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.

Factorysettings:

You have no NEED to go to a museum, surely? And if you did, how much was the ticket?

The consequence isn't the moral point. Morality is what defines right and wrong, not the likelihood of risk of being caught

Meh, it's this or tidy Spartacus.

Me too - I have a zoo membership so perhaps I should do that...

Yes, well you didn't ask if it was lawful, you asked if it was right.

And I said it was fine, close enough to right to no be worth worrying about.

Factorysettings:

I know I didn't ask whether it is lawful (we know it isn't). I am asking why you believe cheating someone out of revenue is different from stealing their property, not legally, but morally.

Indeed Spartacus. Only two people confused on here anyway, everyone else seems to get it, which says it all I think

Please don't assume that.

The increasingly nasty and intimidating posting style of one or two posters here is undoubtedly putting lots of MNers off getting involved further.

AYankinSpanx:

I couldn't agree more.

At 2 yes definitely. I did. Until dd got to the stage where she insisted on telling every one her age.

And actually, if we are talking museums with a free entry, I always put a good amount of money in the donation box, because that feels right. It would feel immoral to enjoy the facilities and not support it properly although it would be perfectly legal to give nothing.

I'd be much more likely to sneak a kid through theme parks gates (although, I haven't) because that seems like vacuous over-priced crap.

The increasingly nasty and intimidating posting style of one or two posters here is undoubtedly putting lots of MNers off getting involved further.

Agree but I don't think we are thinking of the same posters

Factorysettings:

With respect, that's not relevant. I don't cancel out stealing, cheating or lying because I donate money when I feel like it.

You could address my questions but I imagine you don't have a satisfactory answer because the only sensible answer has to acknowledge that there is no difference.

Please don't speak for me, I haven't done that to you.

I think it's relevant because you are asking about what I think is right and wrong.

I'm finding it confusing because you're asking about my moral code - where I believe that it's ok to dodge an infant fare (illegal) but wrong to swerve the donation box (legal) and demonstrating to you that, for me, it's not so clear cut and that there is moral but not legal room to manoeuvre when people declare a 3yo as a 2yo.

You could address my questions but I imagine you don't have a satisfactory answer because the only sensible answer has to acknowledge that there is no difference
'
She doesn't have to answer if she doesn't want to. And given that when everyone else has answered similar questions, you haven't even tried to understand their answers, and have been rude to them, as well as telling them they are simply wrong, I don't see why anyone would.

I suppose at the nub of it, I think Madame Tussauds and the like, have enough money to absorb people defrauding them of an infant ticket at the gates. I don't think they have much to lose because they will recoup the money with their captured market in food and tat.

If say, Madam Tussauds gave 10% of their profits to charity, it becomes more morally suspect to do that. Or if say, they shared their profits amongst their staff. Or if they contributed something useful, like a free museum does.

I guess I don't think that these companies have much to offer society. They don't have much value-added. I can't see that I would ever be too fussed about people smudging the edges to save a bit of money at their expense.

I know you won't like that answer, that's fine. But you asked how I would justify it.

Factorysettings:

I'm not speaking for you. I am giving my opinion that your response to my point wasn't relevant. If people aren't permitted to do that's because that means they are 'speaking for you', then discourse becomes meaningless.

I asked a simple question to which I am yet to receive an answer. I can only assume you don't have one that doesn't confirm my argument.

You know what they say about assuming......

Factorysettings:

And in response to your longer post, the moral thing to do would be to decline to give them your business, not to take it upon yourself to stiff them out of part of their fee. That is before we get into the actual cost of keeping a museum going, whether you can actually afford the ticket, etc.

You said:

I imagine you don't have a satisfactory answer because the only sensible answer has to acknowledge that there is no difference

If you are imagining my answer and discounting my opinion based on your assumption of what my options is, shall I just leave you to it and you can have this discussion with a theoretical me?

Trifle I have never mis-paid for my children. I'm just not that bothered why other people do and have explained to you why I feel that way.

Wow this thread is running and running.
Isn't it just that some people will lie to gain admission and some won't? I've not been persuaded by any of arguments against tbh

Factory you'll never be right, whatever you say I don't think

And in response to your longer post, the moral thing to do would be to decline to give them your business, not to take it upon yourself to stiff them out of part of their fee.

Isn't it handy to have someone like Trifle around to tell us the moral thing to do? She's like an oracle, we could consult her on all morality! After all, only her moral code is the right one, and anyone who has different opinions is just wrong and immoral.....

Factorysettings:

I know what you've said. I don't mind if you don't want to answer my actual question, which is how this is meaningfully different from stealing a chicken in Tesco (assuming you don't need the chicken to avert sttarvation), but I am not going to pretend that pointing out that you are avoiding answering it is me speaking for you. It's not. I just want to know why you would do one but not the other.

Talking of immoral we regularly get our older child to hide in the footwell. Works every time.

Have that

trifle

You've been trying to 'understand' this for a couple days, for reasons known only to you.
What is understanding going to bring you? You'll still have your moral stance and wouldn't do it, and others will still do it. Your understanding doesn't make a difference and it keeps going round in circles.

Plus, I don't really read it as you genuinely trying to 'understand' because you have a clear stance on this issue. Your wanting to understand is loaded. I don't think you want to understand, what's there to understand anyway? I think you want to keep asserting your moral viewpoint as you have been tirelessly.