Topics Ethics

Question I watched an excellent short film the other day which presented the audience with what I thought was an interesting moral problem. I won't give away the title in fear of anyone googling it and finding a 'spoiler', but there is a scene in which a paramedic attends to the body of a man who has just been killed. The paramedic had earlier in the evening bought a lottery ticket and, after seeing the draw, found out that she did not win the prize money. In the dead man's hand she finds a winning lottery ticket. We know from earlier in the film that the dead man had no relatives or friends. Since he is dead, and so the money is no good to him and there is no one inherit it, and: a) since the paramedic herself had as good a chance of winning the lottery as the dead man did (they each bought one ticket); b) since he won the lottery not through any more effort than she put into the contest nor through any talent or qualities of his own but simply through chance - is it morally wrong for her to take his ticket and claim the money as her own? It is theft since she is taking something that's not hers, but what harm is really done by her taking the ticket?

Accepted:
August 24, 2010

Comments

Perhaps there is really nothing wrong with a theft that does no harm -- stealing an apple from a privately own tree that is never picked, for example. But your case is not like this. If the dead man has no heirs, as you say, then his winnings will typically fall to the state. So the question here really is whether is is permissible to steal in a way that diminishes state revenues. And this is rather close to the question whether it is permissible to steal from the state or to cheat on one's taxes. To this latter question, asked in regard to a reasonably just state, you would probably answer "no". If so, I don't see why the answer should be different for the case you describe.

Now in some jurisdictions unclaimed winnings would go to the lottery operator. This would increase its profits and thereby augment the taxes it pays. But the thief would also pay taxes on her winnings, so the state might be equally well off either way (or better off, even, if the thief pays taxes at a higher rate). Still, the theft then reduces the income of those who own the lottery operator. So the question here is whether it is permissible to steal in a way that diminishes the wealth of the owners of a lottery operator. And this is rather close to the question whether it is permissible to steal from the owners of a lottery operator. To this latter question, asked in the context of a reasonably just society, you would probably answer "no". If so, I don't see why the answer should be different for the case you describe.