Rationalization

[poohandwendy]

Well, this true when it comes to things like the refillable mugs. The rule is stated in black in white. However, at POP century, there is nothing said about the refillable mugs being only for the length of stay where you purchase them. When you go to the drink statio to fill them up, then it states the policy. So, that could maybe be seen as bait-and-switch.

But as for others things, would you punish a person who stole a loaf of bread for a starving child?

Actually, from what I have read, it is clearly stated on the mugs. I am just taking the words of the poster from the thread and from my experience with the mugs we got at the CR.

As far as the bread situation. I would discourage stealing period. Stealing is wrong, no matter how anyone tries to justify it. It does affect society as a whole. If I knew someone who was caught doing that, I would try to show them ways to find an alternative to stealing. Like food kitchens, food stamps, etc. I would point out how much worse the childs life would be if the person stealing was caught.

 

[chobie]

Actually, from what I have read, it is clearly stated on the mugs. I am just taking the words of the poster from the thread and from my experience with the mugs we got at the CR.

As far as the bread situation. I would discourage stealing period. Stealing is wrong, no matter how anyone tries to justify it. It does affect society as a whole. If I knew someone who was caught doing that, I would try to show them ways to find an alternative to stealing. Like food kitchens, food stamps, etc. I would point out how much worse the childs life would be if the person stealing was caught.

Your right. I just pulled out my Pop century refillable mug and it does say in teeny-tiny writing, next the the handle, written sideways, what the policy is.


I agree when it comes to people planning on breaking a rule and trying to justify beforehand, that is wrong. I do think that WDW does contribute by not having the policy stated on the display. They have a big sign advertising the refillable mugs there -- they could easily state the policy. Not saying that it makes it right for people to do this, but I think the anger directed at these people is misdirected, the anger should be at WDW for trying to have it both ways. IMO.

I think though that the jusifying of breaking rules is human nature and has been around since the beginnning of civilization. I don't think our current society does this anymore than it did in the past.

 

[Dreamer04]

I have something that happened just yesterday. A commercial street near my home is lined with parking spaces. There are plenty of signs that state the hours and the cost to park. The muni-meters are located at several spots along the block. There are officers walking up and down the block giving out tickets to violators.

Now, it could be seen as a pain in the neck to dig out a quarter, go to the meter, get the receipt to display on your dashboard. Some choose to do it, others risk the ticket.

There was this woman yelling at the officer that it isn't fair that she got a ticket. He didn't respond. Just wrote the ticket, offered it to her, she refusedm so he placed it on her windshield. She still yelled at him as he walked away. She called out "I should have received an warning!!"

I thought to myself, I get my sorry butt out of the car, get the receipt and put in the car, just so I can hear this nonsense?

I called out to her "The sign is your warning!!" She just glared at me and snatched the ticket off of the windsheild.

Its a simple concept. In most places now, you pay for parking on commercial streets or in municipal lots. Everyone does it. But there is always someone who thinks the rules don't apply to them.

 

[poohandwendy]

Your right. I just pulled out my Pop century refillable mug and it does say in teeny-tiny writing, next the the handle, written sideways, what the policy is.


I agree when it comes to people planning on breaking a rule and trying to justify beforehand, that is wrong. I do think that WDW does contribute by not having the policy stated on the display. They have a big sign advertising the refillable mugs there -- they could easily state the policy. Not saying that it makes it right for people to do this, but I think the anger directed at these people is misdirected, the anger should be at WDW for trying to have it both ways. IMO.

I think though that the jusifying of breaking rules is human nature and has been around since the beginnning of civilization. I don't our current society does this anymore than it did in the past.

I think the only difference now is that people expect public acceptance and approval for it. The DIS has so many examples of it, it's almost a joke. Actually, it is something that many people DO joke about...

As far as the mug rules, I can't imagine they feel the need to make it into the same huge deal that it is made here. They should not have to bombard people with specifics...I mean, you buy the cup. It's written on the cup. Really, does it need to be more clear than that? If you wonder where it can be used, you ask a CM. If they put it on a 15 foot sign, there would be people who said they didn't see it. Or thought it meant something else.

I amazes me that people really care all that much about splitting hairs so much that this is such an issue. (when they start thread after thread about where you can used the darned things)

 

[chobie]

I think the only difference now is that people expect public acceptance and approval for it. The DIS has so many examples of it, it's almost a joke. Actually, it is something that many people DO joke about...

As far as the mug rules, I can't imagine they feel the need to make it into the same huge deal that it is made here. They should not have to bombard people with specifics...I mean, you buy the cup. It's written on the cup. Really, does it need to be more clear than that? If you wonder where it can be used, you ask a CM. If they put it on a 15 foot sign, there would be people who said they didn't see it. Or thought it meant something else.

I amazes me that people really care all that much about splitting hairs so much that this is such an issue. (when they start thread after thread about where you can used the darned things)

That's just it. It's not clear. I have had the mug for a few months and its not until a few minutes ago that I pulled it out, looked it over up and dwon and notice that it did say it. But I really had to look for it to find it.

Yes, I think Disney should not advertise on a sign in big writing refillable mugs then in microscopic writing state the policy.


I agree that once someone becomes aware of the policy they should not break it.

But I think that a lot of those threads are started by people who are amused by the self-righteousness of some of the posters on those threads. IMO.

 

[bicker]

The problem is that that we don't all have the same moral/ethical beleif system.

Correct, which is why it is critical to judge others based solely on those values and ethics that we share (even implicitly, by being a citizen in a society with laws) plus those values and ethics that they themselves subscribe to.

I find that the people who are the quickest to condmen alleged PCness, are also the quickest to get offended when someone makes a less than positive comment about their lifestyle, religion, culture, job etc. ain other words, its okay for them to offend others, but don't you dare offend them.

Yeah, I've noticed that too!

From reading bicker's previous posts I know that he does not adhere to any sort of religious sect

Full disclosure: This is not true. I'm a Pantheist.

and I am Roman Catholic, but that does not mean that from a moral/philosophical viewpoint that we have to disagree.

Indeed there are many values and ethics that we share, and that we would have every right to expect each other to adhere to.

Am I perfect? Heavens no! Yet, if I get a speeding ticket (and I have) I am not going to gripe about it, but rather pay the fine, accept responsibility, and drive safer in the future. If Disney has rules about refillable mugs, I will just spend the extra $ (going to WDW is a LUXURY, not a right) and adhere to their rules. I believe that that is the context of this discussion.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[bicker]

When something is clearly a rule, there is an absolute.

There are two moral approaches in opposition to a rule: Comply and express dissatisfaction, or just comply. (Note that "comply" is part of both moral approaches.)

Ahhhh, the old "stealing for a hungry child" idea.

For matters of life and death, I'd commit the offense, and then accept the punishment graciously. Seeking to obscure or evade punishment for the offense is yet-another offense.

it does say in teeny-tiny writing, next the the handle, written sideways

One note about this... My feeling is that this shouldn't have been necessary. Public policy is that there is no such thing as indefinite contracts. That's a reflection of our culture going back hundreds of years. Where people (meaning CMs who misinformed guests and guests who misconstrued the issue themselves) got the idea that you pay $10 for soda for life is a mystery. However, somehow people got this impression and so Disney felt the need to actually print the logical, rational reality on the mugs now. It's written small so it isn't insulting to those who understood this already.

Yes, I think Disney should not advertise on a sign in big writing refillable mugs then in microscopic writing state the policy.

Every company promotes the positive aspects of their products and services in big, bold writing, while provides the limitations and restrictions in small, light-weight writing. Why should Disney be any different? Why the double-standard? And why would any reasonable person make the assumption that Disney would expect to have to take any measures (much less big, bold measures) to get folks to do what is deemed reasonable as per public policy?

 

[chobie]

There are two moral approaches in opposition to a rule: Comply and express dissatisfaction, or just comply. (Note that "comply" is part of both moral approaches.)

For matters of life and death, I'd commit the offense, and then accept the punishment graciously. Seeking to obscure or evade punishment for the offense is yet-another offense.

One note about this... My feeling is that this shouldn't have been necessary. Public policy is that there is no such thing as indefinite contracts. That's a reflection of our culture going back hundreds of years. Where people (meaning CMs who misinformed guests and guests who misconstrued the issue themselves) got the idea that you pay $10 for soda for life is a mystery. However, somehow people got this impression and so Disney felt the need to actually print the logical, rational reality on the mugs now. It's written small so it isn't insulting to those who understood this already.

Every company promotes the positive aspects of their products and services in big, bold writing, while provides the limitations and restrictions in small, light-weight writing. Why should Disney be any different? Why the double-standard? And why would any reasonable person make the assumption that Disney would expect to have to take any measures (much less big, bold measures) to get folks to do what is deemed reasonable as per public policy?

Who contemplates the history of contracts when buying a mug at diseny world?

If people see a big sign advertising mugs with unlimited refills in a place they are already spending, in most cases, thousands of dollars, I think it would not be unreasonable to assume that meant forever. There are contracts that are indefinite or that last for a life time.

I think WDW purposely misleads peopls to get them to buy the mugs and that it is only a small percentage of people who either intentionally or unintentionally bring their mugs back and reuse them, or they would be much more upfront about the policy.

That being said I completly agree that once you do become aware of the policy you should follow it and it is particularly slimey to plan on violating the policy and try to get others to encourage you to do so.

But I don't think its unreasonable for people to assume it means for life, in this situation.

 

[bicker]

Who contemplates the history of contracts when buying a mug at diseny world?

It shouldn't be necessary to "contemplate the history" -- in any other circumstance, it seeems, people are reasonable, and don't expect anything to be "forever".

If people see a big sign advertising mugs with unlimited refills in a place they are already spending, in most cases, thousands of dollars, I think it would not be unreasonable to assume that meant forever.

I'm sorry, and please understand that there is no offense intended, but I feel that perspective is out-of-touch with reality. With such a fundamental disagreement regarding what is reasonable, we'll just have to agree to disagree about it.

 

[chobie]

It shouldn't be necessary to "contemplate the history" -- in any other circumstance, it seeems, people are reasonable, and don't expect anything to be "forever".

I'm sorry but I think that perspective is out-of-touch with reality.

Don't apologize for your thoughts, but remember, that is all it is --your thought and this thread is about absolutism and black and whites. But you can't say that it is absolute that everyone should think what you think.

And WDW is all about not being in touch with reality. IMO the refillable mugs plays right into it.

EDA:

You think its out of touch from reality for the average WDW goer to think if they come back to the same resort in a year two, and plunk down another few thousand dollars that they can't get a few cents worth of coke from their refillabe mug, when they did not know there was a policy against it?

 

[auntpolly]

There are two moral approaches in opposition to a rule: Comply and express dissatisfaction, or just comply. (Note that "comply" is part of both moral approaches.)

You see no morality in civil disobedience? Ever? Now, mind you, I don't see the point in civil disobedience in things like refillable mugs, but where do you draw the line?

By the way, just what is it that you started this thread to complain about -- have you said?

 

[bicker]

You see no morality in civil disobedience.

No, I mentioned the third choice in the next paragraph: "For matters of life and death, I'd commit the offense, and then accept the punishment graciously. Seeking to obscure or evade punishment for the offense is yet-another offense." So let's call that third option: "Refuse to comply and accept punishment."

By the way, just what is it that you started this thread to complain about -- have you said?

Why? Are you not having fun?

Seriously, I did mention this earlier: It was absolutely and positively not about some specific peeve, but rather about the practice of trying to rationalize self-motivated rule-breaking.

 

[chobie]

It shouldn't be necessary to "contemplate the history" -- in any other circumstance, it seeems, people are reasonable, and don't expect anything to be "forever".

I'm sorry, and please understand that there is no offense intended, but I feel that perspective is out-of-touch with reality. With such a fundamental disagreement regarding what is reasonable, we'll just have to agree to disagree about it.

It's not like you can refill the mugs with gold. We're talking soda here!

I think that most people think what is unreasonable is people knowing about the policy and refusing to follow, not thinking that "refillable" mug --means that the mug is refillable. It's not like you run by disney world everyday to refill the mug, most people go once every few years.

 

[bicker]

It's not like you can refill the mugs with gold. We're talking soda here!

Which is a perfect example of a rationalization.

Understand, I don't care one bit about the soda. (Why would I?) I only care about the rationalization.

 

[chobie]

Which is a perfect example of a rationalization.

Understand, I don't care one bit about the soda. (Why would I?) I only care about the rationalization.

I'm not talking about using that as a reason to violate the policy! I'm saying that most people would not think it was unreasonable to assume that disney meant free refills on soda when they buy a refillable mug.

That is the difference here. We all agree that violating a KNOWN policy is wrong, but you are taking one step further to imply there is something wrong with people who would not automatically assume that a refillable mug had limitations on it. That has nothing to do with rationalization. That has to do with thinking you are getting what you paid for -- a refillable mug!

It's unreasonable to contemplate the history of duration of contracts in American commonlaw when buying a refillable mug at WDW!

EDA:

For someone who prides themselves on being more moral than thou --it is awfully disengenious of you to take a part of a comment out of context to twist it around to make your point, don't you think?

 

[poohandwendy]

Wow. it seriously would never occur to me that a refillable mug would mean a lifetime of refills. The only way I would think that is if it was advertised that way, as a special perk.

McDonalds cups are refillable in their store, I would never just assume I could keep bringing it back every time I visited. Even though it is only sodaTo be honest, I think it is the nature of most people to find out exact what 'free' entitles them to...so IMHO, I think most who do violate those rules, do it with the full knowledge that they are violating it. They just rationalize it as 'bending the rules' rather than breaking them and a very small infraction that they are unlikely to be called out on.

 

[chobie]

Wow. it seriously would never occur to me that a refillable mug would mean a lifetime of refills. The only way I would think that is if it was advertised that way, as a special perk.

McDonalds cups are refillable in their store, I would never just assume I could keep bringing it back every time I visited. Even though it is only soda

But your not paying $11.99 for a cup at McDonald's either. And almost everyone who goes to McDonald's could go by every day, several times a day as they are all over the place.

Either way, who cares what any one person thinks as long as they are not knowlingly violating a rule?

 

[poohandwendy]

I'm not talking about using that as a reason to violate the policy!

YOU may not use it as a reason to violate the policy, but every time a discussion of this policy comes up, there is always someone who will say "Sheesh, it's only soda, Disney is making $$$ from our vacations".

It is used to rationalize violating the policy, when people know the rules and don't want to adhere to them. It is also used as a way to rationalize supporting someone else who is not adhering the the rule. Everytime the issue comes up, you will find many people who basically scoff the rule as insignificant and 'no big deal'...or at least not big enough.

People even act like since the wording is small that is implied permission to decide the rules as you go....with the excuse " I didn't know" later.

 

[chobie]

YOU may not use it as a reason to violate the policy, but every time a discussion of this policy comes up, there is always someone who will say "Sheesh, it's only soda, Disney is making $$$ from our vacations".

It is used to rationalize violating the policy, when people know the rules and don't want to adhere to them. It is also used as a way to rationalize supporting someone else who is not adhering the the rule. Everytime the issue comes up, you will find many people who basically scoff the rule as insignificant and 'no big deal'...or at least not big enough.

People even act like since the wording is small that is implied permission to decide the rules as you go....with the excuse " I didn't know" later.

Yes, but that was not what I was using the reason for and if one is going to get self-righteous about moral absolutism then one should start by not taking comments out of context.

 

[poohandwendy]

Yes, but that was not what I was using the reason for and if one is going to get self-righteous about moral absolutism then one should start by not taking comments out of context.

I didn't say YOU were, as a matter of fact I made sure that I made that clear.

As far as the last part, is that a clear cut rule? Cause I have never seen it written anywhere...(ok, I am just joking)