I like to keep my brain empty so it's available to deal with novel inputs and new situations... and that means I don't like to dedicate any processing power to the same old questions. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat, until something changes enough for me to revisit my decision. It's like that for me with coffee and socks, for example--two decisions which are going strong after many years.One such place where I spent some time to think, made a decision, and have worked off of that decision for many years is in moral grey area around being undercharged for something.I believe in business, and I believe that businesses need to make a profit. I think the market can solve a lot of problems for humans, and in order to do that the market needs to thrive. And I'm willing to pay for quality. That being said, I don't like being taken--nor do I enjoy wasting money. I also believe wholeheartedly in truthfulness--and that inflexible, sometimes inconvenient, integrity is a fundamental requirement and obligation of all humanity.Here's how the argument/proof/theory lays out.First, the no brainer part: if I notice that a store has overcharged me for something, I speak up. This seems good, fair, logical, and aligns well with most people's morality. But what about when a store undercharges me? Oh no! Moral dilemma! I spent some time thinking about this. I've been a business owner (a few times over), so I think I see both sides:
If the customer speaks up, it's costing them more than money to do so: standing at the checkout while a clerk corrects something mis-priced (especially in the age of UPC codes) is surely a recipe for confusion and delay. In this respect, the customer pays twice for the store's mistake and leaves having had a negative experience with the store.
Here's a curveball: if the price is corrected at the counter, often the business pays more too! The (sometimes lengthy) time it takes to correct the error has to be paid for, and it often results in customer dissatisfaction for those waiting in line.
If the price is corrected at the counter, the store may or may not be alerted to the underlying pricing problem, depending on how efficiently they operate.
If the price is corrected, the customer pays a lot (proportional to their income) for that correction, but for the business, the difference is small enough to be a rounding error. (Yes, I'm assuming we're talking about small ticket items; I think when we're talking big-ticket stuff most people don't spend a moment in philosophy, they just speak up and get things corrected... and that's good.)
The customer may or may not be aware of other people who got a "deal" because they didn't speak up, and that may make the customer either happy or sad, depending on the day, their finances, and the particular calibration of their celebratory self-righteousness.
Now, let's say the customer doesn't speak up.
The customer suffers no additional cost or penalty (in time or money).
The business may only become aware of the mistake if they are operating efficiency and monitoring expenses and waste carefully.
The customer will, most likely, enjoy getting the steal/deal, and they leave the store with a positive experience with the business..
On these criteria alone, to me, I believe businesses should assume and encourage customers to NOT report undercharging mistakes. It's a win for the customer and, if they are paying attention, a valuable datapoint for the business.But wait, there's more! For those of you, like me, who don't think it's quite so simple (and who acknowledge the conflict of interest in concluding that it's better for everyone if I just pay less...!) there's another factor at work, and it's a big one:If a business overcharges me, and I don't notice, will they speak up? The answer is almost never.This is a critical insight. It means that both sides aren't playing by the same rules or moral obligations. Many businesses have no method for catching overcharges, and it's certainly not a priority to correct them. Businesses are guided by process and policy--which ain't the same thing as human morality or ethics. (Businesses ain't people.) The playing field is not even, and for that reason, it's fair to adjust out sensibilities to match. (An analogy? Murder is immoral, unless you're engaged in a just war.) In this case, pricing isn't a lofty matter of truth or honesty, it's a matter of process and policy. (Note: I am NOT talking about people pulling funny business, peeling off pricing stickers, or claiming things that are untrue: I find those practices despicable, and to those who say they only do them at a small scale I ask: if your integrity can be sold so cheaply, how long before you start just giving it away?)So... if businesses, as a matter of practice and practicality cannot/willnot catch or correct situations when they overcharge me, then it is only fair that I should not correct situations when they undercharge me. Combined with the bulleted observations above, I feel there's clear moral ethical ground to occupy when it comes to small ticket mistakes. And therein lies the two-part rule:
It's the responsibility of the business to ensure they don't undercharge me.
It's my responsibility to ensure the business doesn't overcharge me.
And that's it. No debate need occur. No moral turpitude. No sleepless nights. If the over/under is the result of an honest error, it's an opportunity for improvement for either the customer or for the business, not a damning moral dilemma.
