Situation ethics...
Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon
>This is a continuation of the ethical delimma threads from a couple of weeks ago. If you're ethically challenged, I urge you to skip this message. It's likely to simply anger you...
Out of respect to Moses, and Pam, I thought I�d start a stand alone thread. (This isn�t directly pointed at either of you.�but your posts did push me over the edge�all the references to "Old window ladies" just makes me wince every time I read it...)
I�d thought about doing this post earlier, but thought I�d think about it a bit more.
What�s startled me more than a bit is what appears to be real hypocrisy here�
Without mentioning names, I�m sure you�ll recognize yourself when appropriate, I�m rather astonished and the wildly swinging moral compasses.
Someone mentioned a while back about �sniping� on an auction unconscionable behavior.
I also heard very ugly rumblings about shill bidders.
I presume these behaviors are looked down upon because they prevent the seller from getting what they believe is full price for their goods, or the buyer from getting what they want in a good deal.
But why?
Shill bidding shouldn't be a problem, as in the words of someone here (loose quote) "You bought what someone else offered."... You got what you asked for, you paid a known price for a known item. The item was offered for the stated bid price inflated or not, and you (or someone else) bought it.
How about sniping? Well, if you�re the seller, you�re just a dope for not putting a reserve. If you offered the plane for that amount, you shouldn�t be vetching about not getting more. You should have reseached more and known to "fix" the auction before you offered it.
(Let me be clear, I�m offering what appears to be largely the "group" consensus on these issues, not mine. I generally don�t find sniping particularly problematic, as you can set a reserve or opening bid price. Shill�s I do have a problem with, as it�s simply dishonest dealing.)
When we�re buying�
We want the auction kept quiet so we can sneak in and get a steal.
Shill bidding just pisses us off � at least when we�re buying.
Dumb sellers and the like are a great boon.
We find it just astounding and despicable that someone might present themselves as �disadvantaged� to get a better price, but we�re willing to condone the same sweet-talking or fast-taking to get a better deal as a buyer.
When we�re selling, we hate it when people snipe, even though we set the selling price floor.
(I�m sure there are other examples about selling, but none come to mind right now�)
What�s wrong with this picture?
It�s just fine and dandy when you get a steal, but the world�s moral compass is out of kilter when someone else does it to us? (How dare they!)
The loss of self critical ethics/morals is what produces a morass like Enron, Qwest, and the other vast frauds in recent accounting scandals. (It's always someone else's job to make sure they're not getting taken. If you don't know the value of your stuff, it's not my responsibility to "educate" you. [If you don't know your public utility can get fleeced by Enron than it's just too bad when you get hooked for the resultant mess...])
I�d hope that we�d likewise be at least ethically stable. It seems odd to complain about how we or others are getting ripped off by sellers selling to an unsuspecting public, and minutes later be gloating about how we got the steal of a lifetime at the expense of someone else who really should be compensated better for their items.
Either pulling the wool over is always acceptable, or it�s always bad.
No need to reply. Just some food for thought.
I�m not going to respond to any posts on this thread, and I�m perfectly OK with it, if it gets pulled entirely.
I just wanted to say that I�ve found the ethics here *appear* to swivel from righteous indignation from people getting taken by sellers who aren�t what they appear, to gloating over the fast one pulled by someone else. Can we get some moral backbone, rather than letting our ethics swivel all over the place depending on which end of the deal we�re on?
Ethical crusade over�
Cheers,
Greg