Why ask?

You already know what you ought do — creativesoul

Ethics would be simple indeed if we we able to mechanically follow ethical rules. We are not able. On the one hand we have ethical rules which are reasonably clear and on the other hand we have desires (emotions) which are often at least as strong as our commitment to ethical behavior.

Probably most people (just guessing) are able to keep their urges/wishes/desires under control--but not always. When the "not always" moment arrives we breach the barriers.

Having breached the barriers that keep us ethical, the next question is "how much do we regret it". If we don't regret it much or at all, we're more likely to behave improperly in the future. If we behave that way long enough, our practical use of "proper" and "improper" will have changed.

Some people are obviously ethically oblivious.

Why are you entertaining the remote possibility that an unrelated person hid a diamond ring in someone else's train set? — Hanover

Nowhere on this thread has it been stated that anyone hid a box containing a ring in a train set box. That it was found there does not imply even remotely that it was.
The box could have been bought from another yard sale for a kid that did not even bother to take it out of the box.
Maybe the owner throw the thing in to get rid of it because he/she broke up with the other party.
Maybe one of the kids stole it from granny and hid it there till they could sell it, then forgot.

There are dozens of possibilities, why do you think it was hidden there?

Under what theory do we now demand payment for doing what is ethical? — Hanover

Why would I need a theory? Common sense says that I do not have to spend money on returning anything to people that cannot look after their own stuff.
But I think Michael says it nicely.

Is it unethical of me to not pay to fix a mistake another person made? If it costs me then it's charity, and charity is a choice, not an ethical obligation. — Michael

And suppose they are uppity? Are they then not deserving of ethical treatment? — Hanover

At least they should be nice about the ethical treatment one gives them. How could it be morally correct of them to think that others should pay for their screw ups? I know I would probably pay all the expenses and a reasonable reward to the person that returned the ring I had stole 30 years ago.

This idea seems consistent with the theme of trying to find some rationalization for keeping what is not yours. It also shows some hostility towards the person, as if they're not really worthy of the ring, but the rules require it's return, so you'll do it, but you're going to be as difficult as possible. — Hanover

If I wanted to keep it I would, moral or not, I doubt that I would waste my time rationalizing or making excuses bout it though. If I was going to steal it I would just do it. And it is not really up to me to make things easy for them to recover their property, that is their job. But again I would not waste my time nor energy helping some one that is not polite.

In Sir2u's post, he wasn't referencing reimbursement, but "reward," meaning a special something for being a good guy. I don't see where that would be warranted. — Hanover

If you had read the thread you would have known that I was responding to

Follow Up Question - If I am able to reach the seller I will return it and ask nothing in return. But, if he offers me a reward, is it proper for me to accept it? — Sam Sam

Good point. I have seen ads in the yard sale section of the newspaper asking please return my golf clubs (or whatever) I did not mean to sell them. But again, he likely does not know it is gone. — Sam Sam

Or he might never have known it was there. :wink:

FOLLOW UP

I have returned the ring.

Because the yard sale ad was on Facebook, I was able to message the seller. About 36 hours later I heard back. We conversed by Facebook messenger, and as expected he did not know it was in the box he sold me. He said he would like it back, and I said I would gladly return it.

This evening he came and picked it up. He was very grateful, saying, “Someone of your integrity is a dying breed.”

Here is the ring’s backstory (he gave me permission to share this). The ring was given to his daughter by a boyfriend when she was 16 (she is 31 now). She did not marry that guy (he was glad about that.) Years later when the daughter needed money, he bought it from her. He plans on selling it, and he asked me for some advice on the best way to do that. (I suggested he post it for sale locally and offer any potential buyer that he will meet them at the jeweler of their choice to have it appraised.)

I did not ask for anything in return. But, in one of his Facebook messages he asked if I had seen anything else at his yard sale that interested me. I said yes, a laptop I looked at (it was marked $40.) He said he still had it and would like to give it to me. I accepted his offer.

I am glad the ring is back where it belongs, and I am happy to have an interesting story I will remember for a long time.

(PS – If I were to grade myself on my ethics in this situation, I would give myself a B-)

:grin: :up: :100:

A very welcome bit of good news. Well done, Sam. :strong: You've conclusively demonstrated that anyone in this discussion who suggested you keep the ring was just flat out wrong ethically, and given what you've written above should reconsider their position.

(PS – If I were to grade myself on my ethics in this situation, I would give myself a B-) — Sam Sam

What happened in the kitchen doesn't matter. It's what you served out front that does, and it was not a no-brainer. In my opinion you can give yourself an A

Faith in humanity restored (until I read the Gurugeorge's next post).

Yay. I think the only thing we didn't mention here is to ask the person to describe the ring prior to it's return in order to help relieve doubt of ownership.

The ring was given to his daughter by a boyfriend when she was 16 (she is 31 now). She did not marry that guy (he was glad about that.) — Sam Sam

Hey, I got that part almost right.

All worked out kind of cool really. Everyone happy and good deeds done for the day, it is time to hit the sack.
Night all.

I still grade an A for what it's worth, because regardless it was a respectable thing to do and again once you make the effort any deciet after the fact is out of your hands. I think that his willingness to offer a reward is a positive testament to his honesty in a way.

Nice!

Thanks for the follow up Sam Sam...

Being honest is remarkably important in more ways than many have imagined. Morality is best understood as a human condition. We are interdependent social creatures, and despite the fact that many folk today couldn't care less about others in their community, we could have never gotten where we are today if everyone were like that all along.

I think the only thing we didn't mention here is to ask the person to describe the ring — Lif3r

It was a round yellowish ring with a glittery thing on it. It must be mine.

If I were to grade myself on my ethics in this situation, I would give myself a B-) — Sam Sam

Because you got quite a bit of assistance during the exam?

Here is your next more difficult moral challenge?

On the way back from reclaiming a ring that somebody found in a train set at a yard sale, I ran over the neighbor's dog. It was a quick but messy kill. I threw the dog body into a ravine (the usual and customary method of disposing of dead bodies). Now I am perplexed.

A. Should I pretend it never happened?
B. Should I inform my neighbor I ran over her yappy dog.
C. Should I offer to compensate my neighbor for the loss of this dearly loved but exquisitely annoying dog?
D. Should I retrieve the corpse and leave it on her front step so that she would at least be able to give it a dog funeral.
E. Should I run over the neighbor so that she can not annoy me further by getting another, larger, louder, yappier dog?

For the sake of simplicity, I have decided to ignore reality and just forget about it. If she ever mentions it, I'll just say, "Oh, what dog was that? I didn't know you had a dog."

It was a round yellowish ring with a glittery thing on it. It must be mine.


How many stones does it have?
What shape are the cuts of the stones?
What color are the stones?
Is it engraved?
Is the band thick, or thin?

Answering these questions as an outside observer is difficult, and I imagine that a small percentage of us could hardly do so.

I don't mean to be negative, or to chastise. None of us considered it. Even I didn't think it until just now. I only intend to be objective.

I understand where you're coming from, but I do not think that all ethical rules are on equal ground. Some aren't hard to follow. The right ones, implemented properly, wouldn't be.

I don't mean to be negative, or to chastise. — Lif3r

I wasn't being serious. I was joking.

Quite so. Totally agree.

Why ask?

You already know what you ought do. — creativesoul

Yeah, stop wasting our precious time and just put it on eBay!

You've conclusively demonstrated that anyone in this discussion who suggested you keep the ring was just flat out wrong ethically, and given what you've written above should reconsider their position. — Baden

I will reconsider my position if you can guarantee me that I'll be rewarded with a free laptop or something similar with every lost item I return. :grin:

Surely, the warm and fuzzy feeling evinced from expressing true love and kindness (as opposed to the fakey manipulative kind) and witnessing its effect on others beats any pleasure that could be squeezed from a $40 laptop?

Surely, the warm and fuzzy feeling evinced from expressing true love and kindness... — Baden

:chin:

You've lost me.

the economic activity involved in buying the ring was in no way morally different to you keeping it.

Sam Sam, I think you are too hard on yourself with the B-. That you thought to seek advice from people about it suggests that you were feeling guilty about even considering keeping (quiet about) it. You have a decent mind, a hounding and loyal conscience, and you listened to it. Then, you considered the advice, somewhat varied, offered to you. You then took convenient and reasonable steps to determine (for yourself) that the seller had no legitimate or moral claim to the non-toy train item. When you could no longer accept that the seller had no interest in the ring, you offered to return it.

It was always the decent thing to do. So, as others have suggested, you should give yourself full credit for being positively oriented to other people, at least for this instance and in the way you handled it.

the economic activity involved in buying the ring was in no way morally different to you keeping it.

Is this a joke? I'm not very good at joking. :(

the diamond was the result of capatilist activity, if ownership was derived from a sharing economy then there would be a moral obligation. taking the ring is no different from any acts leading up to him having it. If you think any different, please dont just say some vague thing then add a smiley. tell me the point where the economic activity created a moral obligation.

If you are offended I appologize Martin; I meant no offense. If you read up you will see that I missed a joke earlier. As you can see, my ability to decipher them is below average. This is why I made a frowning face; at my own problem, not at yours or your lack there of.

These questions struck my curiousity:
Is one responsible for the morality revolving an object prior to their purchase of the object?
If so, to what extent?
Is it to the extent that we are trusting the seller when they say that they have sourced the ring ethically? Are we morally obligated to do more research in regards to it's ethical sourcing? Or are you saying flat out that at no point in time is capitalism considered ethical at all?

the diamond was the result of capatilist activity, — Martin Krumins

Not "was," rather might have been. You assume what is actually in question. Further, I'd argue that the ethics of the matter are apart from the particular form of activity. They can inform each other. But the question as to which should rule is not-so-easy.