Is profiting off of ignorance unethical?

[Simplicius]

And yes I will agree with that statement.

I'm glad you do. Now, in the scenario with the computer, you decieve the buyer and it causes him financial harm. Lie leading to harm = unethical.

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.

The point is positively zooming past you. The good points are not being 'hit apon', they are being exaggerated. This exaggeration - dishonest in its inaccuracy - is then used to justify a grossly inflated price, which is also dishonest. That's two lies.

Any business using advertising which does that is - big surprise - unethical.

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

I want to you prove that they are different. I want you to prove that the computer seller is honest.

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.

1) $250-$300 is not "close" to $500, it's half the fucking price!

2) By your admission above, the seller is charging at least twice what the computer is actually worth. This kind of gross price inflation is known in common parlance as "ripping someone off" and it is not ethical.

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.

Guess what - there are other ways to ethically sell your product without admitting that your price is too high. Like CHARGING A FAIR PRICE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And, to say what has been said before, again and again: THE STUPIDITY OF A CUSTOMER DOES NOT RELIEVE YOU OF THE RESPONSIBILITY TO BEHAVE ETHICALLY.

Jesus.

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.

"Majority rules" doesn't apply in ethics, sorry to say. Ethics are derived from an objective weighing of social good and social harm, not what the most people think is right.

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

NO, you dumbfuck. This is not a case where the rules are equal for both sides. The rules weigh more heavily on one side - the seller - because that side has the greater opportunity to do harm to others (i.e. the buyer).

My system is ethical and tries to minimize harm. Your system is a Hobbesian free-for-all where harm is widespread in the name of personal gain.

[R. U. Serious]

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

Well, that seems to be the problem. You start with the assertion that you always act ethically, becuase you think of yourself as an athical person, and that the majority of people (or those like you?) are ethical. Then you go from there and use that rationalization to decide what is moral and what is not. (I'll leave out my judgement on that, I think anybody can uess from my posts above). "Is it ethical?" then becomes "What would Longvin do?" or "what would most people I know do?".

But most other people argue from some other principles about what would be ethical/unethical. I am sure that virtually almost all people in this thread differentiate between what their personal decision in a situation would be, and what the "ethically right thing to do" would be. Most people here probably strive for doing the right thing, but are aware that they won't always do that. But they don't have to shift their concept of ethics to feel good about themselves.

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.

(Assuming you are in the US:) your people already control the administration, congress etc. While I still think they are extreme, apparently they are not an unsignificant minority...

[Jadeite]

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.

Frankly, I wouldn't do it either.

[Darth Wong]

Longvin's contortions in this thread are as pathetic as they are disturbing. First he says that it's not unethical because you're not telling outright lies, so you're not really being dishonest. Then, when confronted with countless arguments detailing how it is possible to be dishonest without necessarily telling an outright lie, he shifts gears to a bizarre new argument which says that lying itself is not a bad thing.

And when attacked on that front, he starts blaming the victim and pulling out "enlightened self-interest" bullshit to defend himself.

His logic now seems to be that a swindler is completely vindicated if his victim was not smart enough to ask the right questions. Interestingly enough, this logic leads to the conclusion that it's OK to swindle elderly people out of their money because they're at fault for being senile and gullible.

[LongVin]

LongVin wrote:
And yes I will agree with that statement.


I'm glad you do. Now, in the scenario with the computer, you decieve the buyer and it causes him financial harm. Lie leading to harm = unethical.

LongVin wrote:
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.


The point is positively zooming past you. The good points are not being 'hit apon', they are being exaggerated. This exaggeration - dishonest in its inaccuracy - is then used to justify a grossly inflated price, which is also dishonest. That's two lies.

Any business using advertising which does that is - big surprise - unethical.

Its called being a good salesman or being a good advertiser. They are not really being exagarreted he is using tech words which are real words to describe the product he is not making up information.

Lets take an example of a real estate development being built over a drained swamp. Now what kind of mental image do you get from hearing swamp? Not that pretty.

So lets replace the word Swamp with the comparable word of Wetlands. You get a different mental image which is better then Swamp.

So now if a real estate developer is selling this property he is going to use the term "wetlands" everywhere to avoid the negative stigma associated with the word swamp.

1) $250-$300 is not "close" to $500, it's half the fucking price!

2) By your admission above, the seller is charging at least twice what the computer is actually worth. This kind of gross price inflation is known in common parlance as "ripping someone off" and it is not ethical.

I would call that making a healthy profit. It is worth what someone is willing to pay for it the seller can shop around.

Guess what - there are other ways to ethically sell your product without admitting that your price is too high. Like CHARGING A FAIR PRICE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And, to say what has been said before, again and again: THE STUPIDITY OF A CUSTOMER DOES NOT RELIEVE YOU OF THE RESPONSIBILITY TO BEHAVE ETHICALLY.

Jesus.

But I have a duty to myself to make as much money as possible.

Hell in all honesty I would probably sell the thing at market value or below market value because I'd rather make the money quickly and move the merchandise. I'd rather make fast dimes then slow quarters. But if I can make a big score I'll go for it.

"Majority rules" doesn't apply in ethics, sorry to say. Ethics are derived from an objective weighing of social good and social harm, not what the most people think is right.

And since people aren't robots its impossible to have a completely objective view of morality then. Everything will be based on someones opinion or emotions along the line.

NO, you dumbfuck. This is not a case where the rules are equal for both sides. The rules weigh more heavily on one side - the seller - because that side has the greater opportunity to do harm to others (i.e. the buyer).

My system is ethical and tries to minimize harm. Your system is a Hobbesian free-for-all where harm is widespread in the name of personal gain.

Ok since you are refusing to aknowledge the point heres another example. Along the same lines as the yard sale.

This time the buyer is an expert is an expert on antiques and runs an antiques shop. He sees this clock at a yardsale and knows without a doubt if he cleans it up it will be worth 100 dollars and will sell in a second to a group of whoever collects that particular class of antiques. The seller is only selling it for ten dollars and is completely ignorant of its value.

Now this is very similar to the situation with the computer except the roles are reversed. Do you think the buyer has a moral obligation to inform the seller of his error and pay a "fair" price for the product.

[LongVin]

Well, that seems to be the problem. You start with the assertion that you always act ethically, becuase you think of yourself as an athical person, and that the majority of people (or those like you?) are ethical. Then you go from there and use that rationalization to decide what is moral and what is not. (I'll leave out my judgement on that, I think anybody can uess from my posts above). "Is it ethical?" then becomes "What would Longvin do?" or "what would most people I know do?".

But most other people argue from some other principles about what would be ethical/unethical. I am sure that virtually almost all people in this thread differentiate between what their personal decision in a situation would be, and what the "ethically right thing to do" would be. Most people here probably strive for doing the right thing, but are aware that they won't always do that. But they don't have to shift their concept of ethics to feel good about themselves.

If I knowingly and willingly commited an unethical act I would admit to the fact that I have.

(Assuming you are in the US:) your people already control the administration, congress etc. While I still think they are extreme, apparently they are not an unsignificant minority...

oh. please the guys in the adminstration now are barely conservatives.

[haard]

While I agree that polishing the facts to make a profit is unethical, I wonder: is it always unethical to sell at a higher price than the 'real' value of a product or service?

A year ago or two, I was planning to by a new lens for my camera. I was in no hurry, so I put out an ad for my old lens at a potographers site I infrequently frequent. The lens was a Canon 70-300 IS USM (4,5-5,6), with a (then) retail price of about £350.

Now, since it was in good shape, and I was in no great need to get it sold, I put it up for £300. Mind you, I was aware that used lenses regularly go for £200-$250, or sometimes less.

In short order, I had a buyer who would pay the asking price, and subsequently did. (I also got some responses on the note that they would buy if I lowered the price)

Note I was not polishing the facts; the ad just said what it was, and that it had no faults that I knew of and only minor wear. No lies, no smoke screen. Still, I knew that any buyer could probably get a better price from someone else.

Was this unethical? If I knew that the buyer was inexperienced in buying lenses, or just had not looked at the prices in other ads(I don't know; he might have been in a hurry), then would it be unethical?

[Morilore]

Its called being a good salesman or being a good advertiser. They are not really being exagarreted he is using tech words which are real words to describe the product he is not making up information.

Lets take an example of a real estate development being built over a drained swamp. Now what kind of mental image do you get from hearing swamp? Not that pretty.

So lets replace the word Swamp with the comparable word of Wetlands. You get a different mental image which is better then Swamp.

So now if a real estate developer is selling this property he is going to use the term "wetlands" everywhere to avoid the negative stigma associated with the word swamp.

Yes, he would. Doesn't determine whether it's ethical for him to do so. You just declared an "is" statement. You can't derive an "ought" statement from an "is" statement.

I would call that making a healthy profit. It is worth what someone is willing to pay for it the seller can shop around.

That's the fact, but what's the ethical take on it? Do you even fucking care?

But I have a duty to myself to make as much money as possible.

No, you WANT to make as much money as possible. You have a DUTY to be forthright and honest with others.

Jesus fuck, you literally are turning your own selfish interest into the MORALLY CORRECT thing to do? You're scary as shit.

Hell in all honesty I would probably sell the thing at market value or below market value because I'd rather make the money quickly and move the merchandise. I'd rather make fast dimes then slow quarters. But if I can make a big score I'll go for it.

Oh go fuck yourself. "I believe in doing everything for myself, but I really don't think I'd harm anyone, honest." That's not ethics, that's intellectual acrobatics you perform so you don't have to face the fact that you would do something immoral.

And since people aren't robots its impossible to have a completely objective view of morality then. Everything will be based on someones opinion or emotions along the line.

Did you just say that it is impossible to objectively define "social good" and "social harm?" I think you did.

Ok since you are refusing to aknowledge the point heres another example. Along the same lines as the yard sale.

This time the buyer is an expert is an expert on antiques and runs an antiques shop. He sees this clock at a yardsale and knows without a doubt if he cleans it up it will be worth 100 dollars and will sell in a second to a group of whoever collects that particular class of antiques. The seller is only selling it for ten dollars and is completely ignorant of its value.

Now this is very similar to the situation with the computer except the roles are reversed. Do you think the buyer has a moral obligation to inform the seller of his error and pay a "fair" price for the product.

No, you idiot, because the seller has formally declared that this is his price. In the other scenario, the buyer tried to give the seller an inaccurate impression to convince him to purchase an item at an inflated price. In this scenario, no communication about the value of the object occurs. There is no deception. No one's arguing that if a random customer ran up to you and said "I'LL PAY YOU $500 FOR THAT HAIR" you're obligated to deny him, but you can't say shit about your hair to get someone to accept that price who wouldn't have otherwise.

If I knowingly and willingly commited an unethical act I would admit to the fact that I have.

No you wouldn't. You have no fucking clue what ethics is. You have defined ethics as whatever benefits you yourself. You've created a system whereby you can do no wrong.

[LordShaithis]

I only gave this beast of a thread a quick scan, but I have a scenario:

Suppose I put my PC, realistically worth X, up on Ebay or some such for a price of 3X with a simple dry list of specifications. No rhetorical bullshit, just "This is Item A and it's selling for Price B." No one who isn't ignorant can be expected to buy it, but all I'm really doing is tossing it out there with a price tag on it. Is this unethical?

[Morilore]

I only gave this beast of a thread a quick scan, but I have a scenario:

Suppose I put my PC, realistically worth X, up on Ebay or some such for a price of 3X with a simple dry list of specifications. No rhetorical bullshit, just "This is Item A and it's selling for Price B." No one who isn't ignorant can be expected to buy it, but all I'm really doing is tossing it out there with a price tag on it. Is this unethical?

Well, its stupid, but not unethical because you aren't misleading anyone.

[Fire Fly]

I only gave this beast of a thread a quick scan, but I have a scenario:

Suppose I put my PC, realistically worth X, up on Ebay or some such for a price of 3X with a simple dry list of specifications. No rhetorical bullshit, just "This is Item A and it's selling for Price B." No one who isn't ignorant can be expected to buy it, but all I'm really doing is tossing it out there with a price tag on it. Is this unethical?

Well, its stupid, but not unethical because you aren't misleading anyone.

Not if he knows that one of the items has a problem with it. If he knows that Item C has a problem but does not list it, then it is unethical.

[wolveraptor]

If you copy the system specs right from the manual or whatever you get with the computer, then there's no real way for that to be unethical.

[Simplicius]

Its called being a good salesman or being a good advertiser. They are not really being exagarreted he is using tech words which are real words to describe the product he is not making up information.

Lets take an example of a real estate development being built over a drained swamp. Now what kind of mental image do you get from hearing swamp? Not that pretty.

So lets replace the word Swamp with the comparable word of Wetlands. You get a different mental image which is better then Swamp.

So now if a real estate developer is selling this property he is going to use the term "wetlands" everywhere to avoid the negative stigma associated with the word swamp.

Oh, so "Hey look at how clean and shiny this computer is" is a technical term?

No, dumbass, it's a red herring. The cleanliness of a computer's case has no bearing on the fact that the computer is really old and inferior to a new computer. The cleanliness is emphasized because it distracts from the inferiority of the computer and makes it seem better than it really is, which is an exaggeration, which is dishonest.

Saying "this computer is excellent" when the truth of the matter is that the computer is not excellent is what happens in the computer scenario.

I would call that making a healthy profit. It is worth what someone is willing to pay for it the seller can shop around.

Hey fuckstick, listen up: this thread has absolutely zero to do with what is good or bad for the seller. It's all about the harm done to the buyer, and the ethicality thereof. Just putting your hands over your ears and saying "La la la la healthy profit la la self-interest la" doesn't change the fact that your 'healthy profit' is someone else's raw deal. You can make the healthiest profit in the universe and still rip someone off - hell, the healthiest profits will atuomatically be the result of a swindle. The question for you, asshole, is: is is okay to rip people off? Is that morally permissible? Do you raise a glass to con artists and their healthy profits?

But I have a duty to myself to make as much money as possible.

Hell in all honesty I would probably sell the thing at market value or below market value because I'd rather make the money quickly and move the merchandise. I'd rather make fast dimes then slow quarters. But if I can make a big score I'll go for it.

You have another duty too, asshole - your duty to society to behave ethically.

Your self-interest is irrelevant to ethics. If your so-called 'duty to make money' causes financial or other harm to others, it's unethical. The end.

And since people aren't robots its impossible to have a completely objective view of morality then. Everything will be based on someones opinion or emotions along the line.

Bullshit. Opinion and emotion are not what determine ethics. Or: just because one person, or a hundred, or a million, say something is ethical doesn't mean it is.

Ethics exist independently of what people think because they are objective; that's what I just said and what you were either too stupid or too unwilling to admit.

Ok since you are refusing to aknowledge the point heres another example. Along the same lines as the yard sale.

This time the buyer is an expert is an expert on antiques and runs an antiques shop. He sees this clock at a yardsale and knows without a doubt if he cleans it up it will be worth 100 dollars and will sell in a second to a group of whoever collects that particular class of antiques. The seller is only selling it for ten dollars and is completely ignorant of its value.

Now this is very similar to the situation with the computer except the roles are reversed. Do you think the buyer has a moral obligation to inform the seller of his error and pay a "fair" price for the product.

Refusing to acknowledge the point? I beg your pardon, but if I recall correctly it's you to whom I've been having to constantly repeat points that you completely ignore, including but not limited to the original post of this thread. You can just wait to criticise me until such time as it doesn't constitute blatant hypocrisy, buster.

I understood your yard sale example, and I understand this one as well. And my point in response to both, which hasn't sunk through your thick skull, is that the ethical rules for the seller are not equal to the ethical rules for the buyer. And the reason for that is that the seller is the one with the power to set a fair or unfair price. the one with the power to falsely or truthfully describe his product, and therefore the power to cause financial harm to someone else.

If the seller sets the price, and he sets it below the object's value - whether by intent or by ignorance - the only person that low price harms is himself. No ethical breach there.

If the seller sets the price unfairly high, the harm is done to another person, which makes it unethical.

What part of that do you not understand?

[R. U. Serious]

Well, that seems to be the problem. You start with the assertion that you always act ethically, becuase you think of yourself as an athical person, and that the majority of people (or those like you?) are ethical. Then you go from there and use that rationalization to decide what is moral and what is not. (I'll leave out my judgement on that, I think anybody can uess from my posts above). "Is it ethical?" then becomes "What would Longvin do?" or "what would most people I know do?".

But most other people argue from some other principles about what would be ethical/unethical. I am sure that virtually almost all people in this thread differentiate between what their personal decision in a situation would be, and what the "ethically right thing to do" would be. Most people here probably strive for doing the right thing, but are aware that they won't always do that. But they don't have to shift their concept of ethics to feel good about themselves.

If I knowingly and willingly commited an unethical act I would admit to the fact that I have.

And what does that have to do with what I wrote? Zero.
You have already re-defined "ethica behaviour" in your own 'funny' way in your head, so that it has nothing to do with what people in general mean by that that term. Are you aware that Saddam Hussein also for himself pobably truly believes that he hasn't done anything unethical, and has always acted in the best interest of himself and "his people"? What does that say about his way of defining "ethical behaviour"?

(Assuming you are in the US:) your people already control the administration, congress etc. While I still think they are extreme, apparently they are not an unsignificant minority...

oh. please the guys in the adminstration now are barely conservatives.

I didn't mention, nor was thinking about conservatives (funny how you twisted it). I was talking about extremists, such as you claim yourself to be. And the logic by which the administration seems to act on and define "ethical behaviour" seems to be very closely related to how you are talking and definin ethical behaviour. The only difference maybe, that they have slightly different preferences when it comes to their interests.