Is profiting off of ignorance unethical?

[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?

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.

Suppose you have three other children; you'll still have heirs. Which do you choose then?

[nick012000]

I'd save myself. I can always make more kids later. [/half joking]

[Darth Wong]

I think there's no more point even arguing with this Longvin asshole. He's made it clear that he does not recognize the concept of universal morality; he would be pissed off at other people if they did to him what he proposes to do to others. He refuses to admit that his logic is being unevenly applied to different hypothetical scenarios because he isn't really using any consistent logic at all; he simply evaluates those scenarios based on whether he is personally likely to ever be either victimized or benefited by them.

Once someone has made the decision to throw away the concept of ethical universality or the "Golden Rule", you can't really argue with him because he literally doesn't give a shit about the basic concept of ethics, which is social rather than individual.

[Fire Fly]

Would longvin be willing to accept that corporate frauds who profit from his grandparents or parents when they are old to be morally ok? If he accepts that when someone else profits off those who are close to him to be ok, then I might be more willing to accept his statement.

[wolveraptor]

I suggest that you cease using analogies with this fuckwit. He seems to dismiss them on the grounds that the nouns used aren't the same (which is really the goddamn point of analogies).

Longvin, when asked about the morality of screwing a customer over, has repeatedly shifted blame to the buyer's own ignorance, which apparently gives him a free pass to be as much of an asshole as he wants. If you'll excuse me, I'm off to sell this piece of dog shit to ignorant Christian fundamentalists, because I found that it has the image of the Virgin Mary on it. It's not illegal, so it my conscience is clean.

[Admiral Johnason]

From what I know of psychology, he sounds like he has a case of being an egotistical brat with major development issues.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I'd save myself. I can always make more kids later. [/half joking]

What?

[LongVin]

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?

But I am not concealing the fact that it is an old computer. I know its old and the customer knows its old.

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?

lol. Well I would make sure to check the persons bio to make sure there is an "F" next to the username. But I would say that is being misled because I would have a reasonable assumption only girls would answer my ad.

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.

I would say people haggle with cars because its an accepted product to haggle with and people like to get a deal or "think" they are getting a deal. But though the starting price may not be considered the fairest the dealer is hoping that the prospective customer won't argue with him and just accept that price in the interest of ease of sale he is willing to be flexible.

Look at people who buy things that "fall off the truck." People hold that up like its a mark of honor "oh yeah...I got a deal, it might be hot I only payed 90 bucks for this." but meanwhile the retail cost might only be 10 dollars more and since they didn't buy it through proper means they have no warranty on the product.

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.

LongVin wrote:
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?

Alright if you just set out to murder someone randomly in the first place and only through happenchance you happen to kill an evil person it would still be murder and unethical since your intention wasn't to right a wrong.

Now when I was presenting the difference between murder and killing I was trying to go at it from more of a self defense angle. If someone breaks into my house and I grab my gun and shoot him. I have done nothing ethically wrong, or legally wrong. I have justifablly and reasonably killed him.


Now the main difference we seem to have here is between my system which is "buyer beware" and your system of "seller beware." So I propose the following examples which shift the ignorance upon the seller.

I assume you are familar with the television show Antiques Roadshow?

Now in this scenario I am holding a yardsale and you come by and spot an old lamp that strikes your fancy. You ask me how much do I want for it and I go "ten bucks" which you agree to pay. Now next weekend the Antiques roadshow is in town and you go "what the hell let me bring that lamp in." The expert there appraises this lamp for 100 dollars.

Now are you morally obligated to go back to me and give me the value of the lamp? I would say no because we both agreed to a price and we both had consideration you wanted the lamp and I wanted the ten dollars and we agreed. The fact that it turns out there wasn't parity between the two has no position in this equation.

Now let us modify the situation: Instead of you and I being directly involved the first scenario two other parties are involved and you happen to watch that episode on tv. After watching that episode you go to my yardsale and see a lamp nearly identical to the one you saw on TV. You ask me how much I want for it and I ask for ten bucks.

Do you feel that you are going to have to advise me that the cost should be much higher because of the Antiques Roadshow episode or are you going to purchase the lamp at my stated price hoping it is as valuable as the one on the roadshow.

I would say no. Because my ignorance as the seller should have no effect on the sale, I could of researched the lamp and found out its true value. Furthermore you have no idea if that lamp is really authentic and worth the 100 dollars or if its a knock off and worth if you are lucky the ten bucks you payed for it. So if you offer the person a "fair" price you might be out 90 bucks.

[LongVin]

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.

But as an executive I have a duty to my shareholders(that small group) to show a profit which is benefitial to me as well as this small group. Now if I go against the desires, wishes and needs of the shareholders and deny them their profit(in this case helping the corporation as a whole) I can legally reprimanded for not meeting our stated goals and not following the wishes of the shareholders.

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.

I too ask about the book but it still is just a verbal reminder that can quickly be filed away. And I am not being a douchebag I am just assuring the security of my stuff. I know someone else who has what I consider a terrible habit which is dog earring pages in books to denote place. Now he has never asked me for a bookloan but if he did I would have to firmly inform him if my book came back with all its pages bent and dogearred I would be forced to operate under the rule "You break it, you buy it."

[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.

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.

Still an inconvience though and is a negative effect on someone. I am just trying to show that no matter what you do people can and will be inconvienced or angered by it even if it was right to do such as the below scenario

Now lets look at this scenario. You are in a class taking a test(it can be any test you want from a pop quiz up to an SAT/LSAT type thing) and you know the guy next to you is blatantly cheating but the teacher doesn't notice.

Now obviously the moral and ethical thing to do is report that to the instructor that the other student has an unfair advantage. Obviously after being "ratted out" the person will be angered and annoyed at you despite you making the ethical decision.

[LongVin]

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.

Suppose you have three other children; you'll still have heirs. Which do you choose then?

hmm...depends which ones are my favorites. lol. But seriously the answer would probably be the same. And not having kids makes it difficult to answer such a question because I don't have firsthand experience with a paternal bond.

[Surlethe]

hmm...depends which ones are my favorites. lol. But seriously the answer would probably be the same. And not having kids makes it difficult to answer such a question because I don't have firsthand experience with a paternal bond.

Your only reason for letting yourself die in their stead was your desire for heirs; I gave you your heirs. Now you're simply contradicting your earlier statement that your "first and foremost goal in life is looking out for my best interests."

[LongVin]

I think there's no more point even arguing with this Longvin asshole. He's made it clear that he does not recognize the concept of universal morality; he would be pissed off at other people if they did to him what he proposes to do to others. He refuses to admit that his logic is being unevenly applied to different hypothetical scenarios because he isn't really using any consistent logic at all; he simply evaluates those scenarios based on whether he is personally likely to ever be either victimized or benefited by them.

Once someone has made the decision to throw away the concept of ethical universality or the "Golden Rule", you can't really argue with him because he literally doesn't give a shit about the basic concept of ethics, which is social rather than individual.

A completely Objective and Universal Moral Code is a nice goal and works beatifully in theory but the problem is that being that people are only human their, emotions, life experiences and other factors make them interpet said moral code differently and subjectively.

Example would be.
We will say for this arguement Lying is always wrong

We have Person A who through their upbringing and life experiences completely agrees with this idea even if the truth is brutal or might hurt anothers feelings.

So when his wife asks him "Does this make me look fat?" and it does
He will respond with: "I'm sorry dear but it does"

Now we take Person B who through their upbring and life experiences disagrees with the principle and will lie to spare feelings or avoid confrontation believes its acceptable to lie

So when his wife asks him "Does this make me look fat?" and it does
He will respond with: "No not it doesn't" or somehow skirt around the question and not give a direct answer to avoid hurt feelings or an arguement.

Same moral code but because humans are human it can be interperted and looked at in many different ways.

[LongVin]

Would longvin be willing to accept that corporate frauds who profit from his grandparents or parents when they are old to be morally ok? If he accepts that when someone else profits off those who are close to him to be ok, then I might be more willing to accept his statement.

I'd probably be pissed that my grandparents were taken advantage of but I would also be annoyed they fell for the trick, but probably more annoyed about them being defrauded. And if the said company did something illegal I would seek recourse. But I would be emotionally involved and when people become emotionally involved they don't think clearly even if it was entirely my relatives fault I would most likely "rationalize" it in a way to blame others.

[LongVin]

hmm...depends which ones are my favorites. lol. But seriously the answer would probably be the same. And not having kids makes it difficult to answer such a question because I don't have firsthand experience with a paternal bond.

Your only reason for letting yourself die in their stead was your desire for heirs; I gave you your heirs. Now you're simply contradicting your earlier statement that your "first and foremost goal in life is looking out for my best interests."

But emotions sometimes run counter to logic and rationality and when placed in a situation like that it is difficult to come up with an answer because it be extremely emotional rather then rational decision in all likelyhood.

Plus still from a rational prospective those 2 are still my heirs and thus can continue the family legacy and line and bring it to more greatness in conjunction with the others.

[Surlethe]

hmm...depends which ones are my favorites. lol. But seriously the answer would probably be the same. And not having kids makes it difficult to answer such a question because I don't have firsthand experience with a paternal bond.

Your only reason for letting yourself die in their stead was your desire for heirs; I gave you your heirs. Now you're simply contradicting your earlier statement that your "first and foremost goal in life is looking out for my best interests."

But emotions sometimes run counter to logic and rationality and when placed in a situation like that it is difficult to come up with an answer because it be extremely emotional rather then rational decision in all likelyhood.

Stop dodging my question; the entire point of asking now is so you can apply your ethical system without emotional attachments.

Plus still from a rational prospective those 2 are still my heirs and thus can continue the family legacy and line and bring it to more greatness in conjunction with the others.

But you have three other heirs; and, for the sake of argument, I'm now telling you that the two children you're choosing whether to let live will never have children, so you're not getting grandchildren from them anyway.

[Admiral Johnason]

hmm...depends which ones are my favorites. lol. But seriously the answer would probably be the same. And not having kids makes it difficult to answer such a question because I don't have firsthand experience with a paternal bond.

Your only reason for letting yourself die in their stead was your desire for heirs; I gave you your heirs. Now you're simply contradicting your earlier statement that your "first and foremost goal in life is looking out for my best interests."

But emotions sometimes run counter to logic and rationality and when placed in a situation like that it is difficult to come up with an answer because it be extremely emotional rather then rational decision in all likelyhood.

Plus still from a rational prospective those 2 are still my heirs and thus can continue the family legacy and line and bring it to more greatness in conjunction with the others.

You should care about them becuase they are your children and fellow human beings, not because of your legacy. you still can't think about anything but you if you are not effected. You really suck dude.

You really just sound like a pompus little bratty asshole.

[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.

Still an inconvience though and is a negative effect on someone. I am just trying to show that no matter what you do people can and will be inconvienced or angered by it even if it was right to do such as the below scenario <snippa>

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?

[Simplicius]

Ami I correct in assuming that you have conceded the point that lying is unethical? I note that you've still not addressed that part of my argument.

But I am not concealing the fact that it is an old computer. I know its old and the customer knows its old.

Did I say old? No.

You are concealing the fact that it it obsolete, that it is markedly inferior to a new computer. This is explicitly stated in the OP, and you cannot argue around it. You can end-run around this point until the end of the universe, and you're still going to have to acknowledge it because it is an explicit condition of the scenario.

lol. Well I would make sure to check the persons bio to make sure there is an "F" next to the username. But I would say that is being misled because I would have a reasonable assumption only girls would answer my ad.

Good, I'm glad you see that. Now, tell me how giving you a false impression about me in this scenario is different from you giving a false impression to the computer buyer in the OP's scenario.

They are both false impressions, so a correct application of your own admission means they are both misleading.

I would say people haggle with cars because its an accepted product to haggle with and people like to get a deal or "think" they are getting a deal. But though the starting price may not be considered the fairest the dealer is hoping that the prospective customer won't argue with him and just accept that price in the interest of ease of sale he is willing to be flexible.

Depending on the nature of the market in question, haggling may be acceptable for every product. It is certainly common in any private, Uncle Henry- or swap-shop style transaction like the one where an obsolete computer is being sold. But regardless of whether haggling is acceptable in any given circumstance, the fact remains that it is a means by which a compromise between the seller's desired profit and the buyer's desired value for money is reached.

The dealer may hope that the buyer will make the purchase at the highest price he can get. But that does not make it ethical for the dealer to grossly overcharge for his good, and it is not ethical for the dealer to give the impression that his good is actually worth that inflated price. Which, in case you've forgotten, is precisely what the seller did i nthe computer scenario.

Part of the process of haggling is a concession on the part of the dealer that his original price is unfairly high. Otherwise, there would be no negotiation. If the dealer's price was fair, he would be extremely reluctant to let the buyer negotiate it down, because he would then be selling at a loss.

Alright if you just set out to murder someone randomly in the first place and only through happenchance you happen to kill an evil person it would still be murder and unethical since your intention wasn't to right a wrong.

Now when I was presenting the difference between murder and killing I was trying to go at it from more of a self defense angle. If someone breaks into my house and I grab my gun and shoot him. I have done nothing ethically wrong, or legally wrong. I have justifablly and reasonably killed him.

You'll note that murder is unthical even when my intention is to right a wrong. Vigilante justice is not socially acceptable in a moral society.

I am aware of the distinction between murder and killing in self defense. It is precisely because of that distinction that I explicitly said "murder", not "killing".

Now the main difference we seem to have here is between my system which is "buyer beware" and your system of "seller beware." So I propose the following examples which shift the ignorance upon the seller.

I don't see where you get "seller beware" from "the seller is ethically obliged to fully inform the customer about his product, including its deficiencies." Nonetheless, let us press on.

I assume you are familar with the television show Antiques Roadshow?

Now in this scenario I am holding a yardsale and you come by and spot an old lamp that strikes your fancy. You ask me how much do I want for it and I go "ten bucks" which you agree to pay. Now next weekend the Antiques roadshow is in town and you go "what the hell let me bring that lamp in." The expert there appraises this lamp for 100 dollars.

Now are you morally obligated to go back to me and give me the value of the lamp? I would say no because we both agreed to a price and we both had consideration you wanted the lamp and I wanted the ten dollars and we agreed. The fact that it turns out there wasn't parity between the two has no position in this equation.

Now let us modify the situation: Instead of you and I being directly involved the first scenario two other parties are involved and you happen to watch that episode on tv. After watching that episode you go to my yardsale and see a lamp nearly identical to the one you saw on TV. You ask me how much I want for it and I ask for ten bucks.

Do you feel that you are going to have to advise me that the cost should be much higher because of the Antiques Roadshow episode or are you going to purchase the lamp at my stated price hoping it is as valuable as the one on the roadshow.

I would say no. Because my ignorance as the seller should have no effect on the sale, I could of researched the lamp and found out its true value. Furthermore you have no idea if that lamp is really authentic and worth the 100 dollars or if its a knock off and worth if you are lucky the ten bucks you payed for it. So if you offer the person a "fair" price you might be out 90 bucks.

It turns out that these examples are irrelevant to the matter of the ethical responsibility of the seller. This is because the seller is the one in charge of setting the price of his good. If the seller grossly overcharges, or makes a sale by lying to the customer, he harms someone else, which is unethical. If the seller chooses to sell his item at a price much lower than the actual value of the good, there is no breach of ethics because the seller is only harming himself.

Why does the burden remain on the seller? Because the seller alone determines the price at which he sells.

[LongVin]

Your only reason for letting yourself die in their stead was your desire for heirs; I gave you your heirs. Now you're simply contradicting your earlier statement that your "first and foremost goal in life is looking out for my best interests."

But emotions sometimes run counter to logic and rationality and when placed in a situation like that it is difficult to come up with an answer because it be extremely emotional rather then rational decision in all likelyhood.

Stop dodging my question; the entire point of asking now is so you can apply your ethical system without emotional attachments.

Plus still from a rational prospective those 2 are still my heirs and thus can continue the family legacy and line and bring it to more greatness in conjunction with the others.

But you have three other heirs; and, for the sake of argument, I'm now telling you that the two children you're choosing whether to let live will never have children, so you're not getting grandchildren from them anyway.

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.

[LongVin]

Your only reason for letting yourself die in their stead was your desire for heirs; I gave you your heirs. Now you're simply contradicting your earlier statement that your "first and foremost goal in life is looking out for my best interests."

But emotions sometimes run counter to logic and rationality and when placed in a situation like that it is difficult to come up with an answer because it be extremely emotional rather then rational decision in all likelyhood.

Plus still from a rational prospective those 2 are still my heirs and thus can continue the family legacy and line and bring it to more greatness in conjunction with the others.

You should care about them becuase they are your children and fellow human beings, not because of your legacy. you still can't think about anything but you if you are not effected. You really suck dude.

You really just sound like a pompus little bratty asshole.

I already said I would choose them to live in the case because of emotional attachment and I would not be thinking rationally or logically in the situation.

[LongVin]

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.

Still an inconvience though and is a negative effect on someone. I am just trying to show that no matter what you do people can and will be inconvienced or angered by it even if it was right to do such as the below scenario <snippa>

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.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Somehow, I would think that cheating someone out of money on a deal is a bit more than an inconvenience. Waiting in line is an inconvenience. Having to go back to the store to pick up the milk you forgot is an inconvenience.

Somehow, you compare inconveniences to being swindled. Hmmmm.

[LongVin]

Ami I correct in assuming that you have conceded the point that lying is unethical? I note that you've still not addressed that part of my argument.

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.

Did I say old? No.

You are concealing the fact that it it obsolete, that it is markedly inferior to a new computer. This is explicitly stated in the OP, and you cannot argue around it. You can end-run around this point until the end of the universe, and you're still going to have to acknowledge it because it is an explicit condition of the scenario.

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

Good, I'm glad you see that. Now, tell me how giving you a false impression about me in this scenario is different from you giving a false impression to the computer buyer in the OP's scenario.

They are both false impressions, so a correct application of your own admission means they are both misleading.

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.

Depending on the nature of the market in question, haggling may be acceptable for every product. It is certainly common in any private, Uncle Henry- or swap-shop style transaction like the one where an obsolete computer is being sold. But regardless of whether haggling is acceptable in any given circumstance, the fact remains that it is a means by which a compromise between the seller's desired profit and the buyer's desired value for money is reached.

The dealer may hope that the buyer will make the purchase at the highest price he can get. But that does not make it ethical for the dealer to grossly overcharge for his good, and it is not ethical for the dealer to give the impression that his good is actually worth that inflated price. Which, in case you've forgotten, is precisely what the seller did i nthe computer scenario.

Part of the process of haggling is a concession on the part of the dealer that his original price is unfairly high. Otherwise, there would be no negotiation. If the dealer's price was fair, he would be extremely reluctant to let the buyer negotiate it down, because he would then be selling at a loss.

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.

You'll note that murder is unthical even when my intention is to right a wrong. Vigilante justice is not socially acceptable in a moral society.

I am aware of the distinction between murder and killing in self defense. It is precisely because of that distinction that I explicitly said "murder", not "killing".

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

It turns out that these examples are irrelevant to the matter of the ethical responsibility of the seller. This is because the seller is the one in charge of setting the price of his good. If the seller grossly overcharges, or makes a sale by lying to the customer, he harms someone else, which is unethical. If the seller chooses to sell his item at a price much lower than the actual value of the good, there is no breach of ethics because the seller is only harming himself.

Why does the burden remain on the seller? Because the seller alone determines the price at which he sells.

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.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Some lies can be ethical, yes, but only if they serve Utility. Some do not. Sometimes, lies that are actually malcious could be defended from an Act perspective

For example. From an Act Utilitarian perspective, it would be ok, ethically, in an individual situation, to lie to one person to benefit say, three people people, given that the benefit was proportionally greater greater than the harm. That maximizes the welfare of the greatest number. However, if we were to universalize said decision in the same situation every time, trust in society would certainly degrade, and that would not be a very good society, so it ends up backfiring utility-wise if such actions were encouraged or made "ethical as a rule." Essentially, even if something is technically 'ethical' in the act by maximizing utility, it can fail universalization by setting a dangerous precdedent. Not all types of lies, even if universalized, will do this.

For example, society will not degrade and collapose if people lie to save people from dying, because that is a fairly rare emergency, or if people lie to prevent a catastrophy. We can safely universalize that and benefit in the long run as a whole. We can't universalize: everyoen should lie to everyone else whenever it benefits +1 people to any degree.