Is profiting off of ignorance unethical?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: To apply the above to this case:

The above case is clearly a form of lying with malicious intent, and specifically, it really only benefits you disproportionally to the other person. Even though Utility does not strictly value motivations, they can have utility. A malicious motiviation is far more dangerous to encourage and allow as a guiding force in the long run and as a rule, whereas a non-malicious, easily universalised lie wouldn't be.

It's obvious the seller is trying to benefit himself at the expense of the other buy swindling him. Even if we were to increase the benefit to two people, (and say that's ethical), such actions are not utilitus if universalized so everyone can do it in said situation. It degrades society and hurts truthful communication if anyone can simply lie to another person to benefit themselves or +1, what type of society is that?

It's not reducing suffering. It's exploiting it to cause it.

[Surlethe]

ok so for the sake of argument there is no emotional attachment involved at all. It would be as if they "strangers" since their is no emotion involved and in a situation like the children one there would be emotion evolved and a lack of rationality.

But for the sake of argument I am treating them as "strangers" and thus I would choose my own life then.

Okay; let's generalize this, then; suppose you were alive, as you are now, back in 1930. If you die then, the Holocaust will be prevented; if you choose to live, Hitler will go through with the Holocaust. Do you choose to die?

[Simplicius]

No I am still saying its in an ethical gray area.

Lets use the Santa Claus analogy. We all know Santa is fake, or atleast I hope so otherwise I'll be making some people very sad.

Now when a parent tells a child Santa is coming the parent is lieing. But is that unethical? Hell no. The parent is giving the kid a sense of wonder and amazement in their life.

Never mind, since your Santa Claus argument has nought to do with business ethics. Boyish-Tigerlily adequately addressed the nature of ethically justifiable vs. ethically unjustifiable lies.

So, to take a more productive tack: do you believe that a lie that causes harm to another person is unethical?

But by saying its old you are saying its out of its prime in a sense you are saying its obsolete.

No. The OP specifies that you are talking the computer up as if it's better than it actually is. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of saying that it's past it's prime. I've already quoted it to you once. Re-read it your damn self this time.

Entirely different though. My ad says I am expressly looking for a girl.

In the ad for the computer it is expressely saying it is an old and used computer.

Your ad says you are looking for a girl. I am presenting myself as one even though I am not actually female. This misrepresentation is dishonest of me.

The computer buyer is looking for a computer that is not an outdated piece of crap, or, he is looking for a computer but doesn't want to pay an absurd sum of money for it. The computer seller presents his computer as used, but impressive in its capabilities and worth the $500 he is charging, even though the computer is NOT impressively capable (it is obsolete) and is NOT worth $500. This misrepresentation is dishonest of the seller.

They are both equally deceptive and equally dishonest.

The fact that hes willing to negiotate it down doesn't mean that its unfairly high it could mean numerous things. It could mean he really just wants to get that particular item off the shelf to make room for new things. The customer could be buying in bulk so he'll give the buyer a deal to encourage a larger order.

If the salesman can get the high price hes going to take it, depending on how badly and how quickly he wants to sell it will be his willinglyness to haggle.

Your instance of bulk retailing is beyond the scope of this discussion, which concerns person-to-person transactions between private citizens.

I agree that the person's starting price is not automatically unfairly high. But that does not change the fact that if a seller will allow the buyer to negotiate the price down in a transaction like the OP, it means that the seller considers the lower price to be fair as well, because a seller logically will not cheat himself.

It can be the case that a seller's starting price is unfairly high - i.e. not reflective of the true market value of the good - so that when haggling lowers the price, the seller recieves a sum approximating actual market value, rather than a price below. To start at fair market value and go down from there is a worse deal for the seller than to start high and end up in the range of fair value.

But I would say many people would support Vigilante Justice to a degree.

And that makes it ethical how, exactly?

I was trying to highlight a point about the "ethical responsibility" of the buyer. Under your reasoning the buyer should inform the seller he is selling his product for too low of a price.

And in the part of my post that you quoted, I pointed out that the ethical responsibility rests with the seller, not the buyer. Under my reasoning the buyer doesn't have to do jack shit except decide to make or not to make a purchase.

But apparently it was more convenient to just ignore that.

[Lord Zentei]

And what the flying fuck does that have to do with anything, you idiot? Slowing down on a road to read the signs is in no way comprable to cheating someone out of hundreds of dollars. Do you not understand the distinction? Moreover, in a transaction such as the one in question you would be effectively deceiving your customer in order to gain an advantage.

Nor is it the "right" thing to cheat anyone, so what does your fucking example have to do with this issue?

But its an inconvience. How can you support one inconvience or wrong and bash the other.[/quote]

Slowing down on the road to read the signs is not a moral wrong, fool, unless you enganger other motorists by doing so: it is use of the resources provided to motorists in general. Deceiving your customers is not comparable because effectively you are having them agree to one deal while actually providing another. Moreover you failed to answer the question at the end of my post.

[LongVin]

ok so for the sake of argument there is no emotional attachment involved at all. It would be as if they "strangers" since their is no emotion involved and in a situation like the children one there would be emotion evolved and a lack of rationality.

But for the sake of argument I am treating them as "strangers" and thus I would choose my own life then.

Okay; let's generalize this, then; suppose you were alive, as you are now, back in 1930. If you die then, the Holocaust will be prevented; if you choose to live, Hitler will go through with the Holocaust. Do you choose to die?

In all honesty probably not. I want to live a long rich full life. Though maybe if my sacrifice was known and public knowledge I would consider it.

Also if in this scenario I had all the divination of knowing the future I would be apprehension to change the course of history. Though the holacaust being a tragic and unfortunate event it has had a profound effect on the politics of the later half of the 20th century.

[wolveraptor]

In all honesty probably not. I want to live a long rich full life. Though maybe if my sacrifice was known and public knowledge I would consider it.

In other words, you're a selfish asshole. You don't give two shits about other human lives, and wouldn't spit in their direction if they were dehydrated in the Sahara unless you would be praised for it.

The second part of your post is the corniest piece of bullshit I've ever read. "Oh, I don't want to save millions of lives because it might alter history! Heaven knows that's always bad. Without exception!"
Stop trying to rationalize your sociopathy and admit that your warped code of ethics is below that of a fucking chimp. Yes, that's right, a shit-flinging primate at least grasps the basics of altruism, and you don't.

[Surlethe]

In all honesty probably not. I want to live a long rich full life. Though maybe if my sacrifice was known and public knowledge I would consider it.

In other words, the only reason you'd not consign six million people to death is if you got recognition out of it: your single life is more valuable than six million others. This self-centered logic can be used to justify abuse, trivial murder, theft, arson, or any sort of crime. Egocentric excuses for ethical systems are pus-filled boils on the ass of society, and yours is closest to the hairy, shit-covered asshole.

Also if in this scenario I had all the divination of knowing the future I would be apprehension to change the course of history. Though the holacaust being a tragic and unfortunate event it has had a profound effect on the politics of the later half of the 20th century.

Of course, you're only throwing out bullshit smokescreens to avoid facing the fact you simply would execute six million people for your own life.

[LongVin]

Never mind, since your Santa Claus argument has nought to do with business ethics. Boyish-Tigerlily adequately addressed the nature of ethically justifiable vs. ethically unjustifiable lies.

So, to take a more productive tack: do you believe that a lie that causes harm to another person is unethical?

But the example shows an ethical lie.

And yes I will agree with that statement.

No. The OP specifies that you are talking the computer up as if it's better than it actually is. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of saying that it's past it's prime. I've already quoted it to you once. Re-read it your damn self this time.

But you are not denying the fact that it is old and used. Of course in advertising you are going to hit the good points of the product.

If that is being unethical then every commercial ever aired is unethical.

Your ad says you are looking for a girl. I am presenting myself as one even though I am not actually female. This misrepresentation is dishonest of me.

The computer buyer is looking for a computer that is not an outdated piece of crap, or, he is looking for a computer but doesn't want to pay an absurd sum of money for it. The computer seller presents his computer as used, but impressive in its capabilities and worth the $500 he is charging, even though the computer is NOT impressively capable (it is obsolete) and is NOT worth $500. This misrepresentation is dishonest of the seller.

They are both equally deceptive and equally dishonest.

I would say they are different situations and they are not equal and I doubt the dishonesty of the computer situation.

The computer may very well be worth close to the price of 500 dollars. The Monitor itself is probably worth atleast 100-200 dollars. So the computer in the end is probably worth 250-300.

Your instance of bulk retailing is beyond the scope of this discussion, which concerns person-to-person transactions between private citizens.

I agree that the person's starting price is not automatically unfairly high. But that does not change the fact that if a seller will allow the buyer to negotiate the price down in a transaction like the OP, it means that the seller considers the lower price to be fair as well, because a seller logically will not cheat himself.

It can be the case that a seller's starting price is unfairly high - i.e. not reflective of the true market value of the good - so that when haggling lowers the price, the seller recieves a sum approximating actual market value, rather than a price below. To start at fair market value and go down from there is a worse deal for the seller than to start high and end up in the range of fair value.

A seller won't cheat himself but he is in the business of trying to get the maximum price for a product.

Once again with a car example. I'm selling a luxury car the MSRP is 60 grand. A customer comes in I talk up the car talking about how great it is, all its cool features, the accessories. The guy says he wants to buy it and asks for a price. I decide to start off at 70 grand and figure the guy will argue with me and probably work it down 5-10 grand. But instead he goes "sure!"

Am I under an ethical obligation to inform him hes overpaying? No he made a decision to just accept my high price without checking the MSRP or trying to negoitate it down.

And that makes it ethical how, exactly?

Because what is considered ethical is really defined by society believes of said action. If everyone or a large portion of people believe it is ethical to them that was the ethical and moral thing to do.

And in the part of my post that you quoted, I pointed out that the ethical responsibility rests with the seller, not the buyer. Under my reasoning the buyer doesn't have to do jack shit except decide to make or not to make a purchase.

But apparently it was more convenient to just ignore that.

Then the same system to apply to the seller. Then the sellers on;y duty is to make the sale.

[LongVin]

Edit: To apply the above to this case:

The above case is clearly a form of lying with malicious intent, and specifically, it really only benefits you disproportionally to the other person. Even though Utility does not strictly value motivations, they can have utility. A malicious motiviation is far more dangerous to encourage and allow as a guiding force in the long run and as a rule, whereas a non-malicious, easily universalised lie wouldn't be.

It's obvious the seller is trying to benefit himself at the expense of the other buy swindling him. Even if we were to increase the benefit to two people, (and say that's ethical), such actions are not utilitus if universalized so everyone can do it in said situation. It degrades society and hurts truthful communication if anyone can simply lie to another person to benefit themselves or +1, what type of society is that?

It's not reducing suffering. It's exploiting it to cause it.

Ok now I get that 500 dollars which you would say is unethically gained.

In my joy of getting alot of cash I take a stroll down the street and see some people collecting money for whatever charity and I give them five bucks. Still feeling good that I made a score I go into a Ice Cream shop order a big Shake and leave a buck in the tipjar.

Now by my act I just made other peoples lives better.

[LongVin]

In all honesty probably not. I want to live a long rich full life. Though maybe if my sacrifice was known and public knowledge I would consider it.

In other words, you're a selfish asshole. You don't give two shits about other human lives, and wouldn't spit in their direction if they were dehydrated in the Sahara unless you would be praised for it.

The second part of your post is the corniest piece of bullshit I've ever read. "Oh, I don't want to save millions of lives because it might alter history! Heaven knows that's always bad. Without exception!"
Stop trying to rationalize your sociopathy and admit that your warped code of ethics is below that of a fucking chimp. Yes, that's right, a shit-flinging primate at least grasps the basics of altruism, and you don't.

If I didn't desperately need the water(being that I am in the Sahara and all) I would give the guy some water.

I already stated is I look out for my relatives and friends and will willingly help them and give them deals. I also stated that I would help out others as long as my needs were met first.

The Holacaust is one of the most pivotal events in the 20th century. Without it history would be irrecovably different. Its like going back to 10 million BC and stepping on a frog.

[LongVin]

In all honesty probably not. I want to live a long rich full life. Though maybe if my sacrifice was known and public knowledge I would consider it.

In other words, the only reason you'd not consign six million people to death is if you got recognition out of it: your single life is more valuable than six million others. This self-centered logic can be used to justify abuse, trivial murder, theft, arson, or any sort of crime. Egocentric excuses for ethical systems are pus-filled boils on the ass of society, and yours is closest to the hairy, shit-covered asshole.

Also if in this scenario I had all the divination of knowing the future I would be apprehension to change the course of history. Though the holacaust being a tragic and unfortunate event it has had a profound effect on the politics of the later half of the 20th century.

Of course, you're only throwing out bullshit smokescreens to avoid facing the fact you simply would execute six million people for your own life.

I only have one life to live. I want to make it as good as possible. And I willingly admit I am not one for self sacrifice, if theres some sort of possible reward or recognitation for said self sacrifice then it makes me more likely to consider it.

And as I stated in my previous post it would be like going back to ten million BC and stepping on a frog you don't know what the effect would be.

[Morilore]

I only have one life to live. I want to make it as good as possible. And I willingly admit I am not one for self sacrifice, if theres some sort of possible reward or recognitation for said self sacrifice then it makes me more likely to consider it.

You just basically said you don't give a fuck about other people, you know.

And as I stated in my previous post it would be like going back to ten million BC and stepping on a frog you don't know what the effect would be.

Irrelevant. One cannot be held responsible for consequences that one could not possibly forsee. One can, however, be held responsible for failing to take an opportunity to save millions from horrible death.

[Morilore]

I only have one life to live. I want to make it as good as possible. And I willingly admit I am not one for self sacrifice, if theres some sort of possible reward or recognitation for said self sacrifice then it makes me more likely to consider it.

You just basically said you don't give a fuck about other people, you know.

Plebe edit: By which I mean you have admitted to being a complete sociopath.

[Surlethe]

I only have one life to live. I want to make it as good as possible. And I willingly admit I am not one for self sacrifice, if theres some sort of possible reward or recognitation for said self sacrifice then it makes me more likely to consider it.

Are you aware your tortured logic also supports theft, arsony, and murder, and chronic assholism, to name a few? Since you're not one for self-sacrifice, then there's no reason to permit anything to inconvenience you. That little orphan girl who got in your way on the street earlier today? Why not simply shove her into a mud puddle? If nothing else, her dismay should be valuable for its amusement.

And as I stated in my previous post it would be like going back to ten million BC and stepping on a frog you don't know what the effect would be.

This is irrelevant to the point of the scenario; therefore, it is, as I pointed out, a bullshit smokescreen.

[LongVin]

I only have one life to live. I want to make it as good as possible. And I willingly admit I am not one for self sacrifice, if theres some sort of possible reward or recognitation for said self sacrifice then it makes me more likely to consider it.

You just basically said you don't give a fuck about other people, you know.

And as I stated in my previous post it would be like going back to ten million BC and stepping on a frog you don't know what the effect would be.

Irrelevant. One cannot be held responsible for consequences that one could not possibly forsee. One can, however, be held responsible for failing to take an opportunity to save millions from horrible death.

As I previously stated I care about other people. Theres a pecking order to it, but I do care about other people primarily relatives and friends.

Actually legally if I did not actually participate(or aid the murderers) in said murders I couldn't be held responsible for them. As a private citizen I don't have a duty to prevent crime from occuring. If I aid in the crime in some way say by telling SS men where someone is hiding I can be held responsible but I am not required to stop anything because the duty doesn't exist.

[LongVin]

I only have one life to live. I want to make it as good as possible. And I willingly admit I am not one for self sacrifice, if theres some sort of possible reward or recognitation for said self sacrifice then it makes me more likely to consider it.

You just basically said you don't give a fuck about other people, you know.

Plebe edit: By which I mean you have admitted to being a complete sociopath.

I'll admit to a degree I am anti social. I'd rather be home with a good book, watching tv, checking websites or playing a video game then going to a party or being out socializing.

[Morilore]

I'll admit to a degree I am anti social. I'd rather be home with a good book, watching tv, checking websites or playing a video game then going to a party or being out socializing.

No, you're a died-in-the-wool sociopath. You don't have any sense of morality worth the name. You would not trade one life for six million because that one life happens to be yours. You're a worthless shit.

[LongVin]

I'll admit to a degree I am anti social. I'd rather be home with a good book, watching tv, checking websites or playing a video game then going to a party or being out socializing.

No, you're a died-in-the-wool sociopath. You don't have any sense of morality worth the name. You would not trade one life for six million because that one life happens to be yours. You're a worthless shit.

Actually I am very moral in my day to day life. I don't go around kicking puppies or attempting to make others miserable. If you asked someone who personally knew me they would in all likelyhood say I'm a good guy, they would probably say my political views are extreme though.

[Morilore]

Actually I am very moral in my day to day life. I don't go around kicking puppies or attempting to make others miserable. If you asked someone who personally knew me they would in all likelyhood say I'm a good guy, they would probably say my political views are extreme though.

Boo-hoo. They say Hitler was nice to his dogs.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I'll admit to a degree I am anti social. I'd rather be home with a good book, watching tv, checking websites or playing a video game then going to a party or being out socializing.

No, you're a died-in-the-wool sociopath. You don't have any sense of morality worth the name. You would not trade one life for six million because that one life happens to be yours. You're a worthless shit.

Twelve million, actually. The six million figure is just Jews.

[Morilore]

As I previously stated I care about other people. Theres a pecking order to it, but I do care about other people primarily relatives and friends.

The most vile of murderers can care about their family and friends.

Actually legally if I did not actually participate(or aid the murderers) in said murders I couldn't be held responsible for them. As a private citizen I don't have a duty to prevent crime from occuring. If I aid in the crime in some way say by telling SS men where someone is hiding I can be held responsible but I am not required to stop anything because the duty doesn't exist.

Holy shit, you honestly have no fucking idea what morality is, do you? The people who brought down Flight 93, they were just doing it for posthumous fame?

First lesson: morality is not legality. Just because something cannot be prosecuted by government doesn't mean it isn't immoral.

[LongVin]

As I previously stated I care about other people. Theres a pecking order to it, but I do care about other people primarily relatives and friends.

The most vile of murderers can care about their family and friends.

Actually legally if I did not actually participate(or aid the murderers) in said murders I couldn't be held responsible for them. As a private citizen I don't have a duty to prevent crime from occuring. If I aid in the crime in some way say by telling SS men where someone is hiding I can be held responsible but I am not required to stop anything because the duty doesn't exist.

Holy shit, you honestly have no fucking idea what morality is, do you? The people who brought down Flight 93, they were just doing it for posthumous fame?

First lesson: morality is not legality. Just because something cannot be prosecuted by government doesn't mean it isn't immoral.

They were going to die anyway if they didn't try. Trying to take back the plane was their best and only chance for survival. I would rather go down fighting then just sit back and accept my death.

[Morilore]

They were going to die anyway if they didn't try. Trying to take back the plane was their best and only chance for survival. I would rather go down fighting then just sit back and accept my death.

You're right, shitty example. Now answer the goddamned point.

[Adrian Laguna]

Since the debate got into the issue of self-preservation vs. sacrifice for the greater whole. I'd like to comment about myself.

First let's get some things straight. I'm not exactly Jesus Christ here, but I do try to avoid harming fellow humans and to aid them when I can. I go out of my way to help people without expecting any reward. I do it because it is my hope that the beneficiary of my help will be inspired to help others in need, who in turn will be inspired to do the same. Thus society as a whole benefits, and I benefit too, albeit indirectly. Perhaps a bit naive, but that's my reason.

Now on to the actual comment. There is one exception to this rule. If my life is on the line morality goes out the window and anyone between me and the continued beating of my heart is fucked. It is a position that I recognize as irrational and immoral, and I wouldn't try to defend it as such, but nevertheless it is my position.

I greatly admire those that selflessly put their life in danger or even sacrifice them for others. But I couldn't do it myself, no matter how many my sacrifice would save. The death toll would have to be so high that the very survival of Homo sapiens would be in danger before I'd sacrifice myself.

Consider the following:
Suppose Q picks me at random from the human population and gives me a deal. I die, and nothing else happens. I live, and the only survivors (besides myself) are about 1000 settlements of approx. 200 people each. Humanity has pretty good chances of enduring, but the death toll is beyond staggering. I'd choose to live.

Hey, suppose he sweetens the deal. I die, and my name will be praised as the savior of humanity for a long, long time. I would be the most long-lived (in the collective minds of humanity) mythical figure ever. If I choose to live, then all the surviving humans will instinctively try to hunt me down if they see me, and after I naturally expire nobody would know who I was. LongVin would choose self-termination. I would choose to live, even if it is a wretched and lonely life (which ironically might end in suicide).

It's illogical, it's immoral, but I just can't see myself giving my life for anything less than the very survival of humanity. Regardless of whether people recognize my sacrifice or not. Sorry.

Come to think of it, the full ramifications of this attitude are… disturbing, and not yet fully explored. I shudder to think what might happen if I were in a life-raft in the middle of the Ocean with five other people and limited supplies. Hopefully, I will never have to find out, because living with myself would be a pain in the ass if my worst fears about me are true.

[Morilore]

It's illogical, it's immoral, but I just can't see myself giving my life for anything less than the very survival of humanity. Regardless of whether people recognize my sacrifice or not. Sorry.

Come to think of it, the full ramifications of this attitude are… disturbing, and not yet fully explored. I shudder to think what might happen if I were in a life-raft in the middle of the Ocean with five other people and limited supplies. Hopefully, I will never have to find out, because living with myself would be a pain in the ass if my worst fears about me are true.

Well, you're leagues ahead of NeedleDick here, who seems incapable of moral introspection.