Is profiting off of ignorance unethical?

[LongVin]

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".

Thats just an outright lie though.

[Darth Wong]

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

And Vicodin works as a painkiller, moron. Why bother telling anyone that it is dangerously addictive? Hey, they can go into pubmed and look it up in the medical databases for themselves, right?

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

So you see no negative moral value whatsoever in dishonesty itself? It's one thing to say that a negative action can be justified by a greater good, but to say that there's nothing wrong with dishonesty at all is bullshit.

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.

It was moral because you can justify it with a greater social good. Tell me, what is the greater social good in bilking somebody for money?

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

It proves a point about you, perhaps.

[LongVin]

And Vicodin works as a painkiller, moron. Why bother telling anyone that it is dangerously addictive? Hey, they can go into pubmed and look it up in the medical databases for themselves, right?

There is no problem with the computer. The addictiveness of the painkiller is a problem as well as a safety issue. No safety issue involved with the computer.

So you see no negative moral value whatsoever in dishonesty itself? It's one thing to say that a negative action can be justified by a greater good, but to say that there's nothing wrong with dishonesty at all is bullshit.

Once again it depends on the situation. I could make arguments for and against dishonesty. Sure in alot of situations dishonesty is bad but in other situations its good. But sometimes dishonesty is necessary.

It was moral because you can justify it with a greater social good. Tell me, what is the greater social good in bilking somebody for money?

Well its good for me thats an important reason. I can use that to buy things I want/need.

Also I could give a portion of said money to charity which would be a social good.

It proves a point about you, perhaps.

yes it proves I would do a dishonest act because it was a moral right.

[Darth Wong]

And Vicodin works as a painkiller, moron. Why bother telling anyone that it is dangerously addictive? Hey, they can go into pubmed and look it up in the medical databases for themselves, right?

There is no problem with the computer. The addictiveness of the painkiller is a problem as well as a safety issue. No safety issue involved with the computer.

Bullshit. The computer is severely underperforming compared to what the customer thinks he's getting: something the customer is likely to discover the moment he tries to buy a piece of software off the shelf and discovers that his computer can't run it. The fact that the nature of the problem doesn't involve injuring a person's health is not relevant to the fact that there's obviously a problem.

So you see no negative moral value whatsoever in dishonesty itself? It's one thing to say that a negative action can be justified by a greater good, but to say that there's nothing wrong with dishonesty at all is bullshit.

Once again it depends on the situation. I could make arguments for and against dishonesty. Sure in alot of situations dishonesty is bad but in other situations its good. But sometimes dishonesty is necessary.

It was moral because you can justify it with a greater social good. Tell me, what is the greater social good in bilking somebody for money?

Well its good for me thats an important reason. I can use that to buy things I want/need.

You != Society, asshole.

Also I could give a portion of said money to charity which would be a social good.

Yeah, sure.

It proves a point about you, perhaps.

yes it proves I would do a dishonest act because it was a moral right.

The fact that you have the right to do it does not make it the right thing to do, asshole.

[LongVin]

Bullshit. The computer is severely underperforming compared to what the customer thinks he's getting: something the customer is likely to discover the moment he tries to buy a piece of software off the shelf and discovers that his computer can't run it. The fact that the nature of the problem doesn't involve injuring a person's health is not relevant to the fact that there's obviously a problem.

Lets see what said computer can do:

1. Go online
2. Check email
3. Word Process

That covers the basis of what most people do with their computers. The customer should of made a more informed on the subject before making the purchase and asked/checked to make sure it performs all his needs.

Thats what I do when I go get my computer upgraded. I go to the store first I find out whats new, what just came out, whats popular, I ask the techs to reccomend a few parts. Then I go home, go online research the parts that were reccomended see how they performed so I can make an informed decision when I go back to get my computer upgraded.

You != Society, asshole.
Quote:
Also I could give a portion of said money to charity which would be a social good.

Yeah, sure.

I have to look out for my best interests first and foremost.
And I probably would donate some of the money to charity, its basically found money anyway and as long as I don't desparetly need the cash I'd stuff a couple of bills in the poorbox.

The fact that you have the right to do it does not make it the right thing to do, asshole.

Alright so I should let the guy get beat up? Thats very nice but atleast I would be honest.

[Zadius]

Alright so I should let the guy get beat up? Thats very nice but atleast I would be honest.

God, you're a fucking retard. The fact that there are exceptions to a general rule doesn't change the trueness of the general rule. And you've failed to demonstrate that salesman dishonesty is an exception to the rule.

[Civil War Man]

Lets see what said computer can do:

1. Go online
2. Check email
3. Word Process

That covers the basis of what most people do with their computers. The customer should of made a more informed on the subject before making the purchase and asked/checked to make sure it performs all his needs.

So if they are not an expert in computers, but want to do more than check e-mail and write letters, it is perfectly okay to effectively steal from them because they don't know any better. You say they should have checked to make sure it does what they want, but considering how upstanding you're making yourself out to be, I doubt you could be trusted to give them an honest answer in that regard either.

Consumer: "Will it play games?"
Seller: "Of course. There are all sorts of popular games that this game will be able to run."

Aren't any lies there, either. Just forgot to mention that the games the computer will run have not been in production for 5-10 years now. According to your definition of dishonesty, it's still perfectly alright to effectively steal hundreds of dollars from the buyer.

Remind me not to buy anything from you.

[Flagg]

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.

It's immoral because you're being a dishonest twat when you ask for $10 in the first place you stupid asshole.

[R. U. Serious]

And also you can be dishonest and still moral or doing the right thing. The morality of dishonesty is based on the situation.
[...]
Once again it depends on the situation. I could make arguments for and against dishonesty. Sure in alot of situations dishonesty is bad but in other situations its good. But sometimes dishonesty is necessary.
[...]
Well its good for me thats an important reason.

So... you are aguing, that intentionally deceiving the buyer through dishonesty is morally good/ethical, because "the important reason is that it's good for you". The harm that is done to the buyer, because he bought a computer that is less capable than he was led to believe is negligable, because you benefitted yourself. Is it possible that you are confusing the two words/concepts: Greed and Ethics?
By your logic, Greed in itself is a morally and ethically good thing, because it helps yourself. Does that reflect your views? [/b]

[Glocksman]

It's immoral because you're being a dishonest twat when you ask for $10 in the first place you stupid asshole.

I disagree.
It's not immoral or dishonest to ask any price you want for the cards.
Hell, ask for $1000 if you think you can get it.
Dishonesty comes in when you imply that the item for sale is anything more than simply a moldy old deck that you found in the attic.

In other words, if I imply that these cards were used by Jesse James or are anything other than an old deck of x brand cards, I'm being dishonest.
OTOH, if some guy is willing to pay me a grand for that old deck of Bicycles because his Dad used the same type of deck to teach him poker and he wants them purely for nostalgia, I'm not being dishonest or immoral because I'm not misrepresenting the product for sale in any way.

[LongVin]

"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."
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.

It's immoral because you're being a dishonest twat when you ask for $10 in the first place you stupid asshole.

In the playing cards example I am asking a high price in the knowledge that the buyer will in a likelyhood go "ha, no way. I'll give you 5 bucks for it" and come to an agreement on the price. And I am not being dishonest I didn't tell him what to think when he looked at the cards he made his own assumption without any input from me.

[LongVin]

And also you can be dishonest and still moral or doing the right thing. The morality of dishonesty is based on the situation.
[...]
Once again it depends on the situation. I could make arguments for and against dishonesty. Sure in alot of situations dishonesty is bad but in other situations its good. But sometimes dishonesty is necessary.
[...]
Well its good for me thats an important reason.

So... you are aguing, that intentionally deceiving the buyer through dishonesty is morally good/ethical, because "the important reason is that it's good for you". The harm that is done to the buyer, because he bought a computer that is less capable than he was led to believe is negligable, because you benefitted yourself. Is it possible that you are confusing the two words/concepts: Greed and Ethics?
By your logic, Greed in itself is a morally and ethically good thing, because it helps yourself. Does that reflect your views? [/b]

I am not intentionally deceiving the buyer. I am telling the truth in the matter and giving a factual account of what the computer is. The buyer is deceiving himself by not asking the proper questions and just assuming its a top of the line model.

Some greed is always good because its a driving force to do better. Of course too much greed is counterproductive if you aren't going to spend any money because of your greed you defeated the purpose of getting the money anyway.

[Surlethe]

I am not intentionally deceiving the buyer. I am telling the truth in the matter and giving a factual account of what the computer is. The buyer is deceiving himself by not asking the proper questions and just assuming its a top of the line model.

Let's generalize this: suppose object A is described by a set of attributes {α,β,γ,δ, ...}. When taken together and objectively evaluated, these attributes point to a price of some $n. If attribute δ is not considered, then the price, based on the rest of the attributes, becomes an, for some a>1. If you were a salesman, would you omit attribute δ from your description and try to sell A at $an?

[Flagg]

It's immoral because you're being a dishonest twat when you ask for $10 in the first place you stupid asshole.

I disagree.
It's not immoral or dishonest to ask any price you want for the cards.
Hell, ask for $1000 if you think you can get it.
Dishonesty comes in when you imply that the item for sale is anything more than simply a moldy old deck that you found in the attic.

In other words, if I imply that these cards were used by Jesse James or are anything other than an old deck of x brand cards, I'm being dishonest.
OTOH, if some guy is willing to pay me a grand for that old deck of Bicycles because his Dad used the same type of deck to teach him poker and he wants them purely for nostalgia, I'm not being dishonest or immoral because I'm not misrepresenting the product for sale in any way.

When you name a price you are implying that the item in question is worth the price named. Remember, we're not talking about an expert in antique cards, we're talking about someone who is ignorant of what a deck of cards may be worth, and who is assuming they are antiques due to them being old and moldy. Now if the guy goes up to you and says "I'll give you $1000 for that deck of cards", then that's a different situation.

[Flagg]

It's immoral because you're being a dishonest twat when you ask for $10 in the first place you stupid asshole.

In the playing cards example I am asking a high price in the knowledge that the buyer will in a likelyhood go "ha, no way. I'll give you 5 bucks for it" and come to an agreement on the price. And I am not being dishonest I didn't tell him what to think when he looked at the cards he made his own assumption without any input from me.

An assumption he made because you named a price far higher than what the item is worth.

[LongVin]

It's immoral because you're being a dishonest twat when you ask for $10 in the first place you stupid asshole.

In the playing cards example I am asking a high price in the knowledge that the buyer will in a likelyhood go "ha, no way. I'll give you 5 bucks for it" and come to an agreement on the price. And I am not being dishonest I didn't tell him what to think when he looked at the cards he made his own assumption without any input from me.

An assumption he made because you named a price far higher than what the item is worth.

Its worth what someone is willing to pay for it. He made a poor judgement call.

[Darth Wong]

In the scenario, the buyer is very obviously ignorant, and you knowingly take advantage of that ignorance to gouge him on price by selling something to him for far more than market value.

Your ethical position, therefore, is that it is OK to knowingly take advantage of someone else's lack of knowledge for personal gain. Are you prepared to defend that reasoning in other similar situations?

[LongVin]

I am not intentionally deceiving the buyer. I am telling the truth in the matter and giving a factual account of what the computer is. The buyer is deceiving himself by not asking the proper questions and just assuming its a top of the line model.

Let's generalize this: suppose object A is described by a set of attributes {α,β,γ,δ, ...}. When taken together and objectively evaluated, these attributes point to a price of some $n. If attribute δ is not considered, then the price, based on the rest of the attributes, becomes an, for some a>1. If you were a salesman, would you omit attribute δ from your description and try to sell A at $an?

I am going to hit the good points of the said product in a sales pitch. The rest of the information is made public and the customer can check to see if he really wants the product and if its a good buy or not. Or ask me to explain and elaborate on certain points to see if it suits his needs.

Example. Say I am car salesman and I am trying to sell an H2 to a customer. I am not going to point out the crappy MPG it gets. I am going to hit all the plus sides of the car, the safety, the luxury and such. If the customer wants to ask me about MPGs I'll answer hiim honestly but thats not going to be part of my sales pitch.

[R. U. Serious]

I am not intentionally deceiving the buyer. I am telling the truth in the matter and giving a factual account of what the computer is.

The original poster unmistakenly said, the he was intentionally deceiving the buyer. He specifically stated that he was 100% aware that the buyer was making wrong conclusions from what he was saying. There's no question about the intentionality. The only thing that you seem to argue is that it is impossible to deceive, when giving a factual account. This is clearly contradicted by any dictionary and how the majority of people use those words.

Some greed is always good because its a driving force to do better.

You are, once again, confusing utility with ethical behaviour. I asked whether Greed is ethically good (which is the implication of your statements). I did not ask whether it had utility or benefit. ( I hope you are not going to argue that you meant greed is a driving force to act more ethical or some such nonsense...)

I have to go with Darth Wongs conclusion, that it is futile discussing with you, as you have problems understanding common definitions and (differences of) the concepts that lie under them.

[Darth Wong]

It's interesting how he admits that the exact same behaviour is grossly unethical when the harm done is severe, yet he argues that it is completely ethical when the harm done is minor. And at no point, despite multiple challenges, does he explain how this can possibly make sense other than repeat that the harm is greater in one case, as if an unethical act suddenly becomes ethical if it only does a small amount of harm.

[LongVin]

In the scenario, the buyer is very obviously ignorant, and you knowingly take advantage of that ignorance to gouge him on price by selling something to him for far more than market value.

Your ethical position, therefore, is that it is OK to knowingly take advantage of someone else's lack of knowledge for personal gain. Are you prepared to defend that reasoning in other similar situations?

The value is what someone is willing to pay for. That is why things with what could be considered no value will sell for thousands of dollars. Like take for example an autograph from a famous person its just a signature on a piece of paper but yet its value can be thousands of dollars because thats what someone is willing to pay for it. If everyone who was willing to pay 5 thousand dollars for an autograph disappeared tommorow. The value of said autograph would be worth the paper its printed on.


And I would say if the buyer does not take responsible steps to get himself informed on the product through either a third party or by asking questions to the seller. "Buyer Beware." If the customer doesn't take advantage of this it is ok for me to take advantage of his ignorance because he is making no attempt to end his ignorance.

[Darth Wong]

The value is what someone is willing to pay for.

Market value is what the market will pay for. The fact that you can swindle an individual out of far more than market value does not mean that the product actually gained value. It means that you swindled somebody.

And I would say if the buyer does not take responsible steps to get himself informed on the product through either a third party or by asking questions to the seller. "Buyer Beware."

Yet you reject this exact same logic when applied to Vicodin, using the completely ridiculous argument that something which is unethical for large injuries becomes completely ethical for small ones.

[Glocksman]

It's immoral because you're being a dishonest twat when you ask for $10 in the first place you stupid asshole.

I disagree.
It's not immoral or dishonest to ask any price you want for the cards.
Hell, ask for $1000 if you think you can get it.
Dishonesty comes in when you imply that the item for sale is anything more than simply a moldy old deck that you found in the attic.

In other words, if I imply that these cards were used by Jesse James or are anything other than an old deck of x brand cards, I'm being dishonest.
OTOH, if some guy is willing to pay me a grand for that old deck of Bicycles because his Dad used the same type of deck to teach him poker and he wants them purely for nostalgia, I'm not being dishonest or immoral because I'm not misrepresenting the product for sale in any way.

When you name a price you are implying that the item in question is worth the price named. Remember, we're not talking about an expert in antique cards, we're talking about someone who is ignorant of what a deck of cards may be worth, and who is assuming they are antiques due to them being old and moldy. Now if the guy goes up to you and says "I'll give you $1000 for that deck of cards", then that's a different situation.

I agree with you in that particular case.
Under those conditions it would be taking advantage if in his ignorance the buyer is assuming that the cards are antiques because of the high asking price.

OTOH, if the buyer wants that deck purely for the nostalgia reasons I mentioned earlier, and is aware that they have little value as antiques I don't see a problem with asking for the grand.
I wouldn't expect to get it, but I'd ask.

[LongVin]

The original poster unmistakenly said, the he was intentionally deceiving the buyer. He specifically stated that he was 100% aware that the buyer was making wrong conclusions from what he was saying. There's no question about the intentionality. The only thing that you seem to argue is that it is impossible to deceive, when giving a factual account. This is clearly contradicted by any dictionary and how the majority of people use those words.

Some greed is always good because its a driving force to do better.

You are, once again, confusing utility with ethical behaviour. I asked whether Greed is ethically good (which is the implication of your statements). I did not ask whether it had utility or benefit. ( I hope you are not going to argue that you meant greed is a driving force to act more ethical or some such nonsense...)

I have to go with Darth Wongs conclusion, that it is futile discussing with you, as you have problems understanding common definitions and (differences of) the concepts that lie under them.

He may be aware the buyer is making the wrong conclusions but the buyer should ask the questions to confirm his conclusions and not just blindly go along with his assumptions.

I would say greed is ethically neutral. Because it can be used for both good and evil.

[LongVin]

The value is what someone is willing to pay for.

Market value is what the market will pay for. The fact that you can swindle an individual out of far more than market value does not mean that the product actually gained value. It means that you swindled somebody.

And I would say if the buyer does not take responsible steps to get himself informed on the product through either a third party or by asking questions to the seller. "Buyer Beware."

Yet you reject this exact same logic when applied to Vicodin, using the completely ridiculous argument that something which is unethical for large injuries becomes completely ethical for small ones.

Well lets say this there is a societal good to informing people about side effects. Also there are laws stating information must be posted.