You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do?

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Printable Version

+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Social (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: The Speakeasy (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=54)
+--- Thread: You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? (/showthread.php?tid=37305)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Sarah - 2011-02-04

Kunagisa Wrote:I lose stuff all the time, and usually don't blame anyone but myself for it.

Of course! I'm not saying anyone else is to blame for your loses. It's absolutely your fault because there always preventative measures you can take; be it an escaped dog or a loose bill falling out of your pocket. But if you lose something it doesn't necessarily mean you should be punished, and if it's within another persons power to help you then they are morally obligated to do so. If they don't then they are at fault. That's my whole point.

And if you make a mistake like that once and it turns out well for you, not only do you feel better about society and are more likely to help out the next person, but you're less likely to make the same mistake twice.

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Khoi - 2011-02-04

Rob Wrote:I don't treat items and money equally.

For example, a cellphone, you can check recent calls and try to find its owner. A camera, you could check pictures, or try to find an address. Money lacks all of the above.

Ooh, good point. Especially electronic devices, wallets, etc. You can check IDs for those, yeah. If you can actually spot an identification card, it's optional whether you'd return it or not. I'd probably return stuff like that. When I said items, I should have stated something like books, video games, etc. I wasn't clear on that, my fault. Money doesn't have names written on them (usually lol), so it's hard to find the right person in the first place. If I found crumbled up money lying on the floor, and nobody's picking it up, I'm obviously going to.

But I do see your point.

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Satellite - 2011-02-04

$200 more into my savings...

I rarely buy anything. Sometimes 1 euro for soft-drink machine in school. I don't pay for my food/clothes yet.

Not into console games or consoles anymore. I don't want to update shyt every 5 years.

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Rob - 2011-02-04

That's the entire point about money.

Rob Wrote:if you pick money from the street that seems to have no rightful owner, anyone is a potential owner of that money. Problem solved.

Add to that that necessities of the owner don't count.

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Sarah - 2011-02-04

Kunagisa Wrote:The possibility of the dog being abandoned does seem rather likely if it's missing its tag. Regardless, a dog is a creature and not an object. The point I was making is that picking up a dog does not have the same weight as picking up cash on the floor. I don't know what the cash was going to be used for, and really don't care much to go out of my way to track the owner of it when it'd be more beneficial for me to pocket the cash. While a dog on the other hand as a higher chance of people desperately looking for it. Anyone can drop cash, poor or rich, but if a dog is lost then it has a higher chance of belonging to a family that desperately cares for it, and I certainly have no reason to keep it. Even if I really wanted the dog, I would actually go through with reporting it as lost and such before keeping it for myself.

The very fact that I'd take cash on the floor, even large amounts, and not give it a second though; yet I wouldn't do the same with a dog regardless of how much I wanted it is proof enough that the two aren't comparable. This comes from someone that, I'm assuming from your standpoint, is a horrible person with twisted morals. But I kind of do have a soft spot for some animals that may be playing its role into this whole hypothetical scenario. After all, I do feel bad for animals that are truly innocent, while I don't feel the same for humans at all. It's not the dog's fault it was abandoned or lost, and so I don't really feel it should be punished for it.

Money isn't just an object. It's not like a lost necklace. Money is life for everyone, no matter their background. You don't feel like going out of your way to return cash to someone while you would report a lost dog? It's the exact same process. You wouldn't go out of your way because you want the money. There are a ton of dog lovers out there who would argue the exact same position as you are with money right now.

The chances of someone desperately looking for $200 are just as high as someone searching for a dog, believe me. At minimum wage in Ontario that's 20 hours work. You think someone is just going to write that off? How can you make that assumption any more than you can that they won't go searching for their dog?

And no, I'm not assuming anyone has twisted morals for keeping lost money. I'm saying they're a selfish douche, plain and simple. And I want for them to admit that.

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Kunagisa - 2011-02-04

Sarah Wrote:Of course! I'm not saying anyone else is to blame for your loses. It's absolutely your fault because there always preventative measures you can take; be it an escaped dog or a loose bill falling out of your pocket. But if you lose something it doesn't necessarily mean you should be punished, and if it's within another persons power to help you then they are morally obligated to do so. If they don't then they are at fault. That's my whole point.

And if you make a mistake like that once and it turns out well for you, not only do you feel better about society and are more likely to help out the next person, but you're less likely to make the same mistake twice.

In a perfect fairy tale world where every human strives for equal happiness around the globe without discrimination. Until then, someone has to lose for another person to gain, and consequences are felt deeper when there's a bigger loss. Humans walk all over each other to get what they want.

Being a saint only leaves you open for the masses to stomp you 6 feet under.

I don't get those warm fuzzies for doing good deeds, but I do get warm fuzzies from fulfilling my selfishness. Thus, one option is definitely better than the other, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sugarcoating things.

I can help someone I'll never see again nor care for, or I can help myself. In most cases, I'll help myself, but it depends entirely on the situation.

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Rob - 2011-02-04

Sarah Wrote:Money isn't just an object. It's not like a lost necklace. Money is life for everyone, no matter their background. You don't feel like going out of your way to return cash to someone while you would report a lost dog? It's the exact same process. You wouldn't go out of your way because you want the money. There are a ton of dog lovers out there who would argue the exact same position as you are with money right now.

The chances of someone desperately looking for $200 are just as high as someone searching for a dog, believe me. At minimum wage in Ontario that's 20 hours work. You think someone is just going to write that off? How can you make that assumption any more than you can that they won't go searching for their dog?

And no, I'm not assuming anyone has twisted morals for keeping lost money. I'm saying they're a selfish douche, plain and simple. And I want for them to admit that.

That's a whole piece of bullcrap. Money has no name, no nothing. At your rate, 200 bucks is what I make a month, and I would be douche if I lost it, not if someone else had found it.

Kunagisa Wrote:In a perfect fairy tale world where every human strikes for equal happiness around the globe without discrimination. Until then, someone has to lose for another person to gain, and consequences are felt deeper when there's a bigger loss. Humans walk all over each other to get what they want.

Being a saint only leaves you open for the masses to stomp you 6 feet under.

I don't get those warm fuzzies for doing good deeds, but I do get warm fuzzies from fulfilling my selfishness. Thus, one option is definite better than the other, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sugarcoating things.

I can help someone I'll never see again nor care for, or I can help myself. In most cases, I'll help myself, but it depends entirely on the situation.

Wow, selfishness manifesto, LOL

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Kunagisa - 2011-02-04

Sarah Wrote:Money isn't just an object. It's not like a lost necklace. Money is life for everyone, no matter their background. You don't feel like going out of your way to return cash to someone while you would report a lost dog? It's the exact same process. You wouldn't go out of your way because you want the money. There are a ton of dog lovers out there who would argue the exact same position as you are with money right now.

It's an object until you turn it into something useful for life. Until then, it's whatever you want it to become. And I'm sure there are plenty of pedophiles that would take my above offer of a helpless kid as well, that still doesn't make it comparable to losing money. Drop the straw man, it's getting in the way if your logic. Lost dogs are not comparable to lost cash, there are simply too many other factors that alter the decision making process for the two to properly be compared to one another.

Sarah Wrote:The chances of someone desperately looking for $200 are just as high as someone searching for a dog, believe me. At minimum wage in Ontario that's 20 hours work. You think someone is just going to write that off? How can you make that assumption any more than you can that they won't go searching for their dog?

I don't think they'd write it off, but I'll never meet them so it won't matter.
"But you'd care about how strangers felt about their lost dog or child?"

(Because I know you're not going to drop this example)

I'd actually care more about the dog if it were the dog case, and if it's the kid's case I'd probably care about the lost kid more than I'd care about the family. The two in these situation are innocents, and I really have no personal gain from either situation. If I hypothetically did, then you're pretty much re-writing my character completely just so I fit into this role you're trying to put me in, to compare dog/kidnapping to money pocketing.

Sarah Wrote:And no, I'm not assuming anyone has twisted morals for keeping lost money. I'm saying they're a selfish douche, plain and simple. And I want for them to admit that.

I never said I wasn't selfish. Despite you never directly stating that taking lost money is a sign of twisted morals, it's heavily implied by how you're discussing this (this is what's wrong with society/it's morally right to return the money/etc.)

You can tack on douche if you want, I don't mind, but I've never thrown an insult at you in this discussion and honestly find it uncalled for. I could say that I'd love for you to admit you were a naive child that's still living in a dream world and trying too hard to show how much of an upright citizen you are, but that doesn't add to my argument at all, now does it?

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Tay - 2011-02-04

If it were a wallet, I'd return it.

If it were just 200 dollars laying on the ground, and I wouldn't get shot by a sniper that had gay seeking missile infected with super AIDS once I picked it up, then I'd spend on kDnF. :3

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Stereo - 2011-02-04

Depends on the situation, if no-one was around I'd pick it up and probably hang around for a while to see if anyone came looking for it. If I was in a hurry I'd probably find somewhere nearby to put it that it wouldn't blow away or get rained on or anything.

I mean, like Sarah said, $200 can be a big deal, and I'd happily return it to someone if I could locate them.

A lone bill is one thing (I'll take a $5 if I find it, like how I pick up dimes and quarters if I see them on the ground), but larger sums of money are a bigger deal.

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Sarah - 2011-02-04

Rob Wrote:That's a whole piece of bullcrap. Money has no name, no nothing. At your rate, 200 bucks is what I make a month, and I would be douche if I lost it, not if someone else had found it.

I don't understand what this is even supposed to mean. In several ways. Are you saying you only work 20 hours a month? Because pretty much everywhere else in the world that's like, half a weeks work. If even that. 40 - 50 hour work weeks are the norm. But that doesn't invalidate the loss of 20 hours worth of work.

And then you followed that up with 'the person who loses the money is a douche' which doesn't make an ounce of sense. They're a fool, maybe, but being a douche means being self-centered, which absolutely and only describes the person keeping what isn't theirs. And while money has 'no name' as I stated previously, in the hands of the proper authorities, it's easy to ascertain ownership through the description of lost money. 'cause if you lose $200 you're damn sure going to remember that it was folded in half with the five $20 bills on the outside and two $50 bills on the inside, or however it may have been kept.

It just seems like you're saying whatever you can to avoid taking responsibility. I don't really understand that. Why not just admit like spidey that you recognise that it's not the best course of action but you have no remorse for doing it because it's what you want to do.

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Kunagisa - 2011-02-04

Tay Wrote:If it were a wallet, I'd return it.

If it were just 200 dollars laying on the ground, and I wouldn't get shot by a sniper that had gay seeking missile infected with super AIDS once I picked it up, then I'd spend on kDnF. :3

Your signature makes sense now.

Sarah Wrote:It just seems like you're saying whatever you can to avoid taking responsibility. I don't really understand that. Why not just admit like spidey that you recognise that it's not the best course of action but you have no remorse for doing it because it's what you want to do.

But that's where it gets subjective. The "best course of action" for who? For the owner of the money? Is that really the best course of action for you? I'd certainly think keeping the money is the best course of action, and at the same time feel no remorse.

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Sarah - 2011-02-04

Kunagisa Wrote:But that's where it gets subjective. The "best course of action" for who? For the owner of the money? Is that really the best course of action for you? I'd certainly think keeping the money is the best course of action, and at the same time feel no remorse.

Poor choice of words. I meant to say that morally and ethically it's not the right decision.

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Rob - 2011-02-04

Sarah Wrote:I don't understand what this is even supposed to mean. In several ways. Are you saying you only work 20 hours a month? Because pretty much everywhere else in the world that's like, half a weeks work. If even that. 40 - 50 hour work weeks are the norm. But that doesn't invalidate the loss of 20 hours worth of work.

And then you followed that up with 'the person who loses the money is a douche' which doesn't make an ounce of sense. They're a fool, maybe, but being a douche means being self-centered, which absolutely and only describes the person keeping what isn't theirs. And while money has 'no name' as I stated previously, in the hands of the proper authorities, it's easy to ascertain ownership through the description of lost money. 'cause if you lose $200 you're damn sure going to remember that it was folded in half with the five $20 bills on the outside and two $50 bills on the inside, or however it may have been kept.

It just seems like you're saying whatever you can to avoid taking responsibility. I don't really understand that. Why not just admit like spidey that you recognise that it's not the best course of action but you have no remorse for doing it because it's what you want to do.

I make exactly 200 USD a month. That's why I said I would be a douche bag if I lost my money. It doesn't factor in whether the money was my hard work of all month or just 200 bucks someone was going to use to buy crack. Either way it's not possible to measure how much of an impact the loss is to the original owner. Thus, all I can think is what I'd think if I lost money, which brings me back to the first sentence. I'm the douche bag.

Also, best course of action for who?

Sarah Wrote:Poor choice of words. I meant to say that morally and ethically it's not the right decision.

Morally and ethically is just up to the circumstance. Like I said earlier, with items, specially electronic devices, it's pretty easy to track the owner. If you took a moment of your life to try and find out with SOME FEASIBLE and REAL proof, it's ''morally'' and ''ethically'' (since I don't like neither of the words, as to me they are just made up values society forces you to assimilate) right. You can't do that with money, if we take into account what we've discussed up to now, just scattered bills.

EDIT: Also, reminder that you won't ever force me trusting goods, not even money, to the authorities, namely police.

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - -Ghost- - 2011-02-04

If I saw someone drop it or something I'd give it back to them, but if I just find it and nobody really around that would seem like it dropped from them then I'd keep it.

It's International Looting Law.

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Kunagisa - 2011-02-04

Sarah Wrote:Poor choice of words. I meant to say that morally and ethically it's not the right decision.

Morality being a fickle concept made by humans as a set of common laws for humans to follow set in place by conscious of the majority. A majority of people would indeed like to have their lost items returned to them, but at the same time wouldn't go out of their way to return said items.

Thus, it's morally correct to help others find lost objects, because most people want to find their lost objects. But humans contradict their own moral values by their very nature. That's not to say all moral values should be taken lightly.

I'm getting a bit off tangent with this though. Somewhere along the way I lost track of what I was thinking of. It'll probably come back to me later.

And of course I'm sure the natural response to this will be "so we should just throw away all morals and kill each other" to which my response would be "so we should just kill everyone that seems like they may be a witch" following what was seen as morally correct at one point. The point I planned on making wasn't to disregard morality, but at the same time it wasn't to let moral values seem like an absolute good that must be followed (unless you're a douche, I guess).

Rob Wrote:Morally and ethically is just up to the circumstance. Like I said earlier, with items, specially electronic devices, it's pretty easy to track the owner. If you took a moment of your life to try and find out with SOME FEASIBLE and REAL proof, it's ''morally'' and ''ethically'' (since I don't like neither of the words, as to me they are just made up values society forces you to assimilate) right. You can't do that with money, if we take into account what we've discussed up to now, just scattered bills.

EDIT: Also, reminder that you won't ever force me trusting goods, not even money, to the authorities, namely police.

This as well. I said that I'd most likely return the money to an elderly man that I saw drop it, while I wouldn't do the same for some other people. I'd still eat myself away for not keeping it if I returned the money though, and I certainly wouldn't feel warm fuzzies for helping the man out, but I do have my own limits as well. (Like, a built in douche limit, if you'd like to see it that way)

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Sn1perJohnE - 2011-02-04

Khoi Wrote:Now let's alter the question a bit:

"What if you're working, and you stumbled upon $200 dollars, on the job, and it's on the floor. It doesn't seem to belong to anyone, after carefully looking around. Do you keep it?"

Let's also assume that you're doing a crap job, like LOLretail. Which, I hope to God nobody around the age of 18-21 takes seriously if they have a career ahead for them.

Depends. One of my previous jobs had me inside peoples houses and stuff. If I saw it at that time, wouldnt even think about taking it. I might move it to a table or something in plain sight, but nothing beyond that.

Now, if it was retail at like Target, it would be in my pocket and staying.

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Rob - 2011-02-04

Sn1perJohnE Wrote:Depends. One of my previous jobs had me inside peoples houses and stuff. If I saw it at that time, wouldnt even think about taking it. I might move it to a table or something in plain sight, but nothing beyond that.

Now, if it was retail at like Target, it would be in my pocket and staying.

That would've been stealing, not finding, lol.

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - StringStrider - 2011-02-04

Kunagisa Wrote:But if it was an old man or something walking with his walker and having the wind blow cash from his pocket onto the floor without him knowing, I'd probably tap him to return it; while at the same time having my negative side eating away at the back of my head for not keeping it and staying quiet, and it'll bother me for a long time, kinda like the opposite of guilt.

Pretty sure, here in Canada, we refer to that as greed.

Honestly... If I found a lump sum of money with no owner in sight, I'd put it on my student loan...

You find 200 dollars on the floor, what do you do? - Kunagisa - 2011-02-04

StringStrider Wrote:Pretty sure, here in Canada, we refer to that as greed.

Honestly... If I found a lump sum of money with no owner in sight, I'd put it on my student loan...

No, thought greed is the cause of it I guess.