Is it ok to exploit people who make bad decisions because of their stupid beliefs?

[unoduetre]

What do you think?

On one hand exploiting people is a bad thing in general.

On the other hand, provided they make free decisions about what they believe in etc., they're responsible for their stupid decisions.

I don't mean here decisions based on knowledge which is not easily available, that's a different story and it's more clear it's a bad thing in this case. (I support free access to education.)

I also don't mean people with mental issues, low intelligence, old people, children etc. This would be bad as well.

Rather, I mean things like e.g. people who believe in snake oil (I don't mean terminally ill people who can see it as their last hope, that'd be bad as well) or people who willingly refuse to check the provided sources because they're too lazy, or religious people or some kinds of alien believers (not all of them, some just have mental issues) etc. You know, the type of people who WANT to believe and refuse to accept any argument proving them wrong.

So is it ok to exploit such people (e.g. financially by selling them what they want)? Or maybe one should at least attempt to correct their wrong beliefs?

[unoduetre]

[mention=20855]Naughty Kitty[/mention]

Yeah, that's why it's an interesting question. Many people would agree that exploiting people with some "unfortunate" circumstances (it's in quotation marks, because I also include things like being a child in it etc.) is a bad thing. That's not a question here.

The question is about people who have freedom of choice, are fully informed and yet they decided to believe in some false things. Is it ok to exploit their beliefs to make money from them or in some other ways?

I can give you a more concrete example.

Let's say someone decides that they want to believe in pegasi. It's obvious to most people that pegasi do not exist. The biology can provide many reasons why pegasi are impossible etc. But that person refuses to educate themselves (let's assume the information is easily accessible on the internet and the person can and knows how to access it) and refuses to accept the reasons when explained to him/her.

Is it then ok to sell this person e.g. a computer edited photo of a horse with added wings for a huge amount of money? Let's say the seller won't lie about it in a way that the photo would be just advertised as pegasus photo with no explanation added. Every normal person would understand that this is not a real photo, but the person we are talking about would believe it is. Is it moral for the seller just not to disabuse that person, keep silent and just sell the photo. Or is the seller morally obligated to at least try to disabuse the person and highlight that this is not a real photo. In other words, can the seller exploit the persons false belief in pegasi to make the sale? Let's assume the seller knows that the person freely decided to believe in pegasi and the person is not in any "unfortunate" circumstances.

[Nishizono Shinji]

In my opinion it is never ok to exploit a person regardless of the reason or circumstance.

[unoduetre]

[mention=113825]Nishizono Shinji[/mention]

OK, so for you, I suppose, the answer to this question was pretty easy.

So based on that you would (correct me, if I'm wrong) e.g. inform the person that the photo is not real and risk not earning the money from the sale. So you'd act in a non-selfish manner.

[Nishizono Shinji]

[mention=113825]Nishizono Shinji[/mention]

OK, so for you, I suppose, the answer to this question was pretty easy.

So based on that you would (correct me, if I'm wrong) e.g. inform the person that the photo is not real and risk not earning the money from the sale. So you'd act in a non-selfish manner.

If the seller knows that the individual believe the Pegasus is real and it is primarily why they are buying the photo I would tell them that the photo is not real yes.

[unoduetre]

OK!

I wonder what other people would say.

[Emma]

[mention=107568]unoduetre[/mention] I'm with [mention=113825]Nishizono Shinji[/mention] on this one

[unoduetre]

[mention=111698]Banri[/mention]

OK, so (correct me, if I'm wrong) you'd also inform the potential buyer, even if you wanted to close the sale.

[TrashM]

Yes it is. We need to trust people to be smart enough to know better.

[unoduetre]

@TrashM

OK!

So you wouldn't inform the potential buyer. I suppose you think (correct me, if I'm wrong) that it's their fault, if they believe in some nonsense, despite having easy access to information and being able to use and understand it.

[lolin]

It is inherently a part of the spirit of capitalism to find a market for anything and everything, and to make money in anyway that isn't illegal. Lootboxes, alternative medicine, merchandising, products that instantly break, etc. are all within the spirit of capitalism.

Is it morally wrong?

Probably, yes. People don't need a Hello Kitty plate or some digital boots for their character.

[unoduetre]

[mention=881]lolin[/mention]

The question is to every person personally, including yourself. What do you think personally?

[lolin]

It's wrong, I don't like exploiting people just because you can. It says a lot about your character/who you are as a person.

[unoduetre]

[mention=881]lolin[/mention]

OK!

Let's see what other people say.

[Momogari]

I wouldn't say shit. You want a buy a picture of a horse with wings hell I can make take that.

People like things for all sorts of reasons, many of which are made up by culture and many of which aren't bad. The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, seasonal colors and styles for clothes.

I'm not sure I see a significant ethical distinction between believing some dude in extradimensional cloudland loves you and controls everything that happens ever versus believing that khaki trousers in november is an atrocious affront to good sensibility. If people never believed stupid shit we'd be a really different species socially, so it seems a little silly to me to worry about it in the first place. Pegasi bebbies? Sure bro, got some right here.



I guess this is consistent with me being the rare person that goes to church without being religious.
I understand beliefs as a part of the human condition and I live among those who believe very different things than I do without thinking any part of it is strange or wrong. I do not begrudge beliefs. So exploitation seems to me an overly strong condemnation which is dependent on the idea that some beliefs are just stupid--well some are, but I don't really feel like condemning people for it, and so without that dependency I in turn have a hard time seeing commercial benefit as exploitation.