In my personal meditations on ownership, I have been pondering
variations on an every-day scenario and have been interested in how
other Christians might apply scriptual principles to determine
individuals X and Y were acting permissably in the situations outlined
below. Assume
this is happening in a locale which has no law forbidding any of the
following scenarios from occuring. I’d quite like to hear others ideas
before chiming in with my thoughts.
The following situations
all concern X & Y at a fast-food resteraunt with a self-serve soda
fountain. X paid for a soft drink but Y paid a lower price (or nothing
at all) for a water glass.
1. Y sips X’s cola from X’s glass.
2. Y drinks a large amount of cola from X’s glass, and X refills the glass regularly so that they may both continue to drink.
3. Y pours cola from X’s glass into his own and drinks it.
4. Y refills X’s glass at the fountain.
5. Y refills his own glass at the fountain.
6. X buys a small drink but drinks a galon of soda.
7. X buys a large drink and pours half of it into Y’s glass, but does not refill it.
8. Y intends to drink water, but is confused and discovers Y actually filled his cup with Lemonaid.
9. Y intends to drink water, but the fountain always dispenses lemonaid instead of water which Y doesn’t like, so he instead drinks the soft drink he prefers.
10. Y intends to drink water, but the fountain always dispenses lemonaid instead of water. Y is on a diet and orders a diet soft-drink instead.
11. Y intends to dirnk water, but the
fountain always dispenses lemonaid instead of water. Y doesn’t like
diet cola so he drinks his preffered soft-drink.
odd situation
The problems you pose are interesting in nature quite simply because the ‘free refill’ practice of many restaurants defies traditional categories of ownership. Did you buy the cup—which therefore entitles you to as much cola as you can fit in that cup? In that case, what you do with the cola is up to you. Did you buy the right to drink cola? In which case even letting the other person take a sip from it is something you don’t have the right to do (since it is not your cola). Since, as your lay out in the premises, there is no strict law about these matters, I think the best way to think of it is in terms of buying the right to drink as much cola as you can. So then the scenarios you proposed can be cashed out like this:
1. Y sips X’s cola from X’s glass. — while X isn’t entitled to let Y drink from his glass, there is a little flexibility here allowing for “hey, want does that taste like?” situation. If Y likes the cola, he/she should purchases his/her own glass.
2. Y drinks a large amount of cola from X’s glass, and X refills the glass regularly so that they may both continue to drink. — X and Y are both clearly abusing the system, and going against ‘the spirit of the law’
3. Y pours cola from X’s glass into his own and drinks it. — Y is once again, violating the basic idea behind the restaurant’s free refill policy (even if it isn’t explicitly stated)
4. Y refills X’s glass at the fountain. — As long as he/she doesn’t drink from it, no biggy.
5. Y refills his own glass at the fountain. — No problem.
6. X buys a small drink but drinks a galon of soda. — This is covered under the ‘free refill’ idea, so this is fine.
7. X buys a large drink and pours half of it into Y’s glass, but does not refill it. — This is probably the stickiest scenario. Common sense says that this is ok, but that is only because it assumes a ‘no free refill’ background. Given the ‘free refill’ policy of the restaurant, the cola is not X’s to give (only to consume).
8. Y intends to drink water, but is confused and discovers Y actually filled his cup with Lemonaid. — Y should not drink the Lemonade, but inform someone from the restaurant of the issue, and follow their advice.
9. Y intends to drink water, but the fountain always dispenses lemonaid instead of water which Y doesn’t like, so he instead drinks the soft drink he prefers. — If Y purchased water (or the right to drink water), then he/she should do only that. He/she should, once again, speak to restaurant management, who can decide what should be done.
10. Y intends to drink water, but the fountain always dispenses lemonaid instead of water. Y is on a diet and orders a diet soft-drink instead. — Good for him/her.
11. Y intends to dirnk water, but the fountain always dispenses lemonaid instead of water. Y doesn’t like diet cola so he drinks his preffered soft-drink. — See #9.
Seem fair? The issue of ownership is fuzzy under ‘free refill’ circumstances in a way that is quite uncommon. The only issue of ownership that comes close (and even then, it isn’t that close) to this kind of ambiguity is digital property… but that’s another discussion. As far as Jesus’ teachings are concerned, that which should be kept in mind is the idea of the ‘spirit of the law’—even if something is ‘allowed’, one’s sense of right and wrong should be well honed to detect when something seems to be askew (virtue ethics anyone?).
Peace.