A moral dilemma from the train today...

[dilettante]

The set up:
A region rail line conveniently runs more-or-less from my home to my workplace, and I often take the train to work. During months when I'm going to be out of town a lot (like this month) I don't bother getting a monthly pass and instead just buy single-use paper tickets as I need them.
Generally, tickets are not collected as one boards the trains, but are instead picked up by attendants as the train travels between stops. On the way home today the train was quite crowded (I generally avoid peak hour trains but couldn't this afternoon) and the attendant never made it down to my seat before the train reached my stop.
So I'm left with a peak-hour ticket (purchase price $4.25). The tickets can be used any time within 180 days of purchase, so I could easily use it later in the week on my way downtown.

The dilemma:
Should I use the ticket for a future train ride or destroy it?
On the one hand, the ticket has value which would be wasted if it were destroyed. And taking the tickets is the attendant's responsibility; I had every intention of surrendering it upon request.
On the other hand, in purchasing the ticket I paid for a service that I then received; wouldn't using the ticket again be receiving a service and not paying for it?

I'm fairly certain I know my own reasoning here, but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts.

[drgoodtrips]

I would use it again. If they can't be bothered to set up a system where they don't give away freebies, they're implicitly consenting to giving away freebies. I liken this to a convenience store hiring a drunk who can't count and when you go in for your groceries, he periodically stuffs more into your bag than you paid for.

While there is some dishonesty involved, admittedly, I fail to see why it should be your responsibility, morally or otherwise, to go out of your way to address another outfit's incompetence.

I draw a distinction, however, between this and, say, taking something because you know that no one's looking. You paid for your ticket and rode the train the entire way, able and willing to pay for the service. If no one bothers to collect payment, it isn't your job to go seeking them out.

[The Drunk Guy]

I agree with the Doctor. It's the train's fault for not being prepared for the business. And I don't consider it stealing when it falls in your lap. If I drop a hundred dollar bill, then I'm the dumbass that dropped it and I shouldn't expect someone to return it to me.

Also, you must see that the train would have ran whether you stepped on board or not. Likewise, it will run again, everyday, whether you use that ticket or not. Your situation is not slowing the daily business of the company one bit.

[Lily]

I would have tried to find the attendant and give him the ticket before I left the train and if I couldn't, handed it over the next time, explaining that the attendant missed picking it up on my last ride. I'm the type who will go back to the grocery store after realizing both the cashier and I missed the 12-pack of Cokes I had on the bottom of the cart. Stealing is stealing. I don't even cheat on my taxes or download music.

[The Drunk Girl]

I would try and use it a few more times before buying another ticket. The attendant had a job and didn't follow through.

A few years back, I went to the theater and was given a refund ticket due to the film messing up. At this particular theater they never had anyone at the door (so you could just walk in anyways) but I went and saw two other movies before deciding to buy a ticket to another show. I always had my refund ticket with me just in case, but no one ever bothered to ask.

[dilettante]

The dilemma:
Should I use the ticket for a future train ride or destroy it?


For those who are curious, I tore the ticket in half and through it away as I was leaving the station.

My moral reasoning (such as it was) hinged on the purpose of the ticket. As I see it, in purchasing my ride I was making an agreement with the local transit authority to the effect that I would given them $4.25 and they would let me ride on their train. The ticket itself is, in a way, extraneous to this transaction; the train ride is no more pleasant for me because I get to hold a piece of paper for part of it and no more profitable for them because they're handing out paper tickets. The only reason the ticket exists is to prevent people from taking train rides and not paying for them, that is, from taking advantage of transit authority's trust. In a better world where everyone was honest and trustworthy, such tickets would be entirely unnecessary; riding the train would be simpler and probably cheaper.

In other words, the ticket's sole purpose was to keep me honest and to prevent me from violating the $4.25-in-exchange-for-1-ride agreement. In a better world, I would be honest and faithful to the agreement with or without the compulsion created by the ticketing system. Destroying the ticket keeps me in line with that slightly better, more trusting world.

I'm been thinking on and off lately about this "how would a better world work?" way of deciding moral questions. I'm not sure about it's general applicability, but thus far it intrigues me.

[Michael]

Yes, the honorable thing to do is throw away the ticket since you used it.

Btw, we run our commuter trains on the 'honor' system here as well as busy streetcars during rush-hour (allows people to enter/exit from all doors similtaneously). :)

That means no one actually checks your ticket when you board or exit. However, they have roaming inspectors who may demand to see your valid ticket at any time.

Spotchecking has shown that 'free-riders' represent only a tiny percentage (under 2%).

[drgoodtrips]

For those who are curious, I tore the ticket in half and through it away as I was leaving the station.

My moral reasoning (such as it was) hinged on the purpose of the ticket. As I see it, in purchasing my ride I was making an agreement with the local transit authority to the effect that I would given them $4.25 and they would let me ride on their train. The ticket itself is, in a way, extraneous to this transaction; the train ride is no more pleasant for me because I get to hold a piece of paper for part of it and no more profitable for them because they're handing out paper tickets. The only reason the ticket exists is to prevent people from taking train rides and not paying for them, that is, from taking advantage of transit authority's trust. In a better world where everyone was honest and trustworthy, such tickets would be entirely unnecessary; riding the train would be simpler and probably cheaper.

In other words, the ticket's sole purpose was to keep me honest and to prevent me from violating the $4.25-in-exchange-for-1-ride agreement. In a better world, I would be honest and faithful to the agreement with or without the compulsion created by the ticketing system. Destroying the ticket keeps me in line with that slightly better, more trusting world.

I'm been thinking on and off lately about this "how would a better world work?" way of deciding moral questions. I'm not sure about it's general applicability, but thus far it intrigues me.

Here's a devil's advocate consideration for you:

You're doing your part, incrementally, to make the world "better, more trusting". But, from a practical standpoint, enterprise is not going to run on the honor system exclusively, as a result of human nature. So, from another point of view, you're encouraging the enterprise to be effective despite being impractical, and thus doing it no actual favors.

For instance, perhaps the guy collecting the tickets was having a smoke in between cars rather than bothering to collect the tickets. If people don't reuse the tickets, it doesn't show up on the books, and the employee is thus encouraged to continue misappropriating company time. In the end, you might not be doing the train company any favors.

(I realize that my take introduces the possibility of rationalizing a lot of bad acts, but I thought it might make for interesting discussion fodder)

[Michael]

Here's a devil's advocate consideration for you:

You're doing your part, incrementally, to make the world "better, more trusting". But, from a practical standpoint, enterprise is not going to run on the honor system exclusively, as a result of human nature.

As I noted above, Toronto uses the 'honor system' rather heavily for commuters. It has been tested pretty heavily and has been this way for over ten years. Toronto streetcars and the local suburban commuter trains do use the honor system. It does work.

[drgoodtrips]

As I noted above, Toronto uses the 'honor system' rather heavily for commuters. It has been tested pretty heavily and has been this way for over ten years. Toronto streetcars and the local suburban commuter trains do use the honor system. It does work.

That's interesting. My experience with train cars locally is that there is no honor system, per se.

I've had a modified version of the dilemma above. Specifically, I can get on my local train without buying anything. I sit there, waiting for the conductor to come around, collect my money, and issue me a ticket. I have had trips where the conductor never comes around. In this case, I don't go searching for someone to take my money (I can't - I need to get off).

Now, when you say that the trains use the honor system, are there any statistics on what percentage of people actually pay? Do they know that the rate of non-cheating is very high? Or is the metric that the system doesn't seem to lose money or have problems (implying that success could come from some combination of government subsidy, overpriced tickets and honesty)?

I did note what you said about spot-checking, but I'm not clear on how comprehensive that statistic is, given that the system gamers are probably good at not being spot-checked.

[Michael]

That's interesting. My experience with train cars locally is that there is no honor system, per se.

I've had a modified version of the dilemma above. Specifically, I can get on my local train without buying anything. I sit there, waiting for the conductor to come around, collect my money, and issue me a ticket. I have had trips where the conductor never comes around. In this case, I don't go searching for someone to take my money (I can't - I need to get off).

Now, when you say that the trains use the honor system, are there any statistics on what percentage of people actually pay? Do they know that the rate of non-cheating is very high? Or is the metric that the system doesn't seem to lose money or have problems (implying that success could come from some combination of government subsidy, overpriced tickets and honesty)?

I did note what you said about spot-checking, but I'm not clear on how comprehensive that statistic is, given that the system gamers are probably good at not being spot-checked.

Okay, there are two systems that use the honor system here and they work rather differently. The major one is our regional commuter train systems (that connect the outer suburbs with the city's subway-transit network). This system requires you to buy a ticket or have a monthly pass, but do not check for it to enter the train. They do regular 'spotchecks' and the fine is a heavy one if they catch you 'free-riding'. This is system-wide. They've done lots of studies and the 'free-rider' problem is miniscule (less than 1%).

The second system that uses the honor system are the Toronto Transit streetcars (huge trolley-cars that run 24 hours a day on the main city arteries). They permit the 'honor-system' only on one super-heavy route. This is to facilitate speed of entering & exiting the streetcars with large crowds by opening all the doors and letting people enter and exit from all doors (and since we're talking about 'really big double accordian-streetcars') this makes a huge difference and reduces traffic blocking. They also spotcheck on this, but it is well known that the 'free-rider' problem is considerably higher on this streetcar route. It is done primarily to keep street traffic moving quickly during rush hour. This particular street (Queen Street) cuts through some rather 'low-end' neighborhoods as well as cutting right across the core of the city so it is jam-packed 24 hours a day.

So, different results under different circumstances. The commuter-train people are definitely a more 'upscale' crowd than those who use the Queen Streetcar, that's for sure, so that likely has some impact here. In other words, the honor system can work in certain situations, but will probably not work for a large urban environment. With so many more 'poor' people, that honor system is guarenteed to be abused - but for services with more uniformly middle-class usage, the honor system seems to work very well.