Purchasing Price Error Items on Amazon

Related Stores

Amazon AU

Marketplace

• 

  zonra on 09/07/2019 - 22:15

  I share your view, Amazon usually gives us the vouchers on their own accord so calling it “immoral” or “unethical” is a bit strong, unless of course, us buyers b!tch about it on and on or start threatening them with terms like consumers’ rights, ACCC or “I refuse to go to the Post Office to return your sh!t” until we get said vouchers.

  Tl;dr: Bring on the vouchers.

• 

  conan2000 on 09/07/2019 - 22:24

  +7

  Find a new friend, no one needs that kind of negativity in their life.

  Amazon have lots of money, I have a lot less, so I definitely wouldn't be feeling bad about it.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 09/07/2019 - 22:51

  +1

  I think it is immoral to waste brain power contemplating the morality of compensation that is voluntarily offered.

  • 

    Wystri Warrick on 10/07/2019 - 10:32

    +1

    How much time do you spend with jv?

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 10/07/2019 - 10:34

      Some. Give or take some.

• 

  mskeggs on 09/07/2019 - 23:24

  +5

  I don't think this is a moral question.
  Morality implies there is some impact on the other party, and I certainly believe Amazon is large enough and valuable enough so any possible impact we would make by buying a price error is completely unfelt by the owners.
  I would also suggest that Amazon gives credits where they feel it makes business sense, not for altruistic purposes.
  In a similar vein, they credited my Amex to get a prime membership for peanuts - and now I am seriously considering renewing it at full price. Is that immoral of them? It is the classic drug dealer move…

  • 

    fantombloo on 09/07/2019 - 23:34

    -1

    Morality implies there is some impact on the other party

    Hear hear. There's so much making light of morality on these forums when there is no victim. Got a good discount from a multinational, even by their error? Go hard. Red light not changing at 2AM in the middle of nowhere? Drive through. Not hurting anyone or putting others in danger of harm? Do as thou wilt.

    • 

      Kangal on 10/07/2019 - 10:12

      +2

      The issue is that most people see Morality on an individual level, so they're not really thinking about Morality but rather Rationality. And there is an inherit danger, to people of high moral fibre, to be taken advantage of by those of low moral practice.

      Thus you need to have society be governed by a system set about with Morality as a virtue. Those areas that favour Capital or Religion higher, they tend to create laws and systems that are less just/fair/moral. Otherwise, you will have cases like the one in Indonesia where a teacher that was sexually attacked by her boss/principal, where she gets a prison sentence for his actions, as she went to the authorities for reporting the deed.

      So what does that all mean here? It means Amazon tends to act like a single entity, and they would be more than happy getting free labour and products, selling them at a high price, and never honouring their mistakes/warranties. The fact they behave opposite to this, is because they are limited by a mostly moral system internationally. Otherwise, they would've lost too much money or the systems would have stepped in and used force to close their business down. There's little concern to have about the ethics of the OP's behaviour, just as long as its not pushed to the absurd (Amazon is on verge of bankruptcy, new laws that are unjust by make price-errors with high-fines, people start becoming wealthy from price-error abuses instead of amounting wealth by contributing to society like workers/small business owners).

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 10/07/2019 - 10:58

    +1

    Morality implies there is some impact on the other party, and I certainly believe Amazon is large enough and valuable enough so any possible impact we would make by buying a price error is completely unfelt by the owners.

    Whilst it is not contentious that morality implies impact, in this case, there is demonstrable impact. The impact can be quantified, no matter how insignificant it is.

    Since we can establish that there is impact, it is immoral for us, the beneficiary of said impact to decide how much of that impact is felt.

    Only the morally bankrupt will go so far as to claim that there is no victim based on the scale of the impact which they have bestowed upon themselves to be arbiter of especially when they stand to benefit.

    It is abhorrent to invalidate the impact of an action, especially when impact can be established, in the absence of the victim in order to provide oneself with absolution.

    • 

      fantombloo on 10/07/2019 - 17:52

      You may wax lyrical and use bold fonts liberally but it's just not true.

      If someone holds a surplus, particularly one that they cannot reasonably expire within their lifetime, and someone can benefit from using some of that surplus, then:

      1. From a utilitarian point of view it is absolutely a positive moral outcome for that surplus to disbursed to those in need, especially at least that amount that the reduction of is not even felt by the hoarder as a tangible detriment.

      2. From a rights point of view it is absolutely possible to view the hoarder of the surplus as denying the rights of the impoverished to a natural / fair share of resources.

      If you think a person with $150billion denying a hungry beggar a dollar for a feed is just then that reasoning might not work with you, but that says more about you than the reasoning. I know Mr $150B and a beggar seem like an appeal to extremes, but it's as real as the case in point - a company with a market cap of a trillion dollars vs a few Joe Averages.

      It is abhorrent to invalidate the construct of morality in order protect that which requires no protection.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 10/07/2019 - 18:01

        Thanks for being my example.

        This is the end result of self righteousness. You'll reach a point when taking from someone against their will is justified.

        Now it's the beggar and the billionaire. Tomorrow it is the impoverished and the millionaire.

        As long as you're happy to label the person you're taking from as a "hoarder" and what you're receiving as your "fair share", you're all right by the moral compass of at least one other person.

        • 

          fantombloo on 10/07/2019 - 18:08

          @[Deactivated]: According to your reasoning the French and American Revolutions should never have taken place.

          • 

            [Deactivated] on 10/07/2019 - 18:15

            @fantombloo: That's a quantum leap to conclusion.

            Your reason to justify your "morality" is - because the other person is rich.

            The reason for the French and American revolution is liberty. Ie. Breaking the bonds of involuntary servitude. The overlapping factor is there is a wealth discrepancy.

            • 

              fantombloo on 10/07/2019 - 18:23

              @[Deactivated]: What you think I said:

              Your reason to justify your "morality" is - because the other person is rich.

              What I actually said:

              There's so much making light of morality on these forums when there is no victim.

              A rich person can be a victim of something for sure, but a $1T company or $150B individual cannot be a victim of a typical Amazon price error even if it's exploited a thousand times over.

              • 

                [Deactivated] on 10/07/2019 - 18:30

                @fantombloo:

                There's so much making light of morality on these forums when there is no victim.

                … and the reason why there isn't a victim? If you're saying exploiting for gift cards has no victims, the gift card either has to be dispensing a commodity of no value. If it has a dollar value, it is absolutely quantifiable and it has to be disbursed from someone.

                That someone would be a victim.

                You're claiming there's no victim. Your justification that's there's no victim is wealth from which the disbursement came from.

                A rich person can be a victim of something for sure, but a $1T company or $150B individual cannot be a victim of a typical Amazon price error even if it's exploited a thousand times over.

                You're literally contradicting yourself within the same sentence.

                • 

                  fantombloo on 10/07/2019 - 18:39

                  @[Deactivated]: What you think I said:

                  A rich person can be a victim of… a typical Amazon price error

                  What I actually said:

                  A rich person can be a victim of something for sure

                  but

                  a $1T company or $150B individual cannot be a victim of a typical Amazon price error even if it's exploited a thousand times over.

                  You're literally inserting a meaning to "something" that I precluded in the same sentence.

                  • 

                    [Deactivated] on 10/07/2019 - 18:48

                    @fantombloo: So price errors that result in compensations have no impact?

                    For that statement to be true, you're claiming that the vendor can provide financial compensation without attracting financial liability?

                    Exploitation of an individual and/or company (which is owned by a collective of individuals so it is exploitation all the same) is victimless?

                    • 

                      fantombloo on 10/07/2019 - 19:09

                      @[Deactivated]:

                      Exploitation of an individual and/or company (which is owned by a collective of individuals so it is exploitation all the same) is victimless?

                      If the exploitation is sporadic and so small compared to the overall operations that it is negligible in an end of year financial statement then yes.

                      I don't want people using my front yard tap. If someone comes by and takes a sip of water when I'm not there then it's no skin off my nose even though my water meter may have an increased click and I'm charged 1cent more and I have a theoretical right to be pissed off. But being pissed off when another person gets a benefit at negligible cost to me says more about me than the situation. If however I am running short on water for my own use or someone wants to fill their pool, or the whole neighbourhood starts using my tap regularly, then that's a different story.

                      If you don't recognise those differences then please don't expect any further response from me.

                      • 

                        [Deactivated] on 10/07/2019 - 19:20

                        @fantombloo:

                        I have a theoretical right to be pissed off.

                        I'm glad you grasp the concept of theft.

                        But being pissed off when another person gets a benefit at negligible cost to me says more about me than the situation.

                        And that's your prerogative.

                        When someone else is exploited it is their to decide how it has affected them and if it is worth pursuing.

                        My moral compass doesn't require nor allow me to arbitrate for others.

                        • 

                          fantombloo on 10/07/2019 - 19:37

                          @[Deactivated]:

                          I'm glad you grasp the concept of theft.

                          My moral compass doesn't require nor allow me to arbitrate for others.

                          No, I grasp the idea that you present morality as a strict legal framework (let me guess - your own, that you also arbitrate as appropriate for others?) rather than an organic social construct intended for preserving the tangible interests of each sentient being. And that's your prerogative. And IMO that's sad.

                          • 

                            [Deactivated] on 10/07/2019 - 19:44

                            @fantombloo:

                            you also arbitrate as appropriate for others?

                            I do not assert rules or expectation on others. People are free to be immoral but I'm also free to point it out. It doesn't affect you in any way.

                            That's what victimless means.

                            You have not suffered any loss as a result of my assertions.

                            …preserving the tangible interests of each sentient being.

                            Nothing wrong with that if you are willing to shoulder the burden. It is no longer altruistic nor virtuous when you're expecting others to do the same by taking from people you have applied your choice of label to - rich, hoarders or otherwise.

• 

  foxmulder on 10/07/2019 - 00:28

  Amazon is a trillion dollar company.

  • 

    theHMASfriendship on 10/07/2019 - 07:27

    -1

    Thanks Fox, back to you Tom.

• 

  mbck on 10/07/2019 - 00:46

  +1

  Look what happened to ned stark.

• 

  Ryanek on 10/07/2019 - 09:10

  +3

  Vouchers are a way to retain a customers confidence in their system.

• 

  Caped Baldy on 10/07/2019 - 09:45

  +2

  Amazon is nearly a trillion dollar company, they can take the loss. It's important to note they do not have to provide vouchers but they choose to.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 10/07/2019 - 11:01

    The value of the company is morally irrelevant to their decision to voluntarily provide compensation.

    • 

      Caped Baldy on 10/07/2019 - 12:51

      It is financially though.

• 

  Pecan on 10/07/2019 - 13:01

  They don't have a legal obligation to fulfill orders from pricing errors, so I think it's fine.