Moral Dilemma #1

[Free Capitalist 0]

Typos, corrections in bold:

They are different from a "rich uncle" in any essential way

should be:

They are not different from a "rich uncle" in any essential way

But that period of time is not indefinite.

should be:

But that period of time is not infinite.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I don't think that the literal understanding of "keeping the unearned" is necessarily a moral problem.

←

My concern here is the reason you do not consider this to be a moral issue, so for the sake of argument I will remove the "unearned." The question then is:

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. Do you consider the question of whether or not to return the diamond to be a moral issue?

[Free Capitalist 0]

Nope.

I should return the extra diamonds because I'm a nice guy and I want to live in a benevolent world (i.e. the issue of manners that I've been talking about), but if the company choses to send me more than I ordered, and I am not accomplice to their act, then I don't see why it would be immoral for me to keep them (in a situation when I'm completely bitter about the whole world, and don't feel like extending courtesy to anyone - a terrible position, but not an immoral one).

Just like with the cable company example, maybe diamonds.com gave away 2 extra diamonds to their 1,000th customer, and their notification email got filtered out by my spam filter; or maybe the two diamonds they sent me were of cheaper quality, to reward me for buying that huge diamond ring and invite me to purchase again; etc. The reasons for why I got the extra value are many, and I'm not under moral imperative to get into the details. That's their business. My morality demands that I deal with everyone honestly, and never try to take what is not mine. If someone else chooses to give me more than I expected, that does not make it any less mine.

I don't want to sound like a carmudgeon here, so I am trying to stress the importance of benevolence and good manners, because they have an important role in a good society; make no mistake, if a person loses money while I'm around, they will always get it (and have gotten it in the past). But speaking strictly in moral terms I just cannot find a problem with getting more than I paid for.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Whoops, turns out that "curmudgeon" has a somewhat different meaning than I expected. I was going more for a meaning like - avaricious, trying to snatch every little thing from everyone, and then attempting to justify it. That's definitely not my ideal here.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Free Capitalist, I think the clear implication in my example is that the more expensive diamond was sent to you in error. But, to obviate all of the "maybe" possibilities you mentioned, let me stipulate this in my example unequivocally: The more expensive diamond was, in fact, sent to you in error, and such is your reasonable assumption upon receiving the diamond. That is now part of the example.

Now, with that stated, do you still not consider the issue of informing the company of their error, and consequently returning the diamond to them, to be a moral one?

[CoireFox 0]

Stephen:

The point at which I personally could "rest" would be when I know that they are aware of the situation. What they choose to do with that knowledge is up to them. I wouldn't watch those channels though.

On the topic of knowledge:

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?

If people were omnipotent, I could agree to the fact that if she did not search for it then she must not want it. If she knew she lost it and did not look for it, she must not care that the value is gone. However, how can you require that a person know something they could not possibly know to maintain their property rights? She holds a claim to that property based upon her prior actions to create that wealth. You are deliberately aquiring something that you have done nothing to earn. Why would you say that, just because she no longer holds it on her person, that she has no claim on it? What about cars left in parking lots? What would you say to a man that enters your house while you are away and makes claim to it simply because you were not using it?

If I saw money on the ground, I would secure it so it could not go anywhere and expect the person to return in search of it. I would go back for $100. How could you be immoral for leaving it on the ground?

Stephen: What is your interpretation of this situation, if you don't mind me asking?

[CoireFox 0]

On the issue of the diamonds, Free Capitalist, don't you think that you should contact them to see if they chose to send these extra diamonds to you? Do you not account for human fallibility?

[Free Capitalist 0]

Stephen,

In that, very unlikely, case, keeping the very expensive mistake would be egregiously disagreeable, sort of like having an old grandma slip on the street and cry out to you for help, while you shrug at her and carelessly walk on by. It's a kind of thing that, and if my friend did it, I'd be on their case. But it's not theft, and you cannot/should not be liable to go to jail for it (since we're talking about rights here, the question of criminal prosecution is very much part of the question; this isn't only about moral or not, because other people are involved).

Guilt arises from being very impolite and mean to someone, it is not exclusively an emotion caused by immoral action. It is caused by improper action, which is broader term. So I think what you're trying to say is, would I feel guilt from it, and, if my friend ignored the grandma's pleas, would I 'have a talk' with him? Yes, of course, I don't want to hang out with such miserable people, so I'd want to get to the bottom of things. However, would I, in full seriousness, call myself a jewel thief, and equate my act to a breaking into a vault and taking the jewel myself? When the company chose to send me this 'theft', and I had no complicity in their mistake? No. Similarly, would I call my friend a "grandma abuser", when she fell on her own account and he had no complicity in the action? No. He should have the proper manners to help her, but he doesn't have a moral obligation to do so. Likewise in the jewels example, in the cable company example, in the "getting four chicken nuggets despite paying for three" example, etc.

CoireFox:

don't you think that you should contact them to see if they chose to send these extra diamonds to you?

Yes I do, it would be very nice of me to do so.

[tommyedison 0]

In that, very unlikely, case, keeping the very expensive mistake would be egregiously disagreeable, sort of like having an old grandma slip on the street and cry out to you for help, while you shrug at her and carelessly walk on by[sNIP]Guilt arises from being very impolite and mean to someone, it is not exclusively an emotion caused by immoral action. It is caused by improper action...

←

You are implying in this post that this is just an issue of nice manners.

Let's put it this way.

-This would be a moral issue if it were affecting your self-interest i.e. if informing the company was promoting your self-interest, it would be immoral not to inform the company.

-It is in your self-interest to live in a world where a little mistake of yours does not result in your losing a lot of money.

-So wouldn't it be moral to inform the company of their mistake to "promote" that kind of a world.

You could argue that you are just a single man and your actions will affect nothing. What if every man thought so? The fact is that every person's actions have an affect on the society and on the world.

As a side note: What is the difference between an improper and immoral action?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Stephen: What is your interpretation of this situation, if you don't mind me asking?

←

There are actually several issues in what you asked me to read (I had not read it before). But, to the most fundamental issue, if the woman accidentally lost the money it certainly remains her property, and if you were to observe that loss then you would be morally obligated to return it to her rather than take it for your own. As to all the other possible conditions that can be applied -- for how long does this remain so; what if she gets into a taxi just before you reach her; etc. -- those are just variations that confuse the fundamental issue: namely, it is her property and it is wrong if you conceal your observation of the fact of her loss in order to claim the money as your own.

p.s. CoireFox, I would appreciate if you would make attributions when you provide quotes. The quote in your post was not written by me, but since mine is the only name mentioned by you (twice, in fact) some readers may assume that that quote was mine. Since I do not agree with parts of that quote, such an assumption by others would disturb me. It is simple enough: instead of using just the plain code "quote" you use "quote=INSERT PERSON'S NAME." And, of course, as is usual, the code has opening and closing brackets. Thanks.

[Dismuke 0]

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.

←

If I was subjected to a bureaucratic hassle because I was merely trying to help some company fix their mistake, I would conclude that such a company deserves to lose money and perhaps even to go out of business.

That is not how a company should treat a customer.

Furthermore, I would refuse to continue doing business with such an outfit and would either switch to satellite or simply do without television altogether. If that is the kind of treatment I am accorded for trying to them a favor, what on earth would I be subjected to if their incompetence someday results in an error at my expense and not theirs?

As to the notion that the cable company is "bearing the burden" - well, in this particular example, that is not really the case. The cable company's costs in this situation are fixed - it does not cost the cable company one penny more in out of pocket expenses for me to have access to the channels than for me to not have access to them. The only expense for the cable company is the labor and administrative costs of having someone throw whatever on/off switch that controls channel access. Assuming that I would never be interested in buying access to those channels, it would actually cost them more to terminate my access than it would to keep it in place. The only cost to the cable company is the potential loss of revenue that they might earn if I valued the channels enough and had the extra money to pay for them.

So, if I found myself in such a situation and valued the channels enough to pay the $40 per month, I would feel obligated to let them know and offer to start paying the money they are morally entitled to. But I sure as heck would not spend a lot of time trying to make them take my money.

And if I did not value the channels, I don't think there would be any moral issue involved whatsoever. For example, I almost never watch television and have zero interest in paying money for access to channels. The only reason I even own a television set beyond the tiny portable my parents gave me way back in high school is because I occasionally enjoy watching films on DVD or VHS. But my house does have cable television wires that were installed for the previous owners. For all I know, those wires may have been hooked up and live ever since I moved here - and I couldn't care less one way or another. I sure as heck am not going to spend one minute's worth of my life trying to figure out how to hook them up to my TV to see so that I could notify the cable company that they forgot to turn the previous occupants' cable off when they moved out.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Stephen,

In that, very unlikely, case, keeping the very expensive mistake would be egregiously disagreeable, sort of like having an old grandma slip on the street and cry out to you for help, while you shrug at her and carelessly walk on by. It's a kind of thing that, and if my friend did it, I'd be on their case. But it's not theft, and you cannot/should not be liable to go to jail for it (since we're talking about rights here, the question of criminal prosecution is very much part of the question; this isn't only about moral or not, because other people are involved).

I did not mention anything about illegalities in my example. Note that not everything that is immoral, is necessarily illegal. So, leaving out any legal issue as being superfluous to what I asked, you do seem to think of this situation as just a question of "manners" or benevolence, as you mentioned in a different but similar context before.

All I can say is that I strongly disagee with that view. I think it is a matter of honesty (being true to the facts of reality), and a matter of integrity (being true to your character and values), that the moral thing to do is not to seek to profit from the stipulated mistake. Not as an issue of manners or kindness, but as an issue of moral values.

[CoireFox 0]

p.s. CoireFox, I would appreciate if you would make attributions when you provide quotes. The quote in your post was not written by me, but since mine is the only name mentioned by you (twice, in fact) some readers may assume that that quote was mine. Since I do not agree with parts of that quote, such an assumption by others would disturb me. It is simple enough: instead of using just the plain code "quote" you use "quote=INSERT PERSON'S NAME." And, of course, as is usual, the code has opening and closing brackets. Thanks.

My apologies. I didn't know how to do this. I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent you.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

My apologies.  I didn't know how to do this.  I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent you.

←

I realize that, and I certainly did not mean to imply that you did. But I consider proper attributions to be very important: perhaps we should add something to the "Guidelines" with an example of how this is done.

[CoireFox 0]

If I was subjected to a bureaucratic hassle because I was merely trying to help some company fix their mistake, I would conclude that such a company deserves to lose money and perhaps even to go out of business.

Regardless of my opinion of the company, I would not want to steal a service for which I have not paid. Being inept does not negate someones claim to property rights. Like I said before, I would not subject myself to "bureaucratic hassle" (and I don't remember there being an implication anywhere that this was the case in the original situation) but I would do everything in my power to make sure they know about their mistake.

As to the notion that the cable company is "bearing the burden" - well, in this particular example, that is not really the case. The cable company's costs in this situation are fixed - it does not cost the cable company one penny more in out of pocket expenses for me to have access to the channels than for me to not have access to them.

The essential fact in the argument is still that, whatever they have paid for it, it is theirs and I have no right to it. Not to notify them could also involve you in some legal implications, but I don't fully know about that. Morality is not based in others, but in the self. An action is not good or bad only for what it does to others, the first consideration is my morality and integrity. I love property rights and want to see them upheld in all my dealings with other people.

Free Capitalist: Do you think that any human action can be divorced from morality?

[Dismuke 0]

Regardless of my opinion of the company, I would not want to steal a service for which I have not paid.

But it is not stealing.

Stealing would consist of something along the lines of climbing the utility poles and making the wires in your house live or running the live lines from the vacant apartment next door into yours. For something to be theft, you would have to be the one who initiated the action.

In the issue at hand, the cable company is giving you free service.

To steal is to violate someone's property rights. But watching those cable channels is not a violation of property rights because the cable company proactively gave you the access. Whether that access is a result of a deliberate decision on their part or an oversight does not change the fact that they did give you that access. And, if it was the result of an oversight, then, so long as you did not initiate any actions to deliberately cause the oversight, your watching the channels is not stealing.

Now, whether you have morally earned the access that the cable company gave you is a different issue. If it was an error and you watch those channels when you are otherwise willing to pay for them, one might very well be able to make the case that you are being morally dishonorable.

Not all instances of receiving unearned values constitute stealing. It is stealing only if you were the one who knowingly initiated the involuntary transfer of unearned values.

The essential fact in the argument is still that, whatever they have paid for it, it is theirs and I have no right to it.

It is indeed correct that you most certainly don't have a right to it. But that doesn't change the fact that they gave it to you. In fact, you don't have a right to any value that others "give" you - be it a consciously given gift or something given to you in error. But once somebody does give something to you, it is, at least from the standpoint of property rights, yours. But that really has nothing to do with the moral dilemma in this thread. The real question here boils down to this: is it morally proper for you to accept the access the cable company has given you in error?

Not to notify them could also involve you in some legal implications, but I don't fully know about that.

There are no legal implications whatsoever.

Imagine what it would be like if there were such legal implications and the heyday it would bring to crooked companies. Some two-bit marketing outfit could suddenly decide to mail you or leave on your porch products that you have no interest in whatsoever so that you can "look them over" in the comfort of your home - and then demand that you either buy those products or spend the time, energy and/or shipping charges to return them. If you think spam is a pain in the rear........... well, just wait until you start receiving tubes of enlargement cream and generic viagra in the mail!

If someone sends or gives something to you unsolicited, it is legally yours. Whether it is morally proper to offer to give it back is a different issue and depends on the circumstances involved.

Morality is not based in others, but in the self. An action is not good or bad only for what it does to others, the first consideration is my morality and integrity.

I quite agree.

I love property rights and want to see them upheld in all my dealings with other people.

But the issue here has nothing to do with property rights. The owner of the property, in this case the cable company, gave you access to that property - and, therefore, your acceptance of what they proactively gave you cannot violate their property rights. The issue under discussion here is this: is it moral to accept unearned values that others unintentionally give you?

[Free Capitalist 0]

Stephen:

I suppose it's a kind of honor to be involved in the very first moral controversy on this brand new forum, , so I guess I'm just willing to agree to disagree by now. However, out of sheer curiosity, I'd like to ask a question about something.

You said,

I think it is a matter of honesty [...], and a matter of integrity [...], that the moral thing to do is not to seek to profit from the stipulated mistake.

Are you saying it is immoral to seek profit from every mistake? Or just from this one? And what is the fundamental aspect that makes this mistake different?

Moreover, you said,

I did not mention anything about illegalities in my example.

But don't you think you should have? After all, while it's true that morality as such deals exclusively with the person, the issue of rights is that one exception where morals and "other people" get intertwined. If you think that keeping the extra value (regardless of its worth, a chicken nugget or a diamond) is immoral and tantamount to theft, then you implicitly advocate criminalization and persecution of such acts, right? After all, theft is theft. Or did I misunderstand your point and you don't think it's theft after all?

CoireFox:

Free Capitalist: Do you think that any human action can be divorced from morality?

No. But morality does not say the whole story about human actions. A person can be completely moral, and yet a total bum and someone very unpleasant for me to be around. So I don't agree with your implicit claim that everything is to be decided in terms of morality and in no other terms.

I did not say that it would be amoral for the person to keep the extra cable channels, or the extra diamonds. I said it would be moral. However, I said some other stuff in addition to that, that I think you glossed over.

tommyedison:

What is the difference between an improper and immoral action?

"Improper" is a wider category, of which "immoral" is just a part. Loudly belching for example - moral, or immoral? Proper, or improper? Moral, but improper (in most situations). What principles, other than morality, are involved in proper action? - as I've been repeating, benevolence, manners, issues of honor, etc. These things are not trivial and insignificant; a good society cannot be established without them (belching is a small example, but actions like taking advantage of others' mistakes are closer to what I am wary about, even if they are 100% moral).

So, would I condemn people who thrive on living off mistakes of others? Absolutely. But not on moral grounds.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

But morality does not say the whole story about human actions.

←

This is where I think you get it wrong. Morality prescribes that you take that action which advances your life the most. It does not leave you any options. It is immoral to take the second best choice.

[CoireFox 0]

No. But morality does not say the whole story about human actions. A person can be completely moral, and yet a total bum and someone very unpleasant for me to be around.

What you are talking about then is not the content of someones actions, but the way they choose to do it?

But it is not stealing.

Stealing would consist of something along the lines of climbing the utility poles and making the wires in your house live or running the live lines from the vacant apartment next door into yours. For something to be theft, you would have to be the one who initiated the action.

I can agree with you here. Acts of omission are not equivalent to acts of commision.

In the issue at hand, the cable company is giving you free service.

To steal is to violate someone's property rights. But watching those cable channels is not a violation of property rights because the cable company proactively gave you the access. Whether that access is a result of a deliberate decision on their part or an oversight does not change the fact that they did give you that access. And, if it was the result of an oversight, then, so long as you did not initiate any actions to deliberately cause the oversight, your watching the channels is not stealing.

I think the only way you can come to the conclusion that the company gave you the service would be to evade how it got there. Is intent not important to you? You know that the company did not want to give you that service. You know that you are not paying for that service. I think this type of thinking may lead you down a dangerous path of rationalization, ending with you rationalizing the acceptance of every unearned value you can and even the ones you can't. I know because I have been there. You and I have very different ideas of 'give.' For someone to give something to me they must know that they have done it in my opinion. For example(and this may have already been given), if a friend comes over to your house and leaves his $300 cashmere(sp?) sweater there, a sweater that you really like, should you give it back? You could rationalize the situation and say that because he left it in your house, he gave it to you, but you would be wrong. His forgetfulness doesn't give you the right to his sweater.

In fact, you don't have a right to any value that others "give" you - be it a consciously given gift or something given to you in error.

How could you not have a right to something someone gives you?

...is it moral to accept unearned values that others unintentionally give you?

What priciples would you use to answer this question?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Are you saying it is immoral to seek profit from every mistake?

In general, all you need to ask yourself is whether the person intended to give you what you received, or not. If you know it was a mistake on their part, the moral thing to do is make them aware of that fact.

I did not mention anything about illegalities in my example.

But don't you think you should have?

Not particularly. That would have been a different discussion entirely. Here I simply wanted to point out that not all immoralities should be illegal, and it was the moral issue with which I was concerned in this discussion.

[McGroarty 0]

Responding to the original question of what I'd do about the free cable and why...

My agreement with the cable company is a contract granting the right to very specific properties. Using the additional channels wouldn't be any different than downloading their content online - it would be giving myself access to property I haven't a right to.

I would simply program these as inactive channels on the television so I don't land on them accidentally. I don't see a need to contact the cable company and remind them to protect their property from me. The point of blocking the channels is to keep me honest, and I'll gladly take care of myself.

[Paul's Here 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 not much of a dilemma for me. I'd call up the company and let them know of the problem. The basic reason is that I don't want to receive an unearned value from anyone if I can possibly correct the situation. However, there would be a limit to how many times I would call them if they didn't fix the problem. After one or two attempts at contacting them, if the problem was not corrected, it would no longer be my problem.

One time I found an umbrella in a restaurant and figured I could either take the umbrella or leave it assuming that the owner may come back for it. I left it there.

Another time, I had to go on a canoe trip on a river. I didn't want to get my sneakers wet, so I took them off and left them hidden near the beginning of the conoe ride. When I got back from downstream, my sneakers were gone. Too bad there aren't more Objectivists in the world.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Another time, I had to go on a canoe trip on a river.  I didn't want to get my sneakers wet, so I took them off and left them hidden near the beginning of the conoe ride.  When I got back from downstream, my sneakers were gone.  Too bad there aren't more Objectivists in the world.

←

Or, less crocodiles!

[Dismuke 0]

I think the only way you can come to the conclusion that the company gave you the service would be to evade how it got there. Is intent not important to you? You know that the company did not want to give you that service. You know that you are not paying for that service. I think this type of thinking may lead you down a dangerous path of rationalization, ending with you rationalizing the acceptance of every unearned value you can and even the ones you can't. I know because I have been there. You and I have very different ideas of 'give.' For someone to give something to me they must know that they have done it in my opinion.

I think you misunderstand my posting. I agree with you that there is a moral issue involved and that taking advantage of other people's honest errors in order to acquire unearned values from them is dishonorable. My point, however, is that it, even though it may be immoral, is not stealing. As you said, acts of omission are not equivalent to acts of commission.

As to my use of "to give" - it simply means to proactively transfer ownership of some value or property over to another person without remuneration. And once you give something to another person, you forfeit all rights to it and it becomes theirs. It is certainly possible that people may give stuff away in error. But the fact that they gave it away in error does not change the fact that they did give it away. Whether or not such errors require a moral recipient to offer to give the item or value back is an entirely separate issue.

For example(and this may have already been given), if a friend comes over to your house and leaves his $300 cashmere(sp?) sweater there, a sweater that you really like, should you give it back? You could rationalize the situation and say that because he left it in your house, he gave it to you, but you would be wrong. His forgetfulness doesn't give you the right to his sweater.

But the difference here would be that the friend never actually gave me the sweater. He merely forgot to take it with him and left it in my possession. Giving someone possession of something is not the same thing as giving it to them. If this friend returned within some reasonable period of time and asked for the sweater back, I would need to oblige because it is still his, not mine.

By the same token, however, the fact that he leaves his sweater at my house imposes no legal obligations on me whatsoever. The responsibility for keeping up with his belongings is his alone. The moral thing to do, of course, would be to phone him up and make arrangements for its return. But if I never make any effort to tell him about his missing sweater and he discovers months later that I have it, he can't call the police and claim that I stole it from him because I never tried to contact him. After a certain period of time, I suspect the sweater would actually acquire abandoned property status and he would have no legal claim on it whatsoever. If that happened, I would have indeed acquired an unearned value in a highly immoral and dishonest manner - but I would technically not have done anything illegal.

But even on the morality of this, context is everything. I had a very similar situation happen to me a few years ago. I hired a person to help me with some work on my house. I very quickly discovered that the man was mentally unbalanced - he claimed to see faces in rocks and told me some very bizarre conspiracy theories about why his former girlfriend would no longer see him. He was probably harmless - but I had no way of knowing for sure and he made me feel a bit uncomfortable. Once I paid him for his work and he went on his way, I discovered that he left behind an old, beat up jacket, an empty propane canister and a couple of hand tools. I did have a phone number where I could reach him - but at that point I really preferred to have no further interaction with this fellow. I set his belongings aside in case he ever came back for them - but I made a conscious decision not to get back in touch with him. I most likely still have his stuff out in my garage somewhere. It is of absolutely no use to me and I will most likely throw it out next time I start getting rid of the assorted junk that tends to accumulate out there. I don't feel particularly guilty about it at all. I feel bad that the poor man had some pretty serious problems. But there are definite limits as to what I am willing to subject myself to in order to do someone a favor.

In fact, you don't have a right to any value that others "give" you - be it a consciously given gift or something given to you in error.

How could you not have a right to something someone gives you?

You have a right to something someone gives you after it has been given to you - but not before.

...is it moral to accept unearned values that others unintentionally give you?

What priciples would you use to answer this question?

Well, I am afraid that is a rather broad question to answer in a posting. So my short answer is this: the Objectivist ethics and lots of context.

[CoireFox 0]

As to my use of "to give" - it simply means to proactively transfer ownership of some value or property over to another person without remuneration.

Why doesn't the proactive transfer of ownership require the proper intent? Ownership is not a physical thing. There exists no "ownership" in the object. It only exists in the mind of man as a concept. To transfer such a "thing" as property rights, a purposeful action on the part of the giver is required, not a mistake.