what exactly is right vs. what is wrong.

 

[zEric7x]

No matter what I choose to believe in or anyone else here, I do not want to cost anyone their job.

How would you feel if I returned the money but then reported the person? I think a mistake like that should be noted.

 

[ScottishMatt]

It's not that I think my opinion holds more weight without any solid reasoning - I'm looking at this on a purely objective basis. When we are debating right vs wrong, it's a hot/cold topic. There is no middle ground, no "warm". If it is wrong then it's wrong, it would be a complete fallacy to say it can become less wrong based upon the numerical factors involved. I'm not here saying my opinion is more important than yours, it isn't. What I said was in reply to the people who may condone $20 but not $10,000. I'm most certainly not the most morale person on here, a few of you would probably go further than that and say I'm as immoral as they come. Maybe so, but I'm more principled than most and my opinions don't bend to suit myself depending on the situation. There is one rule for all in my book.


Your point about comparing Obama and casino employee illustrates my point. Lets not go so far and say Obama kills everyone, lets say he accidentally wipes out half of the Unites States. Would you still want him as President? Would you feel he still deserves that position?

What I'm getting at is that if someone makes a mistake, they demonstrate their capability to make more errors (not being able to keep personal and work life separated is a rather substantial issue IMO). Regardless of the magnitude of those mistakes, the people who elect the individual in question (Manager for employee, and American citizens for Obama) have every right to dismiss the individual from their position.

 

[Fuffufnick]

Wow... you just have to give it back. As was mentioned, it's not the casino who will take the hit but the cashier; a living, breathing soul with bills and a family... just like you. Empathy is the very human ability to feel what another person feels, so ask yourself how would you feel in all situations.
1) As the individual who made the honest mistake and was taken advantage of
2) As the person who made the honest mistake but was given a reprieve
3) As the person who took advantage of another's honest mistake
4) As the person who choose not to take advantage of another's honest mistake

 

[stefffan1]

I would have accepted those $20 in chips. Probably this is not the most fair decision , but you may take it as a gift from the Gods of fortune.

 

[RajDev1979]

I don't want to lose my Integrity below $20 Millions. PJ
Off-course I would give it back. Integrity is what lefts with you in end. And you cant buy it.

 

[MediaBLITZ]

MediaBLITZ

We obviously perceive things differently. I think that by choosing not to "act" we aren't actually taking action. I think making that choice to put it in your pocket with the knowledge you have acquired more than your fair and equitable share is in fact the very definition of taking action.

In essence your position is that by being passive you are in fact, being active?
No, my position is making a decision to not do anything is active and we are culpable for that decision. There are in fact "duty to act" laws around the world that we can be prosecuted for should we choose not to act. Most common example is assisting injured people within the scope of your knowledge. It took the old "I didn't do nuthin" defense and made it a crime.

As for your last section. It would be incorrect to say it was stolen as you have no evidence to suggest that it was (what you really have is a lack of evidence, and basing any claim on a lack of evidence is a mistake).
I agree with you there - even though the casino cameras caught it all, there is only one person who knows the true intentions of the individual who walked off with what did not belong to him, and all he has to do is say he was not aware of it.


Lets get back on track though and actually compare these situations. In the first example, something was given to you. Regardless of any other factors, you were given something during an official transaction.
There was no intent by the clerk to give you anything more than your equitable share. Just ask him.

It doesn't matter whether you deserve it, or whether the transaction's intent was for you to receive it. It is now in your possession and through no fault of your own.
Agreed - and that's the question - what are you going to do with it and the knowledge you are the beneficiary of an unintentional (passive) act?

I'm fine with anyone who would keep it (truly) - as long as they don't try to justify it with "casino has plenty", "clerk should pay for their mistake", "I didn't do nuthin" - own it as YOUR choice, YOUR decision, YOUR action. That's how it really went down.

xxxx

 

[starting_at_the_bottom]

Giving it back is -VE

 

[ELDONKOII]

there would be a margin of error for the teller , they would have had a longer day tho cos they wouldnt let them leave without them counting thru it again then a management audit, which would be marked on their record, saying that i still would have kept it they make that back in less than 1 second lol

 

[curly]

I would feel better about it if I would just go back and correct it, I was raised to do that stuff and I guess it's just the type of person I am

 

[Mr Sandbag]

This actually happened to me AGAIN at the same casino. And I gave it back AGAIN.

 

[BigCountryAA]

Big difference between a poker game and life. When players sit down at a poker table, there is a mutual understanding that they will try to exploit each other to make money and "win" the game. It is assumed that the money on the table is surplus cash that will not affect family or careers if lost. If your outlook on life includes ruthlessly exploiting a person's honest mistake for your own financial benefit whenever possible, you're going to be a miserable person.

Agree with this 100% I don't see how it is so hard for some people to get a grip on this. Just goes to show the mindset of a lot of the degens playing poker or gambling. It's all about take, take, take no matter who or how.

 

[giraug]

I am not sure how it works there, but here in Peru, if the dealer or employee that works with money, in a casino, bank or whereever... if he/she loses some money its taken from his/her pay check.
Either way, I believe in vibes, energy, etc so keeping an extra amount of money, being aware that its a mistake, is a negative action... because someone is missing that amount...
I would have given it back.

 

[giraug]

MediaBLITZ
We obviously perceive things differently. I think that by choosing not to "act" we aren't actually taking action. Perhaps I'm wrong. If you could specify further that would be great. Lets say you chose to murder someone but you failed, by your own logic you are therefore a murderer even though you didn't murder anyone, is that correct?
In essence your position is that by being passive you are in fact, being active?

I get the point, the action is taken when you choose wether to take it or give it back... you chose -> Take it.
As for the example of the murderer... when you choose to murder someone and attempt to do it, you become a murderer... it doesnt require that you are good at it.

You know the only time I've heard a similar argument is when religious folks claim that atheism is a religion . . .
As for your last section. It would be incorrect to say it was stolen as you have no evidence to suggest that it was (what you really have is a lack of evidence, and basing any claim on a lack of evidence is a mistake). You would be responsible for the loss of it, and therefore you can't justifiably claim any injustice was done to you.
Lets get back on track though and actually compare these situations. In the first example, something was given to you. Regardless of any other factors, you were given something during an official transaction. It doesn't matter whether you deserve it, or whether the transaction's intent was for you to receive it. It is now in your possession and through no fault of your own.

In this case I wouldnt say that something was given to you, thats not 100% correct its a half true... the real action is that you gave something and received other in exchange... but in this case you gave some money and expect to receive chips for that same amount. If there is a difference and you are aware of it you have to ask for the difference or give back the extra. So you are conscious of what you are taking. And if you take something that you shouldnt... its wrong.

In the second situation, lets assume someone had actually "taken" the phone (we'll use phone in this example). I feel the difference here is paramount, not to mention blatantly obvious to anyone who has the capability to discern the not-so-fine line. Taking something is an "act". If someone decides to do something, and then proceeds to do so. They are then guilty of whatever the act was - in this case stealing.
I'm not the most eloquent of debaters and I'm far from good at it so perhaps I'm not the person to get this point across to you. I really don't know how to defend my side of the debate against someone who uses the argument that not doing something is doing something

I dont understand this last section, sorry
What I get is something about how not doing something, not taking action can be considered doing something, right?
Its as I mentioned on the first section... the action here is chosing not to act. Its a decision made.. there goes the action, in the moment you take a decision.

 

[MediaBLITZ]

And if keeping it makes that big of a difference to your financial situation and whether you end up + or -EV, you should definitely NOT be in a casino or playing poker at those stakes

 

[BluesPlayer]

The other day I was buying in at the poker room's cage, and when I walked away I noticed the clerk had given me $20 too much in chips. I'm not going to tell you what I did yet, but what would YOU have done?

Feel free to leave comments, too.

I would return the chips because it is the right thing to do. But you are on camera.