She was willing to leave something in a box to be taken for free by anyone who happens along, who could have been someone who then resold the item. Why is it different when she gives the item to someone? I think if she doesn't express a condition, she needs to release her feeling of ownership when she hands over the item. It must be exhausting to keep track of every little thing that ever came into your possession. It's the opposite of generosity. If the letter writer wishes to be a generous person, she should practice generosity. I found her creepy, watching what happens to her things, like a hoarder, only she wants to hoard beyond her own confines.
17
The writer makes a big assumption when she says "despite the fact that she is of similar economic status and likely doesn’t need our castoffs." There are times when someone of almost any economic status hits a cash crunch, and the stoop sales may be an economic lifeline when an expected commission check or child support doesn't come in on schedule. Your castoffs might be keeping the lights on at your neighbors house. Don't waste energy on resent, you are still enjoying the benefits of living without clutter...
13
The issue I think is that LW was saving first picks for the friend, because the friend said she wanted them--without clarifying why she wanted them. So LW feels misled.
11
I cannot for the life of me see anything ethically wrong in what the neighbor is doing. The LW does not want these items and apparently is too lazy to cart them to the Goodwill. Her neighbor is doing her a favor by taking them off her hands and helping her declutter her house. I have on occasion given larger items that I can't fit in my car to my neighbors. I am always thrilled that they can use something I no longer want. If they later decided to sell it on Ebay or Craigslist or at a garage sale, it would not bother me in the slightest. After all, I was perfectly free to try to sell the items but chose not to.
Also, I think the whole discussion shows a misunderstanding of the nature of a gift. Once I give you something it's yours to do what you want with. If I give it with strings attached it is not really a gift.
Also, I think the whole discussion shows a misunderstanding of the nature of a gift. Once I give you something it's yours to do what you want with. If I give it with strings attached it is not really a gift.
15
The letter-writer sells the larger items, but gives away the smaller items. Maybe this is because she is willing to do without the money she might get from their sale, or maybe it is because selling the smaller items is simply not worth the effort. Maybe she doesn't regularly have stoop sales, which would probably be one of the only ways to make selling the smaller items worthwhile. Maybe the letter writer can sell her stuff at the neighbor's next stoop sale.
Are the gifted items a big part of the neighbor's stoop sale or just along for the ride? Are they used by the neighbor before being sold or are they being sold without first being used by the neighbor? I think fully understanding the situation is important.
Are the gifted items a big part of the neighbor's stoop sale or just along for the ride? Are they used by the neighbor before being sold or are they being sold without first being used by the neighbor? I think fully understanding the situation is important.
1
Selling the objects may be a bit foolish (maybe the neighbor is a bit lacking in personal interaction social skills), but it is hardly unethical. The writer chooses for reasons of her own not to try to sell the items herself. She wants to get rid of them (don't forget that - this is not just altruistic, she is clearing out stuff she can no longer use). She gives them away. It is her problem if she assumes that the neighbor needs them for her own children.
Maybe, indeed, the neighbors are struggling a bit, but what they need is cash, not toys or more kiddie clothes. She can stop giving the things; she can sell them herself or take them to a shelter; or she could adjust her thinking to the idea that perhaps she is helping, but the need is the bits of cash they get from the sales...
Maybe, indeed, the neighbors are struggling a bit, but what they need is cash, not toys or more kiddie clothes. She can stop giving the things; she can sell them herself or take them to a shelter; or she could adjust her thinking to the idea that perhaps she is helping, but the need is the bits of cash they get from the sales...
4
If it bothers the letter writer what her neighbor does with the items given to her, then she should give them to someone else, or give them to a charity that will use them but not sell them --- e.g. a homeless shelter rather than Goodwill.
In my opinion, the LW is not entitled to stop the recipient from doing what she's doing, but now that she sees what's being done with her donations, she is perfectly free to stop giving.
In my opinion, the LW is not entitled to stop the recipient from doing what she's doing, but now that she sees what's being done with her donations, she is perfectly free to stop giving.
5
I could see where the writer was especially bothered because she offered the neighbor first pick before even putting the stuff out on the street for others. If it's more than one or two single items the best thing to do with stuff you no longer want is to donate it to a charity thrift shop.
7
I agree with pretty much everything the ethicists said and much of what is in the comments. I think there are many aspects that have been discussed.
I will pick out one aspect that I didn't see get very much attention - promoting recycling. In my opinion, the fact that the neighbor went to the trouble of selling the items, probably more efficiently allocated the items to people who truly desired and would make use of these items. People will take anything if it's free but often not make use of it and then discard it to make room for other things. On the other hand, if a price is attached to an item, there is a filtering effect where people who will actually utilize an item are willing to pay for it. This has been my experience and I think it's actually supported by economic theory.
Although, it might not have been the intent of the neighbor, I think the fact she turned around and sold the donated items, probably promoted recycling.
I will pick out one aspect that I didn't see get very much attention - promoting recycling. In my opinion, the fact that the neighbor went to the trouble of selling the items, probably more efficiently allocated the items to people who truly desired and would make use of these items. People will take anything if it's free but often not make use of it and then discard it to make room for other things. On the other hand, if a price is attached to an item, there is a filtering effect where people who will actually utilize an item are willing to pay for it. This has been my experience and I think it's actually supported by economic theory.
Although, it might not have been the intent of the neighbor, I think the fact she turned around and sold the donated items, probably promoted recycling.
2
As has been said before where's the ethical issue here? The writer was throwing this stuff away! She sold the good stuff. Now she is upset that someone else is selling the left overs. And by the way how does she know that this neighbor doesn't need the money....
Just because she is annoyed that she couldn't sell the stuff doesn't mean the person who did is unethical.
Just because she is annoyed that she couldn't sell the stuff doesn't mean the person who did is unethical.
5
If the hand me downs are taken to sell, there is fraud involved at the outset, particularly since the neighbor asked to be a priority donee. But if the clothes were used for their intended purpose, I don't see a problem in law or ethics. Note the assumptions the offended donor is making. Number one is that the donee is as well off as the donor. This assumption may be mistaken, whatever appearances may suggest. Another assumption is that the donee knows where each item of clothes came from. This may not be true if the sale is a year or more after receipt. A third is that the donee's only goal is making money. Perhaps the donee gives her children the money they get from selling items when they clean out their unneeded toys and clothes and that this is why they are for sale. The donee's children may and probably should feel the clothes are theirs and not their parents, and a parent should not give away a child's possessions without the child's consent. Understandings about what is the child's to dispose of and what is the parent's may not be the same in the two families, and both views are respectable. (Yes children should be encouraged to be charitable, but coercion to be charitable, particularly at a young age, is not wise parenting). In short, it us usually ethical to take a charitable view of another's needs and motivations. I think the donee should let go of his/her annoyance and be happy to have helped the other family in more ways than originally contemplated.
3
sounds like a middle class white person problem to me....
7
I don't see this as a question of ethics; if something is given without condition the recipient has no ethical duty to the donor. There may have been a tacit understanding that the gifts were made so that the neighbor's children could use the gifts, but assuming that they were not immediately sold, but were used for the purpose intended until the children tired of them and then sold, I don't see any problem. Personally, I give some things away because I don't think that the potential sales proceeds are worth the effort to sell them; in that case I wouldn't have any objection to an immediate sale by the recipient. Unless the neighbor had a reason to know what the writer's motives were I don't see why she couldn't assume that they were more like mine.
4
An item of property gifted to another with no conditions or restrictions made at the time of the gift leaves the recipient with the right of ownership, including the right to divest of that property in any way chosen by the recipient.
Yet, in the donor's mind, two things stand out about the recipient: 1) she is a lot like the recipient and so, she assumes, she probably thinks like her, and 2) she possesses similar fiscal abilities because she lives down the street.
We know that assumption 1 is incorrect, and that, if the donor wanted to restrict her property from being sold by the recipient, she should have made that clear to her before giving the property to her. But, it may also be the case (and you don't know this until you ask) that every dollar the recipient can raise is meaningful to her, i.e. she needs the money more than the donor does and these occasional boot sales make a necessary difference to her.
In the end, I think Appiah has the right approach--maybe her cheap property sales are the best way to dispose of small property rather than trashing it and maybe it also saves those with lesser fortunes from being embarrassed.
The only thing I suggest is that, if the recipient accepts neighbors' property with the ultimate purpose of selling it, that recipient has a duty to make that clear to the donor if the donor believes she is just being a kind neighbor. If the boot sale is held weekly or monthly, that neighbor is in business and any donor knows it.
Yet, in the donor's mind, two things stand out about the recipient: 1) she is a lot like the recipient and so, she assumes, she probably thinks like her, and 2) she possesses similar fiscal abilities because she lives down the street.
We know that assumption 1 is incorrect, and that, if the donor wanted to restrict her property from being sold by the recipient, she should have made that clear to her before giving the property to her. But, it may also be the case (and you don't know this until you ask) that every dollar the recipient can raise is meaningful to her, i.e. she needs the money more than the donor does and these occasional boot sales make a necessary difference to her.
In the end, I think Appiah has the right approach--maybe her cheap property sales are the best way to dispose of small property rather than trashing it and maybe it also saves those with lesser fortunes from being embarrassed.
The only thing I suggest is that, if the recipient accepts neighbors' property with the ultimate purpose of selling it, that recipient has a duty to make that clear to the donor if the donor believes she is just being a kind neighbor. If the boot sale is held weekly or monthly, that neighbor is in business and any donor knows it.
3
Your friend, who is not in need of household toys and clothes, which presumably she can afford to buy, accepts your free and generous offers, left for those who may benefit to take them for free. Obviously your intention is for these items to find users, who would not need to pay for them, for these item to e still useful rather than thrown in the trash and to be used and enjoyed by those who like them, but may not have time the means to buy them. But, your intention is not to make a financial profit. Therefore your friend's action of taking advantage of your honorable intention and turning your genres gesture into a commercial profit venture for herself is not honorable nor decent, therefore not ethical. This is not a high principled person and your instinct is right. Best not to leave more items or share them with her, but directly donate to those in need.
17
Given that the letter writer didn't value the items very highly, and that the recipient is probably selling them for a couple of bucks, the issue seems pretty trivial to me. Perhaps the letter writer could find something else to worry about, such as income inequality, harsh sentencing laws, climate change, or the government's use of torture.
9
It must be awful to feel that you need to control life so tightly that this sort of thing upsets you! As the saying goes: "Lighten' up!"
I'm beginning to be disappointed in the more recent stories here because it seems that more and more they have nothing to do with ethics. I'm not enjoying them like I used to. Oh, well....c'est la vie!
I'm beginning to be disappointed in the more recent stories here because it seems that more and more they have nothing to do with ethics. I'm not enjoying them like I used to. Oh, well....c'est la vie!
6
Come on people! It's completely tacky what the neighbor did! She is profiting from someone else's generosity. How venal is it to accept free hand-me-downs of children's clothing and then to turn around and sell them! She should have continued the cycle of generosity by offering the clothes again, free, to someone who needed them. Instead, she broke the cycle with her greed.
28
totally agree
3
whether the seller increases her cash-flow thru not buying items or selling items seems immaterial...also the giver could have increased her cash-flow by selling items herself and using proceeds for her traditional charitable giving to others in lower economic circumstances instead of with other funds
2
It seems to me that you released these items when you gave them, put them in the bin or whatever. You should feel no call for them nor any responsibility for where they went or how much anyone earned from them. You should just keep in your mind that these items went to their highest and best use somewhere with someone. What you did was good. What she did was also good. Let it go!
6
If it bothers the letter writer so much, she should give the items to charity in the future.
17
For the umpteenth time this column has picked a "non ethical" question.
The giver is a control freak who needs to understand if she gives something away it is no longer hers to keep track of.
Maybe the receiver is not in a similar financial situation. She cannot make that assumption because they live in the same neighborhood.
Instead of leaving on her doorstep she should give it directly to a worthy charity.
The giver is a control freak who needs to understand if she gives something away it is no longer hers to keep track of.
Maybe the receiver is not in a similar financial situation. She cannot make that assumption because they live in the same neighborhood.
Instead of leaving on her doorstep she should give it directly to a worthy charity.
20
The giver should join a local Buy Nothing Project. Her giving would benefit her neighborhood as a whole, not one specific neighbor. While it is true that Buy Nothing recipients could eventually sell items, the giver would not have to see it done. I sympathize with the giver: She generously gave items to someone of similar circumstances. It's not unreasonable to expect that the giving chain should be continues.
2
From my perspective, the writer is more at fault for giving with unstated conditions than the neighbor is for violating them. But even assuming the writer by legitimate social convention still has some kind of quasi-proprietary interest in the used things that she has freely given as gifts to her neighbors, I feel that unless there was a handshake agreement regarding how to dispose of the hand-me-downs, she ought not bear any ill will toward her neighbor for what has already transpired.
What she writer to do is to stop gifting stuff to the neighbor in the future, or if she want to continue doing so, make explicitly clear what strings are attached.
What she writer to do is to stop gifting stuff to the neighbor in the future, or if she want to continue doing so, make explicitly clear what strings are attached.
I have neighbors across the street who have children younger than my own. Periodically, when I see them in their front yard with their kids, I run out there with a bag of outgrown clothes and hand them off, feeling almost guilty for saddling them with the stuff. They always thank me, but most of the stuff doesn't fit their kids yet.
If my neighbors want to sell the clothes at a yard sale, more power to them! The clothes would be going to people who want them so much that they're willing to pay money for them. My ambitions are twofold 1) getting the clothes out of my house with as little effort as possible, and 2) possibly keeping some of them out of the landfill for another round or two. Let the stuff go!
If my neighbors want to sell the clothes at a yard sale, more power to them! The clothes would be going to people who want them so much that they're willing to pay money for them. My ambitions are twofold 1) getting the clothes out of my house with as little effort as possible, and 2) possibly keeping some of them out of the landfill for another round or two. Let the stuff go!
6
I think it is tactless to take free items from the neighbor's bin with the purpose of making money from them. The neighbor expected her stuff to be used in the spirit it was given away, not to stock the neighbors money-making sale. It doesn't matter if the stuff is worth very little; it was put out to be used for free. The LW should give her stuff to Goodwill or the Salvation Army so the profits will go to charity.
One ethicist could have covered both sides of the argument in one paragraph.
One ethicist could have covered both sides of the argument in one paragraph.
14
II wouldn't want the bother of hanging around and haggling with people in a stoop sale or garage sale. All the more power to the neighbour if she gets a few dollars for her effort.
I usually take my stuff to a thrift store.
I usually take my stuff to a thrift store.
3
An average American mother with two young children has four billion items of children's clothing and toys in her house. Perhaps she didn't recall which one she received for free, and which one she had purchased.
3
I am married to a serial cheap-stuff buyer, and I think the Ethicists and letter writer are missing the real, and innocuous, Zen here. Your neighbor is part of an endearing cult that includes swap meets, thrift stores, garage sales, estate sales, etc. Regardless of class, people like our neighbor in question enjoy shopping at these places, and occasionally participate on the 'sell side.' Please understand she means no harm. She is sharing your generosity with her ilk (the only people shopping her), and that warm, bizarre smile she has when she is selling the stuff you gave her is truly an expression of joy. Don't try to appreciate her obsession, but do understand it enough to keep giving your friend, and not feel ripped off at all.
3
A gift confers the value of that gift. Hand me downs with covenants?
Stipulate your wishes ahead of time or release the gift in total peace.
Maybe donee should be paid for disposal services?
I do not see how these facts even made it to this column.
If you cannot afford the donation emotionally do not make it.
Stipulate your wishes ahead of time or release the gift in total peace.
Maybe donee should be paid for disposal services?
I do not see how these facts even made it to this column.
If you cannot afford the donation emotionally do not make it.
4
I am not sure this is an ethical issue. The letter writer has given things away in a gesture of goodwill for others to use. The problem is a "friend" has taken the donated items and sold them. Girl, what? On a gut level, something is wrong here, I get what the writer is saying. Regardless, the fact is once you establish a "free" box, you can't control what happens to the contents. The choices are: the writer can hold her own stoop sale and sell the smaller items, take the items to Goodwill or consignment, or stop caring what happens after the goods are placed in the donation box. Easier said than done but really, don't go crazy over this issue.
4
It's also possible that the yard-sale neighbor doesn't always remember where stuff came from, particularly if she received it >1yr ago. As other comments have noted, the solution is to give your things to charity.
2
The economist in me likes the idea of "selling " because it is more likely to get to someone who really wants to reuse stuff. However, I give away lots of stuff because it is easier. Then I just hope the stuff gets a good home.
3
I am with Appiah here; there is a sense of time which makes this difficult to judge. Immediate resale of such items is certainly gauche, but only arguably unethical. Selling in a stoop sale after some use is definitely within the realm of normal activity, and I can't find a good reason to consider it unethical. Depending on the time involved, the neighbor might not even remember the origin of every item.
Further, the author of this letter does not specify what she finds wrong about the situation (maybe she does not know). Is it that she feels she has lost out on money that should be hers? Does she feel that the items should have been passed on in the spirit of generosity she started with? Does she object to her cast-offs re-entering the economy in any way? The ethical basis of this discussion might depend on the answers to these questions.
Further, the author of this letter does not specify what she finds wrong about the situation (maybe she does not know). Is it that she feels she has lost out on money that should be hers? Does she feel that the items should have been passed on in the spirit of generosity she started with? Does she object to her cast-offs re-entering the economy in any way? The ethical basis of this discussion might depend on the answers to these questions.
1
Give your stuff to Goodwill. They employ people who need the jobs. Give them some nice things they can sell.
7
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that the stoop sale lady's children have many clothes and that when they outgrow them, she just sells them, without running it through her mind where each item came from.
If the letter writer wants the clothes to go to someone in need, she should give them to someone in need. If she wants to make sure they aren't sold for personal profit (though, seriously, how much money is the neighbor really going to make), then she can take the items to Goodwill where they'll be sold for the benefit of charity. If she doesn't want to be bothered, then she shouldn't bother to concern herself with what someone2520else does with her discarded goods.
If the letter writer wants the clothes to go to someone in need, she should give them to someone in need. If she wants to make sure they aren't sold for personal profit (though, seriously, how much money is the neighbor really going to make), then she can take the items to Goodwill where they'll be sold for the benefit of charity. If she doesn't want to be bothered, then she shouldn't bother to concern herself with what someone2520else does with her discarded goods.
12
Exactly my thoughts. When both my kids were born, they received clothes from many sources - some new/gifts, some hand me downs, some purchased by myself... And when they outgrew them, we passed them along in a few different ways - some to friends/relatives with appropriately aged kids to be able to use them, some sold on consignment, etc. If I'd had to keep track of where each piece came from and make sure that it was only passed along in the same way - well, all that stuff would still be cluttering up my house! Of course, when the hand me downs were given, I did ask if there was anything the giver wanted back. Mostly they said nope, just want it out of my apartment and someone using it!
1
When my mother died and I had to clear out her apartment quickly, it was amazing how many relatives who never had time to visit her when she was alive had time to drive their vans and trucks to her place and load up on her stuff. Several of them were very open about their plans to sell the furniture, housewares, and costume jewelry. Considering that I already disdained these flakes, their behavior only confirmed my own plans to never have any contact with them again. They were vultures picking bones, as far as I was concerned.
3
In many places there are networks of "Freecyclers" where you post items, and people come to to get them. No doubt many of these items are then sold, but you don't have to watch the stoop sales! In contrast, many of the items are used, and you are helping people who can't afford a bed, let's say, or "clothes for a two year old", or "toys for toddlers." You can find a "Freecycling" network by going online. They're sponsored by Yahoo.
If you wanted to help your neighbor by giving the gifts, your generosity is still working when she turns them into cash, which she might need more than toys.
If you wanted to help your neighbor by giving the gifts, your generosity is still working when she turns them into cash, which she might need more than toys.
1
I think this is ridiculous. You give something away, it's no longer yours. Let it go. Nobody is taking advantage of anyone else. Loosen up.
4
I'm very disappointed that all 4 panelists didn't stick up for the neighbor. Most people don't attach any thought or care to minor gifts both given and gifted nor keep track of them. In your life you find out who these people are in your family/friends and you learn to be more discrete about disposing of their 'gifts', but acquaintances like your neighbor assume you were just throwing away junk like everyone else, and completely forgot you gave it to them in the first place.
2
No matter which way you look at it, the toys was given to her regardless. To be fair it is her property once the items were handed off to her so she is free to do whatever she pleases. However, how it was done was perhaps a little questionable.
"I needed the money. Can't eat clothes...."
1
Is it ethical to question the ethics of the recipient of a freely donated gift because of what the recipient chose to do with it?
Who knows the recipient's needs, thoughts, values, motives, and other criteria involved in making that private decision? And whose business is it to know that criteria, let alone to judge one's "friend's" ethics on the basis of that knowledge?
I see no generosity in this writer's question.
What I see is a decidedly unfriendly gotcha made of strings secretly attached to the so-called gift by the so-called donor.
If I were to give something to a friend, and discovered that my friend had sold it, I'd tell myself that they must have needed or wanted the money, and I'd feel good about the giving, and about the selling, and most importantly, about the friendship.
On the other hand, if I were the recipient of a friend's gift, and after selling it I discovered that my friend was questioning my ethics, then -- if I still wanted to be friends with that person -- I would express dismay at the trap my friend had set for me; I would ask my friend to stop bringing gifts; and I would ask my friend to apologize for treating me and our friendship that way.
Who knows the recipient's needs, thoughts, values, motives, and other criteria involved in making that private decision? And whose business is it to know that criteria, let alone to judge one's "friend's" ethics on the basis of that knowledge?
I see no generosity in this writer's question.
What I see is a decidedly unfriendly gotcha made of strings secretly attached to the so-called gift by the so-called donor.
If I were to give something to a friend, and discovered that my friend had sold it, I'd tell myself that they must have needed or wanted the money, and I'd feel good about the giving, and about the selling, and most importantly, about the friendship.
On the other hand, if I were the recipient of a friend's gift, and after selling it I discovered that my friend was questioning my ethics, then -- if I still wanted to be friends with that person -- I would express dismay at the trap my friend had set for me; I would ask my friend to stop bringing gifts; and I would ask my friend to apologize for treating me and our friendship that way.
Okay - deep breath, everybody... We all hate the current Ethicist format and yet we are all here. We care about the cultural approach to these issues; NYT - please go back to something resembling a real ethical judgement.
another breath... and...
For heaven's sake, approach your friend with this question instead of a newspaper! Say something akin to, "You have not done anything wrong, but this feels icky. I'm trying to think about it differently and I hope you can help me. I gave you something, and then you sold it. To me that's ewww, how do you feel about it?"
Her response will determine what you are really dealing with here. It could be a friend in economic straights who sees an opportunity you don't want to explore; it could be an opportunist. Most likely it's something between and you must choose how to navigate the overall relationship.
another breath... and...
For heaven's sake, approach your friend with this question instead of a newspaper! Say something akin to, "You have not done anything wrong, but this feels icky. I'm trying to think about it differently and I hope you can help me. I gave you something, and then you sold it. To me that's ewww, how do you feel about it?"
Her response will determine what you are really dealing with here. It could be a friend in economic straights who sees an opportunity you don't want to explore; it could be an opportunist. Most likely it's something between and you must choose how to navigate the overall relationship.
4
i like this option
When I was moving recently, I put a nice wooden dining table out on the curb. A guy came along and disassembled it, taking the metal base for scrap and leaving the now-useless wood top. I was pretty irritated at first because it seemed like a waste of a perfectly good table. But on the other hand, once I put it on the curb, my rights to it were finished.
A neighbor has items she doesn't need, so she sells them at a yard sale. Does it really matter where she got them? Does she need to go ask everyone who gave her something what the terms are under which she can dispose of it, or is she free to get rid of stuff in the way she feels best suits her?
If I leave a box free to takers outside of my house, there is a reasonable chance that many of those items will get picked up and sold for ready cash to the nearest thrift store. If I want to be sure that what I can no longer use is going to someone in need, I'll donate it to a charity or donate to a thrift store that will sell it to raise money for charity.
It sounds like it bothers this writer greatly to see things given away sold for repurposing. Solve the problem by giving directly to a charity. If the neighbor asks if you have anything you want to pass on, tell her "We wanted to give more to charity, so we decided to donate things that can be repurposed".
If I leave a box free to takers outside of my house, there is a reasonable chance that many of those items will get picked up and sold for ready cash to the nearest thrift store. If I want to be sure that what I can no longer use is going to someone in need, I'll donate it to a charity or donate to a thrift store that will sell it to raise money for charity.
It sounds like it bothers this writer greatly to see things given away sold for repurposing. Solve the problem by giving directly to a charity. If the neighbor asks if you have anything you want to pass on, tell her "We wanted to give more to charity, so we decided to donate things that can be repurposed".
23
From what I gather, LW gives these items away not because she is especially generous (she sells larger items) but because it is not worth her time or effort to sell these particular items. Her neighbor is willing to make the effort to clean, organize, tag, and sit around waiting for people to show up and buy these smaller items. I don't participate in my neighborhood yard sale because I don't consider it to be a good use of my time, but my kids are willing, and so, I let them keep the money. If she really wants to give these away to someone who is needy, then she should find alternative recipients, such as shelters or various other programs that might really need children's clothing or items to distribute to the people they help. Or give it to Goodwill, which does on a global scale what LW's neighbor does on a micro scale. It might be tacky -- but unethical? You must have an exquisitely sensitive conscience.
35
I agree with Appiah in the notion that during a stoop sale (or the ones I have seen anyway) items typically cost between $1- $5. It is very near giving it away and not likely to mean much of a financial transaction for either the seller or the buyer. By having a stoop sale, you are advertising that you have items that you are practically giving away to those who need items but can't pay retail price. It is among the most ethical thing to do with items you no longer need.
5
They miss the point. The intent of giving the items away for free is to help others of lesser means. The letter writer chooses not to sell them in order to help her/his neighbors out before earning money on the goods his/herself. The neighbor is not "passing it on"... The rub is in the fact that the neighbor, as stated by the author, does not need the extra cash... Breaking the chain of generosity...
10
I doubt she was setting them out to help those in need. It doesn't sound like they live in a neighborhood where there are people in need. The letter writer chose not to sell them because it wasn't worth her time.
Like letter writer, I've been known to set things out on the curb for others (back in my NY days), not as an act of generosity (though I hope someone will want or need the item and take them), but out of sheer laziness. I want someone to have them, but I'm too lazy to actually find a particular person to give them to, and too lazy to take them to Goodwill.
Like letter writer, I've been known to set things out on the curb for others (back in my NY days), not as an act of generosity (though I hope someone will want or need the item and take them), but out of sheer laziness. I want someone to have them, but I'm too lazy to actually find a particular person to give them to, and too lazy to take them to Goodwill.
How do you know the "chain of generosity" is broken by selling the clothes? When I was young and poor and depended on yard-sale purchases for my kids' clothes, I always headed for the most affluent neighborhoods first because they had better stuff.
Maybe some of the people buying the stoop-sale clothes are poor, but proud enough that they don't want their children to look like tsunami survivors. What's their alternative--Goodwill and the Salvation Army? Customers have to pay for clothes from charity thrift shops too.
Maybe some of the people buying the stoop-sale clothes are poor, but proud enough that they don't want their children to look like tsunami survivors. What's their alternative--Goodwill and the Salvation Army? Customers have to pay for clothes from charity thrift shops too.
The letter writer's motivation for not selling the items is not explicitly expressed as generosity. The letter writer might just find that selling the items is not worth her time and effort.
1
The conceit that someone else should be grateful for receiving your unwanted things and behave as if they owe you some debt is astounding. Shedding castoffs galore is not the same thing as picking out a thoughtful gift and purchasing it for a friend, in which case an immediate resale would indeed be gauche.
20
The neighbor who puts out the box of items could just as easily throw everything away. Just because someone does not want something does not make it worth-less if it's useful to someone else. Otherwise no one would buy antiques or vintage. It is thoughtful to allow the friend first pick through what the neighbor is getting rid of. I think even Miss Manner would disagree with you about reselling a "new" gift, as long as you thanked the giver for their thoughtfulness and did not sell the item in a way that the giver found out about. Once you have a gift it's yours to do with it what you want. From that perspective the friend miss stepped in selling the items is doing it in a public way. The implied problem in the letter is that it seems the friend is taking the free items to sell, rather than to use.
I think that it isn't so much a question of ethics. The neighbor didn't steal items then resell. I think it is a question of tact. It is mildly tactless to sell something that you got as a free gift. But we should give the benefit of the doubt. The neighbor appears to be 'of the same economic status', but what if she isn't? What if she really needed the money? Its kind of a lot of trouble to go through, collecting items over a period of time, sorting them, organizing a sale, if you have no real need of the money. Also, this is the exact principle that stores like Value Village and the Salvation Army run on. They get items for free and resell them, and not all of that goes to charity. If the letter writer doesn't like it, she can simply stop giving neighbor first pick, or personally give to people who really, really need it.
14
People often have an emotional attachment to items that have been outgrown by their children because they trigger memories of a special and fleeting time in the lives of their families. To other people, those items are just things. I think it might even be a favor or a good deed to cart away those cherished hand me downs when they are no longer needed. If another family benefits from them by using or selling them, that is a good thing.
6
The Ethicist column has gone off the rails. All this pseudo-intellectual handwringing would be better served by a healthy dollop of common sense.
The letter writer is obviously an over-the-top control freak if she thinks she has the right to dictate how stuff she gave away is later distributed. We're talking about a stoop sale, for God's sake! It's not as if the neighbor swindled a sweet old lady out of a Rembrandt.
The letter writer is obviously an over-the-top control freak if she thinks she has the right to dictate how stuff she gave away is later distributed. We're talking about a stoop sale, for God's sake! It's not as if the neighbor swindled a sweet old lady out of a Rembrandt.
63
I have no problem with the neighbor who did whatever she wanted with items that were given to her or claimed from a "free" bin.
I do have problems with people who give things to others and then feel that imposes a burden on the recipients. I am often given things I have no interest in having. I just pass them on to someone else. What is tacky, is for the giver to fuss about what is done with the gift.
In this case, the recipient did the giver a favor, saving the giver from having to make a trip to Goodwill or have a garage sale herself.
I do have problems with people who give things to others and then feel that imposes a burden on the recipients. I am often given things I have no interest in having. I just pass them on to someone else. What is tacky, is for the giver to fuss about what is done with the gift.
In this case, the recipient did the giver a favor, saving the giver from having to make a trip to Goodwill or have a garage sale herself.
12
On the whole, I agree with your statement re: gifts and their afterlife. Nonetheless, several decades ago, as a wedding gift for a then-close friend, I designed and hand sewed her wedding gown(complete with five yards of hand beaded train!) and headdress. She was overwhelmed, and thanked me.
I ran across her some time later, and introduced her to my companion, who knew of my gift. He asked her how she had stored the gown and headdress, whereupon she announced that she had sold both for a tidy sum. (n.b.: her spouse was in a very, very high-paying job). Truth to tell, I staggered a bit upon hearing this, so I guess that it is the intent behind the gift that may make the difference.
I ran across her some time later, and introduced her to my companion, who knew of my gift. He asked her how she had stored the gown and headdress, whereupon she announced that she had sold both for a tidy sum. (n.b.: her spouse was in a very, very high-paying job). Truth to tell, I staggered a bit upon hearing this, so I guess that it is the intent behind the gift that may make the difference.
It is rather startling when this happens. A few years ago I moved to a new community and realized I had too much furniture for the rental house into which I moved. The next door neighbor had two young boys and seemed to need some of the items I no longer needed. I gave him some office furniture and possibly some other things - it has been awhile. Within a few months these things were on offer at a yard sale. In retrospect, I think my annoyance was along these lines: "he apparently did not want or need the items, or he wouldn't be selling them, so why didn't he turn them down and I could have given them to someone else (even an organization like Goodwill) who would have needed them more?"
17
The stuffs were given away, and there's that. What "ethics" is there to discuss about? If this person is truly generous in giving things away, s/he (I bet it's more likely a woman) has no right to dictate how those gift items will be used or managed. And she's now being upset that she could have sold those "gifts" away herself and make some money, instead of giving them away to someone who is now utilizing those free goods as inventory for big yard sale. Talking about cry me a river, this is just as silly as it gets.
12
While it's true that once we give things away, we have no right or control over what the person who received them does with them.
I think the issue that the letter writer brings up, and why she is upset, is that she gave them to this person thinking she needed them and that she was helping her out. Once she began letting her neighbor have first choice of what she was going to get rid of, only to see them then for sale feels like her generosity was being taken for granted.
I agree with others that if there is a serious time lapse to where her neighbor could no longer use the items, then her selling them isn't that big a deal. Though she's no obligation to, it's would be nice if the neighbor would have remembered the generosity she received and extended the same to someone else in need. I think the letter writer is probably also disappointed that wasn't the case.
I think the issue that the letter writer brings up, and why she is upset, is that she gave them to this person thinking she needed them and that she was helping her out. Once she began letting her neighbor have first choice of what she was going to get rid of, only to see them then for sale feels like her generosity was being taken for granted.
I agree with others that if there is a serious time lapse to where her neighbor could no longer use the items, then her selling them isn't that big a deal. Though she's no obligation to, it's would be nice if the neighbor would have remembered the generosity she received and extended the same to someone else in need. I think the letter writer is probably also disappointed that wasn't the case.
5
The issue here is the neighbor's intention in taking the items, and then at the garage sale.
Did she intentionally take items she did not want, planning on future material gain through the sale? Or did she take things and 1. her child used them 2. her child didn't like them, and simply hold the sale to clear out unneeded items?
I was frequently involved in buying and reselling items when I was younger. In today's "sharing economy" (i.e. most workers are woefully underpaid) it's necessary for many people.
Ever seen those folks scanning books with their cell phones at book sales? While they do seem obnoxious, I would imagine they would prefer to get paid fair wages at their day jobs.
Did she intentionally take items she did not want, planning on future material gain through the sale? Or did she take things and 1. her child used them 2. her child didn't like them, and simply hold the sale to clear out unneeded items?
I was frequently involved in buying and reselling items when I was younger. In today's "sharing economy" (i.e. most workers are woefully underpaid) it's necessary for many people.
Ever seen those folks scanning books with their cell phones at book sales? While they do seem obnoxious, I would imagine they would prefer to get paid fair wages at their day jobs.
3
Nice distinction about the neighbor's intention. I don't know what you mean, though, about people scanning yard sale books - do you mean to figure out how much they could turn around and sell them for?
I feel there was an unspoken agreement that these items were being given for her friend to utilize. To then turn around and make money off of the gesture is just plain tacky. If the friend used them for awhile and then sold them, that would have been okay.
8
"unspoken" agreement in this case might as well be "unrecognized" agreement. So chalk this one up to experience, taking responsibility for not having clearly stated the intention behind the gift. Next time you can say, "If your kids can use this, they're welcome to it. Otherwise, I'll just take it to Goodwill."
Then-- well, then your neighbor would know about the scenario you envisioned. And you'll get to deal with lugging the stuff to GW if she decides her kids can't use it. And if she says her kids can use it but apparently changes her mind later-- then what? Do you really want to get your uncared-for items back again? Just let go of this minutia, let go-o-o-o!
Then-- well, then your neighbor would know about the scenario you envisioned. And you'll get to deal with lugging the stuff to GW if she decides her kids can't use it. And if she says her kids can use it but apparently changes her mind later-- then what? Do you really want to get your uncared-for items back again? Just let go of this minutia, let go-o-o-o!
Define "a while" -- a few days? A week? Months?
It's hard for me to say the seller was wrong or unethical.
Once you donate the items to her they are hers to dispose of as she pleases.
If you don't want her to do this, don't give her your stuff.
My wife and I often put stuff on the street that we no longer want.
Usually some unknown takes the stuff.
We don't care what they do with it.
And if I receive a gift that I don't want, but I know someone who would like that object, they may be receiving a gift from me.
Once you donate the items to her they are hers to dispose of as she pleases.
If you don't want her to do this, don't give her your stuff.
My wife and I often put stuff on the street that we no longer want.
Usually some unknown takes the stuff.
We don't care what they do with it.
And if I receive a gift that I don't want, but I know someone who would like that object, they may be receiving a gift from me.
5
I don't see such a problem on selling the stuff. To sell you have to put some time into it, maybe clean or display the article somewhere so it can be sold, that takes time and effort and should be rewarded. You gave something because you were not interested on it anymore, so cut it out.
BUT... maybe you should have taken the time and sell it yourself. If you are not doing it, give it to someone that has the time and needs the money.
BUT... maybe you should have taken the time and sell it yourself. If you are not doing it, give it to someone that has the time and needs the money.
5
Unethical? I don't think this sort of thing rises to the level of being ethical or not. Is it tacky? Probably.
In my mind, the distinction is the timeline.
Was the neighbor taking the items and then selling them immediately? Or was she using the items and then selling them later on?
If the former, then she's out of line. Sure, there shouldn't be strings attached to something the original owner has no use for and has given away, but it's tacky for the neighbor to turn those items around right away and profit from the freebees.
If she has used the items, it would be nice if she would pay it forward and donate the items, but, well, she used them as they were intended by the original owner. What's she to do? Give the items back? As I said, it would be nice if she helped others, but if she got use out of them, then selling them for a few bucks isn't all that offensive.
In my mind, the distinction is the timeline.
Was the neighbor taking the items and then selling them immediately? Or was she using the items and then selling them later on?
If the former, then she's out of line. Sure, there shouldn't be strings attached to something the original owner has no use for and has given away, but it's tacky for the neighbor to turn those items around right away and profit from the freebees.
If she has used the items, it would be nice if she would pay it forward and donate the items, but, well, she used them as they were intended by the original owner. What's she to do? Give the items back? As I said, it would be nice if she helped others, but if she got use out of them, then selling them for a few bucks isn't all that offensive.
9
If one gets a second hand toy or whatever free one should also pass it on, free, to someone with children that are the right age for the toy. The neighbor is being cheap and tacky. Give the toys to a charity shop.
9
When faced with a similar situation (given a selection of hand me downs, many VERY high quality, some of which we use and some of which we do not), I do resell the better items, and donate the rest. But I explicitly asked the person from whom they came, "Is it ok with you if I resell what we don't use, or resell what we use and then outgrow? And I will donate what doesn't sell" She said yes, and because her generosity saves me some effort (both the cash and the time of getting new stuff for my kids), I send her a portion of the sale proceeds.
It's not a lot of money (More than a cup of coffee at Starbuck's and less than a dinner out), but to me it's the idea of being equitable. And for a lot of families, that "found" money is fun to have- and something you can spend on yourself or your kids without worrying about adding stress to your budget.
Basically, I treat the giver of the items in the way I would wish to be treated.
It's not a lot of money (More than a cup of coffee at Starbuck's and less than a dinner out), but to me it's the idea of being equitable. And for a lot of families, that "found" money is fun to have- and something you can spend on yourself or your kids without worrying about adding stress to your budget.
Basically, I treat the giver of the items in the way I would wish to be treated.
5
A) they are neighbors, not friends. b) she should stop giving her stuff and instead donate it or sell it.
1
Who in the world keeps track of where they got each and every item of kids' clothes and toys? Are you really supposed to mark in every t-shirt, "got for free from Karen, see if she wants it back before selling at yard sale"/"gift from Grandma, make sure she is not offended if it goes to Goodwill"? This seems highly impractical.
15
When we give away goods, they no longer belong to us, and we have no say on their disposition. However, when others sell those items that were given to them as "free" may not be illegal or immoral, but it does seem to "violate a norm of generosity"[as per Kenji Yoshino] in our community circle of caring for others. When these donations become nothing more than a means to generate income for oneself, it becomes all about oneself not the well-being of others. Far better and more ethical to donate them to The Salvation Army, Hope, a women's and children's shelter, or one of the scrupulously honorable groups that keeps that norm of generosity intact. When a taker transforms what was given her into cash, it cheapens the entire act of giving to others. To be clear: others have the right to sell the items, but their act interrupts the cycle of best intentions of the community toward those less fortunate. It's selfish because the cycle of paying it forward STOPS.
5
Nice analysis of the "norm of generosity." It would be nice to see more examples of that norm these days - just my two cents' worth.
You never know how the money will be used. Donated maybe? And you might think your neighbor is in a similar financial situation, but that might not be true. A little less judgement of others is needed. Hidden strings on a gift are not helpful in a relationship.
12
I'm with Appiah. Indeed, I feel the writer is being far too precious and far too judgmental. She says herself "I recognize that a gift means I'm not free to question what the receiver does with it" and then she goes right ahead and questions what the receiver does with it. And … good lord … you are talking about children's clothes that go for next to nothing. Frankly, it is a service to other parents to put then in a garage sale. Bottom line: I'm glad I am not her husband!
6
I think the ethical question is when she put things out for free use, her intention was that they be for free use, like the public domain. And then the neighbor took something meant to be free to anyone and privatized it for personal profit.
If love to hear what Randy Cohen has to say about this question. Maybe I'll search the archives.
If love to hear what Randy Cohen has to say about this question. Maybe I'll search the archives.
7
She got them, she used them (it is not stated she did not), she sold them. The letter writer sells large things, the second lady sells small things. What's the problem. Does the letter writer want them back or thrown out?
4
was the neighbor using these things before selling them or were they going directly from the letter writers house to sale. That makes a huge difference.
6
Give the person the benefit of the doubt--perhaps she doesn't remember what toy she received from what person when. That said, I believe she should just donate toys in good condition elsewhere.
4
Seems to me the LW is being awfully precious here - and should have better things to do than monitoring their neighbors' possessions. Parents of several young children accumulate lots of stuff, and there's a pretty rapid turnover rate as the kids outgrow them - regular purges are common and necessary, just as the LW clearly did with her kids' things. That she chose to give rather than sell is her decision, and her relationship with the goods ended there. The letter-writer doesn't say how long ago these items were passed on - it could have been months or over a year that the neighbor 'owned' them. It's a tremendous imposition on the neighbor to expect her to record the origin of every item that enters the house, and make an effort to dispose of them differently based on that.
Because really, when you look around the garage/closets/attic and think "we've got to get rid of this stuff!" who has time to separate out the purchased vs gifted stuff and treat it differently?
Because really, when you look around the garage/closets/attic and think "we've got to get rid of this stuff!" who has time to separate out the purchased vs gifted stuff and treat it differently?
3
No, this is not an ethical issue, if what we mean by that is the sort of thing academic philosophers discuss: the issues raised by Plato, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, et al., although Socrates did say: "Its is not living that is important, but living rightly." Of course, there is no way of proving that one way of living is living rightly and another is living wrongly. That is what is so brilliant about Jeffersons’s statement: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” He is not offering an argument that can be disputed but a declaration. So, following Jefferson’s example, I hold this truth to be self-evident: that to sell what has been given as a gift is – in Nancy Mitford’s terms – ‘uncivilized’.
3
Doing these sales is hard work. I tried and we gave some of the money to a charity and I gave some of the money to my young son who had helped me out. What did he do? Went down the block to another yard sale and spent all his money on the same type of stuff I had sold off. Another time I gave s o me of his toys to a "white elephant" sale at church and gave him money. This time he bought back his own items I had given away...
Never again. I now give my stuff away--and not to a charity where my kid will see them--though he's a lot older now. That's what the LW should do if she feels bad about the neighbor's selling the clothes, toys etc. If she doesn't, she should try to let it go...
Never again. I now give my stuff away--and not to a charity where my kid will see them--though he's a lot older now. That's what the LW should do if she feels bad about the neighbor's selling the clothes, toys etc. If she doesn't, she should try to let it go...
3
A few years ago, the Fed loaned money to banks at a zero interest rate with the aim of stimulating lending and the economy. The banks then went and bought Treasury bonds paying interest with the money. Average Joe citizen got no free loans to make risk free money on.
Items the writer wanted more needy people to receive for free were being sold by someone for profit without being used by her first. In the future, the writer should give her stuff to a church, Goodwill, or similar organization. It will be put to good use by people who truly appreciate the spirit of the donated items.
Items the writer wanted more needy people to receive for free were being sold by someone for profit without being used by her first. In the future, the writer should give her stuff to a church, Goodwill, or similar organization. It will be put to good use by people who truly appreciate the spirit of the donated items.
4
"There may be an ethical posture toward the goods themselves, to make sure that they don’t go to waste, but it doesn’t follow from that that selling them versus giving them to other people would necessarily maximize the use of those items."
My father reared puppies. He made sure to sell them at high prices -- not to make more money, at least not entirely; instead, because someone who pays enough for a dog that her pocket hurts will likely take better care of the dog than will someone who gets it cheaply.
Will the person acquiring those recycled goods necessarily cherish them better, use them more conscientiously, if he acquires them by purchase rather than by gift? "Necessarily", no. But that's the way to bet.
My father reared puppies. He made sure to sell them at high prices -- not to make more money, at least not entirely; instead, because someone who pays enough for a dog that her pocket hurts will likely take better care of the dog than will someone who gets it cheaply.
Will the person acquiring those recycled goods necessarily cherish them better, use them more conscientiously, if he acquires them by purchase rather than by gift? "Necessarily", no. But that's the way to bet.
I agree with Appiah that there is a spectrum here. What is the elapsed time between receipt of the small castoffs and their re-sale? One day or one week seems tacky, but after 6 months it is likely this neighbor's kids have outgrown the things too. What if she has no one else to give them to? Should she give them back to the original owner to redistribute or put on her stoop? Seems absurd. Perhaps the neighbor has even forgotten (gasp!) the provenance of the used clothing/toys. Nice of the writer to share the best of his/her castoffs, but they should be considered a gift (a slightly shabby one at that) and once given, the giver relinquishes control of what happens to them. If you want your things to go to the people who "need it most" find those people and give it to them, not your neighbor.
1
The teacup in which the current Ethicist Troika seeks to resolve tempests is starting to get as small as the one used by the person they replaced. Maybe it's August and the trivial first-world problems of the privileged are the only ones left in town. I sure hope things get more substantive soon or you risk sounding like the Philosopher's Guild in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
To the present problem, a few observations:
1) When you give something away, unless you've signed a restrictive covenant with the recipient they are free to do whatever they like with the item, whether it or not it suits you or somebody's "norm of generosity."
2) What do you want the neighbor to do? Give the toys and clothes back to you (unlikely) or re-gift them to someone else? In either case, see #1 above.
3) Consider the utility of selling the items at a stoop/garage sale: the price for used items is usually trivial, so nobody's getting rich. (Or maybe you have a clause in your covenant addressing disposition of the proceeds. How do you know she's not giving the money to charity?) But having selected and paid for an item, the new owner is much more likely to make use of it for its intended purpose (wear it, play with it, etc.) than if they'd gotten it for free -- even from the box on your stoop -- and had no investment in it. Thus it's better sold and put to use than to go unsold and end up in a landfill or recycling plant.
To the present problem, a few observations:
1) When you give something away, unless you've signed a restrictive covenant with the recipient they are free to do whatever they like with the item, whether it or not it suits you or somebody's "norm of generosity."
2) What do you want the neighbor to do? Give the toys and clothes back to you (unlikely) or re-gift them to someone else? In either case, see #1 above.
3) Consider the utility of selling the items at a stoop/garage sale: the price for used items is usually trivial, so nobody's getting rich. (Or maybe you have a clause in your covenant addressing disposition of the proceeds. How do you know she's not giving the money to charity?) But having selected and paid for an item, the new owner is much more likely to make use of it for its intended purpose (wear it, play with it, etc.) than if they'd gotten it for free -- even from the box on your stoop -- and had no investment in it. Thus it's better sold and put to use than to go unsold and end up in a landfill or recycling plant.
4
I really don't see the problem. You gave it away, let it go. I think the letter-writer should be glad her friend is making a few bucks off of the stuff.
5
If the neighbor sold the items within a few months, it's wrong.
If its much later, it's questionable.
But what matters is how the original owner feels about it. Stop letting the neighbor have first pick. Take the extra time to donate to a charity ( some food pantries also distribute good used kids cloths, but if not , they could direct you to some one who does)
I
If its much later, it's questionable.
But what matters is how the original owner feels about it. Stop letting the neighbor have first pick. Take the extra time to donate to a charity ( some food pantries also distribute good used kids cloths, but if not , they could direct you to some one who does)
I
2
If the neighbors are holding a yard sale, honestly, they probably don't remember which of their children's outgrown toys and clothing came from you and which were presents from grandparents or purchased new unless it is something very special. Try to be generous in your assumptions--they just want to clear the house and one yard sale (with leftovers donated or given away) is easier than sorting through and remembering where each item originated.
7
When she prepared for the stoop sale, the busy mom probably sorted through her children's worn clothes choosing the ones she thought might sell. Many of them may have been actual gifts from friends or relatives rather than "loans" as this neighbor intended. Others she no doubt had purchased. Are the ethicists really insisting she keep track of the source of each item? It would be one thing if it were a christening gown or other family heirloom, but another pair of leggings from Gap or Gymboree? I don't think so.
5
The fact that the letter writer sells larger objects but chooses not to sell these smaller items indicates to me that the primary reason these pieces were given away in the first place was that the writer perceived the effort involved in selling them to outweigh the modest benefit. The neighbor obviously has a different calculus. This seems whole transaction seems value creating to me. Thumbs up.
4
If someone gave me a pile of kids' clothes, I might forget the source of any particular item a year or two later when it was outgrown. If the giver had an interest in finding out what was to be done with the item at that point, s/he should have asked when it was given or written his/her name on the tag to get them returned.
3
As usual, comments with the highest endorsement include a complaint about the ethicist new format. Take a hint people! If it is a contractual problem, it would relieve your readership to know this.
16
Not sure what the problem with the woman who gives or gave something to her neighbor.
The key word is GAVE and the understanding is that once given it is no longer an item or items under the giver's control, whether or not the receiver got 'first pick' of whatever was not wanted any longe or if it was new or used.
There has been no breach of ethics; property was passed on to another. Period. Here, Sally, I am giving this or these to you. Once done, Sally is the owner having possession of whatever was given her.
Possession is in the hands of the recipient: She has the power and dominion over the property, not the one who donated it to her; and choices as to disposition of that are exclusively hers.
As to "passing it on to others" the recipient did just that, seeking a price for HER property, something that the earlier donor had chosen to do with some things she no longer wanted.
The key word is GAVE and the understanding is that once given it is no longer an item or items under the giver's control, whether or not the receiver got 'first pick' of whatever was not wanted any longe or if it was new or used.
There has been no breach of ethics; property was passed on to another. Period. Here, Sally, I am giving this or these to you. Once done, Sally is the owner having possession of whatever was given her.
Possession is in the hands of the recipient: She has the power and dominion over the property, not the one who donated it to her; and choices as to disposition of that are exclusively hers.
As to "passing it on to others" the recipient did just that, seeking a price for HER property, something that the earlier donor had chosen to do with some things she no longer wanted.
2
It should always be the case that if you don't feel anything shady in your actions, you wouldn't mind just saying to the other person what you'd like to do.
1
I think it comes down to an in good faith approach. Is the person taking goods with the full intention of using them, or are they taking masses of stuff figuring they can sell what they don't use.
If someone accepts passed on goods that they plan to use, uses them, and when no longer needed sells them in their usual garage sale, I would consider that fair use. At that point, separating out old toys and clothes into what you bought yourself, what was gifts, and what was hand-me-downs, and disposing of them differently is more fuss than it works.
If you're getting hand-me-downs and immediately turning around and selling them for the money, that's unethical.
I'm not sure where the person here fits, but the fact that they are getting a significant fraction of the writers hand-me-downs, and first dibs, may be significant - I'd be more inclined to pass on the stuff to someone who would pass it on in turn.
The value of the goods makes a difference. Clothes and toys that are going for 50 cents at a garage sale are one thing. If you're getting things like free baby furniture, sports equipment or more valuable toys, I do think there's an ethical need to pass them on (if still useable) rather than profiting.
If someone accepts passed on goods that they plan to use, uses them, and when no longer needed sells them in their usual garage sale, I would consider that fair use. At that point, separating out old toys and clothes into what you bought yourself, what was gifts, and what was hand-me-downs, and disposing of them differently is more fuss than it works.
If you're getting hand-me-downs and immediately turning around and selling them for the money, that's unethical.
I'm not sure where the person here fits, but the fact that they are getting a significant fraction of the writers hand-me-downs, and first dibs, may be significant - I'd be more inclined to pass on the stuff to someone who would pass it on in turn.
The value of the goods makes a difference. Clothes and toys that are going for 50 cents at a garage sale are one thing. If you're getting things like free baby furniture, sports equipment or more valuable toys, I do think there's an ethical need to pass them on (if still useable) rather than profiting.
1
Where is Judge Judy when you need her?
1
It is incredibly tacky to sell it. She GAVE the clothing to her neighbor and gave her first pick. The neighbor should pay it forward and donate to those in need, not sell it for the small amount of money that she does not need.
3
Selling the items that were passed on seems offensive because the original owner had the option of monetizing their value but instead chose to pass them on to the friend's benefit. You would hope that the friend would demonstrate a similarly generous perspective. But the easy way to deal with this situation is, when you give some of your possessions away to someone else, tell the recipient - or just write on the box that you leave in front of your house - "Please just give the clothes or toys to someone else when you no longer want them." I usually say that because I don't want the object returned but most people will respect your request whatever the motivvation.
5
Once we are done with hand-me-downs for my young son, we always ask the giver if they would like them back to sell or to pass on to others, even if they told us they didn't want them back when they did the initial passing on. Others have paid us this courtesy when we've passed on things to them. It works -- keeps the lines of communication clear and we are all still friends.
The neighbor is being tacky. As others have said, take your donations elsewhere.
The neighbor is being tacky. As others have said, take your donations elsewhere.
3
I could see how the original owner of the items could feel that her neighbor was taking advantage of her, but I think it's also possible that the neighbor has not been thinking in those terms -- perhaps she has not been thinking at all. Which doesn't make the relationship any less unsuccessful, I think it just changes what one sees as the basis for its foundering.
5
The LW now knows something she didn't before. She can either simply change her expectations and continue giving her neighbor first pick, knowing that they may be sold sooner or later, or she can stop giving her things. This isn't so much an ethical dilemma as a matter of hurt feelings that her items were not cherished as much as she had perhaps hoped.
9
I've noticed that a certain number of people who appear to give things away generously, are REALLY wanting to feel superior and magnanimous and as if they were nobility: "here, you may enjoy some of my cast-off elegance -- you peasants".
But the poster here says clearly, she KNEW in advance the other family was of the same economic level. So clearly they did NOT need her cast-offs. They also could have discretely given them to the Goodwill or a church rummage sale!
Once you give something away, that's it. It now belongs to the recipient, and they can use -- destroy it -- throw it away -- re-gift it -- donate it -- or any darn thing they want.
If you cannot accept this, then DON'T GIVE IT TO THEM.
But the poster here says clearly, she KNEW in advance the other family was of the same economic level. So clearly they did NOT need her cast-offs. They also could have discretely given them to the Goodwill or a church rummage sale!
Once you give something away, that's it. It now belongs to the recipient, and they can use -- destroy it -- throw it away -- re-gift it -- donate it -- or any darn thing they want.
If you cannot accept this, then DON'T GIVE IT TO THEM.
I like to resell and I like thrift shopping. I also volunteer in a charity thrift shop. In my community, many homeowners leave unwanted items at the curb. Sometimes I bring them to the charity thrift shop where I volunteer. Sometimes I give them to someone. And sometimes I sell them and pocket the money.
Who cares, as long as this stuff is not taking up increasingly scarce space in our landfill?
Who cares, as long as this stuff is not taking up increasingly scarce space in our landfill?
42
In our (very modest) community, once I set something out to the curb it is on a one way ticket out of my house. If someone wishes to put in the time to sell it I don't mind because selling something, whether on ebay or at a garage sale is an extremely onerous task and deserves remuneration.
1
It is recycling in it's purest form.
I do it too. I take things from "free" boxes, and I trash-pick (lightly or unused items sitting the open -- I don't dumpster dive). I've found amazing stuff. Americans are incredibly wasteful. I have found countless bikes, which I have all donated to various charities that distribute them to poor kids. Boxes and boxes of clothing and kitchen items -- some nearly new, some with TAGS on them.
My friends know to give me such things, because they know I have regular pickups from Salvation Army, Easter Seals, Purple Heart Veterans -- I will ensure the goods go to the needy, and not the landfill.
I have -- rarely -- made money off stuff. I once had neighbors, who were grad students from India, and they were returning home permanently. I found them dragging a near-new couch to the curb, it's feet still encased in bubble wrap from the original store! it was pristine. In 5 minutes I had it home -- in an hour, it was posted on Craiglist. However, I donated that money then to charity.
I do it too. I take things from "free" boxes, and I trash-pick (lightly or unused items sitting the open -- I don't dumpster dive). I've found amazing stuff. Americans are incredibly wasteful. I have found countless bikes, which I have all donated to various charities that distribute them to poor kids. Boxes and boxes of clothing and kitchen items -- some nearly new, some with TAGS on them.
My friends know to give me such things, because they know I have regular pickups from Salvation Army, Easter Seals, Purple Heart Veterans -- I will ensure the goods go to the needy, and not the landfill.
I have -- rarely -- made money off stuff. I once had neighbors, who were grad students from India, and they were returning home permanently. I found them dragging a near-new couch to the curb, it's feet still encased in bubble wrap from the original store! it was pristine. In 5 minutes I had it home -- in an hour, it was posted on Craiglist. However, I donated that money then to charity.
Selling something that you got for free is not only tacky, it is income you must report as a capitol gain on Schedule D. While I would never turn anyone in, it might might make them think twice if you somehow get word to the person that they are in violation of the tax code. If there is one thing I know for sure is that you do not want to mess with the IRS.
14
Oh, please. Let's not make a federal case out of this.
5
Not at all. If someone gave it to you, it was a gift. The IRS allows you something like $600 every quarter in unreported income from things like garage sales, providing this is not "ongoing" (like a small business).
I seriously doubt this woman was reselling used baby clothing and old toys for more than a couple of dollars.
I seriously doubt this woman was reselling used baby clothing and old toys for more than a couple of dollars.
I bet you never declare your yard sale proceeds on your Schedule D either, so cut the pontificating.
1
Once you give it away it's no longer yours. Why do you care what happens after that? Unless your 'generosity' has strings attached, I don't see the problem here.
38
There's not much I can add to the ethical discussion. But it seems clear the neighbor could use some work in the subtlety department.
18
As one of the ethicists noted, whether or not it is inappropriate to sell (and profit from) the castoffs of a friend or acquaintance depends entirely on the timeline: if I gave old toys to a neighbor in August and saw them for sale the following week or month, I'd find it offensive; if he/she sold them the following year, good for him/her.
And, if the goods were given away to a stranger........my husband and I once took some old furniture to Goodwill. The next day, while walking through a local street market, we saw the same pieces for sale and marked at over $150. While we we were upset, our disappointment was directed at ourselves for having been too lazy to sell the items!
And, if the goods were given away to a stranger........my husband and I once took some old furniture to Goodwill. The next day, while walking through a local street market, we saw the same pieces for sale and marked at over $150. While we we were upset, our disappointment was directed at ourselves for having been too lazy to sell the items!
58
I wish these guys would actually write out their responses instead of this conversational style (does someone take notes? Is there a stenographer? A recording?). I think that's what really annoys me about the new format and the "ethicists." These replies seem so off the cuff, half the time I think the responder changes their opinion somewhere down the page. When the other guy did this, you felt like his response was studied and logical. Now it's like I'm listening to my co-workers endlessly opine on everything. And I have to listen to them enough.
165
There is a podcast with a link. There are usually three dilemmas and it is beyond me how the one written up gets chosen. Sometimes the others are more interesting and real ethical issues. And yes, it is literally a conversation. And the written product is not verbatim but close.
I confess not to have listened this week before reading. Normally I do listen first to the podcast which is generally about 25 minutes long.
I confess not to have listened this week before reading. Normally I do listen first to the podcast which is generally about 25 minutes long.
Excellent point! One ethicist instead of a committee would be better.
Well, none of us are required to read this feature after all. If enough people don't like it and stopped reading it, it will most likely be dropped. OTOH, there may be other people who actually like it as it is.
If it's relatively small potatoes we're talking about, the second party should feel free to sell the stuff or donate it. If they sell it, make a commensurate donation to a charity. When possible, mention to the first party what was done with their junk. Share a bottle of wine.
In the unlikely event the junk is at all valuable, the second party should sell it and offer some cash to the first party (who should graciously refuse or should bring out a bottle of wine to share), or, donate the stuff to charity and get the receipt made out to the first party.
Try not to lose a friendship over this, keep it light, and thank your lucky stars that you have stuff to give away and stoops to sell them on.
In the unlikely event the junk is at all valuable, the second party should sell it and offer some cash to the first party (who should graciously refuse or should bring out a bottle of wine to share), or, donate the stuff to charity and get the receipt made out to the first party.
Try not to lose a friendship over this, keep it light, and thank your lucky stars that you have stuff to give away and stoops to sell them on.
29
You have a point; if the "gift" was something fairly valuable -- a car, jewelry, a large piece of furniture -- and the recipient was selling it right away, to make a profit -- maybe there, some notice is required and permission.
Otherwise, I am afraid that when you give a gift, it now belongs to the recipient. If you cannot deal with that, DO NOT GIVE THEM THINGS.
Otherwise, I am afraid that when you give a gift, it now belongs to the recipient. If you cannot deal with that, DO NOT GIVE THEM THINGS.
1
One time, I found two chairs (some of the wicker was broken) among trash on curb waiting to be picked up. I brought them back, clean them up, and realized the chairs were quite nice looking. I took pictures of them and brought them to nearby antique shop whose owner immediately offered to buy them from me for $150 each (even if it's broken) since they were antiques from the 19th century.
So, should I knock on the door of that neighbors three doors down, and give them half of the money for selling the trash they threw out? You bet I won't.
So, should I knock on the door of that neighbors three doors down, and give them half of the money for selling the trash they threw out? You bet I won't.
2
Oh my gosh, that's too many rules. This woman had a stoop sale. If she's got to keep track of which items she got from this particular neighbor and how much those items sold for and then give a donation to a charity, then why have a stoop sale at all? It'd be far less time consuming to just take the used clothes to Goodwill.
It's very good to clear out unneeded items. It's kind to offer them to a neighbor who can use them. If you don't want the neighbor to sell them, thus gaining an extra bit (perceived) of benefit, sell them yourself. The dollars earned by the sale may benefit the neighbors more than you know. Let it go!
28
Maybe I'm obtuse, but I fail to see an ethical dilemma being discussed. A couple of psychological problems, maybe: the letter writer's emotional attachment to discarded objects and resentful feelings towards the "friend" who took what was given without restrictions on its ultimate destiny.
The panel's chitchat reflects an inability to discern the absence of an ethical quandary. Partial exception for Yoshino, who notes that one has "an ethical obligation — not just to people but to things themselves — to avoid waste." But I'm not convinced that a recipient has an ethical obligation to refrain from selling a gift.
The panel's chitchat reflects an inability to discern the absence of an ethical quandary. Partial exception for Yoshino, who notes that one has "an ethical obligation — not just to people but to things themselves — to avoid waste." But I'm not convinced that a recipient has an ethical obligation to refrain from selling a gift.
44
Once again, the "Ethicists" struggle with a question that barely qualifies as an ethics question, and even with that, they're all over the place.
This is a pretty common 'Dear Abby' sort of question on social awkwardness, but it's more about a misunderstanding than a question of breached ethics.
The only real ethical question in this sort of situation is one that didn't happen in this case. If the neighbor was knowingly accepting items that she knew to be of considerable value and was then surrepticiously selling them at auction or on e-bay, then there's an intent to deceive and defraud. That's not what's happening here, though. The neighbor just has more time or willingness to sit on her stoop in plain view, selling low-value surplus items for a few bucks. The whole situation could be easily resolved by the writer agreeing in advance to supply her neighbor with yard-sale items on consignment for a stipulated cut of the take.
Is anyone still writing "Dear Abby?" The Times could save a bundle by picking up a syndicated advice column, rather than continuing to pay a committee of the clueless to fumble their way through the banal for a podcast-distilate column each week. Continuing to pass off this low-grade nonsense as an ethics column calls into question the ethics of the editors.
This is a pretty common 'Dear Abby' sort of question on social awkwardness, but it's more about a misunderstanding than a question of breached ethics.
The only real ethical question in this sort of situation is one that didn't happen in this case. If the neighbor was knowingly accepting items that she knew to be of considerable value and was then surrepticiously selling them at auction or on e-bay, then there's an intent to deceive and defraud. That's not what's happening here, though. The neighbor just has more time or willingness to sit on her stoop in plain view, selling low-value surplus items for a few bucks. The whole situation could be easily resolved by the writer agreeing in advance to supply her neighbor with yard-sale items on consignment for a stipulated cut of the take.
Is anyone still writing "Dear Abby?" The Times could save a bundle by picking up a syndicated advice column, rather than continuing to pay a committee of the clueless to fumble their way through the banal for a podcast-distilate column each week. Continuing to pass off this low-grade nonsense as an ethics column calls into question the ethics of the editors.
148
Also, those twice used children's clothes can't be worth a lot on the neighborhood yard sale market. Most people have these sales more for fun than anything else. And there's a good chance the seller doesn't even remember where most of the items came from.
2
100% agree. Can we stop bundling up tact, manners, thoughtfulness, and consideration into an all-encompassing "ethics" issue?
3
" Continuing to pass off this low-grade nonsense as an ethics column calls into question the ethics of the editors."
We have a winner! Well said, sir.
We have a winner! Well said, sir.
1
i believe as soon as you gave them away for free or otherwise, it is your friends business what to do with them. BTW, i wonder if you'd react the same way, if you saw your stuff in her trash instead of her selling them for a profit?
19
This happened to me with my step granddaughter who I gave a very nice pair of cowboy to. She went through a stage of loving Western wear and saw them in my closet. I knew she would most likely outgrow them since her mother is very tall, so I gave them to her and I told her mother that she could give them back to me when they no longer fit. I found out a couple of years later that she sold them. No class at all.
19
Your step granddaughter may not have known that you wanted the boots back after she outgrew them. Perhaps her mother didn't tell her or one of them forgot.
I "lent" my bicycle to my nephew and a few years later it was sold. Sigh, I was really attached to it because it had been my aunt's and was handed down to me. Stuff happens.
I "lent" my bicycle to my nephew and a few years later it was sold. Sigh, I was really attached to it because it had been my aunt's and was handed down to me. Stuff happens.
13
Perhaps they forgot your request.......... Sounds petty to imply they have no class. Is something else going on?
12
Years ago a cousin's wife sent me a box of good used girls' clothing, which I immediately gave to a neighbor for her friend whom she told me was in need. A couple of days later my aunt called demanding that I retrieve several of the nicer items her daughter in law had sent me. Having been the original purchaser of these clothes, she wanted them for another set of granddaughters. Can you imagine how embarrassing it was to have to ask my neighbor to ask her friend-in-need for the clothes back?
I'm older and wiser so now I would say, "No, I can't do that," but back then I was still a dutiful niece, so I tracked down the clothing and returned it as requested. I still cringe thinking about it.
Once gifted, items no longer belong to you. Get over it.
I'm older and wiser so now I would say, "No, I can't do that," but back then I was still a dutiful niece, so I tracked down the clothing and returned it as requested. I still cringe thinking about it.
Once gifted, items no longer belong to you. Get over it.
17
Take your items to your favorite charity thrift shop, and be done with it.
44
It's deductible, too.
We had a somewhat analogous situation in our family. I found the Christmas gifts we had given my brother-in-law and sister-in-law on eBay, right after Christmas. (They were well aware we knew their eBay ID and made no attempt to hide it.) Not only the gifts we had given them, but some cute Christmas decorations we had bought them, were for sale on eBay. The problem was solved easily: we stopped giving them anything as of the day I saw everything on eBay. This was 15 years ago, and we have stuck to the giftless approach. Yes, of course the items were theirs to do as they wished. But the in-your-faceness and immediacy of it was insulting. They don't have to treasure our gifts, but darn it, we don't have to give them gifts in the first place. If I were the letter writers, my "stuff" would stop being available for this neighbor.
99
Yes, it was rude. Yes, you are correct that you should not give them anything more -- except a card and warm wishes.
However, would you have been happier knowing the items were disliked -- and stuffed up the attic for 30 years? Or thrown in the trash?
I mentioned earlier I often pick quality trash from my neighborhood, and often find new things in boxes. These are 90% birthday/Xmas gifts, some with gift wrap still on them! that's how much people did NOT want your stuff, folks -- they didn't bother to unwrap it, and threw it directly INTO THE TRASH.
Frankly I'd rather they sold it on ebay.
However, would you have been happier knowing the items were disliked -- and stuffed up the attic for 30 years? Or thrown in the trash?
I mentioned earlier I often pick quality trash from my neighborhood, and often find new things in boxes. These are 90% birthday/Xmas gifts, some with gift wrap still on them! that's how much people did NOT want your stuff, folks -- they didn't bother to unwrap it, and threw it directly INTO THE TRASH.
Frankly I'd rather they sold it on ebay.
5
"They were well aware we knew their eBay ID." Is that a common thing? I have no idea anyone's eBay ID, including my own, and I certainly wouldn't bother to look up what they're selling. I'm curious what made you look. Where there other relational issues that made you dig around? Or did you frequently check their eBay in case they had items you wanted to by? Or what exactly? Just seems odd to me.
But that aside. I have a close relative (okay, it's my mother) who in all the years she has known me has never managed to gain the slightest insight into my personal tastes and so, in my entire life, I think she's given me one gift I could use. I didn't eBay those gifts, but I did drop them all off at Goodwill. Otherwise they would have just cluttered my house. So my assumption in this case is not that they were ungrateful, but just that perhaps that year (and maybe other times as well, for all you know), the thought was appreciated but the gift was something they just weren't going to use.
But that aside. I have a close relative (okay, it's my mother) who in all the years she has known me has never managed to gain the slightest insight into my personal tastes and so, in my entire life, I think she's given me one gift I could use. I didn't eBay those gifts, but I did drop them all off at Goodwill. Otherwise they would have just cluttered my house. So my assumption in this case is not that they were ungrateful, but just that perhaps that year (and maybe other times as well, for all you know), the thought was appreciated but the gift was something they just weren't going to use.
1
Good points, Paula. I can't remember who it is, but a fairly well-known advice columnist has written several screeds about how terrible it is to give gift cards. She seems, IMO, to overlook the fact that there's definitely something to be said for letting people choose their own gift rather than giving them something that is to giver's own taste but not necessarily to the recipients. Even close relatives sometimes don't get it. I can remember one Christmas when my mother went to a lot of effort to buy my dad some things she thought he wanted for use in his big hobby. He was totally non-plussed because he really did not want those things. Gift cards weren't common that far back, but they did exist and there probably would have been a lot less disappointment all around if she had simply bought a gift certificate and sent him off to shop to his heart's content.
1
It takes work to organize a stoop sale, or to offer items on eBay, or to take them to Goodwill.
If you leave things out for neighbors to take, and your neighbors then prepare them for sale and take the trouble to sell them, then good for your neighbors. You could have done the same, but they made the effort, and others will benefit more from their efforts.
If you leave things out for neighbors to take, and your neighbors then prepare them for sale and take the trouble to sell them, then good for your neighbors. You could have done the same, but they made the effort, and others will benefit more from their efforts.
53
Although I sort of get your point, if you give things to neighbors out of the goodness of your heart because they seem to need the items, only to find out they are selling them, it rankles. The recipients must be insensitive too if they don't understand your intention is to help someone who needs your particular items and your intention is not to enrich the recipients by giving them merchandise to sell.
1
We had a similar situation in our family, with a bit of a twist. My elderly mother gave her neighbor a number of items she wasn't using any longer in an effort to downsize her possessions. The neighbors were a young couple who had just built their home and they needed things. My mother was a generous person who always tried to help people. After my mother died, my sisters and I went to a weekly flea market in her town. Imagine our surprise at seeing most of the things my mother gave this couple for sale in their booth. The homeowner acted embarrassed that we came upon his booth, with most of the "merchandise" having belonged to our mother. Additionally, a number of items were things we put out for trash after clearing the house. Clearly the neighbor went through the bags after we had gone back to my home after working in the house all day. You can say that once my mother gave things away or we put things in the trash, it was their right to do with what they wished but, to this day, my sisters I feel like there is something slightly tacky about the whole situation.
79
Perhaps the young couple needed the money.
15
Perhaps they felt that instead of going to a landfill where they'd just take up space, the more responsible and eco-friendly approach was to give others an opportunity to use your mother's former belongings, while recouping the cost of their time and effort. And if you left it for the trash, and it was decent stuff, I'm not at all surprised someone picked it up - "curb shopping" is common in a lot of places.
3
I agree with JDC; it is very likely that a young couple needed cash desperately and not a lot of kitchen items. Young people today do not want nor use the kinds of things people got a generation ago --- elaborate cookware or formal china, silver, fancy picture frames, ornate knickknacks.
Again: if you want to control what the recipient does with the gift, then DO NOT GIVE IT TO THEM. Sell it yourself, donate the cash to charity.
Again: if you want to control what the recipient does with the gift, then DO NOT GIVE IT TO THEM. Sell it yourself, donate the cash to charity.
2
People have a stoop sale to make some money, to get rid of stuff, or both.
The letter writer says her neighbor is of similar economic status. But what if that's not the case? What if her neighbor is trying to raise small children under a severe financial strain? Would she begrudge her neighbor selling things she'd gotten for free?
But suppose her neighbor doesn't need extra money, she's just trying to get rid of stuff she doesn't or need? That could include old books, old clothes--and old kid stuff, including what she got for free.
The point is, neither is unethical. Both are general, everyone does them things. The only reason the writer questions the ethics is because she gave her neighbor some stuff. Would it be unethical for the neighbor to sell things given by grandparents? Bought with gift cards?
The letter writer needs to spend less time looking at what her neighbor is selling in her stoop sales.
The letter writer says her neighbor is of similar economic status. But what if that's not the case? What if her neighbor is trying to raise small children under a severe financial strain? Would she begrudge her neighbor selling things she'd gotten for free?
But suppose her neighbor doesn't need extra money, she's just trying to get rid of stuff she doesn't or need? That could include old books, old clothes--and old kid stuff, including what she got for free.
The point is, neither is unethical. Both are general, everyone does them things. The only reason the writer questions the ethics is because she gave her neighbor some stuff. Would it be unethical for the neighbor to sell things given by grandparents? Bought with gift cards?
The letter writer needs to spend less time looking at what her neighbor is selling in her stoop sales.
30
The writer should know that, next time, she should just lug it all to Goodwill or another charity that distributes things. Also, perhaps her neighbor who seems to be in the same financial bracket is no longer so and truly needs some money... I would just let it go and not be so judgmental of a situation you may not understand completely. Another thing to think about is that, unless the sale was the next day, the neighbor may not even remember where things came from...;perhaps relatives have also given her tons of hand-me-downs....
61
Goodwill has faced legal charges in many cities throughout the U.S. by skimming the best items off the top and keeping it for the families of the franchise owners. The items intended for the poor and for distribution among the needy were instead turned into a cash cow operation for the family members running the Goodwill Industries in the area. The money gained from these items enriched the families more than $10 million, not any part of which the poor and needy saw. One of the worst instances of this private skimming schemes was in the Bay Area of CA area where the members of the family operating Goodwill were charged with theft and fraud. Ever since that time, our family has assiduously avoided the Goodwill operations, instead giving to the much more accountable Salvation Army.
Not only does the Salvation Army distribute these goods directly to the needy, but it also uses donations to provide housing and training for those citizens who are homeless and without jobs. For the last ten years, our family has been impressed by the integrity, honesty and diligence of the Salvation Army, the wide sweep of their community efforts. That's where we contribute goods and donations now with great confidence that all our contributions will go to those in need.
Not only does the Salvation Army distribute these goods directly to the needy, but it also uses donations to provide housing and training for those citizens who are homeless and without jobs. For the last ten years, our family has been impressed by the integrity, honesty and diligence of the Salvation Army, the wide sweep of their community efforts. That's where we contribute goods and donations now with great confidence that all our contributions will go to those in need.
2
I try very hard to give to Salvation Army and patronize their stores. In my area about half the money Salvation Army expends on its no cost to the recipient addiction treatment programs comes from their stores.
The stores have a great supply and bargain prices on books. For several years I volunteered at a housing complex for low income seniors. They could not afford books nor get to a library. I bought books at Salvation Army, gave them to the folks I visited who, once they were finished reading, left them at the mailboxes in the apartment building for the next person to read and so on.
The stores have a great supply and bargain prices on books. For several years I volunteered at a housing complex for low income seniors. They could not afford books nor get to a library. I bought books at Salvation Army, gave them to the folks I visited who, once they were finished reading, left them at the mailboxes in the apartment building for the next person to read and so on.
1
No question about it. You put it out for anyone to take, your claim on the stuff is gone.
If you give it personally to someone, with the comment that it is for their use or their children, then a different slant occurs.
I know it is a fine line, but a gift is different from putting something out for anyone who walks by to take.
If you give it personally to someone, with the comment that it is for their use or their children, then a different slant occurs.
I know it is a fine line, but a gift is different from putting something out for anyone who walks by to take.
29
I can't believe this unbelievably trivial topic made it into The Ethicist. Anyone who is concerned about the way their no longer owned items are used or disposed of by the next owner needs to take a deep breath and relax. It isn't your stuff any more, and it really isn't any of your business.
123
It's her business because she's not obligated to give the friend discards on a continuing basis.
13
But she doesn't give them to her - she puts them at the curb for whoever wants them. Totally different scenario. These were not 'gifts', they were abandoned items.
1
@rnh: it is only her business up to the point that she need not do it ever again, since she now realizes the neighbor is not poor nor hard up for old kid's clothes and used toys.
A lot of that stuff seems to have been in a "free box", so I really do not get how you can leave stuff out for free, then get all steamed when someone sells it.
A lot of that stuff seems to have been in a "free box", so I really do not get how you can leave stuff out for free, then get all steamed when someone sells it.
I think the 'seller' would have simply said/asked from 'giver', before selling the clothing, thank you so much 'giver' for the clothing, the kids made great use of them, do you mind if I sell them? Of course 'giver' would have said (or at least I would have said), sure no problem. I think the fact that there was no thanks or ask is hurtful but not unethical. 'Giver' gave them away, what happens next does not matter.
9
I suspect Miss Manners would approve of this very nice approach but I doubt many people would feel comfortable having the conversation because on some level the donee probably understands it would be better to, in turn, give the items away.
What is missing in the narrative is a sense of time--how long did the person who got "first dibs" have the items before she decided to sell them? If she actually used the items for the reason she was allowed to pick them, then her selling of them is perfectly legitimate since she was sincere in her desire for them. Ownership was transferred. However, I do recognize the view that time may not matter because ownership was transferred; the former owner has no say in any circumstance. Does the musician who intentionally gives away his or her recording have an ethical reason to dislike the recipient who sells the product for a quick profit? (Not in the context of radio use, which is a legal matter often disregarded) Ethics is one thing, legality another, for sure.
6
I would recommend the LR find a local charity in need of child/baby donations and donate the items she does sell herself ... that way a charity makes the "profit" off her donations, there may even be an aid to families and children agency or a local church handing food distribution/food bank that has its own free box.
31
And she can claim a tax deduction.
1
It gets interestingly complex - the passing on of outgrown kids things. The items themselves often have some emotional content that is satisfied in seeing a friend use them. Otherwise, whoever picks them up at the curb could be re-selling them at a flea market, tag sale, Goodwill re-sale - so the monetary aspect is not really the issue. Passing things on to a friend keeps the emotional connection alive. What feels bad is severing the memories of those items when you thought you could just let them fade. Solution is to say goodbye to the items and send them out into the world to happily clothe others, and don't expect friends to carry on your attachments.
14
It's the attachment to things that's the issue. Get over that and this would all go away. After working in a thrift shop sorting through the donations for two years now, I'm vastly less impressed by things and the emotional attachments people have to them.
You wouldn't believe how many people need to tell us long stories about the perfectly ordinary, often not very nice stuff they are giving us. It's actually sort of sickening the 100th time.
You wouldn't believe how many people need to tell us long stories about the perfectly ordinary, often not very nice stuff they are giving us. It's actually sort of sickening the 100th time.
14
Yeah really, if it's so meaningful, then don't give it away. If it isn't, give it away and let go, for goodness' sake!
For me the idea of a neighbour trying to survey what I did with 'her' stuff is really unpalatable.
For me the idea of a neighbour trying to survey what I did with 'her' stuff is really unpalatable.
@jzzzy55: I actually like people's stories. But if you work in such a place or volunteer, or even shop regularly, what does get to you is what an OCEAN of "junk" is around...and how little people treasure ANYTHING these days. They can't -- there is just so much of it.
It has made me a much more selective shopper, because as I consider buying each thing, I wonder how soon it will end up at the Thrift Store or rummage sale, with a price tag of 50 cents -- unloved and unwanted.
Two words: BEANIE BABIES.
It has made me a much more selective shopper, because as I consider buying each thing, I wonder how soon it will end up at the Thrift Store or rummage sale, with a price tag of 50 cents -- unloved and unwanted.
Two words: BEANIE BABIES.
2
Here is the true ethical problem:The letter writer's absurd over-consumption of goods
(i) causes all kinds of environmental and and societal issues (Pacific garbage patch, overflowing landfills, noisy garbage trucks, littered streets and many more),
(ii) creates a burden to herself as he/she struggles to de-clutter her living space.
The person should be genuinely grateful to anyone who helps to manage the negative outcome of this unethical behavior (selling the items is at least an effective way of recycling them). It is plain absurd that he/she believes to be entitled to gratuity.
(i) causes all kinds of environmental and and societal issues (Pacific garbage patch, overflowing landfills, noisy garbage trucks, littered streets and many more),
(ii) creates a burden to herself as he/she struggles to de-clutter her living space.
The person should be genuinely grateful to anyone who helps to manage the negative outcome of this unethical behavior (selling the items is at least an effective way of recycling them). It is plain absurd that he/she believes to be entitled to gratuity.
2
Children OUTGROW things. Why is buying (or otherwise obtaining) properly fitting clothing and age-appropriate toys "absurd over-consumption"?
33
I guess she could always let the children run around naked until they reach their adult size.....
19
I'm inclined to agree with Appiah. Having a stoop sale is not a money-making proposition. It's a way of getting rid of your objects en masse in a manner that is efficient and satisfactory. I see Kenji's point, as I am Asian: I have given things to people and they were sold, exchanged, donated in ways that I found unsatisfactory. But guess what: my storage unit is filled with gifts from relatives and friends, strangers and colleagues; these "gifts" are a noose, a mill stone, an albatross.
24
From my days sorting in the thrift shop I can tell you that candles, scarves, small knickknacks purchased when traveling, silly magnets, more candles, holiday serving ware, stuffed animals, teacups and saucers, salt & pepper sets and imprinted giveaways are bloating our universe.
Never buy them or give them as gifts. They end up at our shop.
Never buy them or give them as gifts. They end up at our shop.
14
Then what am I supposed to drink my tea out of?
1
Very easy solution- just agree to split the proceeds. Then the letter writer can donate her half to a charity of her choice if she wishes.
If you're offering the clothes to the friend, she has a right to do what she wants with them.
But I had the same reaction that you did - her immediately turning them over for money is sketchy - because if left out in the box instead of given to her, the clothing could have gone freely to someone whose children might have worn the clothes instead of to someone looking to get cash for them.
In that sense, your friend appears to have ignored your intention in offering the clothing to others - to share the clothing.
Years ago, my mother-in-law did something similar. She asked us to donate some clothing for a charity drive at her church. I went through my clothing and selected some things and gave them to her. Not long after, I saw her wearing a scarf that was in the box of 'donated clothing' for the church drive I'd given to her. I get it that once it left my hands, it was fair game. But you may feel strongly that you have an intention in donating or giving something away. If that's violated - and I believe your friend violated your intention - you have every right to be annoyed.
I wouldn't bother to talk to her about this. I'd probably assume that since we have very different values and ideas about friendship, I'll make myself scarce.
But I had the same reaction that you did - her immediately turning them over for money is sketchy - because if left out in the box instead of given to her, the clothing could have gone freely to someone whose children might have worn the clothes instead of to someone looking to get cash for them.
In that sense, your friend appears to have ignored your intention in offering the clothing to others - to share the clothing.
Years ago, my mother-in-law did something similar. She asked us to donate some clothing for a charity drive at her church. I went through my clothing and selected some things and gave them to her. Not long after, I saw her wearing a scarf that was in the box of 'donated clothing' for the church drive I'd given to her. I get it that once it left my hands, it was fair game. But you may feel strongly that you have an intention in donating or giving something away. If that's violated - and I believe your friend violated your intention - you have every right to be annoyed.
I wouldn't bother to talk to her about this. I'd probably assume that since we have very different values and ideas about friendship, I'll make myself scarce.
25
But if her kids have outgrown the items, too (and that happens fast), then it's not like she stole the opportunity from anyone. She used them to meet her kids' needs as the giver assumed she would, and then she disposed of them. We can't tell from the letter whether this stoop sale occurred some reasonable period of time after the last major donation, or right away. That makes a big difference.
5
Intentions are from an individual and are not passed on like DNA.
The intention was that possession of something was passed on to another. Whether donated or sold or what the donor or the recipient thought is immaterial.
Intentions cannot be violated UINLESS conditions are placed verbally or in writing between the donor and recipient.
The intention was that possession of something was passed on to another. Whether donated or sold or what the donor or the recipient thought is immaterial.
Intentions cannot be violated UINLESS conditions are placed verbally or in writing between the donor and recipient.
Dear Furious,
How do you know the following did not occur? 1) You collect the goods and pass them to your mother-in-law. 2) She looks through the goods and discovers a scarf she liked. 3) She contributes cash to the charity to 'purchases' the scarf either before or immediately after the goods are displayed to the public.
How do you know the following did not occur? 1) You collect the goods and pass them to your mother-in-law. 2) She looks through the goods and discovers a scarf she liked. 3) She contributes cash to the charity to 'purchases' the scarf either before or immediately after the goods are displayed to the public.
1
The definition of gift is categorical: It's thing that you convey another person (or organization) freely and without restrictions or mutual obligations.
Otherwise it would be a loan, grant, or some other form of contractual relationship.
The recipient of the gift can use it, cherish it, put it in the attic, sell it, or use it for kindling. The latter uses might seem ungrateful, but such is the nature of gifts.
In this case, the giver's friendship is strained by her previously unspoken desire to control how the gifts are used or otherwise disposed of. She has the options of having a disruptive conversation, writing herself a memo to give nothing further to this neighbor, or forget about this issue.
Most of my family's hand-me-downs go to a local women's shelter, where they might be used by people in the shelter, resold in the resale shop, transferred to another charitable organization, or sold to a rag processor. In any case, they have done more good than they would in a landfill.
Otherwise it would be a loan, grant, or some other form of contractual relationship.
The recipient of the gift can use it, cherish it, put it in the attic, sell it, or use it for kindling. The latter uses might seem ungrateful, but such is the nature of gifts.
In this case, the giver's friendship is strained by her previously unspoken desire to control how the gifts are used or otherwise disposed of. She has the options of having a disruptive conversation, writing herself a memo to give nothing further to this neighbor, or forget about this issue.
Most of my family's hand-me-downs go to a local women's shelter, where they might be used by people in the shelter, resold in the resale shop, transferred to another charitable organization, or sold to a rag processor. In any case, they have done more good than they would in a landfill.
7
Appiah says,"there's something bad about that" in reference to taking something out of the circuit of generosity. How is that is bad? That's no time to drop the mic.
NWB sells some things and puts others to the curb. We see that as generous. She notes her control of the item ceases. Neighbor uses items and hosts a sale, which may include more than just kids’ things. (There is a lot of information missing here). NWB may feel that giving the neighbor “first pick” should enhance the neighbor’s attachment to the item, but NWB paid money for the items and neighbor got them for free, so the emotional link (=value) is missing. Do the sale prices disturb NWB? Not mentioned, but a possible factor. NWB is dealing with the provenance of the item (I paid $20 for the doll, and Susie loved it!), and neighbor is dealing with current market value - selling it at a stoop sale for front-pocket money. NWB makes assumptions about neighbor’s financial status; it's not relevant.
When people donate to Goodwill, those items are put up for sale (at some remarkably optimistic prices), but allegedly after providing work to people we are told have problems. This is not materially different, except for the proximity.
NWB sells some things and puts others to the curb. We see that as generous. She notes her control of the item ceases. Neighbor uses items and hosts a sale, which may include more than just kids’ things. (There is a lot of information missing here). NWB may feel that giving the neighbor “first pick” should enhance the neighbor’s attachment to the item, but NWB paid money for the items and neighbor got them for free, so the emotional link (=value) is missing. Do the sale prices disturb NWB? Not mentioned, but a possible factor. NWB is dealing with the provenance of the item (I paid $20 for the doll, and Susie loved it!), and neighbor is dealing with current market value - selling it at a stoop sale for front-pocket money. NWB makes assumptions about neighbor’s financial status; it's not relevant.
When people donate to Goodwill, those items are put up for sale (at some remarkably optimistic prices), but allegedly after providing work to people we are told have problems. This is not materially different, except for the proximity.
9
I also fail to see the problem. IMHO, she's doing you a favor. All you have to do is set your stuff outside, or ask her to pick it up. She is dealing with the stoop sale, the items that don't sell, sorting, pricing, etc. I give my babysitter most of my castoffs and am delighted that she and a friend sell them at a flea market. She gets some extra cash, someone else is getting good value, I'm recycling and I don't have the extra work of dealing with these items. I sell the big items myself on craigslist or ebay.
35