Value is subjective, but if you believe that they can get more out of it than they are selling it for, then it would be nice to tell them. I do not think it would be immoral not to tell them, however.
A) If the banks provide the pens to be taken as advertisement, then not immoral. If clear the pens should not be taken, i.e. attached to a wire, then yes, immoral.
Sythe's point regarding the fact that the people should have the right to steal from the bank is invalid. Even if you have moral qualms with the way our government (representative democracy) works, the banks paid back their bailouts,
with interest.
B) No. The napkins are meant to be taken, unless explicitly stated that only 1 napkin should be taken, then immoral.
Yes. You owe them nothing. It is an advertisement strategy on their part. They go to waste if you don't use them.
Fairness does not necessarily equal morality. However, I would strongly contest Sythe's claim (with most of western thought on my side), that they are mutually exclusive ideas. I believe that yes, it is unfair because you did not pay for the seats and have an unfair comparative advantage. Personally, I view it as immoral as well, although this is debatable.
You should accept the praise, but credit your partner for his share of the work.
I do not believe so. Again, this depends on the system of ethics you follow. There is a utilitarian Princeton philosophy professor who sends over 90% of his income to charities that benefit poor people as he believes everyone being fed provides much more utility than his living in a slightly bigger house.
I do not think so. Under my conception of morality, offensive jokes are critical to happiness when used in moderation. However, if it truly insulting or promoting strong negative values, you may feel obligated to say something.
I believe it is, assuming they have it open, as it is their responsibility to stop people behind them from looking if they care that much. If it is not open, then it is probably not the best thing to do, although I would consider this petty and not to do with morality, per se.
If you thought his actions were virtuous and you truly believe he would be unfairly punished due to inefficiencies in the company's rules, then yes. Otherwise, you should not.
I am a believer that ethics are subjective, due to issues of epistomology (what we can and cannot know). Once we make assumptions on what we know, we then must make statements on our purpose. Once both what is known and purpose are defined, a system of ethics can be laid out. Of course, different people will make different assumptions on epistemology and different assumptions on purpose, so people's ethical systems will vary.
That being said, there are certain situations where we can come close to definitively saying that one action is better than another, due to basic assumptions that we all make (i.e. that we exist).
Serious responses only. PM me for the "answers" if you want...
