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

[Citizen]

Gotta agree with Momo. Also, I personally wouldn't even call it exploitation.

I'm minding my own business selling crappy novelty pegasus art, I'm not misrepresenting it, I'm not going out and being predatory looking for kooks to sell it to, the buyer wants it and is in a right state of mind.

What difference does it make why they want it? One buyer wants it because they think it's cool, another wants it because they believe in magic in their Happy Meal. It's no one's business but their own why they want to buy what they want. But ok, so in this scenario, I find out the guy is an idiot who thinks it's a real picture. My natural reaction would probably be to just give him an "are you fucking serious?" look and say that it's a drawing. And I'd do that purely to maintain my status as not misrepresenting the item, not because I would feel any moral responsibility to hold their hand. They still want to buy it? Sold.

Alternate scenario: If I owned an electronics store and a "ghost hunter" came in to buy a camera so they can record themselves standing around making dumb noises in an old house, I don't feel it would be my moral responsibility to refuse sale or explain that their hobby is retarded.

[Emma]

[mention=107568]unoduetre[/mention] could you clarify what the item for sale is

[unoduetre]

[mention=111698]Banri[/mention]

The photo is just an example of a more general principle we are discussing here.

The photo is just something you quickly photoshopped or you could also put some props on a horse and make a real photo. It doesn't matter. The point here is that you only advertise it as a "pegasus photo". You don't claim it's a real thing etc. You don't claim anything about it. You just sell it.

And somehow you know that the person who you're selling it to believes it's a photo of a real pagasus. And you know that this person is not in any kind of unfortunate circumstances, e.g. the person is not mentally ill, is not old, is not a child etc. It's just that this person decided to believe in pagasi.

So the question is whether it is morally ok or not to exploit the believes of this person e.g. to sell the photo for a huge amount of money, or maybe you as a seller should inform the person that this is not a photo of a real pegasus. Of course there is no right or wrong answer, because everyone has their own moral principles. It's more about finding what different people think.

As you might've noticed in this thread, different people have different thoughts about this problem. That's why it's interesting.

[Emma]

[mention=107568]unoduetre[/mention] Personally, I'd inform the buyer the item was custom made

[unoduetre]

Gotta agree with Momo. Also, I personally wouldn't even call it exploitation.

I'm minding my own business selling crappy novelty pegasus art, I'm not misrepresenting it, I'm not going out and being predatory looking for kooks to sell it to, the buyer wants it and is in a right state of mind.

What difference does it make why they want it? One buyer wants it because they think it's cool, another wants it because they believe in magic in their Happy Meal. It's no one's business but their own why they want to buy what they want. But ok, so in this scenario, I find out the guy is an idiot who thinks it's a real picture. My natural reaction would probably be to just give him an "are you fucking serious?" look and say that it's a drawing. And I'd do that purely to maintain my status as not misrepresenting the item, not because I would feel any moral responsibility to hold their hand. They still want to buy it? Sold.

Alternate scenario: If I owned an electronics store and a "ghost hunter" came in to buy a camera so they can record themselves standing around making dumb noises in an old house, I don't feel it would be my moral responsibility to refuse sale or explain that their hobby is retarded.

[mention=1400]Citizen[/mention]

OK, so if I understand you correctly, you would inform the buyer that it's not a photo of a "real" pegasus, right?

[unoduetre]

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.

OK, so you wouldn't inform the person.

[unoduetre]

[mention=107568]unoduetre[/mention] Personally, I'd inform the buyer the item was custom made

OK

[Citizen]

[mention=1400]Citizen[/mention]

OK, so if I understand you correctly, you would inform the buyer that it's not a photo of a "real" pegasus, right?

Yes, because I'm honest about what I sell.

[unoduetre]

[mention=1400]Citizen[/mention]

OK

[Moulders]

Why is the question 'is it right to intentionally deceive someone for profit' even a moral quandary?


Yeah I may do it if I felt like it or if it was funny but I'd never kid myself into thinking it was fine to do so.

[TrashM]

^

[unoduetre]

Why is the question 'is it right to intentionally deceive someone for profit' even a moral quandary?


Yeah I may do it if I felt like it or if it was funny but I'd never kid myself into thinking it was fine to do so.

[mention=15371]Moulders[/mention]

Oh, I'm surprised by this answer from you. This was unexpected.

OK, so the decision whether to inform the potential buyer or not would depend on your mood, but even if you didn't do it, you'd still think that not doing it is wrong. Please, correct me, if I'm wrong.

[unoduetre]

^

What do you mean?

[Moulders]

Oh, I'm surprised by this answer from you. This was unexpected.

OK, so the decision whether to inform the potential buyer or not would depend on your mood, but even if you didn't do it, you'd still think that not doing it is wrong. Please, correct me, if I'm wrong.

Yeah ain't I just full of surprises.

You are correct in your assessment.

On the other hand if I claim (explicitly or through deceptive verbiage) such a photograph to be real when I have definitive knowledge to the contrary, then it goes beyond ethics into realms of legality involving trade descriptions and advertising standards.

[Moulders]

What do you mean?

That just means 'see above'

or 'what (s)he said'