Scott at lid wrote on 1/24/05 2:42 PM:

> In article >,
> "Vox Humana" > wrote:
>
>> I think there are two issues here. First, there is a question of morality
>> and then a question of "law." It is possible for things to be legal and
>> immoral, and moral but not legal.
>
> I think there are three divisions: illegal, immoral, and discourteous.
> It's more likely for something to be both immoral and illegal than it is
> discourteous and illegal. For example, in many US states, adultery is
> illegal. Even in jurisdictions in which it's not illegal, most people
> would probably agree that it's immoral. Discourteous acts are the most
> common, but the question of what acts are immoral is probably the most
> divisive. I suppose the difference (in my mind) between immoral and
> discourteous is partly a matter of degree.
>
>
>> That said, I think it is immoral to hold a place. Place holding assumes
>> that the holder is more important and more entitled than others.
>
> And I would say it's discourteous: it shows disrespect for others,
> whereas to be immoral (in my view) would need to also inspire a
> heightened outrage in the average person.

That's exactly what I was getting at when I said "sure, it's rude and
inconsiderate, but is it really wrong?"

I agree, place holding in line is "just" discourteous.

Immoral is much bigger than that.
-Removing the parts of produce you aren't going to use before you weigh them
at the checkout counter.
-Using the self-checkout lane and punching a code for something that costs
99 cents per pound for an item that costs $2.99 per pound. (this is illegal,
too)
-"forgetting" to put that large item you placed on the bottom of the cart
on the belt to be rung up. (also stealing)
-Eating or drinking something before you get to the checkout stand, even
though you scan the empty container. (not stealing, b/c you're paying for it
after the fact)
-Eating half the grapes before you get to the checkout stand.

In article >,
Sheryl Rosen > wrote:

> That's exactly what I was getting at when I said "sure, it's rude and
> inconsiderate, but is it really wrong?"
>
> I agree, place holding in line is "just" discourteous.

As you say below, immoral is bigger than discourteous, but they're still
both wrong.


> Immoral is much bigger than that.
> -Removing the parts of produce you aren't going to use before you weigh them
> at the checkout counter.
> -Using the self-checkout lane and punching a code for something that costs
> 99 cents per pound for an item that costs $2.99 per pound. (this is illegal,
> too)
> -"forgetting" to put that large item you placed on the bottom of the cart
> on the belt to be rung up. (also stealing)
> -Eating or drinking something before you get to the checkout stand, even
> though you scan the empty container. (not stealing, b/c you're paying for it
> after the fact)
> -Eating half the grapes before you get to the checkout stand.

Well, as far as removing the produce parts... I don't do that, but it's
an ethical question. Does that mean that the supermarket can permissibly
sell you unusable items? How is that different than a deli or bakery
including the packaging when they weigh your purchase and including it
as part of the per-pound charge? If you *personally* aren't going to use
the produce part, but other people would, then yes, it's wrong (it's not
the supermarket's concern which parts you plan to use). But if it's
something that *no one* would or could use, it it then wrong? Why should
the supermarket be allowed to charge you for something that isn't a
usable food item? If an otherwise good head of lettuce has a rotted leaf
on the outside, how can the supermarket legitimately sell you the rotted
leaf?

Items 2, 3, and 5 (self-checkout, "forgetting" about the large item, or
eating the grapes before you check out and not paying what you ate) are
simply theft, and are both illegal and immoral. But what's morally wrong
with eating or drinking something and then paying for it?

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

Scott > wrote in
:


> Well, as far as removing the produce parts... I don't do that, but
> it's an ethical question. Does that mean that the supermarket can
> permissibly sell you unusable items? How is that different than a deli
> or bakery including the packaging when they weigh your purchase and
> including it as part of the per-pound charge? If you *personally*
> aren't going to use the produce part, but other people would, then
> yes, it's wrong (it's not the supermarket's concern which parts you
> plan to use). But if it's something that *no one* would or could use,
> it it then wrong? Why should the supermarket be allowed to charge you
> for something that isn't a usable food item? If an otherwise good head
> of lettuce has a rotted leaf on the outside, how can the supermarket
> legitimately sell you the rotted leaf?

I've never removed parts of produce which is charged by weight. However,
lettuce here is not charged for on a weight basis, but a price per head
of lettuce so there's no issue there. Can't recall if I've seen it
recently, but I know that at least at some stage the supermarket I use
kept a bin near the iceberg lettuce to throw rubbishy outside leaves into
and people were welcome to take these for free if they wanted them -
people with chooks in the backyard etc.

Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia