How to determine worth
On Wicked_Edge I suggested that a favorite search for “Hoffritz” on eBay and a patient wait will sooner or later deliver a mint-condition Hoffritz Slant Bar with notation from seller, “No box. Razor seems bent. BIN $3.50″.
I got to thinking about the ethics exploiting the seller’s ignorance to buy something of great value at a pittance. The prime example, I suppose, is the guy who bought a very valuable star sapphire at the Tucson gem show (which The Wife attends) and paid $10 for while knowing the actual value. That much is true, though the “actual value” was in the thousands rather than millions. (See the Snopes explanation.) Whether thousands or millions, it was acquiring something whose value greatly exceeded the price the seller had set, and the buyer knew that. Ethical? or not?
Now this is different from the buyer thinking something is more valuable than does the seller—indeed, were it not for such differences of opinion, the stock market (to take one example) would cease to exist.
So: what is one to do? In the case of evident ignorance of the value of the item, does the ethical buyer educate the seller? I think so. But in an ordinary transaction? The very transaction depends on our differing opinions.
I guess the question is: When is a bargain such a bargain that the purchase is unethical? One thinks of people with their backs to the wall having to sell treasures for pittance. I think it’s one thing to trade a Rembrandt for a pot of potatoes when the person selling the potatoes doesn’t really want to sell them but recognizes the need of the buyer and accepts the trade because the buyer has pride and nothing else to offer, and quite another when the swank lad from uptown gets out of his limo to snatch up a Rembrandt (which he could readily afford at retail) for the price of a meal or two.
I suppose at heart I’m not really much of a capitalist, though I do recognize some strengths of capitalism. But few systems are completely free of all weaknesses, and lately those weaknesses that plague capitalism have been on full display.
We learn from the Talmud (:-)) not to place a stumbling block in front of the blind. Talmud doesn’t specify how small a stumbling block might be okay, or how partially-sighted. So there’s that.
Linda McConnell
21 December 2011 at 8:42 pm
It occurred to me later that there’s the common demand for a level playing field, and the seller’s ignorance and buyer’s knowledge makes this playing field very unlevel. The buyer is the only one who can level it, and so it is incumbent upon the buyer to inform the seller to level the playing field. The putative buyer can then offer a fair price.
And of course it’s covered in Hillel the Elder’s dictum, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.” Obviously, were the roles reversed, the buyer would not want done to him what he would do to the seller by paying a pittance for a priceless pearl. Indeed, there’s a reason it’s called the Golden Rule: it seems to be a universal solvent for ethical conundrums, though with those weird corner cases about masochists, etc., but that’s clearly niggly quibbling.
LeisureGuy
21 December 2011 at 8:52 pm
For me, it would depend from whom I’m buying it from. If I’m buying it from a sleazy pawn shop broker, I’ll give him $3.50 and walk away. If I’m buying it from just about anyone else, I’d suggest they do ten minutes of research on the item and adjust their price. Even if the seller is impatient, there’s no need for them to get ripped off. Fairness is not a dirty word to me.
zaine_ridling
22 December 2011 at 1:00 am
I’m not much of a capitalist either, but I don’t think this is a “money” issue, nor is it even an ethical one. I believe it is both a psychological and evolutionary issue.
In every transaction there is risk, because there is risk in every human relationship. What you as a buyer think is an awesome find and score, often turns out to be flawed. This isn’t dissimilar to relationships (remember the old joke: “Every woman marries a man hoping he will change, and every man marries a woman hoping she won’t”).
All human transactions begin with an assumption of a fair exchange of value, but most often there are winners and losers in individual transactions. Over time, if you’re reasonably intelligent, this balances out as you gain experience and knowledge. It is in fact a rather Darwinian, evolutionary view, in that we learn from each transaction and become better at making decisions, passing that experience and knowledge to our progeny.
Understanding this concept forces us to develop the knowledge, expertise, and skill to conduct our due diligence and successfully handle our daily interactions with the world, rather than counting on the other guy to take care of us (ultimately a rather paternalistic and infantalizing dependency).
Christians, Buddhists, and others I’m sure, have embraced the concept of suffering as the way to salvation. We learn from our mistakes.
Steve
23 December 2011 at 3:58 am
The point reflects a question in ethics: is it ethical to take advantage of another’s lack—for example, a person who lacks the use of his legs cannot chase you if you grab his wallet and run; or a person completely ignorant of the value of something’s he’s selling accepts in exchange a tiny fraction of its worth. My question then is the ethical question: is such behavior ethical?
I think it is not. That is the point I was making. This has (so far as I can see) nothing whatsoever to do with counting on the other guy to take care of us. It’s a question regarding the ethics of behavior.
I may have to provide more context and background: We live in society, and through cooperation seek to advance our individual and mutual welfare. Ethics is a strong component of that: the rules that help a group to work well as a group. Solitary animals—the honey badger leaps to mind—have no need for ethics: they don’t work as a group. We do.
Now the next step: A transaction is possible only when the two parties differ in their evaluation of the desirability of what each offers for exchange (if they both believe that Person A’s item is much better than Person B’s item, then A is not going to make the exchange even though B would love it if he did; the transaction goes through only when A values B’s possession more than his own, and B values A’s possession more than his own: the differing valuations are what make the transaction possible.)
So if it’s unethical to take advantage of another person’s lack (physical ability or knowledge) AND a transaction depends on differing beliefs regarding the values of two specific items. The question I was raising was, “What delta between (say) A’s valuation of B’s possession and B’s valuation of it is sufficiently large to trigger the ethical issue?”
You don’t see any ethical issue here except (I guess) that ethics require one not to complain about being cheated (or robbed or otherwise taken advantage of): if someone uses guile or force or whatever to your disadvantage, tough noogies. We don’t need no stinking ethics: the ethical process is to get some of your friends and go after the guy and take things from him, then he can’t complain.
I perhaps exaggerate, but the direction you’ve taken—setting aside all considerations of ethics—sort of removes the issue from the domain in which it was raised and puts it in a Hobbesian context. I understand that context, but that is not what I was asking.
LeisureGuy
23 December 2011 at 7:27 am
First, we must separate ethics from criminality. Your examples allude to the latter, e.g. grabbing a guy’s wallet when he’s in a wheelchair. Not a fair example.
Secondly, ethics evolved, along with religion, as one of many social tools for harnessing the individual into a group, fostering teamwork through shared interests, reducing rancor and conflict, and making society itself possible. We may make some distinctions between ethics and morality in that the former is functionally based, i..e intended to produce a practical result of harmony through fairness, while the later is religiously based. The intent however is essentially the same.
You bring up the question of the importance of perceived value in any transaction, which I think is right on. The problem is that I as the “buyer” am not in a position to assess your perception of value and neither are you to assess mine. We do this through a process of negotiation, whereby we try to evaluate the other’s perceived value of what he is “selling” or buying.
In your presentation above, you state that the Delta between the perceived values may reach such a point where it is clear that the other person has not accurately assessed the value of what he is selling (or buying, BTW, since it most often works in the reverse direction, i.e. people get screwed far more often than they score a bargain). This raises the ethical dilemma around full disclosure, i.e. should you seek to “educate” the other person so that he better perceives its real value? That is essentially the ethical question you are broaching if I understand you correctly.
But the ethical discussion itself is one full of gray zones. I believe it is a function of the scale of the opportunity and the Gestalt of the situation.
Taking the discussion to a practical level, if you found a vintage razor in mint condition at a flea market, selling for $1, and you knew you could eBay it for $100, you would tell the seller that he was selling it too cheap? Perhaps you would. I wouldn’t, and would not consider myself any less ethical for not doing so. It is the seller’s responsibility to perform his due diligence in what he is doing, as it is mine to do so in assessing what I am buying. If I brought the razor home and found it was broken, I wouldn’t try to return it either!
If I found a little old lady living in low income housing, selling her dead husband’s 1963 Leica M3 single stroke with serial number under 100,000 for $50, I would likely tell her that it was worth more than she was asking and suggest she have someone do some research or tell her myself that it was worth $2K and offer her maybe $1500 (I’d still want to get a good deal). But if the same situation presented itself and the person selling it was a well-off, living in nice digs, and just clearing out the “junk”, I’d take the camera and thank God for my good fortune.
So ultimately, ethics isn’t black or white; its situational. Morality on the other hand would be different because that’s where the Golden Rule kicks in!
Steve
23 December 2011 at 8:12 am
Criminal behavior is some related to ethics, criminal behavior being behavior generally regarded as unethical. And, in general, we are talking here about taking advantage of another’s defect, whether the defect is in terms of knowledge or in some other area. At least, I see it that way.
Criminal behavior is not always unethical, of course, and that leads to interesting discussions.
But sticking with non-criminal behavior for the nonce: first, let’s get rid of the terms “buyer” and “seller”. I think those are confusing and in my latest comment, I focused on “exchange”: A has something, B has something, and they are considering an exchange of what they have. One may possess money, another a vase, but it could also be that one possesses a vase and the other a rug. The question then is, when is the exchange ethical and when is it unethical.
If B knows his vase is cracked, and believes the rug is an undervalued early 19th century Turkish rug worth thousands, and believes that A doesn’t have a clue about the value of the rug, then B is (to my eyes) unethical in making the exchange, even if (as it turns out) his vase is a priceless Ming and the Turkish rug turns out a be a cleverly aged fake. B may be hoist by his own petard, but he is still (in my eyes) unethical (as is A, in this version of the scenario).
I agree that ethical judgments are situational, but clearly general guidelines exist, and the one to which you refer, Hillel the Elder’s dicturm, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.” I don’t see how this is particularly “moral” as opposed to “ethical”. I don’t understand the distinction you’re making. Are no moral actions ethical? And are not ethical actions moral?
The rule to me seems to be simply a handy guide to the role of reciprocity in deciding fairness. (It is religion-independent as one can see from the number of religions—and secular philosophies—in which some version of the rule appears.) I see the rule as offering a good rule-of-thumb for determining the moral/ethical course of action: to view what you are about to do from the perspective of being the other person and judging the action from that perspective as well as your own.
I do agree, of course, that many people are unethical a lot, and we all fail at some point. But in general, most seem to try to lead ethical lives: we are a social animal, and living in groups can bring group penalties for unethical behavior, the picture somewhat confused by the frequent group penalties for ethical behavior (Socrates et al.).
BTW, I don’t see a concern for ethics and a demand for ethical behavior as “counting on the other guy to take care of us (ultimately a rather paternalistic and infantalizing dependency)”. But obviously YMMV and you may indeed find unethical behavior an acceptable route to avoiding paternalistic and infantalizing dependency. I condemn it, myself.
LeisureGuy
23 December 2011 at 9:19 am
Of course, legality, ethics, and morality are interrelated, although I see some subtle differences. Morality emanates from religious guidelines and precepts, while ethics are somewhat more secular and logically based, e.g. in morality, murder is bad because it violates the 10 Commandments, but it is unethical because it causes pain, grief, and social disorder. It is criminal because it violates statutes. There are both immoral and unethical behaviors that are perfectly legal…think Big Business.
I’m glad we agree that ethics is situational; that alone is an important affirmation. Didn’t Robin Hood steal? Yes, but he stole from the rich to give to the poor, a rationalization that makes his actions ethical (although immoral – Thou Shall Not Steal), because it implies justice, a balancing of the books, etc.
Back to your example of the rug and vase. If my vase is cracked it would be unethical to not tell you because it would be a transaction based on a lie. But, it’s up to you to assess whether or not its a Ming, and up to me to know it as well. Same for the carpet.
Steve
23 December 2011 at 1:19 pm
My own sort of inchoate sense is that morality stems from mores—the customs that guide us—while ethics is more like a logically worked out system. Religion co-opted the mores that people accepted already (no stealing, murder, and the like), and then added a bunch of stuff specific to the religion (e.g., this wine is transformed into the blood of Christ in its “essence”, though every test you can run cannot detect any difference between this and the unconsecrated wine). For example, the prohibitions against, theft, murder, adultery, etc., are common to *all* religions, which indicates that it is not specific to religious belief—and indeed, many non-religious people are also opposed to theft, murder, adultery, etc., but on moral or ethical grounds, not religious grounds.
When I was talking about the wheelchair example, I was trying to generalize that to take advantage of someone’s defect, whether the defect is physical or informational of in terms of power (the strong exploiting the weak), is in itself wrong in the sense of unethical (regardless of laws: it’s not unusual for a legal act to be unethical and, as you point out, for an ethical act to be illegal. (If Robin Hood skimmed off a portion of the loot, it becomes somewhat more murky.)
If you think of morality as like religion, then ethics is like theology. More or less.
LeisureGuy
23 December 2011 at 2:56 pm
Despite the semantics, I think we can agree that ethics/morals often do operate in a situational framework and are subject to lots of grey rather than black and white. Religious zealots seem to allow for very little grey, which, I believe, harks back to their fundamental need for certainty and discomfort with ambiguity. But life is filled with ambiguity and your range of what’s acceptable within the grey areas might well be different from mine.
A good example is the Gypsies, who have a strong ethical code within their own society, yet perpetrate many unethical, if not criminal acts, with perfect rationalization, based on an us and them framework, i.e. we are their legitimate feeding ground.
I have heard many of my friends in Greece say that the Euro bailouts they are receiving are fully justified as war reparations because Germany never paid a nickle for the devastation they caused in Greece during WWII. You see, people are capable of rationalizing just about anything; it’s called motivated reasoning. And they can feel perfectly ethical too.
Steve
23 December 2011 at 3:09 pm
P.S. Here’s a common rationalization: “If you’re stupid enough not to know that you’re selling a Ming vase for $10 bucks, you deserve to get screwed”.
Steve
23 December 2011 at 3:11 pm
I think it’s pretty easy to detect and dismiss rationalizations clearly based on self-interest, and much of the moral/ethical development of a person is to enable him or her to see through such rationalizations—either in one’s self or in others. Hillel’s rule is quite useful in this regard.
I thought it was perfectly obvious that moral and ethical decisions hinge on the details of the situation. That is a given, assuming we are talking among rational people. The Gypsies, should they indeed have such an “ethical code”, seem to have not advanced very far in their ethical development: the direction has long been to see ourselves as all members of the human family—if you’ve read the entertaining and informative book The Evolution of God, by Robert Wright, you will be familiar with his thesis that progress in the view of God has gone along with seeing more and more commonality. First, we treat family members ethically and with respect. Later that attitude is broadened to include the tribe, then the village or nation, and (ultimately) to treat everyone ethically and with respect. If the Gypsy philosophy is indeed what you describe, they have barely begun ethical development.
The common rationalization you offer is indeed common, and beneath contempt. It fails Hillel’s test in spades. I think anyone older than 7 years of age would see through that.
LeisureGuy
23 December 2011 at 4:02 pm
I think you assume way too much about the psychological development of people. All that you describe is predicated on a basic platform of self-awareness, introspection, and self-criticism. In my experience, about a third of people I meet don’t have this foundation, operating instead on instinct, immediate wants and expediency. And even if they do reflect on their actions post-hoc, they usually are very defensive and manage to protect their Ego integrity.
I consider the personality dimension of introspection, a “master” dimension on the scaffolding of the maturing, self-actualizing personality. It is however, rare indeed, and when it is present it is often protected by the dimension of defensiveness.
Steve
24 December 2011 at 6:56 am
I grant that my speculations are not norm-based. I’m following the idea where it leads—certainly setting our course by a star fixed in the heavens (rather than by the lights of passing ships) is at the least appropriate to the season.
Unreflective and even evil people are not uncommon, but I don’t seek their guidance. And I am interested in self-improvement, as indeed are many. BTW, 176.8 lbs this morning, still dropping back from the 184 I ballooned to: incautious diet adjustment, lesson relearned once more. But I do find that I know what I’m doing, rather a pleasant thing in this arena.
LeisureGuy
24 December 2011 at 7:09 am
Merry Christmas!
Steve
24 December 2011 at 1:58 pm