The Case of the Missing Wine

[Capetan Mihali]

Over the years, I've put in a fair amount of time and energy trying to rectify situations like this, to get things to their rightful recipients.  Moral (and legal) obligations sometimes just land on you out of the blue -- certainly not every duty is contracted for.

[OttoVonBismarck]

No, you are trying to create an artificial justification for your unlawful and unethical acts.  You knew what you were doing was wrong but you did it anyway and you are now engaged in a ex post facto justification exercise.

I'm only justifying that which wasn't unethical--drinking the wine, I've not tried to justify lying, which I knew was unethical but chose to do anyway.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think the majority of individuals who responded have felt it was either okay or not a big deal to drink the wine. It's just the 2-3 that disagreed are more engaged on the topic.

I would say it's resolved that if it'd be okay to drink the wine after say, a year, then that's no different than after a week. That's just an artificial construct at that point, no true ethical truism.

The point about knowing where he lives is also irrelevant, unless you think I would be obligated to deliver the package anywhere on Earth. Why not Syria? North Korea? Liberia? That part is irrelevant  because I had no duty to deliver the package, FedEx did.

[Ed Anger]

I would have poured it out in front of the old man. Then gave him 10 seconds to get off my property. That is how you deal with plebs.

[The Brain]

Maybe it was mentioned in the thread but how did the guy get your address? Surely not through FedEx?

[garbon]

I would say it's resolved that if it'd be okay to drink the wine after say, a year, then that's no different than after a week. That's just an artificial construct at that point, no true ethical truism.

I think time matters as far as reasonable expectations on when a situation should be resolved. If the man had shown up in 6 months time, very different story.

The point about knowing where he lives is also irrelevant, unless you think I would be obligated to deliver the package anywhere on Earth. Why not Syria? North Korea? Liberia? That part is irrelevant  because I had no duty to deliver the package, FedEx did.

I don't think so, though if you have an address - shouldn't be that hard to get a phone number. Not that you are obligated to do any of that - but drinking the wine when you knew it wasn't yours and had enough information to know/find out who the proper owner makes this different for me.

Sort of like the difference of finding a wallet with ID and taking the money you find, vs. encountering a 20 dollar bill on a crowded sidewalk.

[derspiess]

Maybe it was mentioned in the thread but how did the guy get your address? Surely not through FedEx?

I guess he could have looked up the tracking info online, which might have displayed the actual delivery address.

[garbon]

Maybe it was mentioned in the thread but how did the guy get your address? Surely not through FedEx?

Hey, Tim, trying reading the OP where that question is answered.

[The Brain]

Maybe it was mentioned in the thread but how did the guy get your address? Surely not through FedEx?

Hey, Tim, trying reading the OP where that question is answered.

Thanks. That's insane though, doesn't FedEx protect the privacy of the public at all?

[Martinus]

Maybe it was mentioned in the thread but how did the guy get your address? Surely not through FedEx?

Hey, Tim, trying reading the OP where that question is answered.

Thanks. That's insane though, doesn't FedEx protect the privacy of the public at all?

That's America - they have laws that make them free-er than every other country in the world, which means service providers can freely share your personal data with anyone.

[Admiral Yi]

Thanks. That's insane though, doesn't FedEx protect the privacy of the public at all?

People's addresses are printed in the phone book.  The fact that Hiram von Biscuit lives at 2001 Coonkiller Lane is not shielded by the right to privacy.

[Ed Anger]

Thanks. That's insane though, doesn't FedEx protect the privacy of the public at all?

People's addresses are printed in the phone book.  The fact that Hiram von Biscuit lives at 2001 Coonkiller Lane is not shielded by the right to privacy.

GODDAMN AMERICA

[The Brain]

Thanks. That's insane though, doesn't FedEx protect the privacy of the public at all?

People's addresses are printed in the phone book.  The fact that Hiram von Biscuit lives at 2001 Coonkiller Lane is not shielded by the right to privacy.

Great Asperger response.

[Admiral Yi]

Awesome.

[Capetan Mihali]

I think Otto's choice was morally and legally wrong, possibly criminal.  Just because something ends up on your property doesn't necessarily make it yours.  If a heavy wind blows your neighbor's grill onto your lawn, you've got to give it back.  The whole "what about my rights as a property owner?" argument is a canard.  While you may gather all the Lockean acorns you wish on your land, you are not entitled to benefit unjustly when that same wind blows your neighbor's Lockean acorns over the fence onto your land.

There was a really simple solution to this problem that would have been the obvious choice had Otto not been so sinful in his avarice and gluttony.  The solution is just leave the box where it was left, or at the nearest convenient place.  Inform FedEx.  Forget about it.

Once the property is delivered, I think you become the involuntary bailor of the property, so you just need to not 1) smash it with a bat and 2) steal it for drinking; you can manhandle it and store it like shit if you want.  It becomes legally abandoned after a certain amount of time, and then you have free reign over it.