I see no ethical problem in ripping off Monster, considering they are ripping off the general public to the tune of millions.
Because it's his warranty. What belongs to the OP is a broken surge protector.
You have an ethical question? I think the party that should have an ethical reconsideration is Monster with their history of lawsuits, not to mention ripping off consumers who believe that their cables are somehow superior to other cables. I have no ethical problems in physics class warning students about free energy scams (and showing how people get suckered in by them) & other ways people waste money (including Monster cables.)
Or take a dump on it...
no ethical issue as Monster is an unethical company
I see no ethical problem in ripping off Monster, considering they are ripping off the general public to the tune of millions.
Considering the company, I'd say your actions were both morally and ethically sound.
Free fertilizer!
Not one of you three understand ethics at all. Simply put, ethically, two wrongs don't make a right.
THAT SAID, I have zero problem with what Boomer did. It's exactly what I would do, and I wouldn't lose even one night's sleep over it.
But, sorry, strictly speaking, what he did is not ethical.
No, it isn't. As far as I understand from others in this thread the warranty is not transferable. The OP was given a broken surge protector, not a broken surge protector plus warranty for a brand new one. Since the new protector was gotten for free through warranty, and the warranty isn't his, then he should at least offer it back to see if the neighbour wants it.That's irrelevant to whether or not he should get it back.
Go kick your sarcasm meter. It's hung up. No meter deflection.Wow you really are a douche - I can only hope you were kidding
No, it isn't. As far as I understand from others in this thread the warranty is not transferable. The OP was given a broken surge protector, not a broken surge protector plus warranty for a brand new one. Since the new protector was gotten for free through warranty, and the warranty isn't his, then he should at least offer it back to see if the neighbour wants it.
I believe this to be the origin of the Actions speak louder than words. and Character is what you do when no one knows about it. adages.Agreed. The "difference" is all but negligible, and can be more or less summed up as ethics being morals as applied.
Also, even though this may piss the OP and everyone else here in slacker, "s'all good" heaven, but if you fall below what you claim are your ethical standards, even for one day or one instance, then they are NOT your ethical standards.
Your actions establish your ethical standards, not what you think or say they are. In ethics, there are no days off, it simply doesn't work that way.
All that said, "Saaaaaaaaaaay, nice, shiny surge protector 'ya got there, Boomer!"
Without getting into the perpetual "hypothetical back and forth" of situational circumstances, a case could be made for unjust enrichment.No it is only relevant to the ethics of obtaining warranty service.
It is not relevant to the ethics of turning turd into gold and returning the turd, now golden.
For example, someone gave you a briefcase of tools to use. He does not know the hidden compartment also holds $100,000 in cash.
So you use those tools and the $100,000 to invest and buy a million dollar house and a nice car.
Do you have an ethical obligation to return to him the fruits of your labors, even though technically he gave you $100,000 which was his but he was not aware of?
No.
UNLESS the warranty he is referring to is not limited to the original purchaser
Well, coming from someone who knows a bit about warranties, unless it's a Full Warranty (which can not limit duration or ownership), limited warranties usually do only apply to the original purchaser. Damn you limited warranties, and THANK YOU XFX!!! :awe:
The Warranty Period ends after the time defined
in the Specifications Table has expired, or after You have transferred ownership of the Product, whichever occurs earlier
Without getting into the perpetual "hypothetical back and forth" of situational circumstances, a case could be made for unjust enrichment.
Cash is regarded as property by a lot of courts, and failure to disclose the initial discovery of hidden cache the subsequent enrichment beyond the scope of wages for services agreement could be construed as an act of bad faith. Professional codes of conduct would also apply. If you do it while working for a major corporation and you don't disclose that, you'll be made an example of.
If I find a bag with a stash of cash while doing my rounds for my employer, and I do not report it, and it somehow becomes known by the Company, I can be terminated instantly.
TSA / HomeLand Security can then come crawl up my ass and investigate everything I do, since they regulate the Shipping Industry. Nothing like breaching the trust on package integrity to make your life interesting.
No thanks.
i didn't know there was a difference between morals and ethics.
When you think like that, the terrorists win.Who cares? Get terminated. F them. A $mil of cash in the dumpster goes a long way
Yea, there's a lot of bad faith or whatever you want to call it technicalities. Legally speaking, there plenty of things that are unrelated to moral ethics as compared to fiduciary duties or ethics of practice (Law, Medicine, etc).
In this case, if someone gives you something "as is" - which is a gift or in consideration of 0 dollars and 0 services or favors, there is really no recourse.
wtf?! The warranty is his. It is nobody else's. It was not given with the surge protector, if what has been said here is correct it cannot be given with the surge protector. Despite what both parties may think the warranty is still owned by the neighbour. Let me repeat: IT IS NOT THE OP'S WARRANTY. THE NEIGHBOUR OWNS THE WARRANTY, AND AFTER HE HAS GIVEN THE SURGE PROTECTOR AWAY THE NEIGHBOUR STILL OWNS THE WARRANTY.No it is only relevant to the ethics of obtaining warranty service.
It is not relevant to the ethics of turning turd into gold and returning the turd, now golden.
For example, someone gave you a briefcase of tools to use. He does not know the hidden compartment also holds $100,000 in cash.
So you use those tools and the $100,000 to invest and buy a million dollar house and a nice car.
Do you have an ethical obligation to return to him the fruits of your labors, even though technically he gave you $100,000 which was his but he was not aware of?
No.
When you think like that, the terrorists win.
You are aware the Courts can claw it back right? and "no recourse" is in the eyes of the injured. I'm not saying you're "wrong" but it ain't right.
People do very bad things to others for a lot less reason.
wtf?! The warranty is his. It is nobody else's. It was not given with the surge protector, if what has been said here is correct it cannot be given with the surge protector. Despite what both parties may think the warranty is still owned by the neighbour. Let me repeat: IT IS NOT THE OP'S WARRANTY. THE NEIGHBOUR OWNS THE WARRANTY, AND AFTER HE HAS GIVEN THE SURGE PROTECTOR AWAY THE NEIGHBOUR STILL OWNS THE WARRANTY.
Oh, and your analogy sucks.
The fact that Monster products are so 'unethical' does not change the fact that the protector was replaced by an invalid warranty.You have an ethical question? I think the party that should have an ethical reconsideration is Monster with their history of lawsuits, not to mention ripping off consumers who believe that their cables are somehow superior to other cables.
It is not perfect, there is no such thing as a perfect analogy. In any case, the warranty expires "after You have transferred ownership of the Product". The ownership of the product was transferred. Therefore, the warranty no longer applies - which brings us back to the situation I outlined in my post, with only slightly different circumstances.My analogy was perfect - the owner did not know the warranty existed, but Boomer did. Boomer used the warranty to turn a "profit". The ethics of using his warranty to turn a profit IS at question, but not whether or not the original owner deserves the results - aka the profit.
When did I argue this? This is another analogy of yours which is no good. Stop using them.You are actually trying to argue that if I "borrow" a person's property, that person deserves the newly created products just because he "owned" the means to create the fruits of the labor.
It is not perfect, there is no such thing as a perfect analogy. In any case, the warranty expires "after You have transferred ownership of the Product". The ownership of the product was transferred. Therefore, the warranty no longer applies - which brings us back to the situation I outlined in my post, with only slightly different circumstances.
Right, but the validity of warranty has to do with the ethicality of the warranty claim itself - not the ethicality of how much the neighbor deserves his fixed surge protector back.
When did I argue this? This is another analogy of yours which is no good. Stop using them.
You effectively argued this by saying Boomer should give the neighbor the Surge protector back. Well, what boomer did was take turd (a broken surge protector and an unethical use of warranty) and turn it into something that works (new surge protector). It was your Boomer's elbow grease, not the neighbors.
That is just like saying getting something for free from someone and fixing it up yourself (elbow grease), but just because it was easy to fix, does not mean the original owner ethically deserves it back.
My previous analogy was not perfect, but the point still stands.