EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
Thursday, late afternoon.
Downtown Minneapolis. Nichollet Avenue and 5th. Lite-Rail Station. Clear sky, cold air. Credit card in hand. Ticket machine. Credit card doesn’t work. Thinking the machine is broken. Step back. Woman buys a ticket. Man buys a ticket. Train arrives. Credit card back in wallet. Board the train. Sit and work. Bag falls over as the train lurches. Setting sunlight streams in the windows. Exit the train. Check my pockets for wallet and phone. Up the escalator. Another ticket machine. Walk past. Spirit speaks. Pause and consider. Walk back. Buy ticket. Toss it into the trash. Walk away. Question: How much is your integrity worth? |
Comments
I suppose someone might reject the idea that one's integrity must be at stake here, thinking that the decision to purchase a ticket is more like a decision to purchase insurance against the catastrophe of being caught without a ticket and having to pay a much larger fee. By these lights, purchasing a ticket is simply refusing to take a gamble. Risk aversion does not imply a boost in one's integrity.
CT,
Thanks for your thoughts. I suppose there are cases when this may be true--fear of being caught becoming the motivation for doing right. Of course, fear of God can lead us away from sin, but love for God is the better motivator for holiness.
In this case, I found this to be about my sense of integrity in that I bought the ticket having already left the train station, so fear of being caught wasn't a factor. It didn't cross my mind at first, that my integrity might be at stake. But God was faithful to remind me to be faithful even in small things.
Chris
Chris,
I think you missed the point of my suggestion, which isn't primarily about a person's motivation. My point rather regards the moral status of the options, and whether one should think that a person's integrity is really at stake in deciding whether or not to purchase a train ticket.
It seems that someone might reasonably doubt that sin, or "doing right," is even at issue in the decision of whether or not to purchase a train ticket. Someone might think that the train operators present customers with two options, both of which are morally permissible: (a) don't purchase a ticket, but gain the risk of owing a much larger fee if "caught", or (b) purchase a ticket, and avoid the risk. Now, if the "getting caught" fee is appropriately set, both options may turn out to be financially equivalent in the long run. In such a case, no one is really hurt by an individual's decision not to purchase a ticket. Rather, one should think that the train operators are simply giving their customers an option, which is essentially an option between gambling or purchasing insurance.
Got it. Your point makes absolute sense in the event that the company in question offers this kind of option. And you think like I do: in terms of valuations of risk. Maybe you're in an investment banker or consultant =).
Unfortunately, in the case of the City of Minneapolis, they make clear that riders are required to pay and that fines are assessed for violating the law/policy: http://www.metrotransit.org/rail/paying.asp
In these kinds of situations, I tend to approach the issue more conservatively with a bias towards "doing the right thing," whatever that might mean in the situation. And if an option, like the one you laid out, is a possibility, I may check with a person who has the authority to make a decision to see if indeed the possibility for an alternative is permissible.
Thanks for clarifying your thoughts...
Chris
Though your personal policy is certainly beyond reproach, I'm a bit skeptical that the wording of the Metro Transit webpage proves the moral impermissibility of opting to ride without a ticket. Suppose (probably counterfactually) that the $180 "fine" for getting "caught" without a ticket makes it the case that Metro Transit actually profits from people who don't purchase tickets. Suppose further that this profit enables Metro Transit to charge less for train tickets, and that it even partially pays the salaries of the police officers (therefore subsidizing additional security). For such a case, I find it hard to believe that it is immoral, or that it should detract from one's integrity, to ride without purchasing a ticket--even if Metro Transit continues to call it a "violation of policy". But if this is true, then to decide the moral permissibility of the action, we might at least need to know more about the economics of Metro Transit.
Btw, please feel no pressure to respond. Your willingness until now is appreciated!
You'd make a great lawyer =).
If I did feel this way, I think I'd end up calling the Metro Council to ask if this was: a) a law, or b) a policy. If it was a law that must be followed, then my desire to submit to the authorities God has put into place would encourage me to follow the law. If it was a policy that should be followed, then my desire to not gamble with God's resources would encourage me to follow the policy =), although I do understand the latter may not be a moral issue in the same way as the former.
Ultimately, I wouldn't want to do anything that would diminish the name or reputation of Christ, even, or perhaps especially, when it costs me.