>Adam doesn't own a vacuum cleaner
>He sees many people using them and wants to acquire one for himself
>He decides: "A good vacuum cleaner is so handy, I would buy one for up to 300$"
>So Adam goes to Brad's vacuum cleaner store
>Brad soon realizes that Adam doesn't know anything about vacuum cleaners, so he decides to take advantage of the situation
>He offers to sell a good vacuum to Adam for 200$ even though Adam could go to many other stores and buy the exact same vacuum for 100$
>(the 100$ already includes a reasonable markup)
>Adam buys the vacuum cleaner and is happy with his purchase
Did Brad act ethically correct?
Intuitively it seems wrong, but I can't come up with a reason why. Nobody suffered any damages, both participants in the interaction ended up with a value gain.
I recently had a discussion about this with a friend and I'm too stupid to come up with a solution.
Did Brad change the price when he realized Adam could be taken advantage of?
If it goes like this
> Adam ask Braid what a good vacuum cleaner cost
> Braid knows a good vacuum cleaner cost 100, but he will lie and say 200.
Braid is lying, that's the problem if you're looking for something. Even if no one gets harmed, you can think one shouldn't lie. Maybe because it's simply wrong, maybe because allowing lying will lead to bad consequences in the long run, or maybe because you don't lie and expect people to treat you as you treat them.
what is the price Brad would quote to someone else
>>395371
He usually quotes 100$. He made an exception for Adam because it was obvious he didn't know anything about vacuums.
But I don't see how that matters either way.
>>395259
>Nobody suffered any damages, both participants in the interaction ended up with a value gain.
One way you say there was a value loss is that Adam has less money to spend on other things.
Me a couple of weeks back:
>have wanted to get 3 books off Amazon for a while
>it's pricey but decide to get them anyway since stock's getting low
>order
>find out another site has the same exact books but the cost is half
>cancel the order and place a new one at the second site with an additional 3 books, netting 6 books in total as opposed to the original 3 for the same price
If I had found out after it became impossible for me to get my money back, I'd consider it a value loss. If I didn't know, well, I'd think it was a gain since I might never have gotten the books in the first place.
"Nobody suffered any damages" isn't really true with this taken in mind. The problem is that there's a lot of situations where it could have gone slightly better, but you'd never actually know of it, or if you did you wouldn't know by how much(for example years after HS finding out your crush from HS had a crush on you, doesn't mean you'd be fit for each other or be together for more than a month). Ultimately it's about what kind of 'truth' is delivered, i.e. what one's led to believe. Adam is led to believe he saved a 100 bucks(he was willing to go up to 300), but really he could have saved 200 if it weren't for Brad. On the other hand, sure Brad upped the price, but Brad also didn't know Adam was willing to go up to 300. What if Brad was struggling to keep afloat while Adam had money to blow? >>395369
>I don't think you can make the assumption that lying is morally wrong. There are plenty of situations where lying is morally right.
This would be applicable here. Would it be morally right for Brad to maximize his profits if he knew Adam was loaded? On the other hand, would it be morally wrong for Brad to maximize his profits if he knew Adam was poor?
>>395259
There's no such thing as ethical correctness, your question is irrelevant
>>395369
But there are still consequentialist reasons for thinking it is wrong to lie in this situation. Perhaps because it bolsters the precedence of preying upon the ignorance of customers, a negative result, which does not outweigh the gain of $100 to the store, the apparent positive result. Also worth considering is the missed good of Brad having another $100 of disposable income which could be used for many other benefits, even, for the sake of argument, to help a struggling family pay for food when Brad decides to give the $100 to charity.
>>395259
Let me ask you this instead
Would you do it to your family?
>>395259
Dishonesty is bad, even if it isn't a blatant lie. Brad isn't unethical, he is just an asshole. Like a doctor that knows how to cure cancer but prefers to play video games all day instead
>>395403
Problem with bullshit questions like that is:
1. If you're on good standing with your family you'll see them as an extension of sorts of yourself. You wouldn't deceive yourself.
2. If you're on bad standing with your family you wouldn't care about them because you don't want anything to do with them anyway.
>>395369
You didn't ask about those other situations. You asked about this one.
Would it be morally right of me to take $100 from you so long as you don't know I took $100 from you?
>>395416
The assumption is that you're not a pissy brat who's mad at mommy and daddy. The intent of the question is fully understood.
>>395450
>The assumption is that you're not a pissy brat who's mad at mommy and daddy.
>everyone who isn't on good terms with their family is a pissy brat
Underage for sure.
>The intent of the question is fully understood.
It isn't when it isn't founded in reality, as if everyone is on good terms with their family. Additionally, you say it like everyone has the same concept of family values. You think every daughter would tell mom and dad she got pregnant at prom?
>>395259
Depends on context I guess.
Clearly Brad has lied to Adam, that much is certain. But with whom does Brad's ethical responsibilities lie? Would upselling Adam result in increased profits for the store, possibly advance Brad's career to the betterment of himself and his family?
Is it ethical for Brad to set himself and all that depend on him back just to give Adam a fair deal when Adam has not bothered to do what he could to learn what a vacuum cleaner is really worth? Is Brad ethically responsible for another person's ignorance? Is Brad ethically responsible for clearing up another person's ignorance, when it goes against his own duties?
Arguably Brad may have an ethical responsibility to all of humanity, to treat each and every person fairly. But then Adam may also have a similar responsibility teach himself rather than treat Brad as a tool for supplementing knowledge that Adam did not wish to work for. Perhaps that extra $100 is the just cost for not doing his own research?
>TL;DR getting ripped off by a salesman is always your own fault. Either treat it as a cost of business, or educate yourself
>A better question would be profiteering in moments of crisis, when the people at a disadvantage could not reasonably prepare themselves and failure to distribute resources could result in genuine harm.
Sorry, I'm a bit slow replying.
>>395391
I see what you mean, that is also my intuitive answer. But how do you express that in a more abstract way? Based on what logic?
To keep it simple I should add: Adam tells Brad he is willing to spend 300$ on a vacuum before he gets the quote.
I'd rather avoid talking about outside circumstances, such as how rich or poor either Adam or Brad are, it would add another dimension to the issue and make it needlessly more complex.
>>395393
Hmmm, I see your point, but please humor me.
>>395400
I see your point. But I don't really want to go there. Let's assume Brad knows that nobody will ever find out that he scammed Adam and Adam will never realize he got scammed. I know this is a bit unrealistic, but I'm more interested in the abstract solution than one for the real world.
>>395460
The vast majority of people typing and reading in English on this website will have a similar enough concept of family values to understand the intent of the question. Their personal relationship with their family is irrelevant.
What does getting pregnant at prom have to do with scamming someone out of $100?
>>395481
He gave $100 but took $200, thus netting $100 through deception.
>>395466
You are adding another dimension to the puzzle by bringing "fault" into it. Yes, Adam is at fault for not informing himself. But to me this has no impact on the moral validity of Brad's actions.
Assuming you walk around with rich jewellery in a poor neighbourhood and get mugged. You are at fault, but morally speaking the thieve is still in the wrong.
>>395496
The crux of the problem is that the vacuum cleaner has a different value to different people.
I could also make the inverse argument:
Adam bought a vacuum cleaner for 200$ that is worth 300$ to him. Therefore he took 100$ from Brad.
>>395526
So if took $100 from you without your knowledge, but I could have potentially taken $200 that means that really YOU took $100 from ME?
>>395526
But notions of "fault" are essential to any discussion of morality. The thief is held in the wrong ethically because they are at "fault" for their own actions, how they act is their responsibility. Otherwise it wouldn't be the theif's "fault", would it?
Similarly, Adam is at fault for his own ignorance and Brad is at fault for his own profiteering. The question is how to mitigate this situation. I'd say in this case, since Adam taking responsibility for his own ignorance would have prevented Brad's actions then it is Adam's "fault" most relevant here.
>>395577
It seems I didn't explain it very well.
By "fault" I mean actions that cause negative consequences that are independent of ethics or morals. I'm not really sure if it's the right word, maybe "mistake"?
The thieve didn't make a "mistake" because in the end he got the jewellery. The victim did make a "mistake" because he got mugged. Morally the thieve is in the wrong because of a morally despicable act. The victim isn't in morally in the wrong because he never did anything morally wrong.
Xeno would argue that since Brad was ready to spend $300, he cannot in fact ever spend it that amount because he will keep getting change.
Q.E.D.
>>395468
>To keep it simple I should add: Adam tells Brad he is willing to spend 300$ on a vacuum before he gets the quote.
>I'd rather avoid talking about outside circumstances
>But how do you express that in a more abstract way? Based on what logic?
In a more abstract way? It's just a general situation of deception. Adam could have saved 200 bucks but Brad was able to up the price and get away with it an extra 100 for himself. I guess it's just business in general? When I was in Istanbul vendors constantly tried to get my attention to sell me useless shit, and the few times I got to talking because I might have been interested in something, I ended up haggling for the price, and I'm sure I still paid more than what the item I bought was worth.
>>395526
>But to me this has no impact on the moral validity of Brad's actions.
So what your question really boils down to is: Is it alright to deceive people? Like you said about lying earlier, yes and no. Obviously some situations are more serious than others. What if Adam paid 2000 and the real cost was 100? Real life example: Beats by Dre. Cost 20 bucks to make but are being sold for 200. Also Apple I guess.
>Assuming you walk around with rich jewellery in a poor neighbourhood and get mugged. You are at fault, but morally speaking the thieve is still in the wrong.
I think the difference here lies in the value of money in relation to the people involved. If someone was tricked for an obscene amount and it was all they had, the deceiver would be "in the wrong." If it was a smaller amount, an amount the person getting deceived isn't going to lose sleep over, then the person being deceived should have known better. But then again what if someone is really fragile with these sorts of things, they could be devastated over something someone else wouldn't if they were in the same situation with the same relationship to money. I think >>395577 has it right.
>>395632
I'm not assuming that, but I'm also not making the opposite assumption. Why should Brad's view of a fair price be more valid than Adam's? The 100$ market price is only a convention, not an absolute truth.
>>395649
I don't think you can make the assumption that deception is morally wrong, as I already said ITT.
Yes, it is "buisness in general". But again, I don't think that matters here.
The point about paying 2000$ for something worth 100$ is really an emotional argument. It makes the situation more extreme, but I still don't see the solution.
You are right, but this introduces another problem. A poor person gets more "value" from the same amount of money then a rich person. Therefore if you transfer money from the rich to the poor you overall increase "value" your net "value" across the entire system increases. So if either party was much richer than the other the solution would be easy.
But I purposely want to leave this out of the discussion. It is a separate issue.
Assume that Adam and Brad get the same "value" for the money.
>>395715
I'm tired, it should read:
>Therefore if you transfer money from the rich to the poor you increase the total "value" across the entire system
>>395715
The market price being arbitrary and in constant flux doesn't make it not truth.
I have the solution!
By pure chance, the situation I described in the OP is the perfect way to do it.
The reason why Adam and Brad even want to make a deal is because it leads to an increase in "value" for both of them. For Brad the vacuum is worth 100$, for Adam it is worth 300$. So if they make the deal there is an overall surplus of 200$.
Now, how do we distribute the 200$ "value" surplus? This is personal opinion, but unless there are any other factors the most fair way would be half each. So 100$.
>>395776
But is it more true than Adam's fair price?
Anyway, I have to go to sleep now.
Assuming the thread is still alive tomorrow I will respond again.
>>395259
>Did Brad act ethically correct?
Depends. Do you believe you can assign an objective value to things? To you believe that ignorance should not be exploited?
I believe that value is subjected to offer and demand. I believe Adam's ignorance is his own fault. So yeah, Brad dindu nuffin wrong.
>>395849
Obviously because the market price is $100.
>My sister can't sleep
>I gave her sleeping pills
>While she sleeps, I use her mouth to masturbate
>She wakes up fully rested, and I am sexually pleased
>Both parties are happy, even when only one knows the real deal
Is it ethically correct? No one is hurt.
>>395942
You could have done something more praiseworthy with your time.
>>395920
I think that's the bonus each of them gets. Brad gets 100 for the vacuum plus 100 bonus. So 200. Adam gets the 300 with the vacuum and in order to even out the benefit he pays Brad 200.
>>395369
Lying is wrong. In this case Brad not only lied to Adam about his product overcharging him, he stole by telling Adam the price was 200 instead of 100 making Adam unknowingly spend 100 more than he should have. When you enter a legit establishment that offers goods and services there is an unwritten (sometimes written and legally binding) contract. The buyer will pay with legitimate currency the full price and not skip out by paying below the price, the seller will sell the product at the agreed upon price and not charge above it's worth and steal from the buyer. This `equivalent exchange` is a basis for all buying, selling and trade. When either buyer or seller breaks these rules it violates social contract, and both parties are lied to and stolen from
>>395259
Salesman here.
I lose my ethics every time I put my tie on. I am an evil person.
>>395976
Adam didn't get a bonus. He got ripped off.
What Adam is willing to pay is irrelevant to whether Brad's actions are moral
>>396368
I don't think the lying is the issue here.
Imagine Brad does the inverse: Brad sells the vacuum for 50$ when it's worth 100$. He lies but it doesn't seem very wrong to me.
I'm also not sure about this 'equivalent exchange'. That seems like a convention to facilitate trade but it seems like a bit of an assumption for an ethics discussion. Why should the buyer get all the surplus value out of a trade while the seller only covers his cost? That seems pretty unfair.
>>396688
Why is Adam's price irrelevant?
I forgot to write it in the OP so maybe you missed it: Adam tells Brad that he is willing to spend 300$ before the quote is made.
>>395942
Then tell me why it isn't. That looks like you are just making an emotional argument by making a rape association.
>>398302
I'm having trouble believing this isn't a troll thread at this point.
All moral problems are an emotional argument. That isn't an objection. It's obviously morally wrong to rape your sister in the mouth while she sleeps, and it's obviously morally wrong to bilk a mentally handicapped person out of money when he wants to buy a vacuum cleaner in your store.
I understand a certain amount of devil's advocacy is needed in a philosophical discussion, but none of your objections are insightful or even entertaining.
>>395259
If I rape you in the ass while you're sleeping and you don't find out or your ass doesn't hurt when you wake up, did I act ethically correct?
>>398435
My devil's advocacy is still reasonable given the context of the thread.
I'm not saying your wrong, I also intuitively think it's wrong. The entire purpose of the thread was to figure out why. At this point we are just one "why-level" deep and you are already telling me that it's "obviously just wrong". That doesn't help at all.
>>398449
Someone already asked this like 10 posts ago >>395942.
>>398295
Brad's lying did not steal from Adam, it only made him pay 50 dollars less for the product, the only person Brad hurt in that exchange was potentially himself, by not getting full payment for his product. Whatever Brad's reasons are for this thekey point is that it did not hurt Adam, his customer.
>I'm also not sure about this 'equivalent exchange'. That seems like a convention to facilitate trade but it seems like a bit of an assumption for an ethics discussion. Why should the buyer get all the surplus value out of a trade while the seller only covers his cost? That seems pretty unfair
The reason for it being an equivalent exchange is that there is no to minmal surplus value. The item has a fixed price representing its worth in currency, that currency is standard and fixed and although can potentially be marked down, or changed with a sale, (say two for the price of one), The price most definitely fixed so that it will not go up past that limit. Also any 'surplus' Adam receives would also be compensated equivalently in some way to Brad to make the exchange fair. Adam gets his product (the vacuum), Brad gets his payment and is compensated for any surplus equivalent to said surplus's value. Each gets something of equal worth to what they exchange.
>>399031
Sometimes things have simple answers. Move on.
>>399184
That doesn't really bring up any new points. Overall Brad still didn't hurt Adam by scamming him. And I don't see how Adam's surplus is compensated to Brad in a fair exchange.
Either way, thinking about your post I came up with another approach that seems make sense.
Rather than looking at the scam as one action we should split it into two and look at those independently: One is the regular sale, and one is the lie. The regular sale is ethical because it gives the 200$ surplus to Adam. At this point we add the lie, which, in effect, steals 100$ from Adam. So really Brad does two things: One that is ethical and one that isn't.
>>395259
Brad should treat other people as he would like to be treated. He wouldn't like to pay an extra $100 for an item so he shouldn't have scammed Adam into paying extra.
Furthermore he should consider the implications for himself and his store. It is perfectly possible if this is a one of case it will have no negative repurcussions, then again Adam might discuss his purchase with his friends and discover he had paid over the odds, leading to a negative reputation for the store and a loss of sales. If he makes a habit of doing this to customers then it is most certainly going to be detrimental to himself and the store he works for.
>>395259
Brad committed exploitation.
The logic is somewhat similar to fraud, withholding information to weasel your way into an optimum end (to the harm or lost benefit of another).
