Is it moral to rip off a "sucker"

[Admiral Valdemar]

I always voice my concerns if a friend is going in for a bad deal, sometimes they listen, sometimes they don't. My dad can spot one a mile off, but some people I know are just, well, slow when it comes to catching things that aren't right or if you prefer, buying into totally useless shit. Some will not find anything wrong with buying a jar of hurricane rain water, but as to whether it was really that or not is another matter (one which I don't think warrants thought anyway). People buy some stupid shit anyway without being total suckers.

[That NOS Guy]

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.

I meant lazy in the mental sense, if they're happy and content that's jolly good and all but they shoudl still think about what they're doing beforehand.

The example you put forth is a definate example of criminal fraud and is not justifible in any sense because there was no consent involved. I'm talking about the moral gray areas where people buy something "just because it's better" when it's obviously not.

Chmee, I understand that public services aren't exactly alwyas the best, but I don't see people developing cancer left and right from drinking city water. Buying a Brita filter (I have one too, it gives the water a crisper taste) is a lot different then buying case after case of bottled water which is most likely the same or marginally better then the water already available.

[Darth Wong]

The example you put forth is a definate example of criminal fraud and is not justifible in any sense because there was no consent involved. I'm talking about the moral gray areas where people buy something "just because it's better" when it's obviously not.

That covers virtually all "status symbol" purchases, not to mention expensive art. At least in those kinds of purchases, there is an understanding that you are paying for "market value" rather than material value. The value of an asset in such cases is almost entirely psychological, but as long as you can sell it for similar value, this value is "real" in most senses of the word.

[Surlethe]

$.02 on the OP: The morality of an action is inherent in the behavior itself, not the recipient of the action. Thus, attempting to sell products fraudulently to a moron is morally equivealent to trying to sell products fraudulently to a genius. If the former is ethical, is the latter?

[mr friendly guy]

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

We have oxygen bars in Australia now as well.

I suspect the marketing of these will go into the fradulent category as what the fuck will an otherwise healthy person need high concentrations of oxygen for.

[General Brock]

... virtually all "status symbol" purchases, not to mention expensive art... there is an understanding that you are paying for "market value" rather than material value. The value of an asset in such cases is almost entirely psychological, but as long as you can sell it for similar value, this value is "real" in most senses of the word.

Seconds DW both times. I keep hoping to hear the National Gallery has sold Voice of Fire for a tidy profit.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Okay, first off, I have to point out that the mugging analogy is a very poor one. When someone is mugged, they don't really have a choice in the matter, do they? They were selected to be mugged, and they can't do a damn thing about it except defend themselves (which is rather hard if they are weak, which, if I recall, was one of the stipulations). With the ripping someone off, on the other hand, the 'victim' *is* the one who is making the final decision. No one is grabbing their wallet against their will, taking out the money, then shoving the product at them. If they are ripped off, it was with their consent.

Anyways, unless you are outright lying about the product's features, or lying by omission about something important with the product (both of which are criminal fraud, if I'm not mistaken), then no, I don't really have any moral compunction against it. Granted, it's not something I'd enjoy doing, but if someone can make a living off of it, way to go.

I work as a telemarketer, I sell cable, digital phones, and broadband internet to people. I know that some of the stuff I'm selling is not that good of a deal. And considering the fact that I no longer watch TV voluntarily, I consider the cable I sell to be pretty useless. The thing is, before I am allowed to complete *any* sale, I have a little script I have to read the customer that explains *exactly* what they're getting, *exactly* what the costs are going to be, and *exactly* how the prices will change in the future. If I've explained every part about how they're going to get screwed over to them, and they still want to be screwed over, I will happily give them the crappy product with a clear conscious.

~Damienkitty

[Spyder]

I meant lazy in the mental sense, if they're happy and content that's jolly good and all but they shoudl still think about what they're doing beforehand.

With the ripping someone off, on the other hand, the 'victim' *is* the one who is making the final decision. No one is grabbing their wallet against their will, taking out the money, then shoving the product at them. If they are ripped off, it was with their consent.

To both points.

It's already been mentioned repeatedly that the mental acuity of the victim is a complete Red Herring.

Saying that the victim is the one who either "should be more aware" or "has the final say" therefore they're responsible is complete bullshit. How can someone make an informed decision when the value of what they're trading for has either been exaggerated or lied about? The victim is agreeing to the transaction under false pretenses, that is a moral failing on part of the con artist. There is no justification for this kind of behaviour.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

How can someone make an informed decision when the value of what they're trading for has either been exaggerated or lied about?

Now maybe I'm reading a bit too far into context here, but I don't like it when people lie by implication about what I said. I quote myself:

Anyways, unless you are outright lying about the product's features, or lying by omission about something important with the product (both of which are criminal fraud, if I'm not mistaken), then no, I don't really have any moral compunction against it.

I already addressed that, thank you very much.

Also, in case you missed the second part...

The thing is, before I am allowed to complete *any* sale, I have a little script I have to read the customer that explains *exactly* what they're getting, *exactly* what the costs are going to be, and *exactly* how the prices will change in the future. If I've explained every part about how they're going to get screwed over to them, and they still want to be screwed over, I will happily give them the crappy product with a clear conscious.

Now, would you care to elaborate on what part of *my* argument you were addressing?

~Damienkitty

[Spyder]

With the ripping someone off, on the other hand, the 'victim' *is* the one who is making the final decision.

If there's been no outright lie or exaggeration or other form of misrepresentation then it's hardly a case of someone being ripped off. It's still bullshit to say that someone being ripped off has the final say in what happens to them because quite simply, there's no real way to make an informed decision when someone's ripping you off.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

If there's been no outright lie or exaggeration or other form of misrepresentation then it's hardly a case of someone being ripped off.

Conceded, my qualifiers kind of removed the transaction from the realm of 'ripping-off', but I still kept the term there. Oopsie.

~Damienkitty

[Spyder]

It's cool, we all have our moments.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

*Looks about, realizing he hasn't slipped into stereotypical troll mode*

Oh yeah, well, (insert half-assed concession here), but that doesn't matter because (insert vacuous claim about how the other party's in the wrong anyways), and thus, that justifies my position!

~Damienkitty