It seems that re-gifting might soon become even more common. Some have questioned the ethics of this practice in the past, but there will be stronger reasons to question it if a new approach by Amazon is implemented.
US Technology journalist Marshall Kirkpatrick has exposed a 'sneaky' new way to re-gift in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald.
'First Amazon gave us the one-click-to-buy system. Now they're giving us the one-click-to-lie system....[With Amazon's newly patented system] we register our disinterest ahead and so what we have is Christmas helping us celebrate our limitations. It robs people of having the chance to have their horizons expanded and being surprised. It's social engineering of the worst type.'Here's how it would work. Someone chooses a gift for you via Amazon and then Amazon sends the recipient a notification of the gift. The recipient then has a choice to accept the gift or convert it into an Amazon gift voucher, which they can then use to purchase something else. Some might not be worried so far, but there's more. The recipient then has the option to have Amazon send a thank you note to the giver for the ORIGINAL gift even if they've converted it. That's right, convert the gift that someone has (hopefully) thoughtfully chosen for you, and then lie by thanking them for the original gift.
While it's easy to see why this would be a convenient way to exchange a gift that you already had (that 2nd or 3rd wedding toaster!), or perhaps something that wasn't to your taste, the deception involved in thanking the giver for something that you didn't keep, would hopefully be seen by most people as unethical.
Kirkpatrick's outrage at this new way to shop and give (which presumably is soon to be released) is grounded not just in the deception, but the fact that the essence of gift giving is undermined. As he sees it, the approach would "....rob people of the chance to have their horizons expanded and being surprised. It's social engineering of the worst type."
We've just celebrated Christmas and many gifts have been 'exchanged'. But exchange isn't something that is fundamentally part of giving. Amazon has probably hit on a winner; crafted to match the self-centredness of humanity that fails to grasp what gift giving is all about,
Other links
The Sydney Morning Herald article (HERE)
Previous posts on the ethics of shopping (HERE & HERE)
Posts
15 comments:
Hi Trevor,
Unethical...? Please tell me you're joking!
You are apparently against the scheme for two reasons: the telling of a lie, and the undermining of the "essence of gift giving".
1 – The lie
From a purely humanistic perspective, I don’t think there is anything unethical about the lie at all. The fictional Aunt Mildred mentioned in the article apparently derives great joy from giving her nephew the jumper, and Amazon’s new scheme leaves this joy intact. At the same time, the nephew is able to buy something he truly wants. In short, the happiness of each is greater than before.
We all tell lies from time to time to protect people from harm, and in this case, if each person is happier than they were before, and no one else is harmed in any way, I fail to see how you can label it unethical.
2 – The essence of gift-giving
I think the essence of gift-giving is only undermined if you believe the purpose of giving someone something is to make yourself feel good. Yes, Aunt Mildred may feel a little peeved if she went to a lot of effort to choose the jumper, only to find out later that her nephew didn’t like it. But why did she give the gift in the first place? To make herself feel good? Or her nephew?
You said it yourself: “A gift should be something that is given as … a desire to offer someone something that the giver thinks they need”. If the original intention is to give someone something they need, shouldn’t the giver be happy that this original intention has come to fruition?
___
Consider what happened to unwanted gifts before this service was thought of. Many gifts would simply be re-gifted to someone else, which achieves substantially the same result as Amazon’s scheme, except that, unless given in good faith, re-gifting in this way would actually undermine the spirit of gift-giving. And if not re-gifted, other unwanted gifts would just sit idly in our homes, never to be seen or used again, until they eventually ended up as landfill. Amazon’s new scheme is therefore much, much better for the environment – not only does an already-produced good go to someone who actually wants it, but the freight required is greatly reduced.
In light of the above, are you able to provide any more meaningful insights into why (a) the lie is unethical, and (b) the scheme undermines the essence of gift-giving?
Tim
P.S. The first link you provided doesn't link to the actual article, it links to the SMH's entire "National" section. The second link at the bottom of the post is fine, however.
Hi Tim,
The post was meant to raise my concern with the scheme for some of the same reasons that Marshall Kirkpatrick raised his concerns. You have every right to say as a humanist and atheist that it's okay to lie. However, as a Christian I don't see it this way. For that matter, nor do most people I know of varied faiths and no faith. I've met some very honest atheists who place a great value on honesty in business, relationships etc. The new Amazon practice would simply encourage people to lie.
Of course people should be free to discard, swap or give away a gift that they don't need. But why lie to the giver? This is simply dishonest. I wouldn't want to do business with a company that encourages dishonesty; how could you be sure that they wouldn't be just as dishonest with their customers.
Cheers,
Trevor
P.S. The first link was just to the SMH not the story, it has a link at the end as you discovered
Of course people should be free to discard, swap or give away a gift that they don't need.
Doesn't this concession undermine the second criticism (that this system undermines something crucial about gift giving)? That is, if you agree with this statement, doesn't the focus of the criticism become purely the fact that you can thank the person for the original gift? And is it a lie to thank someone for a gift but then return it to the store in exchange for something else? You are still thanking them for their gift, and then exercising your freedom to swap it. That is, the real question is whether you need to tell the original giver that you are going to swap their gift for something else. I think this would depend on the circumstances.
As a parent of a one year old who has been inundated with well-intentioned piles of toys and clothes (more than we could possibly ever use for a one-year old), do we need to tell the givers whose items we give to charity shops or to other parents? Or can we simply thank them for their gift and pass it on to someone who actually needs/will use it?
(PS "Regifting doesn't mean taking a gift back to the store and exchanging it for something you really want. It means taking a gift you have received and passing it on as a gift to someone else. Some people think it doesn't "count" but I have no problem with it. Do you need to tell the original giver that you have re-gifted their item?)
Hi Byron,
Yes, my quickly written response to Tim does make this concession (and I am also personally opposed to waste of resources). My point was that Tim is free to do this, not that I would. You are also right to problematise the issue, it is tricky. For me, it is the deception that is critical. If the thank you note says "Thanks Aunty Mable for the jumper" and you actually exchanged it for a bowling ball, then it's a lie. My understanding is that the patent on the new gift exchange system is correct. But I think there are many other aspects of gift giving that we could debate that the new patent undermines.
Cheers,
Trevor
Imagine that Aunty Mable buys me a jumper at David Jones. I already have twelve jumpers/live in the sub-tropics/have a skin allergy to the fabric/have an aesthetics allergy to the design or whatever. So I thank Aunty Mable for the jumper, but then go and take the jumper to David Jones, where I exchange it for a bowling ball.
Have I lied to Aunty Mable?
If you re-read my comment Byron you'll see that its the decision to send the letter thanking Aunty Mable for the 'jumper' (that's what will happen) that I see as the lie, not the act of exchange. If your intent was to do this all along, change it the next day but thank her for the original gift, knowing you intend to exchange it, then you have sought to deceive Aunty Mable and lie to her.
Cheers, Trevor
Hi Trevor,
I don’t think you have justified your position yet, as you haven’t really addressed any of the issues Byron and I have raised.
1
You haven’t really demonstrated that to thank someone for an unwanted gift constitutes a lie. You’ve simply stated that it is. To lie is to state as fact something that is known to be false. All that is happening here is that one person is thanking another person for a gift.
2
I personally don’t think it’s lying, but in the interests of brevity I will assume for the moment that it is. You have admitted that it’s OK to exchange an unwanted gift for something else, but not OK to thank the person for the original gift.
What, then, do you propose is the right course of action? If you receive an unwanted gift, should you just not thank them for it at all?
3
Imagine that you are a French farmer in WW2, and you are hiding a Jewish family in your basement. The SS barges in and asks you if you know the whereabouts of any Jews in the area. I feel confident in assuming that you wouldn’t say that lying, in this example, would be unethical.
Lying is unethical in general, but surely the individual circumstances must be considered. You have not demonstrated that this particular lie is unethical. No one is hurt, everyone stays happy, and presumably the giver knew about Amazon’s system when they bought the gift. Where’s the harm?
Tim
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your comment.
At no stage have I said, “to thank someone for an unwanted gift constitutes a lie”, please re-read my post and comments. What I said in the original post in explaining the proposed system was that the scheme involves converting “…the gift that someone has (hopefully) thoughtfully chosen for you, and then lie by thanking them for the original gift.” To exchange the gift isn’t unethical, but to change it and then thank them for something which you got rid of is (in my view) unethical.
You ask, “What, then, do you propose is the right course of action?” – the right action will depend on the circumstances, but at all times honesty would be what I’d aim for, not deception.
Your example about the Nazis is a good one that could be the subject of a complete post, but it has little relationship to the type of ethical issue that we are discussing. We’re talking about gifts bought from Amazon not a choice between saving someone from death at the hands of murderers. Would I lie to save them? Probably if I was brave enough. There are a few examples in Scripture where people lie for the good of people in the face of evil. For example, when Pharaoh decides to kill every newborn Hebrew boy (Exodus 1:16), the midwives disobey him and let the boys live. When the king asks them why they were doing this, they say that they “….are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them” (Exodus 1:19). The midwives were commended for fearing the Lord and not killing the babies. Nowhere are the commended for lying.
Christian ethics is concerned with action based on principles that are derived from the Christian faith. It includes thinking through not just how to do what you judge to be right in God’s eyes, but to avoid doing what a Christian ought not to do. There is no simple set of rules, but the Christian looks to the gospel of Christ and his teaching for guidance as well as the wisdom of God that both Old and New Testaments bear witness to. Nowhere in the Bible is it taught that lying is okay, only the opposite (e.g. Proverbs 6:16–19; Proverbs 12:22; Ephesians 4:22. 25; Rev 21:8).
Hope this helps to clarify what I was getting at.
Cheers,
Trevor
Dear Aunt Mabel,
Thank you for the jumper you gave me. I appreciate your generosity and the care for me that this token displays. I value our relationship and am delighted to share the blessings of this joyous season with you.
I hope you received the small gift I sent the other day. Feel free to exchange it or pass it on if it does not suit you.
Grace & peace,
Your niece Byron
(I contend there is no deception involved in this message and that I could send it with a clear conscience and without fear that my relationship with Aunt Mabel would be damaged whether or not I add a paragraph explaining that the jumper does not fit/suit/etc and that I will exchange it for something else that will make me think of her. The reason for this, if we may delve into an analysis of the communicative acts involved here, is that I may well be genuinely thankful for what the gift represents: a relationship of care with a generous hearted aunt. To assume that the thanks must be purely or primarily for the actual object itself and not what it represents within the relationship I regard as somewhat reductionist, a little too focused on the material gift. The gift is itself a communicative act and it is this act that I am appreciating. If my aunt is so sensitive about the specific item that to exchange it is going to offend her, then I would make sure that I tell her what I am doing, and do so in a way that tries to open up this very distinction between the gift and its relational meaning. But I assume that I've already had this conversation with my aunt and that we're both able to handle the idea of a recipient being able to be grateful for an act of generosity even while exchanging or passing on a gift.)
"Dear Byron,
Lovely to hear from you and glad you liked the jumper, I look forward to seeing you in it next week when I visit.
Love,
Aunty Mabel"
While your letter to Aunt Mabel was lovely, there is a good chance that eventually you will need to either come clean (which you indicate you'd probably do) or tell another lie "Sorry, Aunt Mabel, it's in the wash".
While Amazon's plan would be convenient in terms of gift exchange and might be environmentally advantageous, at the base of the plan is an intent to deceive. What we know of human nature is that deception invariable breeds more deception, that's why the Bible is so strongly against lying.
Cheers,
Trevor
I have already "come clean" in the original letter by thanking her for what ought to be thanked: her generosity and her desire to affirm our relationship.
Isn't this what is really at stake in a gift? What is given in a true gift is the giver herself. This is quite an important and profound theological point and I'm happy to discuss it further, not least with Aunt Mabel.
Insofar as Aunt Mabel is identified with a jumper then rejecting the jumper is a rejection of her. I content that a jumper bought on Amazon has about 0% of Aunt Mabel in it. (One she made herself might be somewhat different).
I critical of Amazon as much as the next person (actually, probably quite a bit more - I recently cancelled my Amazon account in protest), but I think you're aiming at the wrong target here. The real problem with Amazon is not a collusion in a culture of lies, but its promotion of destructive endless consumption. It is putting the bottom line first in a race to the ethical and ecological bottom (throwing out any concern for truthful communication in the process, as we've seen with WikiLeaks recently).
Hi Byron,
Yep, I accept your point that we shouldn't just focus on the gift. I thought I'd tried to do that in the original post but we've become sidetracked simply on the issue of lying. There are two issues here, Aunt Mabel's feelings and the relationship to her and secondly, the state of the heart and intent of the giver.
I agree that the major problem with Amazon is not illustrated by this offering of an online option to deceive (but I still contend that this is what it is), certainly "...promotion of destructive endless consumption" is a critical problem.
In my original post I also pointed to (perhaps not clearly enough) the fact that the Amazon scheme is reflective and supportive of a view of gift giving which is all about the recipient's needs. In all your responses, you have sought to protect the feeling of Aunt Mabel, show gratitude and sustain your relationship. I can't argue with this, but I still won't step back from my contention that there can be deception (and will often be) if the recipient changes (or intends to change) the gift but at the same time thanks Aunt Mabel for it.
Tim and others will argue that lies are okay depending on the context, but while I accept that in pragmatic terms (his Nazi victims example) there will be times when one might decide to deceive based on a judgement that there is a greater good (or to defeat evil), lying is wrong and shouldn't be condoned or encouraged because of its impact on the human heart.
Your point that "..What is given in a true gift is the giver herself" is a profound theological point. The gift of Christ is ultimately the greatest of all gifts. As a Christian, the gift of God's grace must surely be the yardstick for how we judge both our own gift giving and receipt of gifts. Would you not agree that the Amazon scheme is reflective of a view of gift giving that fails to grasp that to receive a gift should primarily be about simply receiving it in gratitude? Shouldn't our major concern in receiving a gift be our love for and devotion to the giver? Shouldn't our needs, and hence the keenness to exchange the guft for another, be a minor consideration?
Cheers,
Trevor
Trevor, I agree with your entire final paragraph - very helpfully put.
the Amazon scheme is reflective and supportive of a view of gift giving which is all about the recipient's needs
And yes, you are right here too.
My concern is that sometimes we are not honest enough with givers who give gifts that are actually about their own needs (e.g. to be validated, to feel generous, to project their desires onto another, to justify their own level of consumption by introducing others to it and so on). If Aunt Mabel is so attached to a particular jumper that she has selected on Amazon that she will be offended if it turns out to be unused or superfluous then she needs to be gently and lovingly reminded of true giving seen in Christ that is other-person focussed. But I think that again we are probably in major agreement on this point too.
And for a final thought on the lying discussion: I do agree that the Amazon feature can be used to make a form of deception easier, though I don't think that it is likely to make this widespread phenomenon significantly more common.
Hi Byron,
I agree with your point that "...sometimes we are not honest enough with givers who give gifts that are actually about their own needs". Thanks for all your comments and the exchange, which has been both enjoyable and helpful.
Cheers,
Trevor
Thanks Trevor - I've also found this discussion worthwhile. Jessica and I are still trying to work how to handle presents at Christmas, particularly now that we have a small girl who gets inundated with things (far more than needs or can really use) from doting family and friends.
Post a Comment