There is a paper boy who is told by his boss who works for a the Toronto Star newspaper that he will deliver 100 papers. He gets these 100 papers delivered to his house everyday. One day though he only received 90 papers. Somehow he needs to get 10 papers. He was told by his boss that he can go to the corner of the street and take a quarter fron the paper stand and take as many as he needs to. One quarter though is supposed to pay for one paper. These papers in the stand are payed for by the city and are not placed from the Toronto Star. The boss does not pay for the papers in the stand. The paper boy also cannot call up his boss and ask for 10 more papers because his boss wouldn't get them delivered in time for the paper boy to deliver them. Would it be ethical for the boy to take as many papers from the stand as he needs after all his boss said he could. What should the paper boy do in a situation like this. How do you suppose the paper boy should get the papers?


This was a question I was given today in class. 2 people thought it was ethical for the paper boy to take the papers from the stand. 2 people said it was not ethical to take papers from the stand.

I don't think it matters where the other 10 papers went: the boy's responsibility started with those delivered. Why would he essentially steal 10 papers? He is neither the culprit nor the victim of the problem. Deliver the 90 and let the other 10 recipients complain to the newspaper.

What the question has tried, and failed, to do is provide the boy with good reason for theft.

Or maybe what the question has tried and suceeded in doing is hiding a major fault in its reasoning to test the criticalness of the recipient? :sarcastic:

Though I'm gonna side with the iffy question, side...