Your complimentary articles

You’ve read one of your four complimentary articles for this month.

You can read four articles free per month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Fiction

One More

There is a moral dilemma in store for J.C. Michaels.

A man named Saunders, hungry from skipping lunch, stood in front of the food display salivating at the free samples resting on an unattended table. With nary a thought, he popped one into his mouth, consuming it so quickly he wasn’t even aware of the taste. And so, while still chewing, he took one more.

Saunders licked his lips with satisfaction, then glanced left and right. The aisle was empty… He had finished the second without fully enjoying the contrast of flavors on top of the crispy chip. And so, without hesitation, he took one more.

With a smile of fulfillment, Saunders now examined the samples lined up on the tray, noting the different combination of skillfully arranged toppings. Perhaps, if he experienced all of the different options, he might purchase the ingredients necessary to make his own and take advantage of the special offer – twenty-percent off. And so, with a more deliberative reach, he took one more.

As Saunders counted and recounted the samples, he noticed one with a particularly enticing arrangement of garnish. He rotated his eyes side to side. Still, no one was around. Did it matter? What if someone were watching? Could he explain himself? Did he have to explain himself? Certainly, he could not be reproached for taking the first or second one, but what about the third, the fourth, the…?

Why should he be concerned? He could never be found guilty in a court of law for taking too many free samples, nor would anyone call him morally depraved. At most, he would be glared at with scorn. Besides, if someone did appear, they would have no idea how many he had already taken and certainly be unjustified in making assumptions about his consumption. Most importantly, he could feel himself leaning ever closer to making a purchase, which was the purpose of the free sample. And so, with his hand trembling ever so slightly, he took one more.

As Saunders thought about pulling up a chair and making the tray his lunch, a small boy stepped in front of him, took a sample, and looked up. “My mom said to only take one. I saw you take two. I guess that’s because adults are so much bigger.”

“That’s right,” Saunders snapped, glaring at the child, “much bigger.”

The boy cowered and scurried away.

What do children know, Saunders thought. If the boy’s mother had allowed it, the child would have taken two or three or the entire tray. An unruly child, which the boy certainly seemed to be, would have little concern about taking as much as he could stuff into his cheeks. But I am not a child, Saunders mused. I have a conscience. I am reflective about my actions. Children follow rules while adults consider intent. The intent of the free sample is to entice customers to purchase the product. Further, the more he ate, the more likely he was to buy.

As Saunders was taking pride in his ethical machinations, he took one more.

Hors d’oeuvre by Auriole Potter © Richard Munckton from Windsor, Melbourne, 2010 CC 2.0

Suddenly, a well-dressed man in his thirties approached.

“Accountant,” the man announced, taking a sample and looking quizzically at Saunders. “Maximizing economic gain to the extent allowed by the law, especially in regard to taxes – that’s my forte. My clients, both individuals and corporations, pay only what is absolutely necessary. I am an expert at finding and using loopholes. Regulators and politicians try to cut the loops. I and my colleagues find new ones. The game is endless, but very important if you want to get ahead. If the system allows for different interpretations, why not choose the one most advantageous to yourself?”

The accountant popped two samples into his mouth and then handed Saunders a business card. “If you ever need help with loopholes,” he mumbled as he masticated, “call me.”

As Saunders considered that an unattended tray of free samples might indeed be a loophole, a man approached casually dressed in jeans and a t-shirt.

“Programmer,” the man said, taking a sample like a cat swatting at a mouse, “and hacker,” he added, taking another so quickly Saunders considered slapping the man’s hand.

Saunders looked at the man and asked with derision, “What’s the difference?”

“Programmers follow the rules and test the boundary conditions of every routine. Hackers break rules and find the oversights, which are inevitable. Endless streams of software updates are the result of human limitations. No matter how careful you are, the dam will always be leaking somewhere. The best hackers never breach the dam. We leave the system intact so we can use it. The only reason I don’t dump the entire tray into my backpack is because the store might stop offering free samples. As long as the system keeps working and people don’t complain, why not take as many as possible?” Methodically, the programmer piled four samples onto his palm and disappeared.

As Saunders stared wantingly at the tray, considering how many more he could justifiably take, a professorial man with a peppered beard and straggly white hair appeared.

“Mathematician,” he announced. “The free sample is a classic problem in game-theory. I can assure you no set of rules will ever resolve the conflict. Why? Because someone needs to interpret the rules. Who is that going to be? Even courts of law are constantly changing interpretations. Consider the most obvious rule, ‘take one.’ Who decides what that means? Suppose you are with a friend. Then can you take two? What if the samples are different types? Can you take of one of each? What if they are different sizes. Are two small ones equivalent to a large one? What if two are stuck together? Are you obligated to separate them? What if you’re starving? Does hunger trump all rules?”

Saunders rolled his shoulders as he picked at a remnant from between his teeth. “Is it really that difficult to understand what it means to take only one?”

“Yes, without question,” the mathematician asserted. “The concept of ‘selecting an object’ is very complex even in well-defined systems like logic and set theory. The problem of the free sample is hardly well-defined or rigorous. You can’t define the object ‘one’ much less the process of ‘selection.’

“Huh?” Saunders asked, tilting his head to the side like a dog hearing a high pitch.

“I’ll simplify,” the mathematician said. “Suppose you drop your sample on the floor, an unplanned but possible event. Then can you take another? Who decides? What if you take another one – then can you eat the one from the floor? If so, then bump the tray and claim ownership of the entire lot. ‘Take one’ has endless contingencies. I’ve thought carefully about the two dependent variables of the problem: personal satisfaction versus social contempt. The optimal number of samples to take is 3.5.” The mathematician placed two in his mouth and two on his palm. “Rounding up,” he said and walked away.

As Saunders carefully inspected the rather spindly legs of the table, considering what he would do should the samples fall to the floor, a man in a black suit with an open-collared white shirt approached.

“Philosopher,” he announced, taking one of the few remaining pieces. “I wrote my thesis on the problem of the free sample. Fundamentally, it’s a moral problem. Every system can be gamed, especially systems of human interaction. Someone will always find a way to maximize personal gain at the expense of others. You cannot depend on some external entity to create rules that are complete and consistent. In my view, the best solution is some variation of the ‘golden rule.’ Ask yourself, what rule you would want everyone to follow, then impose that rule on yourself. Would you want to live in a world where the first person in line takes all the samples? If not, then impose that rule on yourself and don’t do it. Every person should adhere to such universal moral imperatives. This approach is far more practical than trying to carefully construct a set of rules.”

“But what if there are different types of samples?” Saunders asked, his voice straining. “What then? Can I take one of each? What if I leave the store and return? What then?”

“I cannot answer those questions,” the philosopher replied. “No one can. You must decide for yourself. And when you do, be sure to imagine what your position would be if you were the store owner. Would you offer free samples if the first person in line took them all? The moral challenge is to determine, from reason alone, in a veil of ignorance about your status, what you would do. Once you make this moral effort, you can then create rules of personal conduct that could be generalized for everyone, owner, customer, adult, child.”

The philosopher took the last two samples and left.

As Saunders stood staring at the barren tray like a dog in front of an empty bowl, a smiling attendant appeared with a new tray burgeoning with samples. “Sorry they’re all gone,” she said, offering the tray to Saunders. “Go ahead. Take two, or three, or more.”

Saunders cleared his throat and asked, “How many am I allowed to take?”

“You’re asking the wrong question,” the attendant replied. “The free sample is a form of manipulation. These samples are provided by a very large corporation that makes huge profits, while I’m paid the minimum required by law. Those with money are exploiting those of us without… Once these samples are gone, I can go home.” She lifted the tray enticingly toward Saunders. “Go ahead, take them, take them all.”

J.C. Michaels is an award-winning, internationally published novelist, living in Taiwan, who uses literature to shine new light on great ideas.

• This story was provided by After Dinner Conversation, an independent nonprofit that promotes philosophical and ethical discourse by publishing short fiction: afterdinnerconversation.com.

Questions For Consideration

1. Who do you believe has the best reasoning: Saunders, the child’s mom, the accountant, the programmer, the mathematician, the philosopher, or the store employee? Why?

2. The mathematician said, “I can assure you, no set of rules will ever resolve the conflict.” Do you agree? And do all rules create loopholes, as the accountant says?

3. Is a person who follows the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law’s intent thereby a good person? And does your answer change depending on if the store is owned by a person or a corporation?

4. The philosopher argues that the most important thing is to determine what a good person would do. But what if you believe a good person would act selfishly and eat all the samples?

5. Is the optimal number of samples to take different from the moral number of samples? Why, or why not?