Is profiting off of ignorance unethical?

[R. U. Serious]

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.

Flawed example.
a) A potential customer of an H2 is not likely to assume that it gets good mileage
b) Your example is different from the original posters case, because you are not willingly and intentionally misleading the customer into believing that it gets good mileage. Which is one of the key attributes of the case the original poster mentioned, and that we all are arguing about.


Your example would work better (closer to the original) like this:
You are tring to sell the H2 to someone who you know is sensitive to MPG, because he is an environment freak and or can't afford the gas and you know he has no clue about the mileage of any car.
You point out that the H2 is a hybrid, talk about how hybrids use two power sources and thus reduce fuel-usage, then you point out a dozen reasons why using less fuel is a good thing. After you're done talking for 30 minutes about the advantages of low fuel usage (and due to the specific circumstances you knew about beforehand), you have good reason to believe that the customer may now think that he is buying a car with a superior mileage, whereas in reality you know the mileage is lousy, and the hybrid in this case is mainly used for it's additional power, and less for it's effect on mileage. Thus, you have knowingly deceived the buyer, without telling a factual lie.

Or consider this: A president of some fictional country that has been attacked by terrorists, constantly mentions the name of a country he wants to wage war on in the same sentences where he refers to the terrorists who have attacked said country (and he does so knowingly and intentionally to create a specific false impression, which he knows is not true). The president never himself explicitly states a direct connection between the two (though people from his administration do, which he neither denies nor confirms). Polls show that more than 80% of the people believe that there is a connection between the terrorists and said country. Now, said fictional president may not have explicitly made false statements, but he knowingly and intentionally deceived the public into believing something that he knew was not correct.

[Lord Zentei]

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.

Wow, it seems you ignored my earlier post, where I pointed out that the ability of the market to optimize buyer's surplus plus seller's profit depends on the condition that both parites have complete information prior to the transaction.

The MARKET value of an object is dependant on market forces.

And while it is true that the value of, say, some obscure collector's item to an arbitrary individual is indeed subjective, this is meaningless if the object in question is not what the buyer had in mind. Which is what happens if said buyer had incomplete information.

[Simplicius]

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.

I have to take issue with this. There is a difference between making fair profit/receiving fair value and greed.

Main Entry: greed
Pronunciation: 'grEd
Function: noun
Etymology: back-formation from greedy
: excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness : AVARICE

In other words, greed is a desire to accumulate for one's self beyond what is necessary or reasonable. In the realm of human interactions this is a negative quality, because greed is typically satisfied at the expense of someone else. In the OP, the amount paid for the computer exceeds its fair value - if the buyer knew more about the computer market, he'd not tolerate being overcharged - and as a result, the buyer is not recieving value for money. He's feeding the seller's greed and not receiving a fair return for it. This unfairness, born of the seller's dishonesty, is socially unacceptable.

Greed never becomes good, it merely becomes useful, as when unmitigated self-interest can be harnessed to serve a greater end.

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.

If you are not part of a dealership, but are selling your car though Uncle Henry's as a private citizen, you would not be dishonest in charging at or slightly above blue book value for your used H2, provided it was in excellent condition. You would be dishonest in selling it for the price of a brand-new H2. You would also be dishonest if you were selling it at blue book or similar despite the fact that some defect decreased the H2's perfromance or durability from that of a brand-new one. You would also be dishonest if you neglected to point out that defect and obliged the buyer to accept your inferior car at an inflated price.

Artificially inflated prices are dishonest. Failing to adequately describe your product's advantages and disadvantages is dishonest - lying by omission. And dishonesty is unethical. The end.

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.

How do you not comprehend that it is not ethical for the seller to not correct the buyer's wrong conclusions?

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

Lying can be used for good and evil. Is lying ethically neutral?
Theft can be used for good and evil. Is theft ethically neutral?
Murder can be used for good and evil. Is murder ethically neutral?

Being used for a 'good' end does not automatically render an unethical act neutral. It merely makes it useful.

[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.

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

Correction: there is a societal good which derives from the general rule that you should proactively inform people when you know they are operating under a mistaken impression that will lead to their detriment, especially when you are involved in the situation somehow. You are trying to pretend that this rule narrowly applies only to medicine, when in fact it is a broad social principle encompassing many areas and fields, and is in fact written into numerous professional ethics codes (none of which you have ever subscribed to, obviously).

As for the laws, that makes no difference to this ethical argument. Lots of things are unethical which are not actually illegal.

[LongVin]

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.

Flawed example.
a) A potential customer of an H2 is not likely to assume that it gets good mileage
b) Your example is different from the original posters case, because you are not willingly and intentionally misleading the customer into believing that it gets good mileage. Which is one of the key attributes of the case the original poster mentioned, and that we all are arguing about.


Your example would work better (closer to the original) like this:
You are tring to sell the H2 to someone who you know is sensitive to MPG, because he is an environment freak and or can't afford the gas and you know he has no clue about the mileage of any car.
You point out that the H2 is a hybrid, talk about how hybrids use two power sources and thus reduce fuel-usage, then you point out a dozen reasons why using less fuel is a good thing. After you're done talking for 30 minutes about the advantages of low fuel usage (and due to the specific circumstances you knew about beforehand), you have good reason to believe that the customer may now think that he is buying a car with a superior mileage, whereas in reality you know the mileage is lousy, and the hybrid in this case is mainly used for it's additional power, and less for it's effect on mileage. Thus, you have knowingly deceived the buyer, without telling a factual lie.

The example you presented is an outright lie and is a flawed example because the original poster already said you aren't lieing about anything with the computer. By telling the buyer that the H2 is a hybrid you are lieing.

Now say if the person is woefully poor I will still sell him the car because its his job to ask questions. If he is woefully poor and can not afford the gas in all likelyhood he probably won't be able to afford the payment for the H2. Say if someone he is approved for the sale I am not going to talk him out of making the purchase stating he probably won't be able to afford it. My job is not to advise him on what he can or can not or should purchase my job is to sell the H2. I am an H2 salesman not his financial advisor.

[LongVin]

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.

Wow, it seems you ignored my earlier post, where I pointed out that the ability of the market to optimize buyer's surplus plus seller's profit depends on the condition that both parites have complete information prior to the transaction.

The MARKET value of an object is dependant on market forces.

And while it is true that the value of, say, some obscure collector's item to an arbitrary individual is indeed subjective, this is meaningless if the object in question is not what the buyer had in mind. Which is what happens if said buyer had incomplete information.

And the information is FREELY AVAILIBLE. I told the guy whats in the computer. He is allowed to ask questions about the computer. He is not making use of the information.

[R. U. Serious]

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.

This is not about the buyer, it is about the seller. Again the original poster said, that the seller is intentionally and knowingly acting in such a way that the buyer makes certain assumptions or assertions, where the seller knows those are untrue. And he does so in the hopes that the buyer will pay more than the market value; he does so hoping that the buyer will make a "loss" which will be beneficial only to himself.

And you are still arguing that the seller is not deceiving? You are still arguing that the seller is acting ethically correct?

This ridiculous justification can be used to claim every behaviour ethical, by placing the onus on the victim, and claiming that they did not defend themselves.

Of course too much greed is counterproductive [...] I would say greed is ethically neutral. Because it can be used for both good and evil.

You obviously don't know the definition or concept of greed. Greed by defintion includes excessive desire. Like I said, the main problem with arguing with you, is that you don't know or don't care about the definitions and concepts of the things you are arguing about.

[Darth Wong]

Now say if the person is woefully poor I will still sell him the car because its his job to ask questions.

If he clearly thinks it's a hybrid and you don't correct him before making the sale, you are being a disingenuous prick. It doesn't matter if you didn't explicitly tell him it was a hybrid car, and it doesn't matter that he could have compensated for your disingenuous behaviour by educating himself. You still failed your ethical obligations.

[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?

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.

You didn't completely answer my question: would you try to sell it at the inflated price to make more money?

[Darth Wong]

Imagine this conversation:

"Is this real gold?"

"Oh yes, that's real gold."

Now suppose it's actually gold-plated tin. Technically, the plating is real gold, so you weren't actually lying. According to Longvin, it would therefore be completely ethical to sell a piece of gold-plated tin at a massively inflated price to a customer who thinks he's getting a piece of gold.

[R. U. Serious]

The example you presented is an outright lie and is a flawed example because the original poster already said you aren't lieing about anything with the computer. By telling the buyer that the H2 is a hybrid you are lieing.

Dude, It was a fictional example, and I was assuming for the sake of the example that an H2 is a hybrid.

My job is not to advise him on what he can or can not or should purchase my job is to sell the H2. I am an H2 salesman not his financial advisor.

You are completely missing the point of the example. It is not about utility, it is not abou whether what you do is beneficial or harmful to the person. It is about whether knowingly and intentionally deceiving the buyer (without telling a lie), is ethical or not.

[Lord Zentei]

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.

Wow, it seems you ignored my earlier post, where I pointed out that the ability of the market to optimize buyer's surplus plus seller's profit depends on the condition that both parites have complete information prior to the transaction.

The MARKET value of an object is dependant on market forces.

And while it is true that the value of, say, some obscure collector's item to an arbitrary individual is indeed subjective, this is meaningless if the object in question is not what the buyer had in mind. Which is what happens if said buyer had incomplete information.

And the information is FREELY AVAILIBLE. I told the guy whats in the computer. He is allowed to ask questions about the computer. He is not making use of the information.

Do you not understand that the limitations of the product should be mentioned, particularly if said limitations are greater than a standard product of its class?

Did you miss the point in my post prior to the one I mentioned just now where, for instance, the complete information is actually printed on a drug bottle as opposed to being available upon request? The consumer may not have enough experience to know all the questions to ask; what you are advocating it's like selling a car that whose structural integrity is dangerously poor, and washing your hands afterwards by saying "lol, he could have asked" (the only difference being the lack of risk of physical injury, but that is irrelevant to the deeper question of the seller's ethical responsibilities).

[j1j2j3]

I think Longvin is saying that he differentiates between something like Vicodin and the OP in which as long as the only harm that comes from a scenario is monetary loss some ethical rules can be relaxed.

I think this is quite common in the real world and is not looked upon as bad as other ethical lapses.

Of course you can't say this is being ethical, just look how car salesmen are looked upon - Car salesmen and the word ethical just doesn't go together ; But I can see where Longvin is going with this.

[LongVin]

I have to take issue with this. There is a difference between making fair profit/receiving fair value and greed.

Main Entry: greed
Pronunciation: 'grEd
Function: noun
Etymology: back-formation from greedy
: excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness : AVARICE

In other words, greed is a desire to accumulate for one's self beyond what is necessary or reasonable. In the realm of human interactions this is a negative quality, because greed is typically satisfied at the expense of someone else. In the OP, the amount paid for the computer exceeds its fair value - if the buyer knew more about the computer market, he'd not tolerate being overcharged - and as a result, the buyer is not recieving value for money. He's feeding the seller's greed and not receiving a fair return for it. This unfairness, born of the seller's dishonesty, is socially unacceptable.

Greed never becomes good, it merely becomes useful, as when unmitigated self-interest can be harnessed to serve a greater end.


If you are not part of a dealership, but are selling your car though Uncle Henry's as a private citizen, you would not be dishonest in charging at or slightly above blue book value for your used H2, provided it was in excellent condition. You would be dishonest in selling it for the price of a brand-new H2. You would also be dishonest if you were selling it at blue book or similar despite the fact that some defect decreased the H2's perfromance or durability from that of a brand-new one. You would also be dishonest if you neglected to point out that defect and obliged the buyer to accept your inferior car at an inflated price.

Artificially inflated prices are dishonest. Failing to adequately describe your product's advantages and disadvantages is dishonest - lying by omission. And dishonesty is unethical. The end.

How do you not comprehend that it is not ethical for the seller to not correct the buyer's wrong conclusions?

Lying can be used for good and evil. Is lying ethically neutral?
Theft can be used for good and evil. Is theft ethically neutral?
Murder can be used for good and evil. Is murder ethically neutral?

Being used for a 'good' end does not automatically render an unethical act neutral. It merely makes it useful.

As a business owner or salesman I want to make as much money as possible. I don't want to just break even and get what I need to live on I want to make lots of money to stash away for a future date or buy nice things and go on vacation with.

By going by the exact definition of greed I should only make enough money to keep me clothed, fed and sheltered. But I want alot more then that I want nice stuff, I want to be able to go out to expensive resturants and decide "you know what next month I'm going to go on a cruise to Bermuda as a treat for myself"

If I want to sell a used H2 at the value of a new one I am welcome to try. I doubt I would succeed in that sale because the person can just buy a new one. If someone is willing to pay that new price I succeeded in my goal its not my fault he is stupid and decided to pay full price for a used car.

If I explain the product clearly and whats inside it its not my fault if the buyer comes to incorrect conclusions and doesn't ask for clarification. When I am buying something expensive I drive the salesmen nuts asking them every question I can think of about the product to make sure its good and its what I want and that my assumptions about what they told me are correct.


Lying can be used for good and evil. Is lying ethically neutral? Yes and I pointed this out already.

Theft can be used for good and evil. Is theft ethically neutral? No. Stealing always involves ilegally taking property owned by one. You can't ethically steal something from someone.
Murder can be used for good and evil. Is murder ethically neutral? Murder no. Murder is always wrong. However Killing is not murder. Murder is an unreasonable killing.

[Lord Zentei]

I think Longvin is saying that he differentiates between something like Vicodin and the OP in which as long as the only harm that comes from a scenario is monetary loss some ethical rules can be relaxed.

I think this is quite common in the real world and is not looked upon as bad as other ethical lapses.

Of course you can't say this is being ethical, just look how car salesmen are looked upon - Car salesmen and the word ethical just doesn't go together ; But I can see where Longvin is going with this.

So in other words, lapses in ethics are not unethical if people do it a lot?

Sorry, lapses in ethics are just that. And if monetary harm is not a biggie, how does that correlate with the imporance of profit? Monetary harm is harm.

[Darth Wong]

Is lying ethically neutral? Yes and I pointed this out already.

No, you claimed it already, by using the preposterous logic that if you can cancel out a bad thing with a good thing, then it wasn't a bad thing. That's not how it works. The fact that +5 and -2 add up to +3 doesn't mean that -2 is no longer a negative number.

Ultimately, if you're going to take the position that there's nothing wrong with lying, you're simply making up an ethics code which has no resemblance to any major social ethics code throughout history, and justifying it only by repeating it.

[j1j2j3]

So in other words, lapses in ethics are not unethical if people do it a lot?

Sorry, lapses in ethics are just that. And if monetary harm is not a biggie, how does that correlate with the imporance of profit? Monetary harm is harm.

Can't you read? I just said it was unethical.

But I think ethics also hinges upon what scoceity requires of them and there are varying degrees.

[Lord Zentei]

Can't you read? I just said it was unethical.

But I think ethics also hinges upon what scoceity requires of them and there are varying degrees.

Yes, I can indeed read. But your conclusion is bullshit. If you agree that it is unethical how can you still accept that there is a case to be made that it is OK to relax ethical rules? That is where your post fails to make sense.

[R. U. Serious]

If I explain the product clearly and whats inside it its not my fault if the buyer comes to incorrect conclusions

THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC HERE!. The Topic is that you are intentionally and knowingly misleading/deceiving the buyer with what you are saying (without telling a lie) into believing something that you know is not true, for the sole reason of beneffiting yourself at the expense of the other person. Do you still call this ethical?

[R. U. Serious]

ghetto edit, in the post above
replace "without telling a lie"
with "without stating incorrect facts"

[j1j2j3]

Yes, I can indeed read. But your conclusion is bullshit. If you agree that it is unethical how can you still accept that there is a case to be made that it is OK to relax ethical rules? That is where your post fails to make sense.

Do you agree that there are various degrees of unethical behavior?

Do you think that selling Vicodin like Darth Wong said and making money by selling the computer like the OP said is worth the same amount of criticism?

I agree that it would be unethical, but I'm saying that it's not as bad as selling Vicodin without disclosing it's side effects.

I'm saying that one is worse then the other, not that it is OK to relax any ethical rules.

I also say again that the concept ethics depends on what scoceity expects of people.

[Lord Zentei]

Do you agree that there are various degrees of unethical behavior?

Do you think that selling Vicodin like Darth Wong said and making money by selling the computer like the OP said is worth the same amount of criticism?

I agree that it would be unethical, but I'm saying that it's not as bad as selling Vicodin without disclosing it's side effects.

I'm saying that one is worse then the other, not that it is OK to relax any ethical rules.

Then it is unethical to do as LongVin describes. Case closed.

The fact of selling something while providing incomplete information is what makes it unethical. In this regard the analogy Darth Wong used is spot on. That the degree of harm is different is another matter entirely.

I also say again that the concept ethics depends on what scoceity expects of people.

No. Ethics is not based on general opinion; if society does not follow ethical mores, that does not mean that said mores are invalidated, only that they are not followed.

[j1j2j3]

Then it is unethical to do as LongVin describes. Case closed.

I agree here.

I also say again that the concept ethics depends on what scoceity expects of people.

No. Ethics is not based on general opinion; if society does not follow ethical mores, that does not mean that said mores are invalidated, only that they are not followed.[/quote]

Having sex whilst not being married was unethical for a long time. Is it now?

[j1j2j3]

Then it is unethical to do as LongVin describes. Case closed.

I agree here.

I also say again that the concept ethics depends on what scoceity expects of people.

No. Ethics is not based on general opinion; if society does not follow ethical mores, that does not mean that said mores are invalidated, only that they are not followed.

Having sex whilst not being married was unethical for a long time. Is it now?



*Sorry about the repost.

[Lord Zentei]

Having sex whilst not being married was unethical for a long time. Is it now?

That is irrelevant. Ethical laws can change with time, but based on reason, not merely on whim. And in this particular case, we have agreed that there is acutal harm involved.