Is profiting off of ignorance unethical?

[Uraniun235]

Glocksman provided an excellent example over in G&C today.

Let's say I have an old Pentium 3 system (with monitor) which I want to get rid of. Let's say I decide to shoot for the moon and put a classified ad up for this computer, and let's say someone calls asking about it. This someone quickly reveals that they are not very computer literate, and so I talk up the computer (it's "very clean", always been very reliable, complete with monitor, throw out a bunch of technojargon), but I do not lie to this prospective buyer; all I do is talk it up like it's impressive even though it's definitely an old computer.

The moment comes and he asks me how much I'm offering. I tell him that this system originally retailed for over $2000 (we'll assume that that's true, and that I had looked it up to be sure) but I'll let him walk away with it for only $500. He agrees.

I have not said anything untrue to him. But thanks to his willful ignorance (how else do you explain dropping $500 for something about which you are totally ignorant of?) I have made a hell of a lot more money off this hypothetical old computer than it is worth.

Would it be wrong of me (or someone in general) to do so? If so, why?

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Yes, I believe it to be immoral. You're purposefully using another's weak knowledge in the area to exploit him. An analogy (certainly not a close one, of course) would European colonials a few centuries ago making contracts with indigenous people which they couldn't understand due to legal jargon and illiteracy which severely fucked over those people.

That is, of course, orders of magnitude worse, but it leads from the same train of thought.

[LongVin]

Buyer Beware. He should of researched the topic a little bit or talked to a proffesional before deciding to make a purchase through a classified ad.

[Darth Wong]

Buyer Beware. He should of researched the topic a little bit or talked to a proffesional before deciding to make a purchase through a classified ad.

Not relevant to the ethics of the seller, which is the subject under discussion. Or are you saying that the seller has no ethical responsibility at all, not even for misrepresentation, and that all responsibility falls onto the buyer?

[LongVin]

Buyer Beware. He should of researched the topic a little bit or talked to a proffesional before deciding to make a purchase through a classified ad.

Not relevant to the ethics of the seller, which is the subject under discussion. Or are you saying that the seller has no ethical responsibility at all, not even for misrepresentation, and that all responsibility falls onto the buyer?

The seller didn't do anything wrong. He didn't willingly and knowingly lie to the person he was just stating the facts of the matter. If the seller said "oh yeah this is the best computer on the market and these are all modern top of the line parts" then the seller would be in the wrong.

But if the buyer doesn't ask the right questions or decides not to do some research its not the sellers fault. The prospective buyer should ask "how old the computer is," is it "modern," "why are you selling?" and other such questions.

As the seller I'm trying to sell my product I'm not going to willingly just blurt out the flaws but if asked about any problems then I would be forced to elaborate, but its the buyers job to ask those questions.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I think you have a responsibility to tell the truth of what you are selling and not try to gussy it up in technojargon for the express purpouse of bamboosling someone into making a purchase he would otherwise not make.

It is a good rule of thumb that, if you have to dress up the donkey to make it look like a horse, don't. Trying to make it sound better than it is, while not directly lying is lying by omission. All you would be doing is sacrificing the interests of person A for person B.

Lying by omission occures when you willfully fail to disclose key information which would alter the state of affairs.


Lies of Omission:

A lie of omission is to remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up. A lie of omission is a method of deception and duplicity that uses the technique of simply remaining silent when speaking the truth would significantly alter the other person's capacity to make an informed decision.

The truth is that the computer sucks, is an old piece of crap, but you are avoiding that by playing off of the lack of knowledge of the buyer, deliberatly making the POS sound great, when you damn well know it ain't.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: lying by omission also means only telling a half-truth with the purpouse of deceit.

[LongVin]

The truth is that the computer sucks, is an old piece of crap, but you are avoiding that by playing off of the lack of knowledge of the buyer, deliberatly making the POS sound great, when you damn well know it ain't.

I would disagree on saying the computer "sucks." It depends on what you are using the computer for. If all you are using it for is checking email and going on the internet the computer is perfectly capable of doing that.

Now if the computer is used for gaming, obviously it sucks.

[Darth Wong]

You're missing the point, which is that you are defining "lie" in a very technical way so as to allow deliberate attempts to deceive as long as factually inaccurate words do not escape your mouth.

If you're attempting to deceive or mislead people, you're dishonest, and dishonesty is unethical. What part of this do you not understand?

[LongVin]

lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.


Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

You aren't giving a false statement. If the person asked the seller about the product and he made a statement that is untrue then it would be a lie. But just listing the facts of the product is not a lie.

Lets say this is how the presentation went for the computer:

"Its a pentium 3 with <#> mhz, it comes with a <size> monitor. The case itself is very clean, and has always been reliable. I never had any problems with it. I'll be able to deliver it with its harddrive wiped clean and <insert whatever software you are giving away with it.> It originally retailled for $2000 but I am selling it for $500"

Everything he stated was truth. It is a reliable computer, it works it fucntions as a computer. It does have an Pentium 3 which runs at a certain speed, It does come with a monitor. It did retail for 2000.

He hasn't lied to anyone there he simply stated the facts. The buyer now should ask questions about the quality of such device and other important questions so he can make an informed decision on whether or not he wants to buy the computer or not. So the buyer should ask "I want to do this this and this with the computer will it be able to do it?"

Now the seller should answer those questions truthfully but as hes pitching the sale all he has to do is give the facts and he has given the facts.

[Imperial Overlord]

lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.


Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Relevant point bolded you semantics whore. The seller is intending to deceive. The seller is giving a false impression.

[LongVin]

lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.


Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Relevant point bolded you semantics whore. The seller is intending to deceive. The seller is giving a false impression.

No the seller is just stating the facts.

[Imperial Overlord]

No the seller is just stating the facts.

No, he is stating facts in a misleading context in order to give an erroneous impression.

Are you a used car salesman?

[LongVin]

No the seller is just stating the facts.

No, he is stating facts in a misleading context in order to give an erroneous impression.

Are you a used car salesman?

I wouldn't say its misleading because the computer is reliable, it does serve as a computer.

lol. Nope not a used car salesman but that did make me think up a good analogy.

Say I am selling a Lincoln Towncar. 100 thousand miles on it, it had some work down on the body and certain parts were replaced with certified replacement parts.

As I am pitching the sale I go "It has 100k miles(truth), its in good shape and has all Lincoln parts(truth)." I am just stating the facts.

Now if I said "I has 100k miles(truth), its in good shape and has all the original Lincoln parts(false)." I am attempting to deceive the customer into thinking nothing was done on the car.

In the first statement I am saying that all parts are certified Lincoln parts I am making no claim to their originality thus the statement is grounded in fact. The second statement however I am claiming everything is original and nothing needed change which is false and a lie.

[Imperial Overlord]

I wouldn't say its misleading because the computer is reliable, it does serve as a computer.

lol. Nope not a used car salesman but that did make me think up a good analogy.

Say I am selling a Lincoln Towncar. 100 thousand miles on it, it had some work down on the body and certain parts were replaced with certified replacement parts.

As I am pitching the sale I go "It has 100k miles(truth), its in good shape and has all Lincoln parts(truth)." I am just stating the facts.

Now if I said "I has 100k miles(truth), its in good shape and has all the original Lincoln parts(false)." I am attempting to deceive the customer into thinking nothing was done on the car.

In the first statement I am saying that all parts are certified Lincoln parts I am making no claim to their originality thus the statement is grounded in fact. The second statement however I am claiming everything is original and nothing needed change which is false and a lie.

False analogy. In the computer example the seller is portraying the computer as high performance machine by current standards. He doesn't directly state any false facts, but he creates a false impression in the mind of the buyer. He is dishonest and unethical.

The used car salesman is being completely honest. He isn't decieving the customer about the performance or reliablity of the vehicle.

Of course, I'm not surprised that you aren't arguing honestly.

[LongVin]

uh the computer example isn't claiming high performance.

He states whats in the computer which is factual and he is claiming reliability which means its works and serves its function. If the prospective customer equates reliability to high performance thats his problem. He presented the specifications of the computer the customer should question him about said specs or perform research on the topic.

He states that computer ORGINALLY sold for 2000. The customer should of asked how old it is.

The buyer should know the sellers objective is to sell said computer and he is going to try to hype that computer up as much as possible.

[Imperial Overlord]

<snip> huge bunch of evassive bs

So you're going to continue to ignore the second definition of lying because it doesn't suit you. The only form of dishonesty you have a problem with is directly stating false facts. Misdirection, creating false impressions, misleading statements, and so on and so forth are just fine.

No consideration at all about the ethics of decieving someone, just a concern whether or not your statement contains true facts. A legalistic, not a moral view that ignores the definition of lying that you posted yourself.

You're a wondeful ethical cripple.

[LongVin]

<snip> huge bunch of evassive bs

So you're going to continue to ignore the second definition of lying because it doesn't suit you. The only form of dishonesty you have a problem with is directly stating false facts. Misdirection, creating false impressions, misleading statements, and so on and so forth are just fine.

No consideration at all about the ethics of decieving someone, just a concern whether or not your statement contains true facts. A legalistic, not a moral view that ignores the definition of lying that you posted yourself.

You're a wondeful ethical cripple.

Hes not giving the wrong impression though. IT is a COMPUTER it serves the use of a COMPUTER and does it reliability. Whether or not its a good computer isn't directly related to the stated sales pitch he is just saying what it is and what it does.

[LongVin]

Ghetto edit: At no point in the entire ad does he claim its High Performance. If the buyer assumes its high performance and doesn't question that the seller has done nothing wrong.

[Imperial Overlord]

Ghetto edit: At no point in the entire ad does he claim its High Performance. If the buyer assumes its high performance and doesn't question that the seller has done nothing wrong.

No it doesn't. The seller intentionally uses jargon the buyer doesn't understand in order to create that impression. And again we come back to the fact that you have no problem with misleading and decieving someone as long as your facts are accurate. A legalistic view, rather than a moral or ethical one.

[LongVin]

Ghetto edit: At no point in the entire ad does he claim its High Performance. If the buyer assumes its high performance and doesn't question that the seller has done nothing wrong.

No it doesn't. The seller intentionally uses jargon the buyer doesn't understand in order to create that impression. And again we come back to the fact that you have no problem with misleading and decieving someone as long as your facts are accurate. A legalistic view, rather than a moral or ethical one.

Ok. If I am purchasing say a car and the dealer says it has "power steering" and lets assume I never heard of power steering before, as the customer I should ask "Ok so what is power steering and how is that good for me?"
Just going "ok" is a sign of acceptance.

The same logic applies here with a computer if you don't understand something the salesman is telling you, you ask about it. If you are too stupid to ask you deserve what you get.

[Imperial Overlord]

Ghetto edit: At no point in the entire ad does he claim its High Performance. If the buyer assumes its high performance and doesn't question that the seller has done nothing wrong.

No it doesn't. The seller intentionally uses jargon the buyer doesn't understand in order to create that impression. And again we come back to the fact that you have no problem with misleading and decieving someone as long as your facts are accurate. A legalistic view, rather than a moral or ethical one.

Ok. If I am purchasing say a car and the dealer says it has "power steering" and lets assume I never heard of power steering before, as the customer I should ask "Ok so what is power steering and how is that good for me?"
Just going "ok" is a sign of acceptance.

The same logic applies here with a computer if you don't understand something the salesman is telling you, you ask about it. If you are too stupid to ask you deserve what you get.

We're not talking about the buyer's duty, we're talking about the seller's duty. The buyers ignorance does not absolve the salesman from behaving ethically. And again, you're distorting the example. To be equivalent the car salesman would have to recognize that the buyer knew virtually nothing about cars and then threw around technical terms to make the car sound more impressive and then sell the car at an inflated price.

[LongVin]

But the sellers only duties are to sell the product, to tell the buyer about the facts and specifications of the product and to answer the buyers questions truthfully.

The buyer should research his prespective purchase before commiting to a sale when you are dealing with expensive equipment. Before I go buy new parts for a computer or buy a car I go online get as much information about it as possible so when I go talk to the salesman I have a basic understanding of what hes talking about and can ask smart questions about what I am buying.

[Glocksman]

Believe it or not, I didn't pull this out of thin air, as I occasionally see classified ads just like that in the local paper.

Anyway, the way I look at it is that as a seller I have an ethical duty to disclose all pertinent details about what I am selling, even if it detracts from my ability to get the highest possible price from it.
In this case, I'd tell the potential buyer that the system is old and that the same $500 would get him a nice low end Dell.
But OTOH, I'd also say that $150 would get the P3 system in question delivered and set up ready to run.

If the buyer chooses to pay $150 for an old system that is set up at his home, I don't see an ethical conflict as long as he or she is aware of the alternatives.
As for charging $500 for that system, I don't think I could do that unless the buyer explcitly stated that they were aware that the system was grossly overpriced and were willing to pay the difference regardless.

[Imperial Overlord]

But the sellers only duties are to sell the product, to tell the buyer about the facts and specifications of the product and to answer the buyers questions truthfully.

In your opinion that is the seller's only duty and in your opinion he only has to obey the letter of the proposition, not the spirit. As long as he doesn't directly state a falsehood, misleading and decieving the buyer is fine. That's your position. It's clear. It's also a sign you're a moral leper.