Moral Dilemma #1

[Betsy Speicher 0]

When it comes to big moral decisions, Objectivists usually know what to do, but life provides us with many little decisions where there are optional values at stake and/or the applicable principle isn't obvious. It's the little moral decisions that really make us think, so from time to time I will post "Moral Dilemmas" -- ethical issues in everyday life -- for analysis and discussion.

Here's Moral Dilemma #1

When you had cable TV installed, the technician told you that it would take a few days for the central office to hook up. Until then, you would get the premium channels (worth $40 a month) for free. It is four months later, and you are still getting unscrambled premium channels free.

What would you do? And WHY?

[Dismuke 0]

When you had cable TV installed, the technician told you that it would take a few days for the central office to hook up.  Until then, you would get the premium channels (worth $40 a month) for free.  It is four months later, and you are still getting unscrambled premium channels free.

What would you do?  And WHY?

←

If I actually watched the channels and was planning to subscribe to them anyway, I would be inclined to call the cable company and alert the person who answers the phone as to what happened. If that one phone call did not generate sufficient interest on the part of the cable company to take care of the matter, then I would figure it is their problem, not mine. The last thing in the world I am going to do is waste tons of time fighting an inept company's bureaucracy in order to help them solve problems brought on by their own incompetence.

If I had no interest in the channels and never watched them, I would have even less patience to spend my time on the matter.

I actually found myself in a similar situation. In December 2003, I discovered a subscription website that I thought would be beneficial to the department I run at work. I purchased a one year subscription - about $500 - using a company American Express card. Last summer, the company that runs the website sent me an email saying that if I renewed our subscription early, I could extend the subscription to December 2005 for a significant discount. I immediately took them up on the offer.

Rather than using the company credit card again, it was much less hassle for me to simply charge the subscription to my personal card and submit a receipt to the accounting department for reimbursement. So I clicked on the link provided in the email to take advantage of the special offer and entered in the number on my Visa check card which draws directly from my checking account. To my surprise, I received an error message that my charge had been declined. I knew I had more than enough money in the account to cover the charge so I figured that my bank's computer system might be down, something that has occasionally happened when I needed to make ATM withdrawals. So I pulled out a Visa credit card and entered that number in - and, it too, resulted in a declined charge.

Later I finally realized that the cards were probably declined because the billing address on my subscription renewal was that of the company's American Express card and not my personal cards.

As a precaution, I logged into my online accounts with the bank and the credit card company - and I noticed that a hold had been placed on each card. So I immediately contacted the company's tech support and informed them what happened and told them that I did not want to be double charged. A few days later I got a reply back that I had only been charged once. It was true that the hold on my bank account had gone away. But the hold on my credit card had not yet been converted into an actual charge. I emailed back and told them that I did not see any indication that I had been charged at all.

To make a long story less lengthy, for the next couple of days I went around and around through multiple emails with the tech support person who never seemed to grasp the point I was trying to make and kept insisting that I had indeed been charged. Figuring that I was dealing with someone who was not in the habit of actually reading the emails he responds to, I thought I might have better luck explaining the situation by phone. So I telephoned the tech support department - and ended up speaking with the same goofus I had been communicating with by email. He was an arrogant, condescending little snot who told me that my account clearly showed I was good to go until December 2005 and that I shouldn't "panic" so much.

So, I decided to take him at his word. If he insists that he doesn't want to take my money, I sure as heck am not going to waste my time arguing with him why he should. Of course, it is not his money, but rather his employer's money. But that's their problem - not mine. If they haven't figured out by now that they have a goofus working for them, then they aren't paying very much attention.

I have yet to be charged - and I don't feel one bit guilty that my department is getting a year's subscription "on the house."

[Tom Rexton 0]

When it comes to big moral decisions, Objectivists usually know what to do, but life provides us with many little decisions where there are optional values at stake and/or the applicable principle isn't obvious.  It's the little moral decisions that really make us think, so from time to time I will post "Moral Dilemmas" -- ethical issues in everyday life -- for analysis and discussion. 

Here's Moral Dilemma #1

When you had cable TV installed, the technician told you that it would take a few days for the central office to hook up.  Until then, you would get the premium channels (worth $40 a month) for free.  It is four months later, and you are still getting unscrambled premium channels free.

What would you do?  And WHY?

←

This is somewhat like the situation in which I find myself once: I ordered a 3-piece chicken select meal in McDonald's, and when I opened the box to eat I found FOUR pieces! So I thought, should I return the fourth piece? After all, I paid only for THREE pieces. But then I thought, wait--it's not my fault. I didn't steal it. It's the responsibility of the employees to ensure the accuracy of the order. Furthermore, if I returned it, company policy would require that they simply throw the piece of chicken away--they certainly would not put it in someone else's box of chicken. And so I decided to enjoy the fourth piece of chicken and let it go at that.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Here's Moral Dilemma #1

When you had cable TV installed, the technician told you that it would take a few days for the central office to hook up.  Until then, you would get the premium channels (worth $40 a month) for free.  It is four months later, and you are still getting unscrambled premium channels free.

What would you do?  And WHY?

←

This is not a dilemma for me at all; I would definitely send the company an e-mail telling them about the situation. Since I have every reason to assume that the company would not consent to my watching the premium channels for free, doing so without saying a word would be akin to walking onto someone else's property and using their swimming pool while they're away. The fact that the owner is not physically preventing you from using his property does not give you permission to do so.

Now, once I wrote that e-mail, the ball is in their court; it is up to them to charge me and if they don't, that is their problem, not mine. I agree with Dismuke that there is no need to go to lengths to "enforce" one's liabilities.

And now, for my "similar story" : I usually refuel my car at Esso (the European branch of Exxon). They have a promotion: for every 15 liters of gas you buy, you get a stamp; after you have collected enough stamps, you can claim some items of merchandise for them. The other day, I filled about 44.2 liters into my car, so I was just short of the amount needed to get three stamps. After I paid, the clerk tossed what looked like three stamps on the counter and quickly left. As I took them, I found that he had doubled some of the stamps over, so he had actually given me FIVE.

Needless to say, I was surprised to get five stamps when I had been expecting only two! As the clerk had already left, I couldn't protest. After some deliberation, I figured he had seen that I was very near the 45 liter mark so he'd thought he'd be generous and give me three stamps, but in his carelessness he overlooked the doubled ones--so I decided to take what he had meant to give and left two stamps on the counter, taking three.

[non-contradictor 0]

I would call/ e-mail the company because:

1. I didn't pay for them, so I have no right to watch them, and what good are they if I can't watch them.

2. If I didn't order them in the first place, why would I want them now?

3. Something doesn't magically become more valuable when it's free.

4. If I didn't value the channels enough to pay for them, then no one else should pay for me to have them.

I dislike the swimming pool analogy however. I think it's closer to this:

Someone leaves somthing at your house. You know who the item belongs to and how to contact them. You:

a) call the person and tell them

keep it

If you call the person, then it is their responsibility to come over and get it.

It's not like you walked into an ungaurded control room and flicked the switch for premium channnels to be turned on in your house. They are wiring them in. That said, would it be wrong to not call the company, or just to continue watching the channels? Of course it would be pointless to keep them if you don't watch them, but would it be wrong? Similarly, would it be wrong not to call someone who leaves something at your house, even if you don't touch it and will give it back to them if they ask? Granted, both of these things are extremely pointless and I don't understand why anyone would want to do them, but since both of these situations are the product of someone else's mistake, and not yours, are you morally obligated to inform them? I am not sure.

However, I entirely agree that watching the channels would be wrong, since I have no right to watch them unless I paid for them or own them myself.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

I dislike the swimming pool analogy however. I think it's closer to this:

Someone leaves somthing at your house. You know who the item belongs to and how to contact them. You:

a) call the person and tell them

keep it

←

I agree, yours is a better analogy.

since both of these situations are the product of someone else's mistake, and not yours, are you morally obligated to inform them? I am not sure.

←

Well, if you don't watch the premium channels / don't use your guest's belongings, then legally you are definitely not obligated to inform them; i.e. you are not in violation of their rights if you don't. Their mistake does not create a claim on you; that is to say, if you do inform them, you are doing them a favor.

As for whether you are morally obligated--whether it would be immoral of you not to inform them--depends on the costs of informing them (how much money and effort; what other activities you have to forgo) and whether they, based on their character, deserve this kind of favor.

[non-contradictor 0]

As for whether you are morally obligated--whether it would be immoral of you not to inform them--depends on the costs of informing them (how much money and effort; what other activities you have to forgo) and whether they, based on their character, deserve this kind of favor.

←

That makes sense. It also relates to the idea that once you call them, you don't have to go out of your way to get them to take their property back. Thank you for answering my question.

[Inspector 0]

As for whether you are morally obligated--whether it would be immoral of you not to inform them--depends on the costs of informing them (how much money and effort; what other activities you have to forgo) and whether they, based on their character, deserve this kind of favor.

←

I was going to answer something essentially the same, but you beat me to it.

I've given clerks money back when they give me too much. But if I make it down the street and notice later on, I'm not going to make a trip back to the store to fix THEIR mistake.

[GoodOrigamiMan 0]

Bank error in your favor, collect $100*

I agree with those that think whether or not it is moral to benefit from someone else’s mistake depends on the situation. If it is too difficult to return the misplaced item I wouldn’t consider it moral to sacrifice your time and energy returning it. Conversely if the lost item was going to break the heart of a friend or bankrupt your favorite business, return it you should.

The moral principle that I think applied the best to these situations is: do not sacrifice. There is not a principle that says “return it” (but maybe a general rule) – clearly someone else’s mistake is not a right’s violation on your part. Therefore the only moral concern is that you act on what you think is in your best interest.

*my first impression of this thread - think Monopoly

A had a cute story that I wanted to tie into my post but failed. It does have some relevance however, so I included it below

A Swiss gentleman told me how he got his first back account in America... We were at a Swiss Athletic Society meeting (athletic for the Swiss means marksmanship) and a discussion of target designs led to the discovery that he was a mechanical engineer, which led to a discussion about the metric system (it’s superiority) where we ended up talking about balancing your check book. Shortly after getting an account his bank fined him for overdrawing it, so he went in to talk to the manager and as it turned out -the bank was in error- his account had not been overdrawn. The bank gave him back the five dollar fine, but my Swiss engineer wouldn’t settle for that – he told the manager, “it is simple... if I make a mistake, I pay you five dollars. If you make a mistake, you pay me five dollars”. In the end the bank did not pay him for their mistake, however they did offer him a job (which he declined).

To bad for him the contract was on the Bank’s side, the point to the story would be that there it doesn’t concern morals. Between two traders an error is an error, morally neither side is accountable – the traders had a contract however, this one favored the bank.

[GoodOrigamiMan 0]

...

When you had cable TV installed, the technician told you that it would take a few days for the central office to hook up.  Until then, you would get the premium channels (worth $40 a month) for free.  It is four months later, and you are still getting unscrambled premium channels free.

What would you do?  And WHY?

←

I wouldn’t take any action to inform the cable company of their mistake because I like the premium channels - if I tried to pay them they might take them away. --joking--

If the premium channels were worth $40 a month (to me) I would subscribe to them, regardless of whether or not I was already getting them for free. But if I was unwilling to pay $40 per month for the premium channels I would not go out of my way to stop them from sending them. It is a small benefit for me at no loss to the cable company (because I wouldn’t pay for the channels), as such I have no reason change the situation. This is why I probably wouldn’t do anything.

I say probably because other things could affect my decision like the past interactions with the company, distraction of the premium channels as a negative, and my presumptuousness about not being willing to pay for them.

[Dismuke 0]

Bank error in your favor, collect $100*

I once drove up to a drive-through at a bank and inside the pneumatic tube was a number of $20 bills. I don't know how many there were because I immediately hit the "send" button and asked the clerk if he perhaps had record of the name of the person who last used the lane.

I have no idea what the legality of a situation like that is, but, morally, in my book taking that money would be theft, pure and simple.

On the other hand, I once put 50 cents into a soda pop machine - and out came two cans of soda pop and approximately $5 worth of quarters. I thought: "Gee, this must be what it feels like to play the slot machines at Vegas!" Since I had no idea how to contact the owner of the machine, I just drank the extra can of soda and pocketed the quarters. I basically chalked it up to the Almighty Vending Machine Gods paying me reparations for all the times a clunk of junk vending machine has swallowed my money without giving me any product in return.

[GoodOrigamiMan 0]

I once drove up to a drive-through at a bank and inside the pneumatic tube was a number of $20 bills.  I don't know how many there were because I immediately hit the "send" button and asked the clerk if he perhaps had record of the name of the person who last used the lane.

I have no idea what the legality of a situation like that is, but, morally, in my book taking that money would be theft, pure and simple.

←

I would also have hit the send button - it would have been a loss for the bank as well as the person withdrawing or depositing the money – hopefully the bank was able to return the money to its owner.

[Dismuke 0]

– hopefully the bank was able to return the money to its owner.

←

I later learned something that made me wonder if the whole thing was a set-up.

About the time this happened, it was nearing television "sweeps" month. As a gimmick to attract viewers, one of the local television news departments came up with a feature called "The Channel Five Honesty Test" which set up situations designed to see how honest people are when they think nobody is watching. Of course, somebody was watching: a hidden camera. A few weeks after I had the experience at the bank, someone I had mentioned it to told me about watching the Honesty Test on the previous night's news - and one of the things the TV station did was leave various amounts of money laying around in places where it would have been easy to return it to its rightful owner. The station kept tabs on how honest people tended to be depending on how much money was involved.

I understand that the reporters actually confronted some of the people who had been caught on camera being dishonest - though they didn't show their faces on TV. Imagine how humiliating that would have been - sort of like the time that a former Democratic Speaker of the House got caught stuffing his pockets with complementary airline snack foods!

I have no way of knowing if that was what was going on at the bank with the money. But one of the things in retrospect that made me think that it might have been was how the teller responded when I sent the pneumatic tube back. He did not seem at all surprised by it and merely stated in a matter of fact manner: "I know what happened. We will give the money back. Thank you." I would have expected the teller to have been as surprised by it as I was.

[Rational_One 0]

A simialar situation happened to me lately. At a resteraunt I frequent I usually order the exact same thing and my bill always come to $9.01. This time however when I looked at the bill it was $7.(and something). I quickly realized my waitress had not included the charge for the drink. So I was now presented withe the dillema of telling the waitresss she had "undercharged" me. I will admit at first I thought I would just skip it and pay the bill as is because it was their mistake, and enjoy a slight discount for once. Then I realized that I am morally obligated to at least bring the mistake to their attention because I noticed it and because I operate on the principle that I can not knowingly accept an unearned of others.

So I told her about the error, I felt a little silly doing so, and she corrected the bill. I actually thought she might just say "well, don't worry about it", but she didn't and that's fine.

So taking my experience and applying it to the cable dillema, I would say the only thing you ought to do morally is in some way inform the company that they made a mistake. Then either they will correct the mistake or they won't care enough to fix it, in which case you no longer have to feel any moral responcibility, and can watch the premium channels if you so choose without guilt. Of course if you find yourself doing so on a regular basis you should officially subscribe to the premium package.

[Guest deleted2]

I would not do anything if it were not in my self-interest, so in the situation with the free cable, I would have to determine what would bring me the greatest benefit while leaving my moral code intact. Since the error was not mine, I would hold no guilt if I did not inform the company. However, it is likely that it would not be in my self-interest. The mistake might have unexpected consequences in the end, such as a bill for the "free" channels, and a battle with the cable company over that bill that would cause me more trouble than a simple phone call would have caused in the beginning.

A similar thing happened to me involving newspaper delivery. I was receiving the newspaper even though I had not requested it. I did nothing about it because I thought that it would not be in my self-interest, and I enjoyed the litter that was being tossed on my driveway every morning. However, in the end, I got a bill. I ended up paying the bill and ending my "subscription" without contesting anything because I was not sure if I would win the battle, and because I did not want to waste the time.

-Daniel Woelfel

[Dismuke 0]

A similar thing happened to me involving newspaper delivery. I was receiving the newspaper even though I had not requested it. I did nothing about it because I thought that it would not be in my self-interest, and I enjoyed the litter that was being tossed on my driveway every morning. However, in the end, I got a bill. I ended up paying the bill and ending my "subscription" without contesting anything because I was not sure if I would win the battle, and because I did not want to waste the time.

-Daniel Woelfel

←

You would have won - and it is doubtful they would have even attempted to fight it. Nobody can legally charge you for something that you did not request.

When I was a kid, I had a brief interest in stamp collecting and ended up getting on several mailing lists. One day, out of the blue, I got a package in the mail from a company which sold stamps on approval. How approval services work is each month, or however often, the company mails its customers a whole bunch of stamps. The customer has so many days to look at the stamps and to send back the stamps he is not interested in along with a check for the ones he decides to keep.

The package I received in the mail contained several wax paper envelopes of very beautiful stamps along with a form letter obviously aimed at kids from someone called "The Captain" containing instructions for sending them back - and I was supposed to pay the postage on it. I was kind of upset by the whole thing because, as a kid, I didn't want to spend what very little money I had on postage to mail back a bunch of stamps that I never asked for. When I complained to my mother, she told me that I could keep the stamps because one has no legal obligation to pay for unsolicited packages and, besides, I was too young to enter into legally binding contracts. So I kept the stamps. For couple of months I kept getting letters from "The Captain" which were increasingly nasty and threatening - and that was kind of intimidating for a little kid. But my mother, who I recall was quite angry about my getting the letters, kept telling me that the company was a scam and that I could keep the stamps - and to this day, I still have them.

As for the unsolicited newspapers, considering some of the recent scandals involving circulation figures, I think that my first suspicion if that were to happen to me would be that the newspaper was trying to fraudulently pad its paid circulation numbers.

[Elizabeth 0]

Here's Moral Dilemma #1

When you had cable TV installed, the technician told you that it would take a few days for the central office to hook up.  Until then, you would get the premium channels (worth $40 a month) for free.  It is four months later, and you are still getting unscrambled premium channels free.

What would you do?  And WHY?

←

I would contact the cable company and let them know that I am still receiving the premium channels even though I do not wish to subscribe for them.

I would not want to be charged in retro, though this would not be likely. If I am aware that I do not subscribe for something that I am receiving and not being charged I recognize this is an error. If I didn't say anything I would feel as though I were stealing.

By the way I like this kind of topic presentation!

[Free Capitalist 0]

This is an intersting situation, and I have a two-pronged response to it. Strictly speaking the employee is a representative of the cable company, and therefore his word is tantamount to the word of the entire company; if the CEO made the same promise to you, and the same omission, there would be nothing different about that scenario. So, as others have been saying, there's no moral obligation on your part to object to receiving something valuable, which the other party is providing by omission. You paid your money, what they give you in return is their problem, as long as they give you at least what you paid for.

However, this is a dilemma of sorts after all, because you are involved in a situation where the other party (i.e. the cable company in this case) is losing value without being compensated for it. It is no fault of yours, and more a fault of the company's technician than the company itself - assuming that the company is otherwise reliable and dependable. So, just as you wouldn't want your entire well-being to depend on the unlucky/random accidents and omissions of others, similarly when someone else becomes victim to such omissions, it's benevolent and well-mannered to inform them of this, even at some loss to you (because, after all manners are concerned primarily with projecting benevolence). Just like, if you see a woman dropping a $100 dollar bill on the street, if you catch her and return the money, you lose the $100 but gain well-being and benevolence, both from your action and the woman's gratitude.

Thus, I believe that this situation is not a dilemma of morals, but a dilemma of manners. Morality has nothing at stake in dilemmas like this, but a benevolent society has everything at stake in dilemmas like this. So it is an important question, though perhaps not in the way it seems at first.

[Sarah Beth 0]

Thus, I believe that this situation is not a dilemma of morals, but a dilemma of manners. Morality has nothing at stake in dilemmas like this, but a benevolent society has everything at stake in dilemmas like this. So it is an important question, though perhaps not in the way it seems at first.

←

I agree with you here. I don't think it would be immoral to not notify the company, however I personally would do it based on the golden rule idea, that if I was the cable company I would want to know. It's good etiquette, as you said, and while I wouldn't hold it against someone who said nothing, I would admire someone who was overly honest even when it wasn't neccessary (for lack of a better way to describe it).

As a waitress if there was a mistake on a check that hurts the restaurant, they make you pay for it out of your own money, so honest customers were much appreciated (though very rare).

I had a situation with the power company, we never called them to have it turned on, and they never contacted us, so we thought the landlord must be taking care of it. Six months later, out of the blue, we get a letter that they are going to turn it off if we didn't pay the full six months bill, which of course was a huge thing to get at once.

We might could've fought it, but I decided not to, since we had benefitted from the power being on and that was undeniable. Anyway, I prefer now to make sure about things like that, for my own sake, and in case the loss is hurting someone.

[HeroicLife 0]

The essence of the issue is – are you getting an unearned value or not? When you pay for a good, you are not only agreeing to a contract, but also demonstrating your appreciation of the values you gain. If the channels are a value to you, you should notify the company. If not, it’s not your obligation to expend resources fixing their mistake.

By the way, asking “is this service worth $40 to me” is wrong because the channels are provided on the cable company’s terms, not yours.

[CoireFox 0]

Just like, if you see a woman dropping a $100 dollar bill on the street, if you catch her and return the money, you lose the $100 but gain well-being and benevolence, both from your action and the woman's gratitude.

Thus, I believe that this situation is not a dilemma of morals, but a dilemma of manners. Morality has nothing at stake in dilemmas like this, but a benevolent society has everything at stake in dilemmas like this. So it is an important question, though perhaps not in the way it seems at first.

I totally disagree with you. If the woman accidentally drops $100 on the street she does not give up her rights to it, therefore you are not losing $100 because you never had it in the first place. Also, any choice a human makes is a moral decision. Sometimes seemingly insignificant decisions can show the entire character of an individual.

In the situation given by Betsy, I would do everything in my power to correct the situation, e-mails and phone calls. I would not rest until the "free" channels had been removed from my TV. Free is in quotes because while they come at no cost to me, SOMEONE is still bearing the burden for that service, ie the cable company. It is not in my interest for the company providing me with services that I enjoy to be inept at providing them. If there is some sort of buereacratic problem or whatnot, I would want them to correct it. If they did not, who knows how many people would be getting "free" channels that cause the company to loose money. If these losses continue to add up they may go out of business which would end my ability to receive even the most basic of cable services.

[CoireFox 0]

The reason you would give the money back to the woman would be that not doing so is a violation of her property rights. A society of people who disrepect property rights can not last long. It is in your self-interest to support and defend the legitamacy of such rights.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

So, as others have been saying, there's no moral obligation on your part to object to receiving something valuable, which the other party is providing by omission. You paid your money, what they give you in return is their problem, as long as they give you at least what you paid for.

I am not sure I understand the principle involved, as you see it. Let's say you go to diamonds.com and order a 1 carat diamond for $14,000. Your credit card is charged for the correct amount, but instead you receive a 3 carat diamond valued at $42,000. You received "at least what you paid for," in this case actually three times the value. Is this also a case of it being "their problem," and are you also under "no moral obligation on your part to object?"

If so, what principle allows you to keep the unearned, something received by what was clearly a costly mistake on their part? If not, then in what way is this different from the cable situation? I just want to understand why, as you say further on, that "this situation is not a dilemma of morals, but a dilemma of manners."

[Stephen Speicher 0]

In the situation given by Betsy, I would do everything in my power to correct the situation, e-mails and phone calls.  I would not rest until the "free" channels had been removed from my TV.  Free is in quotes because while they come at no cost to me, SOMEONE is still bearing the burden for that service, ie the cable company.  It is not in my interest for the company providing me with services that I enjoy to be inept at providing them.  If there is some sort of buereacratic problem or whatnot, I would want them to correct it.  If they did not, who knows how many people would be getting "free" channels that cause the company to loose money.  If these losses continue to add up they may go out of business which would end my ability to receive even the most basic of cable services.

←

I sympathize with your overall perspective on this situation, but I wonder about your statement that "I would not rest until the 'free' channels had been removed from my TV." It is, afterall the fault of the company, not yours, and your own time is a great value to you. Would there not be a point for which, after making a diligent effort to appraise the company of the situation, it would be reasonable that you could "rest" and leave resolution of the problem to them?

[Free Capitalist 0]

what principle allows you to keep the unearned

I don't think that the literal understanding of "keeping the unearned" is necessarily a moral problem. After all, in the proverbial lighthouse dilemma, you receive unearned benefit of the lighthouse even though you did not pay for it. We have all received the unearned benefit of Aristotle, Isaac Newton, Ayn Rand; sure, one can say that by understanding their ideas we repay them, but that's just a metaphorical concept, because none of these great people really benefit from our "payment". So, in the strict sense of the word, we get unearned things all the time, and there shouldn't be any guilt and moral criticism from that aspect alone. Here's an example I've struggled with, after first reading passages in AS dealing with this issue: is it moral to accept a generous gift from a rich man, even though you don't know him and don't see any reason why you should be the one to have the gift given to? In other words, imagine a situation where you are given a value from someone else, and cannot possibly imagine how anything you do would repay them? If he gives you a 20 million dollar check, somehow a 'thank you' just doesn't cut it. So should you plague yourself with guilt and consider yourself a "moocher" who thrives off unearned values of others? Clearly not.

In my understanding, Ayn Rand criticized "getting the unearned" in a strictly delimited sense of trying to actively and deliberately remove some value from another person and assign it to yourself. Examples of that would be, in the material sense, theft, and in the intellectual sense, something like attributing to yourself the origin of the law of non-contradiction, after you've read it from Aristotle. However, if you sleep walk, and during sleepwalking through New York you attribute to yourself the origin of the law of non-contradiction, you're not trying to get the unearned. It has to be a deliberate act on your behalf to appropriate some value from someone else.

Now, if you've hopefully agreed with me that, strictly speaking, acquiring something without paying for it is not morally reprehensible in and of itself, and that there have to be specific circumstances when it becomes so, the cable company example becomes clear. They are different from a "rich uncle" in any essential way. Maybe they gave you free cable because they liked your track record of paying bills on time for 10 years. Maybe they have a special discount for people living in your area, and the technician forgot to mention it. Maybe he was hired and right away rushed to work, without being properly instructed about all special deals concerning my area. Or maybe he forgot. The point is, it is not my a moral imperative (to borrow a good phrase from a bad man) for me to go and get to the bottom of this. The contract says I pay $60 to get the Standard Channels, let's say. If I get $40 worth more of value through no deliberately dishonest action of my own, which is a necessary condition for this unearned acquisition to be immoral, then ethics has nothing else to say on the issue.

However, as I said, just because you do get this unearned value, and are not to be condemned for it, it does not mean you should keep it. Once morality ends, the issue of manners, benevolence, and civic concerns begin. And since they are far from irrelevant, this still remains an important topic.

---

If the woman accidentally drops $100 on the street she does not give up her rights to it, therefore you are not losing $100 because you never had it in the first place

In order for the money to remain woman's, and immoral to acquire by someone else, she has to show intention of trying to find it(i.e. if you see her desperately searching for something on the ground). If she walks on by, oblivious, and keeps walking by without a concern, you can get the money because it can no longer be said that you are trying to deliberately trying to appropriate someone's value for your own. What if the woman is not seen anywhere and you chance upon the money, and don't even know if it is a man's or a woman's, but that it is someone's. Are you immoral for leaving it on the ground? Are you immoral for taking it for yourself? Of course not, in either case; and if the former case is morally allowed, as it must be, then why is the latter case forbidden?

Obviously there's a period, right after the loss of the value (i.e. money in this case), when the person has full right to it, even if it drops to the ground. But that period of time is not indefinite.

The point here is that, if you find a $100 bill and don't see anyone around you who might have lost it, or if you get an extra quarter in your change at the gas station, or if you get four chicken nuggets when having ordered three, there's nothing immoral about taking the value and making it your own. As long as you make no deliberate action to get in that situation, once you're in the situation you are free to act as you see fit, guided by manners, conscience, civic duty, etc.