If someone finds money 800k that fell from a bank truck, and gambles it and loses the money. And after 3 days returns the money, should that person be penalized for using the money? Or waiting 3 days to return it? Was she obligated to return the money?

1. Legally they have a obligation to report the money at once
** legal is not ethics or morals, it is the legal statues
2. Morally, they have a duty to report or return and follow the law.

Ethics is a vague terms depending on what world view you assume as fact. In ethics for some there is no true right or wrong merely a general idea where there are no absolutes.
So for a ethical answer we have to know the moral and ethic view point of society at that point and time not only world wide but in the area this happened and to that specific person.

Good luck, just finished a ethics class myself

Thanks, now I see what you're saying.

If someone finds money 800k that fell from a bank truck, and gambles it and loses the money. And after 3 days returns the money, should that person be penalized for using the money? or waiting 3 days to return it? was she obligated to return the money?


I think this is a "discussion board" question because I'd like to see the thoughts of people who don't regularly post "here."

>moved to a discussion board<

What if the person kept the money, gambled and won more, then returned only what had been originally stolen? Or is he obliged to return the extra winnings too?

What if the person kept the money, gambled and won more, then returned only what had been originally stolen? Or is he obliged to return the extra winnings too?


Agreed - I hate it when you steal my questions before I post them.

What if the person kept the money, gambled and won more, then returned only what had been originally stolen? Or is he obliged to return the extra winnings too?

Since the money was never thiers in the first place they are obligated to return everything.

Since the money was never thiers in the first place they are obligated to return everything.

Why, which moral precept would this be under. Could perhaps karma have given them the money in which to use to better their lifes before returning it.

Since it is at this point "bank money" it was not taking it away from any social need or use.

Or perhaps following the worldview of right and wrong being judged only by the harm or good it causes. A popular one, used often in court to try and get lighter sentences. What good was the money going to do merely in a safe, People would have still had their money and no one was at a loss at the early point. The money was returned, thus no harm at all was created. But if they did winnings what if those winnings were to help the poor, would that not have created the better social order?

Where and whose truths, do you even believe there is a absolute truth that must be followed.

Why, which moral precept would this be under. Could perhaps karma have given them the money in which to use to better their lifes before returning it.

Since it is at this point "bank money" it was not taking it away from any social need or use.

Or perhaps following the worldview of right and wrong being judged only by the harm or good it causes. A popular one, used often in court to try and get lighter sentences. What good was the money going to do merely in a safe, People would have still had their money and no one was at a loss at the early point. The money was returned, thus no harm at all was created. But if they did winnings what if those winnings were to help the poor, would that not have created the better social order?

Where and whose truths, do you even believe there is a absolute truth that must be followed.

Actually there is a law in California that prevents a person from profiting from a crime. By not returning the money right away it is then stolen money at that point because it doesn't belong to that person.