Your opinion doesn't even make sense. You are literally saying it's unethical for a customer to buy something at the price which Amazon is selling it for? Because it might cause Amazon to lose money?
You do realize businesses regularly sell products at a loss right? So at what point does the loss become so large that its unethical for the customer to buy it?
What if you accidentally paid extra to a bank, supermarket, paying back your friend, whomever and the recipient thought "Wow, great, I ain't tellin' -I get to keep that, that's awesome!"
This is not some over-burdened shop owner on the corner. I doubt any people were involved in setting these prices. Some algorithm messed up somewhere in a company for which this is a rounding error.
Does ethical analysis only rely on who made the mistake and not who suffers the consequence?
As I understand every corporation, passes on the cost the customer and aims for some specific number as a margin, if their costs increase either they increase productivity of their worker, or implement cost cutting measures, or pass the cost down to customers.
Lots of people think, Amazon's loss results in Bezoz getting a haircut on his paycheck.
What if Amazon starts asking for more productivity from its warehouse workers then buying something at Amazon's loss is directly tied to how they treat their workers.
What if is the right phrase. You assume they are only looking for a specific margin, which they have to optimize for. They already optimizing to maximize the total profit. If there is a productivity increase of the workforce possible they take it unless the conditions get so bad, that a lack of workforce or lawsuits result in higher losses. Same goes for a price increase, if the number of sold products shrinks less then the additional margin per products its a reasonable thing to do.
That piracy/fraud/costly mistakes increase the overall cost for consumers just doesnt happen, no large company in their right mind has additional profit potential lying around that they just dont take because they dont need to. What happens is that at some point the market segment becomes no longer profitable and companies leave that segment entirely.
No, I don't. Buying something for the listed price is perfectly ethical.
Your ethics are different. That's okay. People have different perspectives. My ethics don't require me to pay more than the asking price. I'll tip people who undercharge to the point that it's harmful to them (like albums on Bandcamp), but Amazon will be fine.
>> "People justify stealing $16 million from the government because it is just a rounding error every day :)"
I don't have the slightest idea what you're referring to here, but buying something for the price it's listed at is in no way stealing.
Has Amazon released a statement? We don't know that it was an error until they do. It's not unusual for a company like Amazon to sell things far below cost to conquer a market. This level of discount is out of the ordinary, but you don't really know until they say or someone says Amazon cancelled the order or asked for it back.
Maybe that sounds like rationalization to you. Let's go back to the article...
>> "Other members spoke to Amazon customer service about their order and were told that the order would indeed ship."
That doesn't sound like a company that made a mistake. And even if it is...
>> "While many Slickdeals members remarked that the orders would almost certainly be canceled by Amazon, the retail giant does have a history of honoring some pricing errors — even those that are significant."
Where's the lack of ethics? Amazon could stop it if they wanted to. Taking a deal Amazon offered and hasn't rescinded is about as pristine as it gets, mistake or not.
When dealing with a retail establishment (as opposed to a private sale), they should have controls in place to correct such mistakes before the sale is finalized. The key point here is that the error passed through enough people/systems acting as representatives of the seller that I can consider the organization as a whole to approve of the sale.
If a cashier accidentally gives me a $10 instead of a $1, that’s unethical to keep. But in this situation, the error started at the advertising stage and persisted through totaling the order, processing payment, and fulfilling for delivery several hours later, all steps at which, in a traditional business, someone could have flagged the error. At this point, it’s their intentional lack of safeguards rather than unintentional mistake that’s at fault and I have no moral qualms about that.
...No? What part of my statement gave you that idea?
Just because I believe they should have controls in place, doesn’t mean I approve of any control scheme they may think of— that would be absurdity. For example, I also wouldn’t approve of them hiring thieves to get their erroneously-priced merchandise back.
I would say that if amazon asked you to send it back and you refused, that would be unethical. If they don’t complain then it’s fine. Who exactly is hurt by this transaction?
By your insanely stupid logic, buying anything is unethical. Do you understand how markets work? Clearly not. Has Amazon even admitted it was a mistake and not a marketing ploy as others have suggested? No. So how do you know they didn't intend to sell at these prices? There's nothing unethical going on here only incredible misunderstanding and uninformed assumptions on your part. Maybe you should think twice next time before labeling things unethical when you clearly do not have the full facts.
