Case Analysis – Case 1.2 “Loose Money”

Case Analysis – Case 1.2 “Loose Money”

In the case study highlighted in scenario 1.2, the author questions the morality of collecting money that has fallen from an armored truck. If I were to encounter this scenario, I would not collect the money as I am conscious that it is the proceeds of an honest businessperson. The owner may have planned to use the money to support their family, expand the business, or help a destitute charity case in society. If I take their money, I would be denying the casino business owner funds to cater to the speculated needs, and this is against my moral principles. In deciding not to collect the money from the armored truck, I will consider several factors. For instance, I will assess the perception of my ethnic group if they were to be told I collected money that fell from an armored truck (Shaw, 2017). In my culture, this is considered theft and would easily result in being alienated from the community. As I do not want to lose the feeling of belonging to a community, I will not collect the money highlighted in case scenario 1.2.

Additionally, I will evaluate the reactions of my religious leaders if they were to be told that I collected money from an armored truck. In my religion, we observe the Golden Rule of “Do unto others what you want them to do unto you.” (Shaw, 2017). If roles were reversed and I was the casino owner, I would want the individual who finds my money to return it. My religious leader emphasizes this Golden Rule as a premise of moral behavior, which would guide me in deciding not to collect the money from an armored truck. Furthermore, my conscience would not permit me to hurt an innocent business person by collecting their money. Lastly, I would consider bystanders’ apathy when deciding not to collect money that fell from an armored car. If a stranger were to observe me doing so, they would judge me harshly and conclude my character is questionable. As I would not want bystanders to discredit my morals, I will not collect the money that falls from an armored car.

Is It Dishonest to Keep Money That Falls From an Armored Vehicle

I believe that if someone collects money from an armored car, they are committing an offense as this is stealing. The money belongs to the business owner, who has obligated the armored truck driver to transport it to the bank. If someone spots the money that fell from the armored truck and decides to keep it, they would be committing a criminal offense. In my opinion, the person who spots money that fell from an armored car should return it to the authorities and then request them to investigate who the rightful owner is. My reasoning for this case is based on factual arguments, which are basic guidelines for moral behavior (Shaw, 2017). It is a fact that the money being transported by an armored car is private property, and taking it without the owner’s consent would be illegal and committing theft.

I’m I Hurting Anyone by Taking the Money

Taking money that fell from an armored truck is engaging in dishonesty. While it is true that at the moment of collection, the rightful owner of the money cannot be traced, this does not validate stealing. The person who collects the money that fell from an armored car intentionally discredits their intuition and ignores premises of moral reasoning they may have been aware of, such as religious teachings or cultural values (Shaw, 2017). Collecting money that fell from a moving armored truck because the owner cannot be traced is dishonest and can be likened to engaging in the same action if the money fell from a purse or briefcase with the owner’s details. In my opinion, people should return the money they collect to the authorities as long as they cannot trace the owner and it does not rightfully belong to them.

Morality Against Self-Interest

Every individual has a moral obligation to engage in rightful action that supersedes their self-interest. When deciding if an action is moral or not, it is important to consider the impact it will have on other people (Ghandour & Nuseir, 2019). If they will be hurt, then the action is immoral, but if the action will benefit them, then it is moral. Promoting self-interest is an immoral behavior that should not be supported by society. Instead, everyone should always be willing to engage in moral behavior.

Factors Explaining Why Some People Rush to Take Money That Has Fallen From a Truck While Others Do Not

I think that some people rush to collect money that fell from armored trucks because they are selfish. These people uphold their self-interests over those of others and do not care if they are hurting a second party as long as their needs are satisfied (Kaptein, 2015). I also believe that the people who do not rush to collect money from armored trucks have moral principles that guide their actions. Perhaps these people perceive collecting money that fell from an armored truck as theft and would not wish to engage in the same behavior as it is against their moral principles.

“Question Six Finders Keepers” Application

The principle “Finders Keepers” does not apply to scenarios such as that highlighted in case study 1.2. Under the Finders Keepers principle, the individual finds valuable items and attempts to trace the owner, and if they do not find them, they keep the item (Sax, 2016). In some scenarios, tracing the real owner of a valuable item found by a stranger would be pointless, such as if the item is an heirloom and its real owners died many centuries ago. However, money that fell from an armored truck can be returned to the owner if it is submitted to authorities, as it is easy to track them. Therefore, the “Finders Keepers” principle does not apply in the case scenario 1.2.

References

Ghandour, A., & Nuseir, M. (2019). Ethical issues in modern business management. International Journal of Procurement Management, 12(5), 592–605. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijpm.2019.10018652

Kaptein, M. (2015). The battle for business ethics: A struggle theory. SSRN Electronic Journal, 343–361. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2596657

Sax, M. (2016). Big data: Finders, keepers, losers, weepers? Ethics and Information Technology, 18(1), 25-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9394-0

Shaw, W. H. (2017). Business ethics (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Case Analysis – Case 1.2 “Loose Money”

If money fell from an armored truck, what would you do? This exact scenario happened in August 2014 when an armored truck left the Revel Casino Hotel in Atlantic City with a bag of money sitting on its roof. This type of incident happened not only in Atlantic City but also in Hong Kong and New York. Read Case 1.2, “Loose Money,” in the textbook on pages 35-36 and address the following questions in a paper that will be submitted to Dropbox:

If you encountered a situation like those described, what would you do- turn the money in to the authorities, grab what you can and keep it, or just ignore the whole thing? What factors would influence your decision? Is the decision a moral decision or some other kind of decision?
Is it dishonest to keep money that falls from an armored vehicle? Is it theft? In your opinion, what would be the right thing to do? Explain the values or moral principles that support your answer,
Some people think that if you take the money, you are hurting no one. Is that true? Would it make a difference if the money had fallen out of someone’s purse or briefcase rather than out of an armored car? When and under what circumstances would you return property or money that you found to its rightful owner?
Do these cases pit morality against self-interest? Which one of the following is true of you: “I am willing to do the right thing: (a) always, (b) only if the sacrifice is not too great, (c) only if doing so doesn’t inconvenience me or cost me anything, or (d) only if doing so benefits me in some way”?
What factors explain why some people rush to take money that has fallen from a truck while others do not? In your view, to what extent is people’s behavior in such situations influenced by what they see other people doing?
Does the principle “Finders Keepers” apply to cases like these?