The Re—Ethicist, Part II
Regular readers will remember that last week I initiated a new weekly feature, "The Re-Ethicist," in which I answer the questions sent to "The Ethicist" column in the New York Times Magazine. This is in an effort to actually make the column realistic. Plus, interesting.
So, without further ado, on to week two of the Re-Ethicist.
The first question sent to Times columnist Randy Cohen this week deals with a case of ethics on vacation.
On a recent vacation, our rental-car reservation was not honored because the location had no cars available. I wrote to the company demanding reimbursement for the cost of the occasional car and driver we hired instead. The company agreed to reimburse us upon submission of receipts, which, unfortunately, I neglected to obtain. May I submit ''receipts'' that accurately reflect my expenses but that I have simply forged? M.E., New York
Cohen's answer: No. "Rather than engage in counterfeiting, you should obtain honest documents." Get receipts from the car company, or write a letter to the rental company explaining your predicament. And why is the writer even asking for reimbursement except for whatever extra cost the correspondent incurred beyond what a rental car would have cost?
Wrong.As long as M.E. doesn't cook the books, he should feel free to create receipts. The point is not that there's some inherent moral value in the original documents; the point is to seek reimbursement honestly, and the only reason the rental company wants originals is to prevent fraud. If the customer isn't gouging the company, there's no problem.
More important, Cohen suggests that M.E. should only ask for reimbursement less what the rental car would have cost.
Wrong. As millions of people can testify, there are few things in life more annoying than showing up at a rental car desk only to be told that the car you
reserved is unavailable. The car company has unilaterally reneged on a contract, thus wasting your valuable time and inflicting stress upon you as you scramble to find some other means of transportation.
In our capitalist system, companies which break legal contracts should have to pay a price for that action. (That's why, when airlines overbook and you're out a seat, they make it up to you with more than a seat on another flight.) Otherwise the sanctity of the contract is meaningless and our economy slides into chaos. Think about that, Mr. Cohen.
In this case, the car rental company is doing the right thing by offering to pay the entire cost of M.E.'s car rental. Moreover, having to pay the customer's car rental is an incentive for this company to function more efficiently, thus making capitalism work better. Seen in that light, M.E. actually has a moral responsibility to make the car rental company pay up.
