Would you take advantage of an uninformed seller?

[BrianShaw]

And nothing immoral about watching someone else do that either.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I don't think I ever mentioned 'dishonesty'. Maybe others did. I probably strongly hinted at it though.

The OP is about taking advantage of a widow after her husband dies. The way I read the OP it's about personal moral values and behavior. Does one inform the old lady of the value of an item or do we hide a snicker, rub our greedy hands together and think to ourselves, "Oh, goody... for twenty bucks I'm about to snatch up a $500 camera from an old lady who doesn't know what she has. HA HA!!".

I know some disagree but I think that's pretty crappy.

 

[MattKing]

I don't think I ever mentioned 'dishonesty'. Maybe others did. I probably strongly hinted at it though.

The OP is about taking advantage of a widow after her husband dies. The way I read the OP it's about personal moral values and behavior. Does one inform the old lady of the value of an item or do we hide a snicker, rub our greedy hands together and think to ourselves, "Oh, goody... for twenty bucks I'm about to snatch up a $500 camera from an old lady who doesn't know what she has. HA HA!!".

I know some disagree but I think that's pretty crappy.

The original post is about the poor, uninformed widow.

But a lot of the discussion that follows is about situations which are far less clear cut.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The original post is about the poor, uninformed widow.

But a lot of the discussion that follows is about situations which are far less clear cut.

That's true.

 

[BrianShaw]

The original scenario is too full of accusation all bias. It is akin to the old "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The original scenario is too full of accusation all bias. It is akin to the old "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

I respectfully disagree. It was a simple scenario with a simple question.

 

[BrianShaw]

Then why did the question start the conversation with the accusation that one is "taking advantage" and assume that the old widow is an ignorant fool?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

That wasn't the scenario. No one called the old widow an "ignorant fool" and the OP stated nothing of the sort. You haven't spent much time around elderly people with some cognitive issues, have you? They simply cannot function as younger healthier people do. At any rate, the OP didn't mention cognitive issues either. The scenario in the OP stated the old widow doesn't know the value of her late husband's camera. By the replies in this thread we can all recognize those who would take advantage of her and those who wouldn't.

 

[BrianShaw]

Would you take advantage of an uninformed seller?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

No but eBay Buy-It-Now listings are different because there's not enough time to inform the seller their price is too low. Face-to-face we can easily do that. On forums we can post "I'll buy it if you really want to sell it that cheaply but that thing is worth far more than your asking price"... then PM them telling them you don't expect them to follow through if they erred. And eBay... I've allowed at least a half dozen sellers out of a deal if they erred on the price.

Per the original scenario... hell no I wouldn't take advantage.

 

[BrianShaw]

The amount of self- righteousness that you spew is getting nauseating. But to address your comment: yes I do; on a daily basis.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The scenario I initially described is a not-uncommon one on eBay, Craigslist, and a plethora of other forums with classified ads. Also, it doesn't have to pertain to cameras, but being this is APUG, I couched the situation in a plausible setting, albeit not with Blansky's magnificent playwrighting skills.

I don't think "Old-N-Feeble" is being self-righteous: he is being very straightforward in saying he treats people in an honest manner, no exceptions.

Edit for refinement: many (most?) people believe they're honest. Some, however, have said the choice of action they make in this scenario is without regard to the seller's financial status or any other context. That is: if I see that something is grossly underpriced, I'll mention it regardless. That's a personal conviction.

That said, by now I think we have a good idea of where the posters stand on this issue.

 

[BrianShaw]

On eBay there is another not-uncommon technique to consider also if one really wants to test another mans morality: what about sellers who list, for example, a 2 dollar screw or manual from an old camera (since this is APUG) at a 20 dollar starting bid or BIN... In the hopes that an unknowing or ill-informed buyer will eventually consummate the deal. Where's the morality on that, or do we write it off to "just being business?"

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Things are worth what people are willing to pay. If I see something I need that's very difficult to find (takes days, weeks or even months to find) then I pay more for it because my time still has at least some value. So I'll pay $2 for a small screw or $20 for an instruction manual if either of those take a long time to find. Time is money. If an item is easy to find and a seller over-prices theirs then it just won't sell because others are offering the same thing for less. If it takes six months of searching most people will have the common sense to pay a little more and move forward. Time saved equals higher prices. This situation is completely different than the original scenario.

 

[blansky]

Interestingly in the OP scenario I took that to be a face to face transaction. And my feeling is to not take advantage. Whatever that means.

But when you add the impersonal element like ebay, it seems to change for me. In fact I don't know any circumstances of the back story. And I'm taking far more risk on those type of places as to the authenticity, condition, etc of any item.

I buy a lot of watches and it's just a fact of life that sometimes you (whether buying or selling) do great and other times not so much.

I see no morality in the transaction. One way or the other.

Perhaps our morality is far more loosy-goosey when our transactions are impersonal.

Please don't take this off in another vein, but any exchanges are far easier to stomach when we don't know the people involved. We may not fight wars or kill black motorists if we happened to know them. We can be pretty self righteous when we are dealing with the "other". Our morality can be pretty sketchy at times.

 

[BrianShaw]

So ethics are situational. Just confirming. sketchy at times is right. That's why I get very skeptical when folks test other people's morality or constantly chant how righteous theirs is. Morality is what one do not what one says.

Me, I'd ask if the old lady really was willing to let it go for that price.... And then pay it if she said yes. No need to go any further than that with the moral psychoanalysis.

 

[BrianShaw]

But it does seem to me that some folks believe that "business is business" if they are the seller and morality prevails if they (or someone else) are the buyer. Odd situational ethics it seems.

Just an observation since we are discussing the ethics of morality in general, not just the fictitional widow Exa.

 

[benjiboy]

In the final analysis you have to be able to live with yourself.

 

[BrianShaw]

Exactly!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Those with no conscience can live with themselves best if they do whatever is best for themselves without regard to others no matter what the situation is. Some people truly have no conscience especially when it comes to power, sex and money. It bothers those people most if they accidentally consider another's needs any time during the process of acquisition.

Signed,
Self-Righteous Prig

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I'd steal her purse while she wasn't looking,come back later beat her up about the price and pay her with her own money. It's how I roll.

 

[BrianShaw]

That's almost as funny as something Blansky might write.

 

[blansky]

In the final analysis you have to be able to live with yourself.

Well not exactly.

Some people are sociopaths.

So we need to have some kind of shaming consensus on at least some aspects of morality.

But I agree that it is a sliding scale. Very little in the world is black and white.

 

[blansky]

I'd steal her purse while she wasn't looking,come back later beat her up about the price and pay her with her own money. It's how I roll.

Nothing wrong with that. As long as you left her with her ID and her credit cards.

Those are a bitch to replace.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Of course. Do you think I'm a cretin?