Is profiting off of ignorance unethical?

[LongVin]

Its not being dishonest. In the example given with the computer there is no dishonesty. You are promoting the computer and citing its good points and emphasing on those but in no way is that being dishonest.

You're full of shit. Failing to tell people about problems is absolutely dishonest, and in fact, if a drug company does it, it's actually illegal. It's also against the Engineering Ethics Code, the Medical Ethics code, and virtually any other professional ethics code I can think of. The only reason it's not against the Salesman's Ethics Code is that there is no such code.

I noticed you chose to totally ignore the drug example that I provided in my last post. Could it be that you ignored it because it completely demolished your flimsy argument?

Uh first off this is a computer the fact that its old isn't a problem its still works as a computer its not broken.

So the drug example is apples and oranges. If the drug is messed up someone can die, if the computer is broken(which it is not) no one dies might cause aggrevation but not death. But it doesn't matter since there is no problem with the computer

[Flagg]

I'm not going to come out and say "oh yeah this computer is old and you can get a better newer one for the same price" because then I would never sell the damn thing.

Sure you would, it would just be what the computer is actually worth.

[Darth Wong]

So the drug example is apples and oranges. If the drug is messed up someone can die, if the computer is broken(which it is not) no one dies might cause aggrevation but not death. But it doesn't matter since there is no problem with the computer

Bullshit; the magnitude of the harm inflicted by this kind of dishonesty says just severe the ethical breach is, but it does not flip it over from ethical to unethical. The point is that according to YOUR tortured definition of "dishonesty", it's not dishonest at all.

[LongVin]

I'm not going to come out and say "oh yeah this computer is old and you can get a better newer one for the same price" because then I would never sell the damn thing.

Sure you would, it would just be what the computer is actually worth.

But I want to get the price possible. Something is worth what people are willing to pay for it. If I can selling something worth 20 bucks for 200 dollars because someone really wants it I am getting to sell it for 200.

Plus marketing it as a piece of junk will make me take a much longer time to sell it wasting my valuable time.

[LongVin]

So the drug example is apples and oranges. If the drug is messed up someone can die, if the computer is broken(which it is not) no one dies might cause aggrevation but not death. But it doesn't matter since there is no problem with the computer

Bullshit; the magnitude of the harm inflicted by this kind of dishonesty says just severe the ethical breach is, but it does not flip it over from ethical to unethical. The point is that according to YOUR tortured definition of "dishonesty", it's not dishonest at all.

There is a difference between drugs and computers. Thats why one is regulated heavily by the government and one isn't

[Flagg]

I would also say that there is a big fucking difference between selling something that is worth $50 for $60, and selling something that is worth $50 for $600. Most buyers make the assumption that if you're selling a piece of equipment, then it's going to be worth close to what the seller is asking for. So inflating the price like that in the first place is being pretty fucking dishonest.

[Luke Starkiller]

I'm not going to come out and say "oh yeah this computer is old and you can get a better newer one for the same price" because then I would never sell the damn thing.

Sure you would, it would just be what the computer is actually worth.

But I want to get the price possible. Something is worth what people are willing to pay for it. If I can selling something worth 20 bucks for 200 dollars because someone really wants it I am getting to sell it for 200.

Plus marketing it as a piece of junk will make me take a much longer time to sell it wasting my valuable time.

Getting the best price possible isn't an ethical concern, the issue is that you are using unethical means to make more money.

[Darth Wong]

So the drug example is apples and oranges. If the drug is messed up someone can die, if the computer is broken(which it is not) no one dies might cause aggrevation but not death. But it doesn't matter since there is no problem with the computer

Bullshit; the magnitude of the harm inflicted by this kind of dishonesty says just severe the ethical breach is, but it does not flip it over from ethical to unethical. The point is that according to YOUR tortured definition of "dishonesty", it's not dishonest at all.

There is a difference between drugs and computers. Thats why one is regulated heavily by the government and one isn't

Stop evading the point, asshole: the point of the analogy was to show that your definition of dishonesty is flawed. Appealing to distinctions in the analogy which are irrelevant to this point of comparison is nothing more than evasive sophistry on your part. For the THIRD fucking time, you DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY concludes that there is nothing dishonest at all about a drug company failing to tell people about serious side effects, as long as they don't "outright lie".

Let me repeat this again, since you are so goddamned bound and determined to ignore the point:

DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY
DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY
DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY
DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY
DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY
DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY

Is it beginning to sink in yet, asshole? Answer the fucking point.

[Flagg]

I'm not going to come out and say "oh yeah this computer is old and you can get a better newer one for the same price" because then I would never sell the damn thing.

Sure you would, it would just be what the computer is actually worth.

But I want to get the price possible. Something is worth what people are willing to pay for it. If I can selling something worth 20 bucks for 200 dollars because someone really wants it I am getting to sell it for 200.

Plus marketing it as a piece of junk will make me take a much longer time to sell it wasting my valuable time.

Yeah, if someone is wanting to pay you $200 for something worth $20 and the know that it's only worth $20 then that's perfectly acceptable. But that's not at all what you're doing.

[LongVin]

I would also say that there is a big fucking difference between selling something that is worth $50 for $60, and selling something that is worth $50 for $600. Most buyers make the assumption that if you're selling a piece of equipment, then it's going to be worth close to what the seller is asking for. So inflating the price like that in the first place is being pretty fucking dishonest.

And thats why the buyer should you know research what he is purchasing first. If I am going to try to sell something I am going to try to get the highest price possible for it at first before lowering it to a more modest and perhaps "fair" level.

If I'm having a garage sail and I have a deck of old playing cards on a table and someone picks it up and through no fault of my own assumes they are antiques and worth something when in fact they are just old modly playing cards. If the person asks me how much and I go "10 bucks" figuring hes going to laugh and try to talk me down to a buck but instead goes "deal." I am under no moral obligation to inform him they aren't worth that price.

[Darth Wong]

If I'm having a garage sail and I have a deck of old playing cards on a table and someone picks it up and through no fault of my own assumes they are antiques and worth something when in fact they are just old modly playing cards. If the person asks me how much and I go "10 bucks" figuring hes going to laugh and try to talk me down to a buck but instead goes "deal." I am under no moral obligation to inform him they aren't worth that price.

You are under no LEGAL obligation. There's a difference between law and ethics, fucktard. Ethics is much stricter, and your definition of dishonesty is totally unacceptable in cases where the stakes are higher, so why is it acceptable when the stakes are low? Definitions of words do not change depending on the stakes.

[LongVin]

Sure you would, it would just be what the computer is actually worth.

But I want to get the price possible. Something is worth what people are willing to pay for it. If I can selling something worth 20 bucks for 200 dollars because someone really wants it I am getting to sell it for 200.

Plus marketing it as a piece of junk will make me take a much longer time to sell it wasting my valuable time.

Yeah, if someone is wanting to pay you $200 for something worth $20 and the know that it's only worth $20 then that's perfectly acceptable. But that's not at all what you're doing.

Not my fault if people can't do basic research on a product before purchasing it. They should of checked to see what similar products are going for.

[Darth Wong]

DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY
DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY
DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY
DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY

Still trying to duck the point, aren't you?

[LongVin]

Bullshit; the magnitude of the harm inflicted by this kind of dishonesty says just severe the ethical breach is, but it does not flip it over from ethical to unethical. The point is that according to YOUR tortured definition of "dishonesty", it's not dishonest at all.

There is a difference between drugs and computers. Thats why one is regulated heavily by the government and one isn't

Stop evading the point, asshole: the point of the analogy was to show that your definition of dishonesty is flawed. Appealing to distinctions in the analogy which are irrelevant to this point of comparison is nothing more than evasive sophistry on your part. For the THIRD fucking time, you DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY concludes that there is nothing dishonest at all about a drug company failing to tell people about serious side effects, as long as they don't "outright lie".

Let me repeat this again, since you are so goddamned bound and determined to ignore the point:

Is it beginning to sink in yet, asshole? Answer the fucking point.

And once again I state it is based on the situation as well as the law on the matter.

If someone can get hurt by said omission then it would be dishonest or unethical as possible death could result. Thus the drug example would be unethical as well as illegal because of FDC laws.

BUT the information is publically availible about the sideffects of said drugs, now if a user of the drug decides to not read the bottle or doesn't care and still drinks, or takes conflicting meds and suffers the side effects its his own damn fault.

In the computer example its just ignorance on the buyers part not to research the computer and/or ask the right questions. Thus it becomes like the above mentioned example of the drugs where the person ignores public data or easy access to data.

[Lord Zentei]

BUT the information is publically availible about the sideffects of said drugs, now if a user of the drug decides to not read the bottle or doesn't care and still drinks, or takes conflicting meds and suffers the side effects its his own damn fault.

In the computer example its just ignorance on the buyers part not to research the computer and/or ask the right questions. Thus it becomes like the above mentioned example of the drugs where the person ignores public data or easy access to data.

Note the bolded bit. That implies that the information was provided. You cannot go from there to a hypothetical where the information was not provided and expect the consumer to research it.

[LongVin]

BUT the information is publically availible about the sideffects of said drugs, now if a user of the drug decides to not read the bottle or doesn't care and still drinks, or takes conflicting meds and suffers the side effects its his own damn fault.

In the computer example its just ignorance on the buyers part not to research the computer and/or ask the right questions. Thus it becomes like the above mentioned example of the drugs where the person ignores public data or easy access to data.

Note the bolded bit. That implies that the information was provided. You cannot go from there to a hypothetical where the information was not provided and expect the consumer to research it.

And the information is availible for the computer also. He can ask the seller or check with a third party source.

[Flagg]

I would also say that there is a big fucking difference between selling something that is worth $50 for $60, and selling something that is worth $50 for $600. Most buyers make the assumption that if you're selling a piece of equipment, then it's going to be worth close to what the seller is asking for. So inflating the price like that in the first place is being pretty fucking dishonest.

And thats why the buyer should you know research what he is purchasing first. If I am going to try to sell something I am going to try to get the highest price possible for it at first before lowering it to a more modest and perhaps "fair" level.

"The buyer didn't do what a responsible buyer should do, so I'm under no obligation to act in a responsible and ethical way."

If I'm having a garage sail and I have a deck of old playing cards on a table and someone picks it up and through no fault of my own assumes they are antiques and worth something when in fact they are just old modly playing cards. If the person asks me how much and I go "10 bucks" figuring hes going to laugh and try to talk me down to a buck but instead goes "deal." I am under no moral obligation to inform him they aren't worth that price.

Asking $10 for a moldy old deck of playing cards is completely immoral. By asking for $10 you are asserting that it's worth about $10.

[Lord Zentei]

Note the bolded bit. That implies that the information was provided. You cannot go from there to a hypothetical where the information was not provided and expect the consumer to research it.

And the information is availible for the computer also. He can ask the seller or check with a third party source.

Incorrect. The information that is already on the bottle of medicine is exhaustive, such as if it cannot be combined with alcohol or if one should not drive after using it, how much to use, etc. If the consumer has to actively seek information which is not provided to begin with, the analogy is not valid.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

The customer should know enough to ask the proper questions to the salesman about the performance or atleast perform some research on the subject matter.

And you shouldn't prey upon peoples' weaknesses and naivete for profit, unless you're the sociopathic fuckwit you seem to be.

As the salesman all I know is the guy wants a computer. The Computer though old works, it can be used for most things people use computers for, word processing, email, internet, printing. I am selling the computer for general use, unless the person specifically goes "Yeah I want to play games on this, is this good for games?" then I would say "nah its not good for that."

So you'd only admit it sucks if he interrogates you about it. Better, but you're still a sniveling ass.

I'm not going to come out and say "oh yeah this computer is old and you can get a better newer one for the same price" because then I would never sell the damn thing.

So you believe that personal profit at the expense of others is more moral than honesty? Good to you, you regressive piece of shit.

[Darth Wong]

And once again I state it is based on the situation as well as the law on the matter.

If someone can get hurt by said omission then it would be dishonest or unethical as possible death could result. Thus the drug example would be unethical as well as illegal because of FDC laws.

So the definition of dishonesty is based on the potential harm? That's bullshit; you cannot claim that something is totally honest if there is little harm, and dishonest if there's severe harm even though it's the exact same action.

BUT the information is publically availible about the sideffects of said drugs, now if a user of the drug decides to not read the bottle or doesn't care and still drinks, or takes conflicting meds and suffers the side effects its his own damn fault.

You're full of this. This is more like "conveniently" forgetting to put side-effects on the bottle but putting them on your website. It is DISHONEST not to inform people up-front of potential problems.

In the computer example its just ignorance on the buyers part not to research the computer and/or ask the right questions. Thus it becomes like the above mentioned example of the drugs where the person ignores public data or easy access to data.

The question of whether you are dishonest or not has NOTHING to do with the question of whether the buyer should be smart enough to anticipate your dishonesty.

And you are STILL ignoring the point. What is your DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY? If it's dishonest for a drug company to not inform you up-front of problems, then it's dishonest for a car salesman or computer salesman to do the same. If it's perfectly honest to not tell people of potential problems as you claim, then it is also quite honest for a drug company to behave exactly the same way. So what is your DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY?

[Dillon]

So Longvin, you wouldn't consider those people who go around downtown, with little signs saying that they have 5 children and just arrived in this country and have no money, dishonest if they were lying?

Afterall, you're only giving them a couple of bucks, which is a lot less than the potential buyer in this scenario is getting screwed for. Hey, they just forgot to mention that their 5 children are non-existant and that by different country, they really mean "in this city".

[Knife]

I was watching HOUSE the other day (doctor show, really good), anyway they had a ethical dileama that feeds into this a bit.

Woman #1 was dying. Her liver was shot, but the Doc's didn't know what was doing it. She had a few days tops to live, not enough time to do all the 'tests' and the only way to make time to do the tests was to give her a transplant of a new liver. But with a mysterious illness, no doctor would waste a liver on her.

Enter Woman #2. She's Woman #1's girlfriend/SO. She says 'Hell yeah, cut out half of mine' so woman #1 can live long enough for the Docs to diagnose her and hopefully cure her. Apperently, cutting out a significant chunk of your liver is risky to a point (duh) and there is no real guarentee that even with the chunk o liver, woman #1 will live.

Ethical problem; durring the lead up to this, woman #1 lets it slip that she was going to dump woman #2. This bit of information leads the sappy girl doc to believe that if woman #2 knows this info, she'll say no to the procedure and want's to tell. House (head doc) says the info isn't mediacally relevant and tells his staff they can't tell woman #2.

From woman #1's perspective, is it ethical to be a liar to stay alive?
From the Doc's position, is it ethical to leave out a piece of information that really isn't medically relevant but might change the decision of the trasplant source?

It's pretty much a lie of omission, like everyone is talking about above.

[LongVin]

If I'm having a garage sail and I have a deck of old playing cards on a table and someone picks it up and through no fault of my own assumes they are antiques and worth something when in fact they are just old modly playing cards. If the person asks me how much and I go "10 bucks" figuring hes going to laugh and try to talk me down to a buck but instead goes "deal." I am under no moral obligation to inform him they aren't worth that price.

You are under no LEGAL obligation. There's a difference between law and ethics, fucktard. Ethics is much stricter, and your definition of dishonesty is totally unacceptable in cases where the stakes are higher, so why is it acceptable when the stakes are low? Definitions of words do not change depending on the stakes.

I didn't say LAW in my yard sale example I said Moral obligation.

[LongVin]

I would also say that there is a big fucking difference between selling something that is worth $50 for $60, and selling something that is worth $50 for $600. Most buyers make the assumption that if you're selling a piece of equipment, then it's going to be worth close to what the seller is asking for. So inflating the price like that in the first place is being pretty fucking dishonest.

And thats why the buyer should you know research what he is purchasing first. If I am going to try to sell something I am going to try to get the highest price possible for it at first before lowering it to a more modest and perhaps "fair" level.

"The buyer didn't do what a responsible buyer should do, so I'm under no obligation to act in a responsible and ethical way."

If I'm having a garage sail and I have a deck of old playing cards on a table and someone picks it up and through no fault of my own assumes they are antiques and worth something when in fact they are just old modly playing cards. If the person asks me how much and I go "10 bucks" figuring hes going to laugh and try to talk me down to a buck but instead goes "deal." I am under no moral obligation to inform him they aren't worth that price.

Asking $10 for a moldy old deck of playing cards is completely immoral. By asking for $10 you are asserting that it's worth about $10.

How is it immoral? I am not holding a gun to the guys head and ordering him to give me 10 bucks for the cards. Its his choice whether to accept the offer or not he is under no obligation to accept. If he accepts then its worth 10 dollars because thats what someone is willing to pay for it.

[LongVin]

And once again I state it is based on the situation as well as the law on the matter.

If someone can get hurt by said omission then it would be dishonest or unethical as possible death could result. Thus the drug example would be unethical as well as illegal because of FDC laws.

So the definition of dishonesty is based on the potential harm? That's bullshit; you cannot claim that something is totally honest if there is little harm, and dishonest if there's severe harm even though it's the exact same action.

BUT the information is publically availible about the sideffects of said drugs, now if a user of the drug decides to not read the bottle or doesn't care and still drinks, or takes conflicting meds and suffers the side effects its his own damn fault.

You're full of this. This is more like "conveniently" forgetting to put side-effects on the bottle but putting them on your website. It is DISHONEST not to inform people up-front of potential problems.

In the computer example its just ignorance on the buyers part not to research the computer and/or ask the right questions. Thus it becomes like the above mentioned example of the drugs where the person ignores public data or easy access to data.

The question of whether you are dishonest or not has NOTHING to do with the question of whether the buyer should be smart enough to anticipate your dishonesty.

And you are STILL ignoring the point. What is your DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY? If it's dishonest for a drug company to not inform you up-front of problems, then it's dishonest for a car salesman or computer salesman to do the same. If it's perfectly honest to not tell people of potential problems as you claim, then it is also quite honest for a drug company to behave exactly the same way. So what is your DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY?

But the thing is I don't see there being a problem with the computer. It works as a computer.

And also you can be dishonest and still moral or doing the right thing. The morality of dishonesty is based on the situation.

Example:
If you see a bunch of guys beating up on someone and the guy gets away and takes off down the block runs past you and runs into a building the guys following him run up to you and demand to know which way he went and you go "oh yeah that way down the street" and they go running down the street trying to find him. You just commited a dishonest act but yet it was a moral act.

Of course that example is a little extreme but it proves a point.