Finders, keepers is an English adage with the premise that when something is abandoned or unowned, whoever finds it, can claim it. However, it can be of great difficulty to define when exactly something (of value) can be considered unowned or abandoned. Occasionally this uncertainty may even result in legal disputes or at least in ethical dilemmas, when people happen to hold a different understanding of who legally or morally has the right to keep or possess the item found.

In summer 2009, Swedish berry pickers found a bag containing money worth more than 10.000 euros (i.e. 100.000 Swedish kronor) in the woods (link to the Swedish newpaper). As I was fascinated by what had happened in Sweden, I decided to share the story over a coffee break with some of my international colleagues, with whom I was working at that time. Without first revealing what the Swedish berry pickers had actually decided to do with the money, I briefly described the circumstances of the particular case to find out what my colleagues would have done in the given situation had they been the “lucky” ones to find the money in the forest (N.B. the Swedish berry pickers informed the police about their discovery).

After the “tour de table” among us, the result was that some of us would have followed the principle of “finders, keepers”, whereas some others not. The conclusion we made was that regardless of the fact that it probably was stolen money initially, but as it was not stolen by any of us, those who wanted to keep it, could have done so without any major moral concerns. So, the well-known proverb Opportunity makes a thief  is suggesting that anybody would steal, given a chance to do so without being punished. The key here is that do what you do, but do not get caught.

However, we were fully aware that the Swedish berry pickers had been in the forest as a group instead of having been there individually when finding the “treasure”. This of course completely changes the situation in relation to decision making and brings the group dynamics and power relations into play (e.g. Forsyth, 2009). In our case, had we all been there together, we realized that those colleagues who were in favour of reporting the discovery to the police, would have been jeopardizing the attempt of the others to keep the “catch of the day”.

Impact of values and ethics on choice

So, when should we make an effort to find the rightful owner in case of found cash? There is a point, obviously, where the amount of found money becomes far too much that not turning it in to the police becomes an ethical issue. But how to define that critical point and whose judgement should be trusted or relied on? Do the social standards provide any ethical guidelines for this purpose? After all, isn’t it our values that influence how we people make choices? How does this relate to a multicultural reality in which people from all corners of the world come together and represent a different value base?

As we know, ethical standards, moral norms and values are obtained through the enculturation process and although they manifest themselves as pretty stable perceptions that shape and influence our behaviours, they are continuously being (re-)negotiated (e.g. Holliday, 2011). Also the fact that ethical standards and values vary across cultures and from one person to another, make us humans respond slightly differently to whatever is happening in our daily environment. Therefore, we may not forget the impact that our social constructs (such as values and ethics) have on our choice, for instance, on whether or not to commit a criminal act (e.g. a decision to keep a significant amount of found cash in our possession). (Henry, 2009)

Petrick and Quinn (1997) address ethical awareness as a capacity to be responsive to moral issues that call for consideration in making choices that will have a major impact on other people. Further, ethical awareness, as the authors continue, applies to the consequences of decisions and actions as well as the processes used to achieve them. Generally speaking, ethical standards are the norms of our social environment that are acceptable to and shared by the majority of people. Within a society, those who ignore to adhere to ethical standards and are found guilty of unethical behaviour will have to deal with sanctions dictated by legislation (Henry, 2009), or within an in-group corrective action is normally taken by the other members/peers to affect positive change in a misbehaving person’s conduct and to eliminate the cause of nonconformities to prevent recurrence (e.g. Johannesen & al. 2008). 

Finally, McClelland (2010) states that, regardless of our gender, culture, or age, there are three social needs that motivate us in an ethical decision-making situation: achievement, affiliation, and power. One of these will be our dominant motivating driver, which usually is largely dependent on our culture and life experiences. However, ethical decision-making involves finding a balance, yet it should discard bad choices in favour of good ones and always consider what is reasonable to be done in the given circumstances. Regardless of the individual driving force, the generally agreed mores and ethical rules that are accepted as good by the majority should be acknowledged and they should serve as a basis for taking collectively a decision ethically as correct as possible.

References

Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group Dynamics. Fifth Edition. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
Henry, S. (2009). Social construction of crime. In J. Miller (Ed.). 21st Century criminology: A reference handbook. Thousand Oaks. SAGE Publications.
Holliday, A. (2011). Intercultural Communication and Ideology. Thousand Oaks. SAGE Publications.
Johannesen, R.L., Valde, K.S. & Whedbee, K.E. (2008). Ethics in Human Communication. Sixth edition. Waveland Press Inc., Long Grove, Illinois, USA.
McClelland, D.C. (2010, reprint of 1961). The Achieving Society. Martino Fine Books, USA.
Petrick, J. A. & Quinn, J. F. (1997). Management Ethics: Integrity at Work. Sage Series in Business Ethics, Thousand Oaks, CA.