Q: I bought a plane ticket to take my young son, Nathaniel, to a family gathering. Near the departure date, I decided to take his older sister instead. The airline prohibited name changes on a ticket, and a replacement cost $700, but someone in customer service told me: “There’s no requirement for children under 18 to present photo identification. Do you understand what I’m saying?” I did. My daughter used her brother’s ticket without incident. Your take? — Alan Caplan, Seattle
A: You acted deceptively; you violated the airline’s rule; you behaved reasonably. The first two assertions seldom lead to the third, but here they do. This rule is outlandishly unjust. An airline may recoup the bookkeeping cost incurred by a ticket change, but that is nowhere near $700. Nor did you genuinely agree to this rule; it was imposed upon you. Even the airline’s own employee recognized this $700 injustice: He advised you how to avoid it. People are apt to adhere to a business arrangement only if they feel that it is fair. It is this, as much as individual rectitude or mere docility, that encourages virtuous conduct.
But while this reasoning might satisfy an adult, it could disturb a child, which makes this a matter of parenting as much as ethics. You must weigh the impact of your actions not only on the airline but also on your daughter. And that would lead many parents, including me, to grit their teeth, curse all airlines and then pay the extortionate charge. Thus children can inspire us to be our better — or at least more rule- abiding — selves, one of their least appealing qualities.
Q: I own a small shop in which I restore pianos. Months ago in an empty house I was shown a badly damaged Steinway and told it would be trashed if I didn’t take it, no charge. I have expended 80 hours of labor and $2,000 in parts working on it. Recently I was visited by a woman who wept and said it was her piano, removed while she was in the hospital. Her driver’s license matched the address from where I got it. What is my ethical obligation? — Clem Fortuna, Detroit
A: I, too, enjoy piano music but am seldom reduced to tears by even the most magnificent Steinway. Which is to say that your visitor raises questions of psychological problems or con-artist designs as much as questions of property rights.
You accepted the piano in good faith. Now it is up to your visitor to prove ownership. A driver’s license alone is insufficient.
If the lachrymose visitor can prove her claim, you must return the piano to her, and she must reimburse you for parts and labor, an obligation of both ethics and law. Marianne Jennings, a law professor I consulted, explains that you have “accession rights” to be compensated for the expenses you incurred when you reasonably acquired the piano.
Contact Randy Cohen at Universal Press Syndicate, 4520 Main St., Kansas City, MO 64111, or ethicist@nytimes.com.
