Is it moral to rip off a "sucker"

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-07-05 05:44am

They say there is a sucker born every minute, and while this may or may not be true, there are certainly people who would buy goods of questionable worth.

Just the other day I was flipping through the channels, and saw this reality tv show titled "My big fat obnoxious boss". Essentially a spoof of Donald Trump's "The apprentice", it features an actor pretending to be a billionaire offering contestants a chance to work for him. He of course plays the billionaire as a total prick.

Now in one of the competitions he asks contestants to sell "the crap out of crap". The contestants know these goods are defective or downright crap, but they still have to sell it.

Among his goods include

1) spray off carbs
A health food alternative where you spray into your mouth to help lose weight. Only problem is it doesn't work.

2) "natural" tampons

among the lies the contestants told was that it helped with libido, and got lots of guys to buy it for their wives.

3) Reusable toilet paper.

The contestants managed to bill it as a "multipurpose paper".

4) Bottled oxygen.

Hey, we have bottled water, so why not bottled oxygen.

Where the contestants make use some scientific jargon to get people to buy their products, outright saying that its not harmfuly (pure oxygen is harmful with prolong exposure).

One of the contestants expressed reservations against selling these goods because he didn't believe in them. Some just continued on using tactics ranging from pretending to be a relative of Jessica Simpsons (I kid you not) and down right sex appeal to get the job done. Between the 2 teams they raised a bit more than $1000 selling this crap.

The question is, is it right to sell people goods of questionable worth if they are willing to buy it because the buyers are "suckers" or down right stupid.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-07-05 05:48am

First, Die Reality TV, DIE

Second, A fool and his money are soon parted. The only question is who gets to him first.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-07-05 05:59am

So the "if I don't do it, someone else will" justifies it. Hmm.

If I was selling someone say bottled oxygen from Tom cruise breath I wouldn't have any qualms if someone wanted to pay me lots of cash for it. The reason is that one man's junk is another man's treasure. There is a I guess prestige value for these collectors, just as I would pay money to have a toy Dalek or a model lightsaber. With these things one knows what exactly we are getting. How much value you put on it is a personal thing.

Things like dodgy goods (as shown on that reality tv show) where you don't know what you are getting strikes me as crossing the line.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2005-07-05 06:43am

The answer's really just a straight no. There's no moral justification for ripping someone off, sucker or not.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2005-07-05 07:01am

Caveat Emptor!

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-07-05 07:13am

Faram wrote:Caveat Emptor!

Alright how about..
Seize the Idiot!

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-07-05 09:04am

Faram wrote:Caveat Emptor!

Aside from not being italicised (all Latin is), this is the correct answer. You can argue the morality, but it will go ahead all the time, therefore, the only guarantee against being ripped off is to use your head and think about this. From placebos to cure all to claims companies with no win, no fee bullshit, you have to be wary of any product since the mug that buys a car that won't do more than 1,000 klicks before breaking down will allow others to make a living from ripping people off.

WyrdNyrd · Post by **WyrdNyrd** » 2005-07-05 09:13am

Let's try some word substitution here:

It's OK to rip off someone who is stupid.

becomes

It's OK to mug someone who is weak.

In both cases, you are abusing your physical/mental advantage over another person.

And don't try to argue that the one is legal and the other isn't. We're talking morality/ethics here, not law!

Anything legal is OK.

becomes

I am a fucktard who has spent too much time around the US legal system.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-07-05 09:54am

Let's try some word substitution here:

It's OK to rip off someone who is stupid.
becomes
It's OK to mug someone who is weak.

There is a diffrence between the two, Moraly and legaly, Me saying, hey this is a jar of air from George Lucas! I'll sell it to you for five hundred dollers!

If you buy said jar, assuming its acutaly a jar of air from Lucas, then its perfectly legal, and you sir are a moron.

However if I beat you up, steal your wallet and get the five hundred.... there is nothing moral or legal about it, that was assault and theft no matter how strong I am, or how weak you are, its still bad.

Also as an add-in, this is assuming normal intellgence, if your idiot is acutaly mentaly challenged then yes indeed it is wrong, if still not illegal.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-07-05 10:13am

Fraudulent misrepresentation is neither legal or moral. The intelligence of the people who fall for it is a complete red-herring.

WyrdNyrd · Post by **WyrdNyrd** » 2005-07-05 10:17am

Mr Bean wrote:If you buy said jar, assuming its acutaly a jar of air from Lucas, then its perfectly legal, and you sir are a moron.

Aha, but it's not GL's breath in the jar!

mr friendly guy has already differentiated between honestly selling something that has no perceived value to you, but might have value to the buyer, from selling something by lieing through your teeth.

We're not talking about selling Tom Cruise's bottled farts, we're talking about selling pure air and claiming that it's TC's captured eructions.

And that's where there is a moral equivalent between the cases.

Furthermore, you say

if your idiot is acutaly mentaly challenged then yes indeed it is wrong

But when is someone "mentally challenged"? This is a continuum here. If it is bad to scam someone who has the intelligence of a 6-year-old, is it then OK to dupe someone who has a IG of 90? Of 80? Of 70?...

And if you knowingly lie about your product, it is illegal - It's called fraud.

WyrdNyrd · Post by **WyrdNyrd** » 2005-07-05 10:20am

OK, so DW beat me to it, and said everything I did, and more, in two sentences, where I took 8.

Methinks I be too long-winded...

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2005-07-05 10:23am

Mr Bean wrote:Second, A fool and his money are soon parted. The only question is who gets to him first.

A fool and his money were lucky to get together in the first place.

Now, take it away from the market.

Go partway between the street magicians and the true con-men, to the barroom wise guys. Most rationalize that if they promise to do the impossible on a bet - like hit a golf ball over a thousand yards, find a weight that he can carry but the biggest guy in the bar can't, or heave a pumpkin over a three-storey building - that most people wouldn't dream of not paying up when they pull out a clever stunt and win. It's like charging for a little entertainment and do their best to put on a good display. But it could also be argued that they're no better than con men, grifting people who think they're betting with a loon and in for some easy money.

My take? Yes, it's probably more wrong than right. But as the anecdote goes, "Son, some where, some time, a man is going to come up to you with a deck of cards that has never been opened, and bet you that the jack of spades will jump out of the deck and squirt cider in your ear. But son, do not bet him, for sure as you do, you are going to get an earful of cider."

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-07-05 10:55am

But when is someone "mentally challenged"? This is a continuum here. If it is bad to scam someone who has the intelligence of a 6-year-old, is it then OK to dupe someone who has a IG of 90? Of 80? Of 70?...

And if you knowingly lie about your product, it is illegal - It's called fraud.

First I draw the line at the societialy acceptable range, that being anyone incappable of taking care of themselves. One can classifly that as IQ or behavior as well but its not realy the question here.

Second, yes indeed knowling lieing about your product is illegal, it is fraud and you won't see me doing it. However selling no-value products to your avarage person for large amounts of money is not moraly or illegal.

Selling as per the OP, fake products(Spray off, Natural and Resusable toliet paper) is indeed fraud and is a moral no-no.

However the Bottled Oxygen, except prehaps for labing the excact oxygen content of said bottle is perfectly legal and anyone who wants to buy some, I will happly sell it to them.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2005-07-05 02:02pm

Is it moral? No. But I can't exactly say I feel bad about it. I admit to laughing my ass off every time I see some idiot paying big bucks for hurricane rain water or some other shit like that on Ebay.

That NOS Guy · Post by **That NOS Guy** » 2005-07-05 02:25pm

aerius wrote:...I see some idiot paying big bucks for hurricane rain water or some other shit like that on Ebay.

They actually sell that? Wow

I hate to parrot Mr. Bean but I'm going to use another example:Bottled water.

Water, it covers 70% of the Earth's surface and is readily available in most of the first world wherever you go, more often then not free or at low cost.

A random guy, seeing that people are paranoid about water being tainted says "Hey, this is purified water in a bottle! Nothing wrong here, it's better then ordinary well water."

This man, while not lying infers that his product I absolutely superior with no proof. Simply by a twist of a word he plays on people's paranoia and plain old want of "This is better, I must have it."

Moral? Hard to say. For those of us more inclined towards business it's perrfectly fine, because after all he never lied and the people refused to think. For those of us who want absolutely no illusions or possible misleadings about a product this is an outrage and seen as utterly stupid.

There are some morals that are absolutle agreed ons (like murder for example), this happens to fall in a bit of a gray area and really ties in with peoples perception on something.

-NOS
Everything is different for everybody

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2005-07-05 02:43pm

Is this not rather like asking "is it moral to beat the crap out of a paraplegic?".

Basically you're asking is it OK to do a bad thing to someone if they're an easy target. If anything, mate, it makes it worse.

That NOS Guy · Post by **That NOS Guy** » 2005-07-05 03:12pm

Lord_Woodlouse wrote:Is this not rather like asking "is it moral to beat the crap out of a paraplegic?".

Basically you're asking is it OK to do a bad thing to someone if they're an easy target. If anything, mate, it makes it worse.

I think the question is more along the lines of "is it alright to take advantage of peoples stupidity?" and not kicking the crap out of a cripple.

Whereas the cripple suffers from a disability he/she is incapable of avoiding, the stupid person chooses to be that way because they refuse to think.

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2005-07-05 03:29pm

That NOS Guy wrote:
Lord_Woodlouse wrote:Is this not rather like asking "is it moral to beat the crap out of a paraplegic?".

Basically you're asking is it OK to do a bad thing to someone if they're an easy target. If anything, mate, it makes it worse.
I think the question is more along the lines of "is it alright to take advantage of peoples stupidity?" and not kicking the crap out of a cripple.

Whereas the cripple suffers from a disability he/she is incapable of avoiding, the stupid person chooses to be that way because they refuse to think.

I think a large degree of stupidity is genetic. Not entirely, obviously, but clearly some people are born with more inate intelligence than others.

That NOS Guy · Post by **That NOS Guy** » 2005-07-05 04:23pm

Lord_Woodlouse wrote:
I think a large degree of stupidity is genetic. Not entirely, obviously, but clearly some people are born with more inate intelligence than others.

I agree with you, most supidity is genetic. I feel however that people who want to improve their minds can do so, they might not become a rocket scientist but they sure as hell won't be buying bottles of air.

Laziness is something not productive or in the very least not benefical in society, why protect it?[/i]

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-07-05 05:19pm

Bottled oxygen? Don't they have oxygen bars in California?

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2005-07-05 06:04pm

That NOS Guy wrote:
Laziness is something not productive or in the very least not benefical in society, why protect it?[/i]

Being a sucker has nothing to do with being lazy. I could name half a dozen labourers that work 12 hour shifts 6 days a week and they'd all fall for the most inane shit. That being said, the question is whether or not it is morally acceptable to rip someone off if they're a sucker and it plainly isn't. It's not about protectionism, it's not about whether or not something else is going to get him first, it's about whether human being A is allowed to acquire human being B's property through an act of fraud. B's intelligence is totally irrelevant, the question is is A's actions morally acceptable and they are not. They are no more acceptable then it is to kick someone off a cliff for no other reason then they're standing close to the edge, no more then it is to steal their card and withdraw all their money just because they didn't hide their PIN number properly when they were entering it, no more then it is to steal a woman's purse because she's not holding on to it tight enough.

Sothis · Post by **Sothis** » 2005-07-05 06:15pm

I don't know if I'd rip off a sucker, but I'd happily rip off a... errr.... ripper-offer. It's nice to get one over on the ones who prey on the suckers.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-07-05 06:16pm

That NOS Guy wrote:
aerius wrote:...I see some idiot paying big bucks for hurricane rain water or some other shit like that on Ebay.
They actually sell that? Wow

I hate to parrot Mr. Bean but I'm going to use another example:Bottled water.

Water, it covers 70% of the Earth's surface and is readily available in most of the first world wherever you go, more often then not free or at low cost.

Unfortunately, as governments become more and more strapped for cash, incompetent, criminally negligent, or just plain untrustworthy, people have less and less faith in the government-supervised systems for making that water safe for human consumption. What the marketers have capitalized on is public distrust of government, plain and simple.

Twenty years ago you only wanted bottled water when you left your own country and travelled to exotic foreign locations where you suspected that your body was particularly susceptible to local water-born bugs. Now you might just not trust anybody's 'government' water. Or you might live somewhere that the water is perfectly safe, but also tastes like shit because of excessive treatment to make it safe.

I travel a lot, domestically and overseas, and sad as it is I no longer make any distinction between foreign and domestic sources -- if I'm living in a hotel, I prefer bottled water. At home, I keep a Britta pitcher in the fridge because I prefer the taste.

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2005-07-05 06:29pm

Part of being a "sucker" is also having a trusting nature. THAT is not really something that should be punished, even if it does delve into stupidity.

We have an obligation to tell them. To educate them, to try and make them less stupid or less of a sucker. We don't really have any right to benefit from it.