h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>No, just thinking it through outloud (that's why I started the thread).<<

Hi kea - I am with you on this one.

A) He doesn't listen carefully to what the customer wants and his
work quality is unsatisfactory. Perhaps he is incompetent and
shouldn't be in this line of work.

B) He left his tools behind which seems symptomatic of the quality and
thought that he puts into his work.

C) You will need to go out of your way to contact him to explain that
he left his tools (telephone charge) and then "waste" a day waiting
for him to come and collect the tools.

D) He hasn't called you back to enquire whether or not he has left
the tools with you which suggests:
i) see B.
ii) he is not interested in them - perhaps they are easily
replaced - as a tradesman he might be able to buy these tools relatively cheaply.

If you don't want to engage with this individual again then I suggest
putting a colour label on the tools and then storing them with the
rest of your tools. If he comes around then you could give them
back to him but perhaps get him to repair the damage he did in the
first place first.

I'm unwell and I don't have the energy to chase up the money/get him to fix things, and I really don't want to have to deal with him again.

If it's about me feeling bad, or acruing bad karma, or somehow becoming an immoral dishonest person (none of which I agree with) because I've not made sure he knew his tools were here, I'll probably let them sit there until I do the big clean up at the end of the month and then they can go to the recycle centre.

Like I said, he's a nice enough guy. No he doesn't belong to the builders' professional group, and I'm sure if I put the effort in I could do a deal (probably getting things fixed, maybe getting a refund on part of that last job). But I think I already explained why I don't want to do that.

Well you could put them in the post (with out stamps of course), maling sure they are well protected with heavy packing. That way he gets his tools back and you have the satisfaction of knowing hes got a large payment to pay for postage due..(due the poor quality of the work you did when returning his tools)

Nice one tarantoes, that certainly explains it much better. You might be the only person who got that it's going to cost me to have any contact with him again.

The last idea is interesting. I'd be happy to just leave them where they are (he can access them even if I'm not here) and after a few months assume he doesn't want them and then decide what to do with them.

ltp Where did you come from?

We don't have postage due here. If wouldn't get past the PO counter

It

"He left his tools behind which seems symptomatic of the quality and
thought that he puts into his work"

That seems very harsh! I've left things behind in client's houses, usually because I'm so busy instructing or working, or I've moved to another room in the house by then, not because I give no thought to my work.

In this case he did leave the place in a mess, so I'm not surprised he missed the tools.

Well this may be morally slack of me...but I wouldn't be arsed phoning him. He can work out where they are and ask for them if he wants.

*However*...I would not seek approval or validation from others for my (in)action. Bad or justifiable...down to me.

Is that what you think I am doing Ed?

Oof!

No...I didn't mean it like that at all.

It was a counter to the idea that there are moral absolutes vs relative morals. In between there's 'You've gotta make your own mind up.'

"I don't consider morals to be absolute. If I got given the wrong change in a big department store I'd probably not bother going back inside to return it, but I would for a small business."

Looks like your tradesman belongs in the small business category...

However, if you've already paid him for a botched job - and the prospect of 'immediate' redress through the courts doesn't appeal - you might consider writing him a letter detailing your complaints and demanding your money back.

Should he fail to offer you a full refund, tell him that the work will have to be carried out by another contractor at the botcher's expense. [It would be helpful to know the nature of the work, and how much money is involved.]

The tools issue can be dealt with later (he has, after all, managed to carry on his business without them for more than a week).

Simply returning the guy's tools, without addressing *your* loss, might be the ethical approach, but is bound to leave you feeling aggrieved.

Having-the-builders-in ranks highly in my list of stressful life events.

Well, it is technically an ethical dilemma in the sense that it's not obvious what the right course of action is.

Most people think that there is a general principle that - all other things being equal - we should attempt to return things that other people have lost or mislaid or left behind. However, this general principle can apply strongly, weakly, or not at all depending on:

(a) the relationship with the (likely) owner, if any
(b) the likely value/importance of the misplaced items
(c) the cost to you (time, money, hassle) to return the items

Depending on these three factors (and likely others I haven't considered), it may be the case that returning the lost item is morally obligatory, or morally supererogatory - that is, something thing that would be a good action, but not one we think that is morally required of us. Some moral theories don't have a notion of the supererogatory.

Some examples.... if I find a wallet outside a police station, I'd say I'm morally obliged to return it. If I find an Epi-Pen with a name tag in a shopping centre, similarly. In both cases these items are of high value to the owner (who I don't know and have no relationship with), and the cost to me in returning them is pretty much negligible - mere minutes of effort for me.

This case is a bit different, though. The relationship with the owner isn't neutral, it's actively negative. The tradesmen was not merely incompetent, but seems (on kea's account) to have acted in bad faith. The likely value of the misplaced items isn't clear - presumably they're not so valuable for the owner to call to ask about them, but it's possible that he doesn't want to, because he knows he messed up and doesn't want to ask a favour. The cost to kea, in this case, involves calling up someone she doesn't want to speak to, and making arrangements for him to collect the items should he wish to.

So, yes, I think this is an ethical dilemma in the sense that it's not clear (at least not to me) whether phoning up to return the tools is a supererogatory action (a good action, but not one morally required), or an action that's morally obligatory. Personally, I'd regard is as a supererogatory action, but others clearly disagree.

The was for Ed.

hmmm, not sure how many other way I can say this: I don't want to have contact with him again, despite me losing out on some money or work, and I don't want to have to put in any effort either.

There's another tradie who did different work, and who did something not quite right. He's been away and when he gets back I'll have no problem having a talk with him and seeing what we can work out.

>>I don't want to have contact with him again

Dilemma sorted! Dont, then.

His failure to collect your tools need not force you into further contact.

>>your tools

my bad.

>>The relationship with the owner isn't neutral, it's actively negative.

That's it!

Also, if he'd just done a bad job and then been an about it, I probably would have said something about the money and making things right. I'm pretty good at standing my ground in those situations. This was different, and I'm not sure that it's exactly that he acted in bad faith, I think he was chicken for not fronting up and explaining to me but instead leaving it to me to find out and bring up with him. I have a hard time being around people that I've lost respect for and in this instance I'd rather avoid the person completely than try and get my money back. And that's a big actively avoid. KB summed it up in just stay away from him.

In that sense I don't think I'm being dishonest in not making sure he gets his tools back (dishonesty would be hiding them or lying about them). I think I'm looking after myself. In the past I would have put the ethics ahead of my self care and I think I'm at a point in my life where I don't want to do that anymore. This doesn't mean that I will become this dishonest, unethical person - seriously, I am endowed with an abundance of ethics, this little thing will hardly make a dent.

I am intrigued by the idea of the thin end of the wedge though. For me ethics aren't something that unravel altogether because of one action (at least not something as relatively minor as this. Big actions or multiple ones are a different story).

I also have this feeling of natural justice. The tools will be useful to me and I don't think I'll be feeling negative if I use them, I think I'd feel a sense of fairplay. I'm still open to them going to the recycle centre too though.

I take Lanza's point earlier about department store staff losing wages, I'll think on that one.

>>>>your tools