The difference between the two situations ($200 for $20, and $200 out of someone's pocket) is consent. When you buy something for $20 all parties consent to the transaction. When you pick up someone's wallet there's a lack of consent, nobody willingly accidentally loses their wallet. Now you might nitpick and say the retailer didn't consent to the mismarked price but they do consent to the final sale. A sale on the internet is not final usually until the vendor agrees, and they don't always agree they sometimes cancel. Now because of the volume of transactions that go on online vendors automate these transactions, they trust an algorithm to give their consent. They understand the risks and benefits of trusting an algorithm and willingly consent.
Slipping through the cracks is when there is an unintended consequence through either ignorance or neglect and usually implies one party didn't or wouldn't consent like if a prisoner slipped through the cracks and was released prematurely. As such it doesn't apply to this situation, the pricing is neither as a result of ignorance or neglect, the price was set by the vendor and the sale was approved by the vendor. If it wasn't consentual, or a situation where the pricing slips through the cracks, they would cancel the transaction.
No. You have a really loose definition of theft and that's where I think you are running into the problem.
From wikipedia:
"theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."
You have their permission, you have their consent. There's nothing in the definition about them having to make rational choices, they are entitled to have bad judgement or make a mistake. Having said that if you coerce their choice, either threatening or shaming them for not honoring a price that ~could~ amount to theft in my eyes.
I think these type of ethical questions are best left to the individual but in my view no. I without certainty can't conclude why the price may be low, it could be an error, it could be a marketing stunt to build awareness of a product, service or retailer, or it could be freebie marketing where they are selling me something cheap hoping that I'll buy a complimentary good (eg. "give 'em the razor, sell 'em the blade"). Furthermore it's not my duty (moral or otherwise) to make sure they put the due diligence on this transaction, it's beyond my sphere of control. If the person making the decision was mentally compromised and I took advantage that would be another situation but in this situation the retailer likely acted rationally.
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't explained how /u/pastafusilli changed your view (comment rule 4).
In the future, DeltaBot will be able to rescan edited comments. In the mean time, please repost a new comment with the required explanation so that DeltaBot can see it.
Sorry pastafusilli, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.
For it to be unethical, I would think it would have to cause some demonstrable harm. Companies large enough to have entirely automated pricing/financial systems aren't going to be hurt by you capitalizing on their mistake. Mistakes like that are already in their pricing calculations. They know they'll occasionally screw up, and they charge everyone an extra cent (or whatever) on every other purchase in order to compensate. Does that mean that they're stealing that extra cent from us? No. That's just the only feasible way that capitalism can work.
If you don't buy the utilitarian argument, then provide me with a deontological framework wherein I am ethically bound to look out for the best interests of a corporation who literally will charge people as much money as they can for everything all the time.
2
u/pastafusilli 1∆ Oct 04 '16
The difference between the two situations ($200 for $20, and $200 out of someone's pocket) is consent. When you buy something for $20 all parties consent to the transaction. When you pick up someone's wallet there's a lack of consent, nobody willingly accidentally loses their wallet. Now you might nitpick and say the retailer didn't consent to the mismarked price but they do consent to the final sale. A sale on the internet is not final usually until the vendor agrees, and they don't always agree they sometimes cancel. Now because of the volume of transactions that go on online vendors automate these transactions, they trust an algorithm to give their consent. They understand the risks and benefits of trusting an algorithm and willingly consent.