Betsy Speicher

Moral Dilemma #1

87 posts in this topic

If another source of premium channels were available, though, I would prefer to switch--not because of honesty considerations, but because if I really value the cable channels and the company is not even competent enough to charge me for them, who knows what else they might be incompetent at. I would hate to miss my favorite movie because of an outage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:o 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'm sorry, but I find this to be very wrong. I once had someone tell me that they were justified in using a pirated copy of Adobe Photoshop because they wouldn't pay the 500$ for the regular version, so Adobe wasn't losing any money either way.

This completely destroys the principle of property rights, and intellectual property rights in specific. They charge 40$ a month for cable or 500$ for Adobe Photoshop because that's how much the product is worth. If you don't like it, shop around for something cheaper, but don't smugly state that, since you wouldn't pay for it if you HAD to, you're justified in NOT paying for it if you can avoid it.

It is piracy, btw, that drives up the cost of products like this.

Personally, I don't even own a television, BUT if I did and I got cable, I would insist on paying for it. Probably easier than arguing with the company would just be to send them some money . . . they'd phone ME to ask what the heck was going on. Either that or they'd just cash the check . . . either way I've paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I don't even own a television, BUT if I did and I got cable, I would insist on paying for it.  Probably easier than arguing with the company would just be to send them some money . . . they'd phone ME to ask what the heck was going on.  Either that or they'd just cash the check . . . either way I've paid.

I am glad you have chimed in here. After all of these posts on this thread, you have added a unique response that has not been mentioned before. Thanks for doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am glad you have chimed in here. After all of these posts on this thread, you have added a unique response that has not been mentioned before. Thanks for doing that.

I apologize. I hadn't noticed that the thread had continued into 4 pages, as I was not entirely used to the format yet. Feel free to delete my posts if you wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I apologize.  I hadn't noticed that the thread had continued into 4 pages, as I was not entirely used to the format yet.  Feel free to delete my posts if you wish.

I'm confused. I was thanking you for making a unique contribution to a long thread in which many others had already responded. Why would I want to delete your nice post?

This is your point to which I am referring:

Personally, I don't even own a television, BUT if I did and I got cable, I would insist on paying for it.  Probably easier than arguing with the company would just be to send them some money . . . they'd phone ME to ask what the heck was going on.  Either that or they'd just cash the check . . . either way I've paid.

This option (of sending the company the money even if not billed) has not, as far as I can remember, been mentioned by anyone else. The closest I can think of was my own suggestion of storing what would have been payments in a bank. So, I was complimenting you on your unique suggestion. Did you somehow misinterpret that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have enjoyed this little back and forth we have had, and I appreciate how each step of the way you are focused on doing the proper thing. But, I suspect that my next response here may surprise you.

Even though we are intent on doing what is right and good, there can come a time when our efforts in that regard become a sacrifice. When you have done everthing reasonably possible, with all due diligence, why should you be made to suffer from someone else's inability to act properly on their own. It is not as if you tapped into the cable system of your neighbor; instead the cable company voluntarily installed the system upon your request. And it is not that you attempted to avoid payment for what your received; in fact, you went out of your way to appraise them that you were not being billed, several different times in several different ways. And it is not as if you would not find another source for the cable channels you want; you discovered that the company is the only source available.

Given all this, I would say that at this point you should not sacrifice yourself and instead sit back and enjoy the cable channels that you wanted so much. You might want to put aside in your bank account the money that the cable company would have otherwise received, just in case some day they get their act together and finally bill you as you have continually asked them to do. (I do not know the law well-enough to know if after a time you could not be back-billed, but just assume whatever the law allows or permits, that you would plan for accordingly.)

I fail to see how this is a sacrifice. As I stated earlier, it comes down to one single choice-honesty/integrity/justice, or the premium channels. The only way that it would be a sacrifice is if you valued the channels above honesty/integrity/justice.

Would you please explain to me how you view this as a sacrifice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you please explain to me how you view this as a sacrifice?

I do not know how to explain it any better than I already did. I tried twice to formulate something for you, but each time I essentially wrote what I said before. Perhaps someone else can do a better job of explaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm confused. I was thanking you for making a unique contribution to a long thread in which many others had already responded. Why would I want to delete your nice post?

This option (of sending the company the money even if not billed) has not, as far as I can remember, been mentioned by anyone else. The closest I can think of was my own suggestion of storing what would have been payments in a bank. So, I was complimenting you on your unique suggestion. Did you somehow misinterpret that?

I did misinterpret. I don't like to post unless I've read the entire thread, so when I realized I'd done so accidentally I assumed I must have duplicated something someone already said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fail to see how this is a sacrifice.  As I stated earlier, it comes down to one single choice-honesty/integrity/justice, or the premium channels.  The only way that it would be a sacrifice is if you valued the channels above honesty/integrity/justice.

Would you please explain to me how you view this as a sacrifice?

JRoberts said:

In the end, I would choose my virtues over the premium channels as they have a much higher value than the channels. Of course, I would feel a loss because I greatly enjoyed the channels-and from time to time I would check back in with the company to see if they would be willing to bill me for them. In the mean
I do not know how to explain it any better than I already did. I tried twice to formulate something for you, but each time I essentially wrote what I said before. Perhaps someone else can do a better job of explaining.

Well he is sacrificing his interest to pay for anothers mistakes. Half of a very old book is written about that theme. :excl: The error comes from putting anothers interest above his own, and regarding that as a virtue. It is not a virtue to suffer for the errors of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well he is sacrificing his interest to pay for anothers mistakes. Half of a very old book is written about that theme. :excl: The error comes from putting anothers interest above his own, and regarding that as a virtue. It is not a virtue to suffer for the errors of others.

I fail to see how not being able to watch channels for which one has not paid can be regarded as "suffering." Ultimately the theft of any object can be justifying using this method. Gucci makes this great pair of shoes of which they did not ship enough to my local stores, and me not having them makes me suffer, therefore I am entitled to remunieration from the Gucci company for my pains. I don't think that works so well. A rationally integrated man would only be able to feel suffering when an object of value WHICH HE HAS EARNED is kept or taken from him. Otherwise, he is merely laying claim to that which is not his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fail to see how not being able to watch channels for which one has not paid can be regarded as "suffering."  Ultimately the theft of any object can be justifying using this method.  Gucci makes this great pair of shoes of which they did not ship enough to my local stores, and me not having them makes me suffer, therefore I am entitled to remunieration from the Gucci company for my pains.  I don't think that works so well.  A rationally integrated man would only be able to feel suffering when an object of value WHICH HE HAS EARNED is kept or taken from him.  Otherwise, he is merely laying claim to that which is not his.

The context is that the company INTENDS selling a product for you to use. You intend paying them. They make mistakes in carrying out their billings. There is no need to wait for them to get their act together. Pay them when they send the bill. Why deprive yourself in the meantime? Why suffer for their mistakes when you can make amends later? There is only so far I would go to help an incompetent business rectify it's problems. I would set aside the money and keep watching.

If the cable company failed to deliver, you would adjust the bill accordingly, not seek remuneration for your pains

As for Gucci, the appropriate example would be that you bought the shoes, and they failed to bill you. Would you stop wearing them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, an FYI re the original post. About a month ago I thought I had cancelled some premium channels with DirecTV. They have a menu on the phone where you push the buttons and so you think it's done. Well, it wasn't done. I got a bill today. So I called them, and they gave credit even though there was no record of the cancellation and I had still received the channels.

Now, I don't think I enjoyed any movies during this time, but maybe I did and I'm certainly not going to feel guilty about it because it was their mistake. She did ask me to be sure the channels cancel, and to advise if they do not. How interesting that they need us customers to be honest...and take the time to get through to them (no easy task in these days of long menu options.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites