Is profiting off of ignorance unethical?

[Lord Zentei]

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.

The customer knows that it is used, but not precisely how old or useless it is. If the customer knew this he would never pay $200 for it, since it does not do all the things that warrant such a pricetag.

[Simplicius]

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.

No. As explicitly stated in the OP, you are setting out to deceive your customer by 1. Overcharging for an obsolete machine and 2. Providing a misleading description of said machine.

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.

Did you read the OP?

This someone quickly reveals that they are not very computer literate, and so I talk up the computer (it's "very clean", always been very reliable, complete with monitor, throw out a bunch of technojargon), but I do not lie to this prospective buyer; all I do is talk it up like it's impressive even though it's definitely an old computer.

Notice how in this scenario you do not tell the buyer that the computer is nowhere near as good as a new computer that he could obtain for the $500 you are charging him - a piece of information that could have a significant influence on his decision to buy, or the price he's willing to pay. You are not being completely honest with the buyer about the computer - you are deliberately deceiving him.

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.

The analogy with the computer is not that you are passing off a used product as a new one, but that you are passing off an obsolete product as equal in quality and therefore in value to a new one. So, new analogy: would you try to sell a twenty-year-old station wagon for the price of a brand-new station wagon?

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

All of which distracts from the overarching question, which is the unethicality of inflated prices and deceptive product descriptions. So: would you find it ethical to sell an older car at a higher price than a newer, better one cost? Would you find it ethical to sell a car for a price out of proportion to its quality, particularly if you didn't make it clear that the car's quality was sub-par?

Egress means exit.

Yes, I know - "I speeek good Eenglish, I laern it from a book." But the point, which evidently sailed right past you, is that Barnum took advantage of the ignorance of people who didn't know that egress means exit to make some extra money off of them - which is exactly what you are doing in the OP when you take advantage of the buyer's computer illitaracy. So are you going to argue that Barnum was ethical, that people with a limiteed vocabulary should always carry a dictionary around with them so they won't be swindled by those who are better read than they?

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.

Read the fucking definitions, and tell me where legality comes up. Or I'll save you the trouble: not once. You miss - or dodge - the point yet again, which is that these words carry a negative stigma because they are assigned to behavior which is dishonest and unethical.

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.

If I steal from you and give the stolen money to a charitable organization, my theft has been turned toward a good end. Theft is still unethical.

If I gun down a notorious criminal in cold blood, I have just committed murder. However, I have also removed a dangerous person from society, which is a beneficial end. Murder is still unethical.

So why, pray, is lying ethically neutral despite the fact that, like murder and theft, it can be used to good or evil ends?

[Lord Zentei]

<SNIPPA>

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.

LOL! This about sums up your entire philosophy, right?

R.U.: "It's not about utility, it's about knowingly deceiving".

You: "But what about me? Waah, waah, waah."

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.

Wow, and not revealing the truth about a product in order to demand a ridiculous price for it is comprable to this?

[LongVin]

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.

See quote:

...If you think that a court would agree with you...

He brought up the courts in his post. Asking for a Judges ruling or the like. I posted an article about the law of a similar situation.

[LongVin]

No. As explicitly stated in the OP, you are setting out to deceive your customer by 1. Overcharging for an obsolete machine and 2. Providing a misleading description of said machine.

I'm allowed to overcharge. If someone wants to pay that price they can they don't have to. And I already stated I don't feel that its misleading because it clearly states the facts about the computer and its original price.

Notice how in this scenario you do not tell the buyer that the computer is nowhere near as good as a new computer that he could obtain for the $500 you are charging him - a piece of information that could have a significant influence on his decision to buy, or the price he's willing to pay. You are not being completely honest with the buyer about the computer - you are deliberately deceiving him.

If I am selling one item and that is the only item I am selling why am I going to advise the buyer that he can go someplace else and get a better item? I want to make a sale, I don't want to make a sale for someone else.

Now maybe if I was selling 3 items one better then the next I would go "Oh yeah but those two don't have the same capabilities of this one" and then start showcasing the most expensive/best product.

The analogy with the computer is not that you are passing off a used product as a new one, but that you are passing off an obsolete product as equal in quality and therefore in value to a new one. So, new analogy: would you try to sell a twenty-year-old station wagon for the price of a brand-new station wagon?

If I figured I could sell it for the price of a new one I would try. But I doubt I would get the price of a new one since most people who are looking to purchase a used car are doing it because they want a deal. And if they can choose between buying a new car or a used car at the same price they would go for the new. I wish I could sell it for the price of a new one but that is highly doubtful unless I can market it as an antique car.

Yes, I know - "I speeek good Eenglish, I laern it from a book." But the point, which evidently sailed right past you, is that Barnum took advantage of the ignorance of people who didn't know that egress means exit to make some extra money off of them - which is exactly what you are doing in the OP when you take advantage of the buyer's computer illitaracy. So are you going to argue that Barnum was ethical, that people with a limiteed vocabulary should always carry a dictionary around with them so they won't be swindled by those who are better read than they?

If I didn't know I would ask someone. But the thing is with computers you are bombarded every day with TV commercials advertising "NEW DELL <whatever name they give them now> for only 999$ in monthly installments of <whatever>." The person should know just from being in general society and being exposed to advertisements of the price they can get a new computer for.

If I steal from you and give the stolen money to a charitable organization, my theft has been turned toward a good end. Theft is still unethical.

Still Unethical it wasn't yours to give in the first place.

If I gun down a notorious criminal in cold blood, I have just committed murder. However, I have also removed a dangerous person from society, which is a beneficial end. Murder is still unethical.

Not an Unreasonable Killing and is thus not murder. In fact it was very reasonable to kill him. It is a good and just killing.

[LongVin]

<SNIPPA>

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.

LOL! This about sums up your entire philosophy, right?

R.U.: "It's not about utility, it's about knowingly deceiving".

You: "But what about me? Waah, waah, waah."

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.

Wow, and not revealing the truth about a product in order to demand a ridiculous price for it is comprable to this?

My first and foremost goal in life is looking out for my best interests. Once my needs and wants are satisified then I can look at other things.

And my point in the analogy is to prove no matter what you do may have a negative effect on a person. But you have to do things to look out for your own best interests.

[Stark]

If you think that self-interest is the pinnacle of ethical behaviour, you're a fucking retard. The end.

[Surlethe]

My first and foremost goal in life is looking out for my best interests. Once my needs and wants are satisified then I can look at other things.

And my point in the analogy is to prove no matter what you do may have a negative effect on a person. But you have to do things to look out for your own best interests.

You are faced with a decision: A vs. B. If you choose option A, you will condemn your two children to die. If you choose option B, you will condemn yourself to die. Which do you choose?

[Stark]

Don't give him an ethical problem - he thinks ethics=profits.

[Surlethe]

Don't give him an ethical problem - he thinks ethics=profits.

Hey, I'm just giving him the rope; he's the one who's going to be hanging himself.

[Admiral Johnason]

My first and foremost goal in life is looking out for my best interests. Once my needs and wants are satisified then I can look at other things.

And my point in the analogy is to prove no matter what you do may have a negative effect on a person. But you have to do things to look out for your own best interests.

Niche would love you.

So according to you, there is never awy way to help your fellow man. Self-protection and greed have been used to justify the worst crimes in human history (WWII, the genocide of the Native Americans, constant fighting in the Middle East, the genocides in Africa,) so I suggest you rethink your ideas.

And yes, you can always help someone, it is only a matter of self-sacrifice and the desire to do what is right. People like you thought Iraq was a great idea. People liek you justified the topiling of so many legitimate governments, it would make your head spin. Self-interest lead to slavery, racism, and hate in it's purest forms. You must be a facist jackass in disguise. The only people I know that care only for self-interest and use it to "justify" their actions are some of the biggest dicks in the world (and yet probably have the smallest penises.)

[LongVin]

My first and foremost goal in life is looking out for my best interests. Once my needs and wants are satisified then I can look at other things.

And my point in the analogy is to prove no matter what you do may have a negative effect on a person. But you have to do things to look out for your own best interests.

You are faced with a decision: A vs. B. If you choose option A, you will condemn your two children to die. If you choose option B, you will condemn yourself to die. Which do you choose?

My self interest in the matter would be to let said kids to live because I will eventually die and I need heirs to continue my legacy.

[LongVin]

My first and foremost goal in life is looking out for my best interests. Once my needs and wants are satisified then I can look at other things.

And my point in the analogy is to prove no matter what you do may have a negative effect on a person. But you have to do things to look out for your own best interests.

Niche would love you.

So according to you, there is never awy way to help your fellow man. Self-protection and greed have been used to justify the worst crimes in human history (WWII, the genocide of the Native Americans, constant fighting in the Middle East, the genocides in Africa,) so I suggest you rethink your ideas.

And yes, you can always help someone, it is only a matter of self-sacrifice and the desire to do what is right. People like you thought Iraq was a great idea. People liek you justified the topiling of so many legitimate governments, it would make your head spin. Self-interest lead to slavery, racism, and hate in it's purest forms. You must be a facist jackass in disguise. The only people I know that care only for self-interest and use it to "justify" their actions are some of the biggest dicks in the world (and yet probably have the smallest penises.)

I will help people and give money to charity after my needs and wants are met first. When I decide to get rid of my old clothes I don't throw them out but instead bring them to a church where they are given to the poor.

[Admiral Johnason]

I am saying that self-interest cannot be your overriding need. That way of thinking can only lead to problems. Placing others needs before your own shows a healthy psyc profile. One needs to place society before yourself.

Self-interest is the lowest level of social development. Real adults must place effects of their actions on society before what I can get out of this.

Then there is the idea that self-fullfillment outranks self-interest.

[Simplicius]

I'm allowed to overcharge. If someone wants to pay that price they can they don't have to. And I already stated I don't feel that its misleading because it clearly states the facts about the computer and its original price.

You are allowed to. The question - again - is, is it ethical for you to do so? The answer is no.

It doesn't make a bit of difference that you don't feel it's misleading. The facts - all of the facts - about the computer are not clearly stated.

Suppose I offer you an apple. I tell you that it was picked just this afternoon from a tree in my backyard that I've tended myself for years, and that always produced a bountiful and delicious crop. All of this is absolutely true. What I don't tell you is that this particular apple has a worm in it. Have I misled you?

If I am selling one item and that is the only item I am selling why am I going to advise the buyer that he can go someplace else and get a better item? I want to make a sale, I don't want to make a sale for someone else.

Just because it doesn't make sense for you, as someone who is seeking to maximise profit, to omit vital information doesn't mean that it is ethical to do so. Imagine that I am selling you the apple I mentioned above. You buy it, and only discover the worm afterward, when you go to take a bite. Would you not feel cheated that you paid for a product that was not what you thought it was?

I don't have to tell you that you should buy an apple from Hannaford rather than my wormy one. But I do have an ethical obligation to describe my apple accurately, just as you have an ethical obligation to describe your computer accurately - including its deficiencies.

If as a result of your inferior product you lose the sale, tough shit for you - next time, charge a more appropriate price.

If I figured I could sell it for the price of a new one I would try. But I doubt I would get the price of a new one since most people who are looking to purchase a used car are doing it because they want a deal. And if they can choose between buying a new car or a used car at the same price they would go for the new. I wish I could sell it for the price of a new one but that is highly doubtful unless I can market it as an antique car.

Obfuscation. It is unethical to charge a price out of proportion with the actual value of a good.

Curiously, you are making a point for me in these automotive examples. Every time you say "if I could get away with it I would [overcharge], but I wouldn't be able to because people haggle prices down/are looking for a deal" you tacitly admit that such an overcharge does not constitute a fair price - if it was a fair price, people should not expect a deal or feel the need to haggle. Now, if it is unreasonable to price a car above its fair value, why isn't it unreasonable to price a computer above its fair value?

If I didn't know I would ask someone. But the thing is with computers you are bombarded every day with TV commercials advertising "NEW DELL <whatever name they give them now> for only 999$ in monthly installments of <whatever>." The person should know just from being in general society and being exposed to advertisements of the price they can get a new computer for.

People are bombarded with pharmaceutical advertisements with all of the fine print at the end describing every horrible side effect. Drug companies are still ethically obligated to provide that information with the product itself so that it is available for the consumer to read up to the very instant he makes the decision to buy.

It is irrelevant that they "ought" to know; your ethical responsibility as a seller is to make certain that they know.

Still Unethical it wasn't yours to give in the first place.

Christ, I just said theft was unethical regardless of the fact that it can be turned toward a good end.

Not an Unreasonable Killing and is thus not murder. In fact it was very reasonable to kill him. It is a good and just killing.

Read it and weep.

Main Entry: mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

MURDER, FIRST DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of first degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.

I don't see anything in there about 'reasonable and just'. If I meet a man in the street, pull out my psitol, and shoot him dead, guess what - it's murder, whether I've just shot Charles Manson or Jesus himself.

Now, I'm going to ask my question a third time, and I want you to grow a spine and answer it instead of playing some sneaky little dodge.

Theft is unethical though its ends be good or evil. Murder is unethical though its ends be good or evil. Why the fuck is lying ethically neutral, though its ends be good or evil?

[LongVin]

I am saying that self-interest cannot be your overriding need. That way of thinking can only lead to problems. Placing others needs before your own shows a healthy psyc profile. One needs to place society before yourself.

Self-interest is the lowest level of social development. Real adults must place effects of their actions on society before what I can get out of this.

Then there is the idea that self-fullfillment outranks self-interest.

But my self interest is an important need because it leads to my own fullfilment and hapiness.

And nor would I break the law to obtain my best interest so societal needs are present in my system.

[Admiral Johnason]

I am saying that self-interest cannot be your overriding need. That way of thinking can only lead to problems. Placing others needs before your own shows a healthy psyc profile. One needs to place society before yourself.

Self-interest is the lowest level of social development. Real adults must place effects of their actions on society before what I can get out of this.

Then there is the idea that self-fullfillment outranks self-interest.

But my self interest is an important need because it leads to my own fullfilment and hapiness.

And nor would I break the law to obtain my best interest so societal needs are present in my system.

But you are only accounting for your punishment, not the needs of society. you are still worried about yourself and not really caring for others. Real fullfilment comes from interaction and positive communication coupled with the ideas of usefulness and a desire to be selfless. Quit returning to your old stance and being a brat. All I hear is that I do things to make myself look good instead of doing things becasue it is right. Doing what is right will fullfil an intrinsic need. Man, this is basic psyc. You really seem to be focused on a primitive level, unable to escape becuse you lack the maturity to do so.

[LongVin]

You are allowed to. The question - again - is, is it ethical for you to do so? The answer is no.

It doesn't make a bit of difference that you don't feel it's misleading. The facts - all of the facts - about the computer are not clearly stated.

Suppose I offer you an apple. I tell you that it was picked just this afternoon from a tree in my backyard that I've tended myself for years, and that always produced a bountiful and delicious crop. All of this is absolutely true. What I don't tell you is that this particular apple has a worm in it. Have I misled you?

Alright I'll assume you know the apple has a worm in it. Since I never actually had an apple with a worm in it I don't know if its possible to actually tell if any apple has a worm in it.

And for the sake of the arguement I'll assume I'm being misled.

Just because it doesn't make sense for you, as someone who is seeking to maximise profit, to omit vital information doesn't mean that it is ethical to do so. Imagine that I am selling you the apple I mentioned above. You buy it, and only discover the worm afterward, when you go to take a bite. Would you not feel cheated that you paid for a product that was not what you thought it was?

I don't have to tell you that you should buy an apple from Hannaford rather than my wormy one. But I do have an ethical obligation to describe my apple accurately, just as you have an ethical obligation to describe your computer accurately - including its deficiencies.

If as a result of your inferior product you lose the sale, tough shit for you - next time, charge a more appropriate price.

I would probably be more disgusted by the worm and figure you didn't even know the worm existed in the said apple anyway.

But I see a flaw in your arguement compared to the original one in the original one we are only pointing out the benefits one object you have to rely on your previous harvests to push the new product so you aren't really describing that apple but other apples. Where in the computer example you are describing one particular computer.

Obfuscation. It is unethical to charge a price out of proportion with the actual value of a good.

Curiously, you are making a point for me in these automotive examples. Every time you say "if I could get away with it I would [overcharge], but I wouldn't be able to because people haggle prices down/are looking for a deal" you tacitly admit that such an overcharge does not constitute a fair price - if it was a fair price, people should not expect a deal or feel the need to haggle. Now, if it is unreasonable to price a car above its fair value, why isn't it unreasonable to price a computer above its fair value?

People expect to haggle with cars thats just the nature of the business. Funny story that happened recently with that. I am at a carshow and I'm looking at I think the Aston Martin display. And a guy(who obviously will never be able to afford the car) comes up to the counter and asks the Aston Martin rep. how much the car costs. The rep says 183.
The "customer" replies with "How much will you give it to me for?"
Rep: 183
Customer: What does the Maserati sell for?
Rep: Why don't you ask the Maserati dealer.
Customer: If they offer a lower price will you match their?
Rep: No the price is 183.

Now disregarding the fact that the guy is in no way able to afford the car and he was just trying to be a show off thats how people purchase cars they try to work the price down to below the MSRP. Of course that doesn't work on cars in high demand because alot of dealers want over the MSRP. Its what someone is willing to pay for the car that makes it worth its true value.

People are bombarded with pharmaceutical advertisements with all of the fine print at the end describing every horrible side effect. Drug companies are still ethically obligated to provide that information with the product itself so that it is available for the consumer to read up to the very instant he makes the decision to buy.

It is irrelevant that they "ought" to know; your ethical responsibility as a seller is to make certain that they know.

There is a difference between a Risk and a problem.

Read it and weep.

Merriam-Webster.com wrote:
Main Entry: mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>


The 'Lectric Law Library wrote:
MURDER, FIRST DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of first degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.


I don't see anything in there about 'reasonable and just'. If I meet a man in the street, pull out my psitol, and shoot him dead, guess what - it's murder, whether I've just shot Charles Manson or Jesus himself.

Now, I'm going to ask my question a third time, and I want you to grow a spine and answer it instead of playing some sneaky little dodge.

Theft is unethical though its ends be good or evil. Murder is unethical though its ends be good or evil. Why the fuck is lying ethically neutral, though its ends be good or evil?

Malice:
A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.
Law. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.

kill1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kl)
v. killed, kill·ing, kills
v. tr.

To put to death.
To deprive of life: The Black Death was a disease that killed millions


Killing is just putting something or someone to death. So the government can kill a death row inmate it doesn't murder a death row inmate.

Now if you didn't know the guy was Charles Manson it would be Murder. If you knew it was Charles Manson it would be a completely justifable killing.

[Admiral Johnason]

Evil need not be malicious. Talk to Stalin or Mao.

[LongVin]

I am saying that self-interest cannot be your overriding need. That way of thinking can only lead to problems. Placing others needs before your own shows a healthy psyc profile. One needs to place society before yourself.

Self-interest is the lowest level of social development. Real adults must place effects of their actions on society before what I can get out of this.

Then there is the idea that self-fullfillment outranks self-interest.

But my self interest is an important need because it leads to my own fullfilment and hapiness.

And nor would I break the law to obtain my best interest so societal needs are present in my system.

But you are only accounting for your punishment, not the needs of society. you are still worried about yourself and not really caring for others. Real fullfilment comes from interaction and positive communication coupled with the ideas of usefulness and a desire to be selfless. Quit returning to your old stance and being a brat. All I hear is that I do things to make myself look good instead of doing things becasue it is right. Doing what is right will fullfil an intrinsic need. Man, this is basic psyc. You really seem to be focused on a primitive level, unable to escape becuse you lack the maturity to do so.

Punishment is a strong motivator not to do something.

And I care about those who I enjoy the company of, so my friends and relatives I would care about. I would give my friend or relative a good deal on the used computer if not outrightly giving it to them if I didn't really need the money.

To most people I am purely indifferent towards. I don't wish them harm and good for them if they succeed, but their success(in most cases) has no effect on my life. So sure I'll give them a helping step as long as my needs are met first and as long as this helping step isn't needed by one of the above mentioned friends or relatives.

But in neither case would I allow myself to be taken advantage of or compromise my position. Case in point. I have a friend, great guy but he has a bad habit of losing books or basically ruining them and he also has a habit of wanting to borrow books. Now after one loan it took me 6 months to get my book back and it was all beat up, so following that point everytime he asked to borrow a book I insisted on having collateral(in the form of a book of his) to insure I would get my book back in a timely matter and in good shape.

[Admiral Johnason]

Punishment is a strong motivator not to do something.

And I care about those who I enjoy the company of, so my friends and relatives I would care about. I would give my friend or relative a good deal on the used computer if not outrightly giving it to them if I didn't really need the money.

To most people I am purely indifferent towards. I don't wish them harm and good for them if they succeed, but their success(in most cases) has no effect on my life. So sure I'll give them a helping step as long as my needs are met first and as long as this helping step isn't needed by one of the above mentioned friends or relatives.

But in neither case would I allow myself to be taken advantage of or compromise my position. Case in point. I have a friend, great guy but he has a bad habit of losing books or basically ruining them and he also has a habit of wanting to borrow books. Now after one loan it took me 6 months to get my book back and it was all beat up, so following that point everytime he asked to borrow a book I insisted on having collateral(in the form of a book of his) to insure I would get my book back in a timely matter and in good shape.

You don't want to be punished because you are afraid of gettin in trouble, not on how that would effect the general society.

It is good that you at least care for those whom you are friendly and loving towards.

However you are not totally indifferent towards others. You still base your interaction on me and mine first. When you are putting you and yours over the needs of others. This concept doesn't hold up. If I am an execuative, my only desire is to make money for me. The company could be going striaght to Hell, nut so long as my stocks are great, I don't care. Self-interest must come second up until you are in a bad position. the saying is give until it hurts, not give when it feels good. Your ability to help the world around you must be based on your ability to help and still be able to contribute. I am not advocating a Spartan life style in order to make life better for everyone, nut you must measure how you can help and still be able to contribute to society.

And in the case of your friend, you could have just kept up with your own stuff while it was in his position instead of being a dick and asking for collateral. Just make him keep it on him, but don't be a dick about. You really are starting to sound like a class-1 a-hole.

[LongVin]

However you are not totally indifferent towards others. You still base your interaction on me and mine first. When you are putting you and yours over the needs of others. This concept doesn't hold up. If I am an execuative, my only desire is to make money for me. The company could be going striaght to Hell, nut so long as my stocks are great, I don't care. Self-interest must come second up until you are in a bad position. the saying is give until it hurts, not give when it feels good. Your ability to help the world around you must be based on your ability to help and still be able to contribute. I am not advocating a Spartan life style in order to make life better for everyone, nut you must measure how you can help and still be able to contribute to society.

ah but I disagree. If I am an executive its in my best interest to show a profit to the shareholders in the company. Because in the nature of corporate politics I am likely to be hired onto other companies also for my excellent business skills and thus will earn more money in the end for me. If I run one company into the ground thats it the run is over.

And in the case of your friend, you could have just kept up with your own stuff while it was in his position instead of being a dick and asking for collateral. Just make him keep it on him, but don't be a dick about. You really are starting to sound like a class-1 a-hole.

I take pride in my extensive collection and its high quality. and making him keep it on him at all times would lead to the possibility of greater damage being done to it. And the collateral serves as a reminder that my friend is borrowing a book from me and should be returned with all due haste when he is finished with it. Even then I won't loan some books out(out of print or rare books) because I don't trust anyone enough to devote the same care as I do to them.

I don't care if it takes the guy a month or two to read it unless I was planning on rereading the book but I do not like being taken advantage of when a person has finished the book and its just lieing around and when I question them about it I get answers like "oh yeah I'll give it back next week." when they will then promptly forget it next week.

[Simplicius]

Alright I'll assume you know the apple has a worm in it. Since I never actually had an apple with a worm in it I don't know if its possible to actually tell if any apple has a worm in it.

And for the sake of the arguement I'll assume I'm being misled.

There's usually a small, discolored hole on the exterior, but it could easily escape a cursory inspection or be mistaken for an insignificant break in the skin.

Your assumption is correct; I do know that the apple is flawed. Since you are being misled in this instance - a lie by omission - why is the computer buyer not being misled when you omit to mention that the computer you are selling is obsolescent? Surely an obsolescent computer is as undesirable when compared to a new one as a wormy apple is compared to one that is pristine?

I would probably be more disgusted by the worm and figure you didn't even know the worm existed in the said apple anyway.

But I see a flaw in your arguement compared to the original one in the original one we are only pointing out the benefits one object you have to rely on your previous harvests to push the new product so you aren't really describing that apple but other apples. Where in the computer example you are describing one particular computer.

Well, the fact that the tree always produces a "bountiful and delicious crop" implies that this apple is delicious by association. If I talk up the apple - how ripe it is, how shiny and colorful the skin is, how it is fresh off the tree - the situation changes not one whit.

Or, another scenario. Suppose we are chatting though an online personals service. I tell you that I am tall, attractive, and dynamite in bed. I don't tell you that I am not the gender of your preference. Am I misleading you, even though everything I did say is true?

Now disregarding the fact that the guy is in no way able to afford the car and he was just trying to be a show off thats how people purchase cars they try to work the price down to below the MSRP. Of course that doesn't work on cars in high demand because alot of dealers want over the MSRP. Its what someone is willing to pay for the car that makes it worth its true value.

Ask yourself - why might someone try to haggle down the value of a used car? Because he doesn't feel that the listed price is inappropriate and wants to pay less. Why might a seller let the price be haggled down? Because he knows that his starting price - the highest one he thinks he can get - is not necessarily the fairest price. In order to make the sale, he acknowledges this and lets the price sink to an equilibrium between his desire for profit and the buyer's desire to get value for money.

Again, this is a recognition that an artificially high price is not the 'right' price. This is so for computers as well as with cars, and it is - again - unethical for a computer seller to give the impression that his starting price is not artificially high.

There is a difference between a Risk and a problem.

What does this have to do with anything? Denying a customer the full extent of the available information about the product he is about to buy is unethical, whether the consequence is a fatal side effect or simply that the customer ends up getting ripped off. Ethics are a matter of degree, but one thing being more grossly unethical than another does not change the fact that it is still unethical.

Killing is just putting something or someone to death. So the government can kill a death row inmate it doesn't murder a death row inmate.

What part of "I pull out my pistol and shoot a man on the street" did you not understand? I am not the government, and what I have done is murder.

Now if you didn't know the guy was Charles Manson it would be Murder. If you knew it was Charles Manson it would be a completely justifable killing.

Utterly wrong. Killing in cold blood - as I portrayed it - is murder by definition, no matter who the victim, no matter what the end.

However, I intend not to be distracted by this tangent. You have for a third time failed to answer my question regarding the ethical status of lying, despite it's being emphasized for your convenience. I can only conclude that you are unable to do so.

Having your tacit acknowledgement that lying is unethical in hand, I then return to the original topic: If lying is unethical, why it it not unethical to lie by omission in order to reap an unfair profit on an obsolete computer?

[Admiral Johnason]

I have seen several case where a company went south, loosing thousands of jobs for its workers while the stockholders made a lot of money. Thus, while serving a small group, which mostly really helps themselves, they cause greater damage to the public by dragging the company down and possibly leading to economic damage to the area.

As for the books, I also have an extensive book collection. I let friends borrow my books over the long term. But I ask quite often how the book is going for the and ask what they think of it. You can be a constant reminder by being a friend and helping their experience with the book by making thme think about it. You could also ask to see for a little whil to check on a point in the book (I don't do this) in order to check on the book while not being a total dick. If you can't keep track of your stuff by being a nice guy and encouraging to others, then you shouldn't lend anything at all instead of being a total duchebag. Just don't be a chump. If the guy has a problem, confront him with it and try to help him correct himself so that he will be a better perosn instead of demaning him by treating him in a childish way.

[Lord Zentei]

My first and foremost goal in life is looking out for my best interests. Once my needs and wants are satisified then I can look at other things.

And my point in the analogy is to prove no matter what you do may have a negative effect on a person. But you have to do things to look out for your own best interests.

And that, you incredible douchebag, is precisely what is unethical. Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick! Don't you understand that the very point of ethics is to guide human interactions to avoid abuses? In no way is your example relevant: slowing someone down for a few seconds is not analogous to cheating someone out of hundreds of dollars.