Lying about child's age for free admission

[user1489773847]

Costing out a day trip to the zoo, now that DC has turned two have to factor in their ticket cost. DH says that we should just say he isn't yet two so it's free, and that everyone does it. Just wondered what the general consensus is on this? I feel bad lying but see his point that DS is still pretty young and could end up napping through a lot of it so won't necessarily benefit.

We do it. If we're going anywhere age dependent, we tell our child how old they are for that occasion.
We won't stop doing it. It's what we do.
We get stiffed for everything else.

What is unreasonable is redefining facts to suit you

It's not facts, its opinions.

Speeding is speeding whether you choose to do it or not

Sure, but whether speeding is WRONG or not is a matter of opinion, intepretation, and nuance. Example, speeding because you feel like it or because you want to get home quicker, I say wrong. Speeding because you need to get your sick child to hospital fast, I say not wrong.
Do you see? It's troubling that some of you can't seem to understand this. Even my 8 year old understands that opinions and ethics are individual.

Cheating to get into the park is cheating, whether you choose to do it or not

We may or may not agree that it IS cheating, and even if we do, we may or may not agree that cheating is wrong, in this instance.

Honestly, this shouldn;t need to be explained to you!

Actually this thread has really annoyed me.
I've been paying full whack for an entire decade and I've not once thought commit age fraud. I've missed a huge window of opportunity.

You get to choose how you behave. You don't get to choose whether it is wrong or not. I don't mind you deciding to lie about your child's age. Well I do, a bit, but not much. What is unreasonable is redefining facts to suit you.

Well you do really, unless it is something you could be arrested and prosecuted for. I don't think the police would be very interested in the fact that a 2 and a half year old got into a zoo for free.

You get to choose how you behave. You don't get to choose whether it is wrong or not

You absolutely DO. You have to, thats how it works. Your ethics are not handed to you by anyone else!

Even if its illegal and society has decided something is wrong, we STILL get to decide for ourselves whether we agree or not.

Speeding is wrong because if you speed the chances of having an accident and injuring people/damaging property are increased. A two and a half year old getting into a zoo for free doesn't hurt anyone. In fact it may increase the zoo's business if it means more families visit and the rest of the family pay. Therefore whether or not it is morally "wrong" is debatable.

Speeding because you need to get your sick child to hospital fast, I say not wrong.

Would you still say 'not wrong' if, while speeding to get your sick child to hospital, you hit and killed another child because you couldn't stop in time? Yes, your sick child would be a mitigating circumstance, but it wouldn't change the fundamental point that it's wrong to drive too fast in areas where it's unsafe to do so.

As far as I am concerned, there is no real difference between lying to avoid paying for something, and putting your hand in the till and taking money out of it.

Then I think you must be going through life being constantly outraged!

In fact it may increase the zoo's business if it means more families visit and the rest of the family pay.

If that were genuinely the case, why would the zoo not just raise the age for getting in free? No one is forcing them to charge two year olds.

Would you still say 'not wrong' if, while speeding to get your sick child to hospital, you hit and killed another child because you couldn't stop in time?

I don't know, it would depend on many factors. If, say, I had been speeding because I honestly thought it was the only chance my child had to live, I would still say the decision would not have been wrong, even though the result was a terrible thing. And I would still deserve whatever punishment I was given, but thats not the same thing as saying the decision was wrong.

It's never black and white. Take stealing, its wrong to steal, yes? But if you or your children were starving, would it be wrong to steal food? You'd probably say no. But what if the food you stole meant another person starved?

Ethics are by their very nature complicated and individual. Anyone who doesn't get this has poor ethics, because they don't understand why they hold the ones they do.

I don't really get the whole idea that it's ok to lie to get children in for free to these kinds of places. Is it outrageous to suggest that you might just go a bit less often, and save up for the tickets? Or look out for a special offer? Or just go somewhere cheaper? It seems like in today's society it's not acceptable to do those things. It's a question of meeting an immediate "want" however you can get away with it.

Would people who lie to get children in also sneak in through an unguarded access point if they had the opportunity?

Would people who lie to get children in also sneak in through an unguarded access point if they had the opportunity

Yes, we've already established that they do, and also shoplift, steal from tills, mug old ladies, burn down orphanages and are responsible for all societies ills. Happy?

It strikes me as sociopathic to imagine that you, yourself, without regard to convention or social consensus, should be the sole judge of whether your own actions are right or wrong. Yes, we each have our own moral code, but most people do take note of commonly held beliefs, like it is wrong to kill, steal, lie, etc., and we teach our children the same things. We don't tell them, "Oh, it's okay, di whatever you want - it's just nuance."

Nor do I think anyone on this thread does that. This whole "ethics are subjective" argument is smoke and mirrors, designed to deflect attention from the fact that some people are unable to reconcile their image of themselves as moral people with the reality that they lie and cheat to get things they don't really need. They're dishonest and tight, and that is the end of it.

Trifle, you have utterly misunderstood the entire concept, and have the moral reasoning of the average 6 year old.

If you're claiming that ethics aren't subjective, with a straight face, I really have no idea how you manage to navigate daily life.

I would still say the decision would not have been wrong

I think you can make a valid decision to do a wrong thing - the decision can be justified, but the action itself remains wrong.

About stealing food - if it was a case of my knowingly snatching food for my starving children, from the hands of someone else who was also starving, any idea of making a rational decision based on ethics would probably be overridden by instinct.

It would still be a wrong thing to do - in fact, even if it was communal food so no theft was involved, it would be a selfish act - but it would be unrealistic to pretend I wouldn't be driven by desperation to do it.

and have the moral reasoning of the average 6 year old.

This in spades.
Evidenced by her naughty list

How the hell anyine can take this poster seriously is beyond me.
There are less than 8 posters who disagree with the fibbing about age out of 80 plus. Yet two of them are so self rightious and egosistical they cannot accept they are in the minority. They love the sound of their own moral code so much they will fight it to the bitter end.

Sad. Very sad.

Hmm, I don't see myself as a particularly "moral" person, I don't think about my morals at all actually, but I know I am decent one with many good qualities that I won't blow my own trumpet about here.

I think people that call this immoral without question, no matter who does it, may not have lived very full lives and have a rigid way of thinking that probably makes them rather unlikeable and unapproachable in general. I always fear that such people would find themselves jobs in positions of sensitivity and authority e.g. Teaching or Social Work. That lack of critical thinking could potentially be really damaging in such jobs.

Wow, ok, ImFuckingSpartacus, it wasn't a dig it was a genuine question. I was curious if the same logic would apply.

And thats all fine, thats your ethical opinion. But it does not have to match my own.

As a society we agree on many social rules and we make laws. But not all laws are just, just because they are laws, and some laws are inconsistent with internal ethical principles.

And how we view ethics themselves vary widely, some people think the intent is the key point, some people think its the outcome. Some assess moral decisions on the impact they have on others, and some hold them to be consistent principles irrespective of their effects.

But the one thing they can never ever be is entirely objective! Any moral principle you mention can be found to have an exception.

Wow, ok, ImFuckingSpartacus, it wasn't a dig it was a genuine question. I was curious if the same logic would apply

If you were curious you could have looked at any of the previous 7 pages where its been repeatedly asked and answered? And I don't think it was curiosity at all, it was judgement.

I would do it. I would go further. You know them one gos free for every adult vouchers. I get them and if I'm short of an adult to get a child in for free. I ask someone to join us so I can get my child/ren in for free. Although I actually pay half for the odd out child so there's something init for the person that helped us out.

Any moral principle you mention can be found to have an exception.

I don't disagree, in the cases of stealing and lying generally. But, returning to the point of the thread, I struggle to find an exception that would justify lying in this specific circumstance.

But, returning to the point of the thread, I struggle to find an exception that would justify lying in this specific circumstance

And that, again, is perfectly fine for your moral code. So don't do it.
Anybody who disagrees with you doesn't need to justify to you, only to themselves. And the zoo, if they get caught!

I always fear that such people would find themselves jobs in positions of sensitivity and authority e.g. Teaching or Social Work

Fear not, Ms G. - I'd rather clean sewers out for a living than work in either of those professions. Not my 'cup of tea' at all .

You can judge my post if you like, but it was genuine curiosity not judgement. I'll hold my hands up to not reading the middle section of the thread having posted much earlier on, my apologies for crashing in at a later stage and upsetting your discussion.