Is this legal or ethical to save money?

[Fishindude77]

I wouldn't want someone freeloading off me in the manners mentioned, so I don't freeload off them given the opportunity.
Pretty simple stuff.

[srblanco7]

Who is judging anyone? Dishonesty is dishonesty. Of course I’ve been dishonest. I got arrested at age 13 for shoplifting a candy bar from a convenience store. I got busted for splicing into my neighbors cable TV when i was in college. But I can’t justify it in any way. What’s the difference in theft from a cabin, left of a bank, or theft of Netflix? It’s all the same to me.

Agreeing with TexasHusker on this one - with the note that I’m in no way shape or form, claiming that I’ve lived my life perfectly. Based on how I live my life today (and going forward), theft is theft.

As I perused this thread, the Starbucks/milk scenario could be considered a “need” vs. a “want” in the case of free Netflix - that is, in my opinion not a well-aligned comparison. I’d like to think, that in today’s world, I’d find a way to get that woman a gift card for groceries to help her out if she were struggling to feed her kids, and I’d like to believe that Starbuck’s staff looked the other way for the same reason.

[TexasHusker]

I might be able to tell you if something is legal where you live but only you can say if it's ethical/moral as that is a very personal concept.

moral relativism. Didn’t the Nazis have their own definition of morality?

[Petunia 100]

Have you EVER been in a position where you maybe took some "free refills" or churned bank a/cs or credit card "bonuses" or took a free trial and never renewed? If you have, then you shouldn't be judging.

And the situation you mention above where guests steal from your cabins or vacation rentals -- that's just outright theft and hardly in the same league as taking advantage of "free offers".

I don't think you understand the original question. It's not "should you take the free 30 day trial", it's "should you churn email accounts and credit cards in order to do one free 30 day trial after another, perpetually?"

[Petunia 100]

Easy to preach about honesty when you're not in need.

Netflix is a need?

[Scallywag]

I don't think you understand the original question. It's not "should you take the free 30 day trial", it's "should you churn email accounts and credit cards in order to do one free 30 day trial after another, perpetually?"

I did get the question and I did respond saying it is ridiculous that people assume that corporates are not aware of this? The sheer arrogance of us assuming we're "outsmarting" large corporations who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in research on advertising, marketing & consumer psychology is telling.

Yet, companies supposedly allow themselves to be "ripped off". Why would that be? That's your answer right there.

Is it "right" to do this? No. But if it was so devastating to a business' bottom line then why would they permit these "rip offs" to repeatedly happen? Why are we getting on a moral high horse if the alleged "victim" seemingly doesn't care?

Netflix is a need?

Not for me, it isn't. Is it for you? But then again, I don't share my Netflix password with my neighbors or third cousins twice removed on another continent.

And it's telling that you'd try to minimize my statement by flippantly making it about Netflix. The have-nots (even in America) aren't thinking of "how to rip Netflix off". They have bigger problems to deal with and to solve.

Like housing, milk, food, transportation etc.

[HundredK]

Why are we getting on a moral high horse if the alleged "victim" seemingly doesn't care?

Because morals shouldn't be based on how a victim responds.

[srblanco7]

Is it "right" to do this? No. But if it was so devastating to a business' bottom line then why would they permit these "rip offs" to repeatedly happen? Why are we getting on a moral high horse if the alleged "victim" seemingly doesn't care?

From my perspective, morality has to do with my “code” of right and wrong (with the recognition that not all issues are perfectly binary). That is, it’s personal and whether or not there’s a material impact on the “victim” is not relevant to me.

[Petunia 100]

I did get the question and I did respond saying it is ridiculous that people assume that corporates are not aware of this? The sheer arrogance of us assuming we're "outsmarting" large corporations who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in research on advertising, marketing & consumer psychology is telling.

Yet, companies supposedly allow themselves to be "ripped off". Why would that be? That's your answer right there.

Is it "right" to do this? No. But if it was so devastating to a business' bottom line then why would they permit these "rip offs" to repeatedly happen? Why are we getting on a moral high horse if the alleged "victim" seemingly doesn't care?



Not for me, it isn't. Is it for you? But then again, I don't share my Netflix password with my neighbors or third cousins twice removed on another continent.

And it's telling that you'd try to minimize my statement by flippantly making it about Netflix. The have-nots (even in America) aren't thinking of "how to rip Netflix off". They have bigger problems to deal with and to solve.

Like housing, milk, food, transportation etc.

Respectfully, I still feel you have missed the nuance of the original question.

BTW, I did not answer you flippantly. Please read the OP.

[disneysteve]

Because morals shouldn't be based on how a victim responds.

From my perspective, morality has to do with my “code” of right and wrong (with the recognition that not all issues are perfectly binary). That is, it’s personal and whether or not there’s a material impact on the “victim” is not relevant to me.

Exactly. I agree with both of you. Ethics/morality is a personal issue.

Look at it this way. Would you steal from someone who would never even know that the crime had occurred? It wouldn't affect them in any way. But you would obviously know you had done it. That decision, the ethical/moral decision, is entirely internal and personal. Even if the victim would never know they had been victimized, I still wouldn't steal from them.

[TexasHusker]

So because Nazi Germany as a government decided that genocide was moral and, in fact, necessary, is that OK? As long as it's moral and ethical to someone else, all is good?

Two hundred years ago, slavery was considered perfectly moral and ethical. Was it OK then, since everyone agreed?

[james.hendrickson]

So because Nazi Germany as a government decided that genocide was moral and, in fact, necessary, is that OK? As long as it's moral and ethical to someone else, all is good?

Two hundred years ago, slavery was considered perfectly moral and ethical. Was it OK then, since everyone agreed?

Texas, isn't this arguing from extremes a bit? I mean, we're talking about gaming Netflix free trials. Bringing in literally the worse, most criminal, government in recent human history just seems like its going to muddy the discussion.

If you want to argue that moral standards are absolute, why not just say it?

[disneysteve]

If you want to argue that moral standards are absolute, why not just say it?

That's just it. Morals are not absolute. The problem is individuals and groups insisting that they are (or should be). I have no problem with someone living their life according to their personal moral code. I have a tremendous problem when they try to impose their moral code on others.

[TexasHusker]

Texas, isn't this arguing from extremes a bit? I mean, we're talking about gaming Netflix free trials. Bringing in literally the worse, most criminal, government in recent human history just seems like its going to muddy the discussion.

If you want to argue that moral standards are absolute, why not just say it?

I was just curious as to the whole "morals are relative" argument. If it isn't a worthy discussion, let's drop it. I love to share and hear.

[TexasHusker]

That's just it. Morals are not absolute. The problem is individuals and groups insisting that they are (or should be). I have no problem with someone living their life according to their personal moral code. I have a tremendous problem when they try to impose their moral code on others.

Throughout human history, there have been wars. And in most wars, there has been a victor. And to that victor "goes the spoils." Often, the spoils mean rape, pillage, and plunder. At one time, that was a private soldier's primary pay. Think Red Army in their race to Berlin. So if an entire nation deems certain behaviors moral and ethical, is that OK?