Is profiting off of ignorance unethical?

[Simplicius]

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"

As a business owner or salesman, your purpose is to make profit. But your ethical responsibility is to make that profit without deceiving your customers, and that ethical responsibility places a limit on your ability to make a profit. That is a limit you must accept. When you ignore that ethical limitation on your personal gain, you are being greedy.

f 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.

By selling a used H2 at a price above its actual value, you are stating that the vehicle is worth more than it actually is. That overstatement is dishonest, and therefore unethical. If someone buys the H2 at your artificially inflated price, he may be stupid - or desperate. But that does not excuse you from pointing out that the car is used and therefore not worth what you are charging, and it does not justify your price inflation.

In fact, you could be saved all the trouble of losing your sale when it comes to light that you are overcharging if you charge an honest price in the first place. But since greed is your be-all and end-all here, that option is apparently untenable.

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.

Except you fail to acknowledge that clearly describing your product means pointing out its deficiencies as well as its selling points. If you sell an obsolete computer without pointing that fact out, then you are not clearly describing your product.

Let me provide an illustrative example. P.T. Barnum placed signs in his tents proclaiming "This Way to the Egress!" Visitors would follow the signs, hoping to see the exotic creature. They promptly found themselves outside, and unable to get back in without paying admission once more.

Those signs were 100% true, but by virtue of having their meaning shrouded in obscurity - i.e. not clearly described - they were not honest. And dishonesty in business, for the umpteenth time, is unethical.

Or, we can play the word association game. You state that it is acceptable to make an inflated profit by dishonestly protraying a product. What words does the English language employ to describe such behavior? Swindle, con, defraud, bilk, cheat, dupe, hornswoggle, bamboozle... Now you tell me, LongVin, what kinds of people do you envision when you read these words? Because I'll bet that they won't be shining pillars of honesty and fair dealing.

Yes [lying is ethically neutral] and I pointed this out already.

No. Stealing always involves ilegally taking property owned by one. You can't ethically steal something from someone.

Murder no. Murder is always wrong. However Killing is not murder. Murder is an unreasonable killing.

So why, pray, are theft and murder unethical even when applied to an end that is good, while lying is ethically neutral even when applied to an end that is evil - such as making an unfair profit through deceit?

[j1j2j3]

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.

Yes we do agree that there was harm involved.

I was simply trying to point out that our scociety would think of Longvin as unethical, but not as unethical as a seller of Vicodin.

Actually it seems that what Darth Wong has pointed out is correct.

you're simply making up an ethics code which has no resemblance to any major social ethics code throughout history

I'm just saying that I can see why Longvin is disputing the fact that the OP is in fact not unethical - because it is less unethical than something like selling Vicodin without disclosing it's side effects, not saying that it is ethical.

[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.

Yes we do agree that there was harm involved.

I was simply trying to point out that our scociety would think of Longvin as unethical, but not as unethical as a seller of Vicodin.

Actually it seems that what Darth Wong has pointed out is correct.

Very well, then we are in agreement on this point.

you're simply making up an ethics code which has no resemblance to any major social ethics code throughout history

I'm just saying that I can see why Longvin is disputing the fact that the OP is in fact not unethical - because it is less unethical than something like selling Vicodin without disclosing it's side effects, not saying that it is ethical.

Ah. but LongVin is mistaken, since to dispute the unethical nature of the OP scenario is incorrect, even if there are degrees to breaches of ethics, yes?

[j1j2j3]

Ah. but LongVin is mistaken, since to dispute the unethical nature of the OP scenario is incorrect, even if there are degrees to breaches of ethics, yes?

Exactly.

Thank you.

[Lord Zentei]

Ah. but LongVin is mistaken, since to dispute the unethical nature of the OP scenario is incorrect, even if there are degrees to breaches of ethics, yes?

Exactly.

Thank you.

You might want to be a mite more careful: your first post on the thread could be misconstrued as support for LongVin's position. Hence this little fracas.

[j1j2j3]

Ah. but LongVin is mistaken, since to dispute the unethical nature of the OP scenario is incorrect, even if there are degrees to breaches of ethics, yes?

Exactly.

Thank you.

You might want to be a mite more careful: your first post on the thread could be misconstrued as support for LongVin's position. Hence this little fracas.

I'm sorry English isn't my first language.

Thank you for patiently reasoning with me even though I wasn't as civil as you were.

Any I've made my point, I'll cut the chit chat here.

[LongVin]

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?

Depends what I think I could get for it and the general market for the car. If the market is strong for the car you try to get above the MSRP. If the market is just ok or good you go for MSRP. If the market is weak or you want to get rid of last years stock you offer deals below the MSRP.

Preferably I would like to sell it above the the MSRP to make as much of a profit as possible and the customer will most likely try to work out a deal with the price.

[LongVin]

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.

But getting the best price is beneficial to me. Any action I take in any situation(situation below) can have a negative effect on another person. You have to decide whats in my best interests to do.

Heres a pretty innocent example how even the slightest thing can cause a negative effect:
Say you are driving someplace and theres a car following you. As you come up to the block where you are looking for a store you are going to slow down to see where it is. By slowing down the person behind you has to slow down also. Now you inconvienced someone because of your actions does that mean you shouldn't slow down to find the address?

No. Because it is in your best interest and beneficial to you to slow down and find the address to accomplish your task. You haven't done anything wrong or illegal.

[LongVin]

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?

But the customer knows its a used computer. The subject implies that the computer is old.

[CarsonPalmer]

LongVin, you seem to be confusing what is legal with what is ethical, and through this entire thread, you equate what you are permitted to do, with what is right.

[LongVin]

As a business owner or salesman, your purpose is to make profit. But your ethical responsibility is to make that profit without deceiving your customers, and that ethical responsibility places a limit on your ability to make a profit. That is a limit you must accept. When you ignore that ethical limitation on your personal gain, you are being greedy.

But I am not setting out to deceive my customer. I am not lieing to anyone. In fact I have stated numerous times whats in the computer and what the computer does and its general state as well as making availible the original price.

By selling a used H2 at a price above its actual value, you are stating that the vehicle is worth more than it actually is. That overstatement is dishonest, and therefore unethical. If someone buys the H2 at your artificially inflated price, he may be stupid - or desperate. But that does not excuse you from pointing out that the car is used and therefore not worth what you are charging, and it does not justify your price inflation.

In fact, you could be saved all the trouble of losing your sale when it comes to light that you are overcharging if you charge an honest price in the first place. But since greed is your be-all and end-all here, that option is apparently untenable.

But I am marketing it as a used vehicle I am not trying to pass it off as new. In a situation like that where barter is common I am going to set a high price knowing the customer will probably try to work it down to a price they believe is more acceptable and we will then reach a middle ground.

And depending on the situation I might sell it at a lesser price to begin with it depends on whether or not I need to sell it now or I can wait for a good sale to come along. If I need the cash now and the thing is worth 50G I'll start selling it at 48 to get my cash quickly. If I can afford to wait I'll probably market the thing at 52 hundred and when I get a person whos interested in the purchase but doesn't want to pay the price it will get worked down to 50

Except you fail to acknowledge that clearly describing your product means pointing out its deficiencies as well as its selling points. If you sell an obsolete computer without pointing that fact out, then you are not clearly describing your product.

I am telling them whats in the computer and what its features are the customer should make his own judgement call on whether that is what he wants or not.

Let me provide an illustrative example. P.T. Barnum placed signs in his tents proclaiming "This Way to the Egress!" Visitors would follow the signs, hoping to see the exotic creature. They promptly found themselves outside, and unable to get back in without paying admission once more.

Those signs were 100% true, but by virtue of having their meaning shrouded in obscurity - i.e. not clearly described - they were not honest. And dishonesty in business, for the umpteenth time, is unethical.

Egress means exit.

Or, we can play the word association game. You state that it is acceptable to make an inflated profit by dishonestly protraying a product. What words does the English language employ to describe such behavior? Swindle, con, defraud, bilk, cheat, dupe, hornswoggle, bamboozle... Now you tell me, LongVin, what kinds of people do you envision when you read these words? Because I'll bet that they won't be shining pillars of honesty and fair dealing.

Yeah because those words have negative stigmas associated with them. But most of those words imply illegality also. Which is not being done in any of the cases.

So why, pray, are theft and murder unethical even when applied to an end that is good, while lying is ethically neutral even when applied to an end that is evil - such as making an unfair profit through deceit?

You can never have an ethical theft or a good end to theft.

Nor can you never have a good murder. You can have a good killing, but not a good murder.

[Darth Wong]

But I am not setting out to deceive my customer. I am not lieing to anyone. In fact I have stated numerous times whats in the computer and what the computer does and its general state as well as making availible the original price.

And I, as the Vicodin salesman, have explained what chemicals are in the drug, and what symptoms it is intended to treat, and how effective it is in that endeavour. According to your logic, I did not deceive anyone by failing to point out other aspects of the product that might be of interest to the customer. After all, he should just go look it up on Pubmed.

Similarly, to use my gold-plated tin example which you completely ignored, I as the seller of the gold-plated tin object, have quite truthfully stated that the object the customer pointed to was real gold. The fact that he was pointing to a monatomic coating of real gold atop a worthless piece of tin is not something he explicitly inquired about, so by your logic, I was completely honest in letting him buy what he thought was a gold trinket but which was in actuality a gold-plated piece of tin.

You're a fucking ethics-challenged moron. You won't admit it, but you'd be outraged if someone pulled this kind of shit on you.

[Surlethe]

Preferably I would like to sell it above the the MSRP to make as much of a profit as possible and the customer will most likely try to work out a deal with the price.

So you would omit attribute δ and attempt to make $an. Does this not strike you as deception? Objectively, the object is worth $n; by leaving information out, you make the object seem worth $an, creating an illusion. This behavior is therefore dishonest. EDIT: "Fraud" is the word I was looking for. Thank you, Civil War Man.

[Civil War Man]

Hey LongVin, guess what?

Emphasis mine on all these definitions

Fraud - n. -
1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.
3. a. One that defrauds; a cheat.
3. b. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.

Fraud
Deception carried out for the purpose of achieving personal gain while causing injury to another party. For example, selling a new security issue while intentionally concealing important facts related to the issue is fraud.

Fraud - n. -
1 a : any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage; specifically : a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and with the intent to deceive another and that is reasonably relied on by the other who is injured thereby b : the affirmative defense of having acted in response to a fraud
2 : the crime or tort of committing fraud

Fraud - n. -
1: intentional deception resulting in injury to another person 2: a person who makes deceitful pretenses [syn: imposter, impostor, pretender, fake, faker, sham, shammer, pseudo, pseud, role player] 3: something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage

So, is that enough definitions for you, or are you simply going to ignore that you are basically arguing that fraud is an ethical act?

[LongVin]

But I am not setting out to deceive my customer. I am not lieing to anyone. In fact I have stated numerous times whats in the computer and what the computer does and its general state as well as making availible the original price.

And I, as the Vicodin salesman, have explained what chemicals are in the drug, and what symptoms it is intended to treat, and how effective it is in that endeavour. According to your logic, I did not deceive anyone by failing to point out other aspects of the product that might be of interest to the customer. After all, he should just go look it up on Pubmed.

Similarly, to use my gold-plated tin example which you completely ignored, I as the seller of the gold-plated tin object, have quite truthfully stated that the object the customer pointed to was real gold. The fact that he was pointing to a monatomic coating of real gold atop a worthless piece of tin is not something he explicitly inquired about, so by your logic, I was completely honest in letting him buy what he thought was a gold trinket but which was in actuality a gold-plated piece of tin.

You're a fucking ethics-challenged moron. You won't admit it, but you'd be outraged if someone pulled this kind of shit on you.

Once again when selling a drug you are obligated by law to point out the sideeffects. Though even then when the doctor is prescribing a drug to a person he doesn't usually state the side effects he goes "Yeah this should clear up whatever you have. Make sure to read all the instructions," and gives you a prescription

I missed the gold plated post.

Also because of common usage when you ask if something is gold you are asking is it "solid gold." When a person asks if its gold they are not asking whether it looks like gold or not but that if its all gold.

And if I got swindled I'd probably get annoyed but if there wasn't anything I could do about it(i.e. return it) I would just tell myself I have to be more careful next time and move on. Hell just two weeks ago I had to get my cellphone replaced because my old one broke so I went to the store and the guy reccomended me a phone that was a Boostmobile and said it was compatible with Nextel's features. Now normally I would of checked with Nextel about this but I just wanted to get a new phone so I bought it right there and had him switch the SIMcard out. I checked the phone and it worked, I could make calls, receive calls and chirp people.

When I got home I tried to download a ringtone and I couldn't so I called Nextel support they said the phone wasn't compatible with those services. Sure I got a little ticked at first but it wasn't a big deal. The next day I went back with my receipt and got a new phone.

It was stupid of me to get the boostmobile in the first place I was just trying to save some cash since they are cheaper but I wasn't thinking about whether or not they are fully compatible with Nextels. But otherwise I learned a lesson for the next time I decide or have to get a new phone and that is to do some research on it like I would do if I was purchasing parts for my computer or a car.

[Darth Wong]

Once again when selling a drug you are obligated by law to point out the sideeffects. Though even then when the doctor is prescribing a drug to a person he doesn't usually state the side effects he goes "Yeah this should clear up whatever you have. Make sure to read all the instructions," and gives you a prescription

That is a RED HERRING, you stupid asshole. We're not talking about law, we're talking about ethics.

I missed the gold plated post.

Also because of common usage when you ask if something is gold you are asking is it "solid gold." When a person asks if its gold they are not asking whether it looks like gold or not but that if its all gold.

Nice evasion, asshole. When faced with a scenario that you can't handle, just alter the scenario. Answer the fucking point.

And if I got swindled I'd probably get annoyed but if there wasn't anything I could do about it(i.e. return it) I would just tell myself I have to be more careful next time and move on. Hell just two weeks ago I had to get my cellphone replaced because my old one broke so I went to the store and the guy reccomended me a phone that was a Boostmobile and said it was compatible with Nextel's features. Now normally I would of checked with Nextel about this but I just wanted to get a new phone so I bought it right there and had him switch the SIMcard out. I checked the phone and it worked, I could make calls, receive calls and chirp people.

When I got home I tried to download a ringtone and I couldn't so I called Nextel support they said the phone wasn't compatible with those services. Sure I got a little ticked at first but it wasn't a big deal. The next day I went back with my receipt and got a new phone.

It was stupid of me to get the boostmobile in the first place I was just trying to save some cash since they are cheaper but I wasn't thinking about whether or not they are fully compatible with Nextels. But otherwise I learned a lesson for the next time I decide or have to get a new phone and that is to do some research on it like I would do if I was purchasing parts for my computer or a car.

Oh what a load of irrelevant bullshit. You got a free replacement, so there was no harm done. How happy would you have been if they laughed at you and told you go fuck yourself because of some fine print on the receipt which they didn't bother pointing out to you?

[LongVin]

Hey LongVin, guess what?

Emphasis mine on all these definitions

Fraud - n. -
1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
while intentionally concealing important facts related to the issue is fraud.

Fraud - n. -
1 a : any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage; specifically : a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and with the intent to deceive another and that is reasonably relied on by the other who is injured thereby b : the affirmative defense of having acted in response to a fraud
2 : the crime or tort of committing fraud

Fraud - n. -
1: intentional deception resulting in injury to another person 2: a person who makes deceitful pretenses [syn: imposter, impostor, pretender, fake, faker, sham, shammer, pseudo, pseud, role player] 3: something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage

So, is that enough definitions for you, or are you simply going to ignore that you are basically arguing that fraud is an ethical act?

Once again you are not concealing the computer is old or used. The fact you are marketing the computer as used informs them of the fact it is old. Just like when you hear the term "used car" you associate old with it. Thats why they say "Certified Pre Owned" now because it gets rid of the negative stigma behind the word used.

And it is not intentionally concealing facts that the facts on whats in the computer is made readily availible.

A concealment would be hiding the information and making it unavailible to the customer so if the guy asked you "oh is this video card top of the line?" and you go "Oh I'm not sure I would have to check on that." thats concealing information.

[LongVin]

Once again when selling a drug you are obligated by law to point out the sideeffects. Though even then when the doctor is prescribing a drug to a person he doesn't usually state the side effects he goes "Yeah this should clear up whatever you have. Make sure to read all the instructions," and gives you a prescription

That is a RED HERRING, you stupid asshole. We're not talking about law, we're talking about ethics.

I missed the gold plated post.

Also because of common usage when you ask if something is gold you are asking is it "solid gold." When a person asks if its gold they are not asking whether it looks like gold or not but that if its all gold.

Nice evasion, asshole. When faced with a scenario that you can't handle, just alter the scenario. Answer the fucking point.

And if I got swindled I'd probably get annoyed but if there wasn't anything I could do about it(i.e. return it) I would just tell myself I have to be more careful next time and move on. Hell just two weeks ago I had to get my cellphone replaced because my old one broke so I went to the store and the guy reccomended me a phone that was a Boostmobile and said it was compatible with Nextel's features. Now normally I would of checked with Nextel about this but I just wanted to get a new phone so I bought it right there and had him switch the SIMcard out. I checked the phone and it worked, I could make calls, receive calls and chirp people.

When I got home I tried to download a ringtone and I couldn't so I called Nextel support they said the phone wasn't compatible with those services. Sure I got a little ticked at first but it wasn't a big deal. The next day I went back with my receipt and got a new phone.

It was stupid of me to get the boostmobile in the first place I was just trying to save some cash since they are cheaper but I wasn't thinking about whether or not they are fully compatible with Nextels. But otherwise I learned a lesson for the next time I decide or have to get a new phone and that is to do some research on it like I would do if I was purchasing parts for my computer or a car.

Oh what a load of irrelevant bullshit. You got a free replacement, so there was no harm done. How happy would you have been if they laughed at you and told you go fuck yourself because of some fine print on the receipt which they didn't bother pointing out to you?

And I made a counter to the information. READ MY WHOLE RESPONSE ABOUT THE DOCTOR.

And technically yes that is gold. But common usage of the term gold makes it you are asking for solid gold.

And no it wasn't a free replacement I had to pay an extra 100 bucks for the Nextel phone. Thats why I went with the boostmobile at first because it was cheaper and thats why I said the boostmobile was cheaper. So no I didn't come out ahead. But I don't care. I really should of checked first instead of just assuming it would work with everything.

[Darth Wong]

Once again you are not concealing the computer is old or used. The fact you are marketing the computer as used informs them of the fact it is old. Just like when you hear the term "used car" you associate old with it. Thats why they say "Certified Pre Owned" now because it gets rid of the negative stigma behind the word used.

And it is not intentionally concealing facts that the facts on whats in the computer is made readily availible.

A concealment would be hiding the information and making it unavailible to the customer so if the guy asked you "oh is this video card top of the line?" and you go "Oh I'm not sure I would have to check on that." thats concealing information.

I've had enough of your bullshit, asshole. If you think that a court would agree with you that anything other than an outright lie is not dishonesty, and that omission cannot possibly be regarded as fraud, then BACK UP YOUR BULLSHIT RIGHT FUCKING NOW. Show me an example of an ethics code, a judge's ruling, anything to substantiate your bullshit claim that anything short of outright lying can't possibly be fraud or dishonesty. Because right now every single one of your posts in this thread boils down to "because I say so". You don't reference any professional ethics codes, you don't reference any legal rulings or definitions, so what the fuck is the basis of your bullshit?

And I made a counter to the information. READ MY WHOLE RESPONSE ABOUT THE DOCTOR.

I've seen it. It's the same evasive red-herring bullshit that you've been using everywhere else: arguments which are designed to distract from the fact that the same basic kind of fraud is occurring.

[Civil War Man]

Once again you are not concealing the computer is old or used. The fact you are marketing the computer as used informs them of the fact it is old. Just like when you hear the term "used car" you associate old with it. Thats why they say "Certified Pre Owned" now because it gets rid of the negative stigma behind the word used.

And it is not intentionally concealing facts that the facts on whats in the computer is made readily availible.

A concealment would be hiding the information and making it unavailible to the customer so if the guy asked you "oh is this video card top of the line?" and you go "Oh I'm not sure I would have to check on that." thats concealing information.

Are you intentionally being dense? Notice how those definitions also include a little word known as MISREPRESENTATION? If you pitch the computer using only factually true statements, but worded in such a way that it implies a higher performance machine, you are INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTING the capabilities of the machine. And when you INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENT the capabilities, you are carrying out another one of those nasty little words in the definitions known as DECEPTION.

Shall we go over it again in detail?

1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

As stated in the OP, you realize that the buyer is getting a false impression of the product based on your pitch. That makes it a deception.
As stated in the OP, after realizing this, you do nothing to correct it. That makes the deception deliberate.
As stated in the OP, you take advantage of this false impression to charge a price significantly higher than the machine's market value. By doing that, the deliberate deception is used to secure an unfair gain. Hey! We got the definition!

2. Deception carried out for the purpose of achieving personal gain while causing injury to another party.

Sounds awfully close to that first one. You take advantage of the buyer's lack of knowledge to make them think the machine is worth more and charge them a sum of money far outside the realm of fairness. That sounds like a deception used to achieve personal (financial) gain while causing (financial) injury to another party.

3. Intentional deception resulting in injury to another person

See 1 and 2. As stated in the OP, you are intentionally deceiving the buyer in order to take as much money from them as possible. You are swindling them, which counts as a form of financial injury.

4. Any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage; specifically : a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and with the intent to deceive another and that is reasonably relied on by the other who is injured thereby

Hm...any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage. As per the OP, you know the buyer is getting a false impression of the machine's capabilities. You do nothing to correct this false impression (an omission). In fact, you do everything you can to foster this misconception (thereby concealing the machine's true capabilities). You offer to sell it to them for a certain amount of money, knowing full well that it is not worth nearly that much (another omission). All of this is done in order to get the buyer to pay an artificially inflated price, which by definition is deceiving them to their disadvantage.

Do you get it yet? Do you realize yet that you are advocating fraud as an ethical act? Or do I need to use smaller words?

[LongVin]

Alright lets see:

Heres one about Buyer Beware when it comes to Herbal Supplements.

http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Jun/1/127187.html

It says that the Company can put whatever claims it wants on the bottle since they are not regulated. And in the law section it states you can only sue if the product causes injury or death. It doesn't say you can sue because the product didn't work as intended and helped them lose weight or whatever.

[Darth Wong]

Alright lets see:

Heres one about Buyer Beware when it comes to Herbal Supplements.

http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Jun/1/127187.html

It says that the Company can put whatever claims it wants on the bottle since they are not regulated. And in the law section it states you can only sue if the product causes injury or death. It doesn't say you can sue because the product didn't work as intended and helped them lose weight or whatever.

What are you, a fucking retard? The fact that you can't SUE over something does not mean it must be ETHICAL! Jesus Maryfucker, don't you understand a goddamned thing that anyone has been saying throughout this thread?

And you don't even seem to read your own fucking links, since it says this:

The failure to give adequate warnings of health risks on the label may cause a product to be deemed defective.

In other words, your own link says that you must proactively inform people of potential problems.

[LongVin]

Alright lets see:

Heres one about Buyer Beware when it comes to Herbal Supplements.

http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Jun/1/127187.html

It says that the Company can put whatever claims it wants on the bottle since they are not regulated. And in the law section it states you can only sue if the product causes injury or death. It doesn't say you can sue because the product didn't work as intended and helped them lose weight or whatever.

What are you, a fucking retard? The fact that you can't SUE over something does not mean it must be ETHICAL! Jesus Maryfucker, don't you understand a goddamned thing that anyone has been saying throughout this thread?

And you don't even seem to read your own fucking links, since it says this:

The failure to give adequate warnings of health risks on the label may cause a product to be deemed defective.

In other words, your own link says that you must proactively inform people of potential problems.

You asked for a legal case. I presented you to a legal case.

And it says HEALTH RISKS. It doesn't say anything about the product not working as intended. HEALTH RISKS. It is informing them of DANGERS not problems. If that was the case it would have to say "PRODUCT POTENTIALLY MAY NOT WORK"

[R. U. Serious]

You asked for a legal case. I presented you to a legal case.

Wow, you do have a reading and/or logical disability. What you presented is not (not even close) to what Darth was asking.

But getting the best price is beneficial to me. Any action I take in any situation(situation below) can have a negative effect on another person. You have to decide whats in my best interests to do.

People are not talking about what is the "best" thing to do. People are talking about the "ethically" correct thing to do.
It is clear you are missing the ability to seperate the different concepts of utility and ethics. Just as you are confusing legality and utility, and legality and ethics.

[Stark]

From reading the thread, I think some people have an odd idea of the concept behind 'ethical'. There are many things that are accepted, and certainly not illegal, but nevertheless unethical. The idea that the tactics of shonky salesmen are ethical merely because lots of people do it and it isn't illegal is obtuse in the extreme - they're regarded as SHONKY salesmen FOR A REASON, and that clearly puts those activities below the standard of 'ethical behaviour'.