Would you take advantage of an uninformed seller?

[Old-N-Feeble]

How do you know others lied on the poll? Perhaps some who would take advantage just didn't vote.

 

[blansky]

I find it funny that many people lied on this poll, including myself. I agree that the context is important, lone poor widow versus wealthy matriarch. Are you with your spouse or friends or are you alone with no witnesses? Perhaps you would feel guilty later and go back and give her more cash? Maybe everywhere you go, in the middle of the night, your tormented by that unmistakable smooth shutter release until you finally go mad an bury the abomination in the yard or better yet donate it to the Society for Ethical Photography.

OR actually you go and take some great pictures with it, win a Pulitzer prize, send her on an around the world cruise in which she is kidnapped by ISIS, and beheaded and you realize that your unbridled ambition led to this senseless death and you join an order of monks, take a vow of poverty and silence, and are never heard from again.

Meanwhile the camera ends up in a swap meet in Nepal and a young boy finds it and takes the worlds most famous photograph, gets seduced by fame, becomes a drug addict and dies in the gutter. The camera, long ago pawned is bought by an APUG member and it's decommissioned and left on a shelf.

Such is the law of unintended consequences.

 

[cliveh]

OR actually you go and take some great pictures with it, win a Pulitzer prize, send her on an around the world cruise in which she is kidnapped by ISIS, and beheaded and you realize that your unbridled ambition led to this senseless death and you join an order of monks, take a vow of poverty and silence, and are never heard from again.

Meanwhile the camera ends up in a swap meet in Nepal and a young boy finds it and takes the worlds most famous photograph, gets seduced by fame, becomes a drug addict and dies in the gutter. The camera, long ago pawned is bought by an APUG member and it's decommissioned and left on a shelf.

Such is the law of unintended consequences.

Brilliant.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

It would depend on the circumstances. If the lady clearly had money, a nice house, car, access to family and showed every sign of being comfortably off, I'd probably think it was my lucky day and tell her I considered the camera an absolute bargain. If she showed any sign of needing the cash, I'd say it was worth much more than the asking price.

To me, this is the most interesting response so far. Why should someone who appears not to need the money be treated differently (less honestly?) than someone who does need the money?

Maybe $20 or $1000 may not matter to Exa, but if she truly did not know the value of the camera (and otherwise would have marked it as $1000), why take advantage of her ignorance?

My general question to people is this: would your moral behaviour change based on someone else's apparent wealth?

 

[MattKing]

To me, this is the most interesting response so far. Why should someone who appears not to need the money be treated differently (less honestly?) than someone who does need the money?

Maybe $20 or $1000 may not matter to Exa, but if she truly did not know the value of the camera (and otherwise would have marked it as $1000), why take advantage of her ignorance?

My general question to this is: why would your moral behaviour change based on someone else's apparent wealth?

Apparent wealth = can afford to have the research done.

But more generally, the moral duty may be more related to a seller's need than it is to a seller's right to realize a reasonable return.

I can recall on at least one occasion purchasing a mis-described item from a retailer's used item display case, and therefore obtaining a bargain.

But in that case, the retailer ought to have been informed, as the item would have been within their knowledge as a retailer.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

OR actually you go and take some great pictures with it, win a Pulitzer prize, send her on an around the world cruise in which she is kidnapped by ISIS, and beheaded and you realize that your unbridled ambition led to this senseless death and you join an order of monks, take a vow of poverty and silence, and are never heard from again.

Meanwhile the camera ends up in a swap meet in Nepal and a young boy finds it and takes the worlds most famous photograph, gets seduced by fame, becomes a drug addict and dies in the gutter. The camera, long ago pawned is bought by an APUG member and it's decommissioned and left on a shelf.

Such is the law of unintended consequences.

Blansky, you're a tough act to follow.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

OR actually you go and take some great pictures with it, win a Pulitzer prize, send her on an around the world cruise in which she is kidnapped by ISIS, and beheaded and you realize that your unbridled ambition led to this senseless death and you join an order of monks, take a vow of poverty and silence, and are never heard from again.

Meanwhile the camera ends up in a swap meet in Nepal and a young boy finds it and takes the worlds most famous photograph, gets seduced by fame, becomes a drug addict and dies in the gutter. The camera, long ago pawned is bought by an APUG member and it's decommissioned and left on a shelf.

Such is the law of unintended consequences.

That sounds like an awesome movie. Sell the rights.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Apparent wealth = can afford to have the research done.

So what? If I believe I'm the type of person who doesn't take advantage of others, I don't see how the other person's financial status should place exceptions on that belief or behaviour. One can't always tell how another person is doing in life: maybe Exa was too overcome with grief or too busy with funeral arrangements to worry about pricing.

But more generally, the moral duty may be more related to a seller's need than it is to a seller's right to realize a reasonable return.

This seems to be consistent with a worldwide (and probably 12,000 year-old) feeling that people who are somewhat prosperous can "take a hit" in business dealings because "they'd never miss it". I just think the morally correct thing is to treat all people equally regardless.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

It would depend on the circumstances.

No, it wouldn't. At least not for me.

Honesty is not a sliding scale of convenience.

Ken

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I can never take advantage of others no matter their economic situation... nor even if they're rude and obnoxious to me. Either we're honest or we're not.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The stock market is nothing like the stated situation. Everyone dealing in the stock market knows they're gambling with their money... except those who are seduced and taken advantage of by countless unscrupulous stock brokers.

 

[MattKing]

So what? If I believe I'm the type of person who doesn't take advantage of others, I don't see how the other person's financial status should place exceptions on that belief or behaviour. One can't always tell how another person is doing in life: maybe Exa was too overcome with grief or too busy with funeral arrangements to worry about pricing.




This seems to be consistent with a worldwide (and probably 12,000 year-old) feeling that people who are somewhat prosperous can "take a hit" in business dealings because "they'd never miss it". I just think the morally correct thing is to treat all people equally regardless.

If something is offered freely and publicly for sale, I think it is fair to approach the situation as being one where everyone is expected to look after their own interests, unless there are persuasive reasons not to.

If a seller is apparently selling something at an unusually low price, I'm the first one to say that one should take care to be sure that a potential buyer is not unfairly taking advantage of that seller. But it is only unfair to take that advantage if the seller is acting under some sort of handicap - they lack the resources to protect themselves, they are bereaved, they have been wrongfully misled by others, they are desperate for funds due to misfortune.

If they just haven't bothered to research the market, they should then expect to receive no more than the price they are asking.

I agree it is morally correct to treat everyone fairly, but that doesn't mean it is morally necessary to treat everyone equally. Some people have much greater need, so it is appropriate to extend them more help.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Well, that's why I put it in the Ethics and Philosophy forum. But if the mods want to delete it, or people want them to delete it, that's fine with me.

 

[pdeeh]

I don't want it deleted.
No reason not to discuss moral issues on a photo forum

 

[andrew.roos]

Since I can't afford full price for a Leica, I would tell her what it is worth and what I am able to offer her for it, which would be more than the original asking price but below market price.

I'm with the others who say that if it was a dealer then I would just buy it for the asking price. The dealer will sell it at a price they can make a profit on, so if it's selling that low they got it even cheaper from the estate.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Since I can't afford full price for a Leica, I would tell her what it is worth and what I am able to offer her for it, which would be more than the original asking price but below market price.

I'm with the others who say that if it was a dealer then I would just buy it for the asking price. The dealer will sell it at a price they can make a profit on, so if it's selling that low they got it even cheaper from the estate.

The retailer may have indeed gotten something cheaply from an estate. However, on the other hand these are not necessarily the facts. Dealers often rely on their employee(s) to properly price things and everyone makes mistakes. There might be dealers that are barely able to keep their doors open and employees paid. If an employee (or the owner) makes a serious mistake costing a US$500 loss then the consequence could be the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" and the store closes. The owner and his employees lose their incomes.

The point is we can't assume anything is fact so nothing really "makes it okay" to take advantage of anyone in any situation, and feel okay about it, because we simply don't know what the circumstances were regarding how the retailer acquired the item nor how the item came to be priced so low nor if the retailer or individual can comfortably take that loss. I'm estimating that over the last couple of years I've let a half dozen eBay vendors off the hook after they contacted me explaining that someone erred with the price. I did so every time without regret. And these actions taken with the firm belief that auctions and eBay "buy-it-now" listings are very different animals than retail shops and estate sales.

None of that matters anyway because we're either honest or we're not.

BTW, I completely empathize with being poor. I've been selling far more than I've bought because I need the money. In fact, all my 8x10 lenses are now gone and the camera is listed for sale. So I do understand wanting things I can't have or can no longer afford to keep.

 

[blansky]

Everyone has to make their own judgement on their sliding scale of morality.

Sometimes people sell stuff they know nothing about and get taken. But we don't know their motivation. Maybe they just want to be rid of a bunch of stuff and doing that is more important than putting it on ebay and selling every item to 100 different buyers or craigslist and having 100 people they don't know coming to their door.

Sometimes people sell stuff too cheaply because they don't know anything about the item but don't want anyone coming back asking for their money because it's fake or its not working properly.

Sometimes people sell estate stuff too cheaply because they are overwhelmed and need to distance themselves from it all.

I sold an entire darkroom with multiple enlargers, 20x24 trays, 20x24 print washer, various easels and a whole bunch of other stuff for less than one of the main items cost. It was in storage and costing me money. I wanted to be rid of it. I didn't want to deal with selling it individually and deal with tire kickers and time wasters. I took myself to the cleaners and was happy to do it.

We can only make moral judgements on our own individual circumstances on case by case basis and then we live with it.

 

[BrianShaw]

The batman-moralists would have denied you your free will and forced you to sell for more money.. Because they would think that you'd be happier in the end.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Thanks for sharing, blansky, but you knew what you were doing when you dumped your equipment unlike the elderly widow in the OP's scenario. You're right that we all have sliding scales regarding our personal moral codes and most are within reasonable social boundaries. But too often some of us have too little or no conscience at all and this borders on sociopathy.

Signed,
Batman

 

[BrianShaw]

But how does the batman moralists know the intent of the widow. Asking "are you sure you want to let it go for $20" and then paying 20 is quite different from what the moralists have been stating in these morality threads.

P.s. That term was not a jab at any individual, but if you choose to wear it... I won't stop anyone.

 

[blansky]

And perhaps the poor widow was happy to be rid of her miserable son of a bitch, dearly departed and all the shit she had put up with around the house for years and did the happy dance as it disappeared from her yard.

Finally I have room for my knick knacks and my cats and can finally fucking live in peace.

 

[BrianShaw]

I've seen that before. I really hope, though, that your not predicting my future!

 

[Dennis S]

And perhaps the poor widow was happy to be rid of her miserable son of a bitch, dearly departed and all the shit she had put up with around the house for years and did the happy dance as it disappeared from her yard.

Finally I have room for my knick knacks and my cats and can finally fucking live in peace.

Just what I was thinking also. There are so many different ways this can be interpreted correctly. How about when you and Exa are diligently trying to find proper price Mr. John Doe comes by and wonders why you have such a problem with the price and is willing to pay the listed price and is gone when you return. Congrats you made Exa feel very incapable. There is no end to the proper answers

 

[MattKing]

I don't know where the references in this thread to honesty come from.

There is nothing dishonest about paying what a seller is asking.

 

[BrianShaw]

And nothing immoral about that either.