I would call them and tell them. Option 1 is the most moral and the most logical of all the choices on the basis of Duty and Integrity. It's implied that part of your duty besides just overseeing the fish is to inform the owner of something drastic happening and the death of the fish would constitute the most drastic and extreme thing that could happen. This option is the most uncomfortable for you, but it is also the most honest and gives the owner the truth as soon as possible. Thus your integrity to the owner is maintained by telling the owner the truth promptly and this gives the owner the most options of how they want to emotionally handle the death of the fish as well as the terms of your duty based upon the new information (the death of the fish.)
By comparison to the other options; option 2 sounds well-intentioned but is subtly deceptive. In other words by waiting for them to return you're trying to deceive them so you can ostensibly make the full amount of money for working the full week rather than just partially or risk being terminated and unpaid totally. It is also emotionally manipulative since it's really more about mollycoddling your own ego than really caring about the feelings of the fish owner. You're not really trying to spare their feelings, you're really trying to spare your own and minimize your accountability by purposefully withholding the truth. This is the option that is both irresponsible and deceptive and thus fails both your duty as well as ruins your integrity with the owner.
3 is a good option but it's not my responsibility to buy you new fish, you have to kinda face the facts that fish are mortal. In the original scenario without plot twists it's not like I killed your fish, when you hired me there was an implicit understanding that the fish could die under my watch even if I take good care of it. The reason this fails against option 1 is if you don't tell the owner promptly then you have failed your duty which is to notify the owner promptly, but this isn't as evil as option 2 because at least you maintained your integrity by trying to offer restitution. This is the option that will be chosen by either a well-intentioned person (in case of accidental death) or a genuinely remorseful person (in the scenario they caused the fish death.) Thus this option is sound in maintaining your integrity to the owner at the minimum, and if taken in tandem with option 1 maintains both your duty and integrity, making this choice a solid runner-up with conditions based on the plot twists.
4 is definitely the fishiest option and is easily the most evil, you're actively attempting to deceive the person, and it is doubly worse in the sub-scenario that you caused the fish to die. You would be better off just confessing the truth as soon as possible (option 1) rather than jumping through elaborate hoops in an attempt to deceive the person. If you had just told them the truth promptly you could have then offered option 3 as restitution, but your integrity is way out of whack because you took it upon yourself to assume what the owner wants and then attempted to deceive them on this basis. This then becomes even more absurd of a choice due to the plot twist variable chance of even being able to successfully deceive them (ie: if the fish is highly specialized, the deception will be quickly detected and your integrity is totally trashed at that point.) Similar to option 2 you have totally failed your duty and also completely trashed your integrity, but in a more overt way which makes this solidly the worst option.
In conclusion option 1 is the superior choice overall because it fulfills your duty and maintains your integrity to the fish owner. In the plot twist that your actions caused the fish to die then option 1 and option 3 taken together is the best choice since by taking option 1 you're giving the owner the truth promptly (fulfilling your duty) and option 3 is an offer of restitution to make up for your direct failure to care for the fish. Option 1 by itself or in tandem with option 3 in addition to providing accountability also gives the owner the ability to make choices based on full knowledge of the truth (fulfilling your integrity to the owner). Option 2 and 4 are both evil options as both constitute a failure of your duty and on top of this go the extra mile to attempt to deceive and emotionally manipulate the fish owner for your own selfish motives (money, your ego, your emotions, etc.) Thus options 2 and 4 are both a failure of your duty and are a breach of your integrity to the owner. Regardless of the plot twist sub-scenarios option 1 will always be the superior option.
WOW!!!
@SonJudgment, I think you have written THE most precise, point-by-point breakdown reply to ANY beginning post I have ever written.
This might not sound like much, but after being here a while and writing what I guess must be at least 1,000+ threads (many years ago, a mod said I was up to over 400; it's been a very, very long time -- and a lot of writing since then,) I thereby must award you with both a trophy AND a medal for being a Grand Prize Poster!!
Not to mention, you also get a gold star
THANK YOU for taking the time to write such a thorough (and thoroughly interesting) reply!
Bonus point: If you can't read this all congratulations you are proof that the average modern adult only has an 8 second attention span, which is literally less than that of a goldfish so technically speaking the goldfish has a better ability to understand this abstract thought experiment than the average modern adult.
This part made me laugh out loud!
I am happy to report that I read your post 2 1/2 times (I was distracted by a family member during my second reading, but was able to do another full review this morning.)
HOWEVER, even though I might have an attention span (slightly) greater than a goldfish, I must sheepishly admit that I'm pretty sure the goldfish is still smarter than I am (and probably by a wide margin.) You see, each time I read your post, I was picturing charts, graphs, and comparison table in order to try to keep up with all the excellent breakdowns of why each option was better or worse, etc. (I blame my need for visual data on being in school far longer than I wanted to be.)
I'm guessing that the goldfish would have been able to understand your answer WITHOUT all the additional fancy graphics, therefore, I must hand this victory over to Mr. Fins -- that is, if he's still alive -- but we'll see if I can do any better during the next round!
Thank you so much again for a very enjoyable read!