Its Not Yours until You Pay by Charmian Lawson - Assignment Example

It’s Not Yours until You Pay Student Name Course Tutor Institution Date Case Study: It’s not yours until you pay for it Introduction In her article, It’s Not Yours until You Pay; Charmian Lawson (2010) discusses ethical dilemmas that affect retail outlets and their consumers. She questions the integrity and motive behind some behaviors she witnessed in supermarkets. She questions the need for mothers to give fruits or snacks to their children to eat as they shop and the lack of integrity in some shoppers. This is seen where an elderly woman picks bananas from a bunch so that she does not pay for the bunch and that of a man who picks the stalks from hydroponic tomatoes so that he may pay at the price of ordinary tomatoes. She also notices a woman who eats almond nuts that were on display as she shops and she picks more of these later on. She notices the women who read magazines as they wait in the long queue. In all these cases, the consumer is going against the will of the management of the supermarket. In normal situations, one is not allowed to eat within the supermarket. The supermarket expects its shoppers to pick what they need and pay at the counter and from there they can use the product as they desire. A study on this ethical dilemma is done by a website and the poll results show that 35% of the people who voted admit to have eaten something before paying for it while shopping. A closer look at this situation shows that consumers lack integrity and this is a scheme of shoplifting (Wedding bee 2011). People are of different backgrounds and personality. While some people will get to the counter and pay for what they took others will not. Some people will use this allowance to steal from supermarkets. These shoppers may claim that their actions are justified because of their intentions are good and they still intend to pay for what they consume. How can the behavior described by Lawson be accounted for ethically? The behaviors described by Lawson are ethically accountable while others are not. In special cases of sickness and extreme cases, it is ethically right for mothers to provide a little snack for their children as they shop. This situation will however remain ethically right if the mothers involved will ensure that they pay for what their children have eaten. It may also be ethical for the elderly woman to only pay for what she will need. This will have a different cost that will be cheaper. However, this is morally wrong because it is against the set plans of the supermarket. The supermarket bought the fruits without excluding the bunch and it hopes to sell it in the same way. It shows dishonesty to the retail owners and is a theft (Sen et al., 1982). The idea of women reading magazines as they wait for their turn to pay is not ethically right. The magazines that these ladies read are meant to be sold. Reading them without buying will increase losses for the supermarket and the companies that own the magazines. They may account for this behavior by insisting that the queue is long and boring but the supermarket is only a shopping point. The remaining instances of the woman who ate almond nuts that were on display and the man who bought expensive tomatoes for a lower price are actions that cannot be accounted for ethically. Both of these actions are theft cases that one will involve themselves knowingly. They are theft cases that are just like shoplifting, there is no ethical justification for such immoral activities. These are actions show lack of integrity and dishonesty. Is it ethical to sample the fruit, read the magazines etc.? As stated by Byrne (2014), there are several types of ethical frameworks. One of them is the framework that is based on consequences. It focuses on doing good things that will benefit the largest number of people. This is known as the framework of utilitarianism. There is also the framework that is based on rights. Another ethical framework is one that focuses on common good and duty. This framework requires one to ensure that their actions will be of good to the whole society. Lastly, there is the ethical framework that is based on virtues. This framework relates differently depending on a person’s values. It requires a person to make decisions that will concur with their values. In this case study, the cases are looked into from the perspectives of utilitarian and rights based frameworks (Kamm, 2007). Utilitarian Framework The ethical framework of Utilitarianism is an ethical framework that is based on consequences. It urges a person to choose an action that will be of greatest good to the largest group of people. This framework requires one to consider the benefit their action will have on others without any bias. On basis of utilitarianism, mothers who opt to give snacks and fruits to their children while shopping and pay at the counter are justified for that. It is possible that the children are too hungry and jumpy. Ethically, this will be right as long as the mothers finally pay for what their children consumed (Pojman 2006). If the women will pay for the foods that their children consume, both the supermarket and the women will benefit. If this fact is considered, the action is ethically right according to the framework of utilitarianism. On the other hand, if after this action the mother does not pay for the food eaten by their children, it is ethically wrong. In the case of women opting to read magazines as they wait in the queue; the women benefit by reading as they wait to pay. This case does not benefit the supermarket because the supermarket hopes that the magazines will be bought so as to benefit them. This is also a loss for the magazine producers. As they produced the magazine, they planned on selling and getting profits but reading the contents without paying shows disrespect for the owners (Sen et al., 1982). This is an ethical dilemma that is hard to judge but from the perspective of utilitarianism, it is wrong. This is due to the fact that in this situation it is only an individual that benefits. The supermarket and the magazine owners will have a loss. It is only the shoppers that will benefit and the benefit of a single shopper is not greater than that of the entire supermarket. Lack of integrity and honesty is shown by the elderly woman who only wants to pay for the bananas without the bunch and the gentleman who removes tomato stalks so as to pay less. This reveals that there are consumers who are a liability to the supermarket. These are not cases that can be justified ethically as they only benefit individuals (Pojman et al 2006). From the utilitarian point of view, the only people benefiting from such actions are individuals and hence it is not accountable or justified. In these cases, it is the supermarkets that encounter losses. Since this action does not benefit the larger group, it is not right. This sort of dishonesty is also a form of theft. This case has no advantage and is punishable by the law. Some of these situations are cases of theft. The situation of the lady who kept eating almond nuts as she shopped is the same as shoplifting. The nuts are to be measured and charged according to the pounds that are bought. If these are consumed, there is no way of measuring how much a consumer should be charged. According to the framework of utilitarianism, this action is wrong because it is a selfish benefit. Although it benefits the woman involved, it creates losses for the supermarket. Framework of rights The framework based on rights expects people to do what will show moral respect for other people involved in an ethical dilemma. It is based on what one believes as morally right. According to this framework, the elderly woman who prefers to buy tomatoes without the bunch is doing the right thing because she will not need it. However, the supermarket bought the entire product with the cost of the bunch and that is why they are selling at that cost. From a rights point of view, it is ethically wrong to carry the bananas only in spite of the fact that the woman is right for not picking what she will not use (Schwab & Pollis, 1982). The action of dishonesty displayed by the man who removes stalks from the tomatoes so as to pay the price for ordinary tomatoes is a case of dishonesty and lack of integrity. From the rights ethical framework, this action is not right. There is no ethical justification for this action as it is shoplifting. It is similar to picking a product in a shop, hiding it and leaving the supermarket with it. According to Schwab and Pollis (1982), this case is not an ethical dilemma but a moral issue that should be addressed by the law. From the rights perspective, it is ethically wrong for ladies to read the magazines that are lined out as they queue. They may claim to be right and justified as the queue is longer and shift the blame on the management of the supermarket. On the other hand, the supermarket will be sure that once the magazine has been read by several shoppers it will not be fit to sell and hence cause losses for them. It is right for the ladies to read the papers while they wait but it is not ethically right as each of the magazines that are there are for selling. According to the ethical framework based on rights, reading of the magazines shows lack of respect to the supermarket management and other shoppers that are interested in buying the magazines. This will also cause losses for the magazine owners. Skimming through magazines will not be of benefit to the women compared to buying it and reading in a more settled environment. In the situation of mothers encouraging their children to eat some fruit as they shop; the mothers are justified if their children are truly hungry or tired but on the other hand, this behavior will inconvenience the supermarket management. From a rights perspective, it is right for the children to have something to chew on as they shop especially if it will be a lengthy shopping. On the other hand, it is not ethically right as these products may fail to be paid for. Some mothers will forget what number of fruits their children took and this inconveniences the management even more. Others will refuse to pay intentionally which is not morally right. From the rights-based ethical framework, the woman who keeps nibbling on almond nuts that are on the display is not doing right. The consumer understands that those nuts are meant for display and not for sale. The management of the supermarket will not be able to determine the quantity of nuts she consumed and hence will not know how much to charge her. The consumer’s decision is inconveniencing the supermarket. It shows disrespect for the supermarket business and does not put into consideration their rights (Baron 2007). Rule of the Law Without regard to ethical frameworks and restraining these issues to the law, cases that are shoplifting will be handled as police cases. The actions involved will be assessed and compared to what the law dictates. This are then handled according to the law. The case of the man who makes hydroponic tomatoes to look like ordinary ones so as to pay less is a deliberate criminal act. There is no law that will allow these acts of theft. Another situation that would require police intervention is that of the woman who ate the nuts on display as she shopped and the mothers who encourage their children to eat while shopping. This is a situation of uncertainty on whether eaten foods will be paid for or not. Involvement of the police in this situation will help in solving it and enabling consumers to understand the concept of paying before consumption (Sen et al., 1982). The law officers will take the reading of magazines that one is not planning to buy as an offence. As long as one has not purchased a good, they should not be allowed to read. It seems petty but it is as serious as an offence of theft and should be treated as one. This should be based on the facts that the supermarket is a shopping point for new products; not papers that have already been read. The elderly woman who insists on carrying the bananas without the bunch should only be given a warming and be informed why she should not leave the bunch. The core issue involved here may be due to ignorance of the woman who does not have a clear understanding on supermarket operations. On the contrary, if she has a clear understanding of what should be done, she will also be treated as a law breaker and treated as one. Conclusion Ethical dilemmas presented by Charmian Lawson have shown daily occurrences that affect the ethical standards in businesses and their consumers. Some consumers and businesses do not have moral ethics that will help in a peaceful business environment. Some of these actions are justifiable on ethical grounds hence it is good to have a morally stable society. The concept of paying before consuming or using a product should be used in shopping outlets to prevent such ethical dilemmas. List of References Lawson, C 2010, Its Not Yours Until You Pay Retrieved on 22 May 2014 from Riley, J., 1988, Liberal Utilitarianism: Social Choice Theory and J.S. Mill's Philosophy, CUP Archive. Sen, A., Williams, B., Bernard A., & Williams O., 1982, Utilitarianism and Beyond, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Byrne, B 2014, Types of ethical frameworks. Retrieved on 22 May 2014, Kamm, F. M 2007 Intricate ethics: Rights, responsibilities, and permissible harm. Wedding bee, 2011 Spinoff: Is it ok to eat before paying in a supermarket viewed 21 May 2014 Williams, B 2012 Morality: An Introduction to Ethics, Cambridge University Press, New York Pojman, L. & Fieser, J 2006, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston. Schwab, P., & Pollis A., 1982, Toward a Human Rights Framework. Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated, New York. Read More

They may account for this behavior by insisting that the queue is long and boring but the supermarket is only a shopping point. The remaining instances of the woman who ate almond nuts that were on display and the man who bought expensive tomatoes for a lower price are actions that cannot be accounted for ethically. Both of these actions are theft cases that one will involve themselves knowingly. They are theft cases that are just like shoplifting, there is no ethical justification for such immoral activities.

These are actions show lack of integrity and dishonesty. Is it ethical to sample the fruit, read the magazines etc.? As stated by Byrne (2014), there are several types of ethical frameworks. One of them is the framework that is based on consequences. It focuses on doing good things that will benefit the largest number of people. This is known as the framework of utilitarianism. There is also the framework that is based on rights. Another ethical framework is one that focuses on common good and duty.

This framework requires one to ensure that their actions will be of good to the whole society. Lastly, there is the ethical framework that is based on virtues. This framework relates differently depending on a person’s values. It requires a person to make decisions that will concur with their values. In this case study, the cases are looked into from the perspectives of utilitarian and rights based frameworks (Kamm, 2007). Utilitarian Framework The ethical framework of Utilitarianism is an ethical framework that is based on consequences.

It urges a person to choose an action that will be of greatest good to the largest group of people. This framework requires one to consider the benefit their action will have on others without any bias. On basis of utilitarianism, mothers who opt to give snacks and fruits to their children while shopping and pay at the counter are justified for that. It is possible that the children are too hungry and jumpy. Ethically, this will be right as long as the mothers finally pay for what their children consumed (Pojman 2006).

If the women will pay for the foods that their children consume, both the supermarket and the women will benefit. If this fact is considered, the action is ethically right according to the framework of utilitarianism. On the other hand, if after this action the mother does not pay for the food eaten by their children, it is ethically wrong. In the case of women opting to read magazines as they wait in the queue; the women benefit by reading as they wait to pay. This case does not benefit the supermarket because the supermarket hopes that the magazines will be bought so as to benefit them.

This is also a loss for the magazine producers. As they produced the magazine, they planned on selling and getting profits but reading the contents without paying shows disrespect for the owners (Sen et al., 1982). This is an ethical dilemma that is hard to judge but from the perspective of utilitarianism, it is wrong. This is due to the fact that in this situation it is only an individual that benefits. The supermarket and the magazine owners will have a loss. It is only the shoppers that will benefit and the benefit of a single shopper is not greater than that of the entire supermarket.

Lack of integrity and honesty is shown by the elderly woman who only wants to pay for the bananas without the bunch and the gentleman who removes tomato stalks so as to pay less. This reveals that there are consumers who are a liability to the supermarket. These are not cases that can be justified ethically as they only benefit individuals (Pojman et al 2006). From the utilitarian point of view, the only people benefiting from such actions are individuals and hence it is not accountable or justified.

In these cases, it is the supermarkets that encounter losses. Since this action does not benefit the larger group, it is not right. This sort of dishonesty is also a form of theft. This case has no advantage and is punishable by the law.

Read More