Buying Someone's Records: An Ethics Question

No matter what you decide, you will have an ethical advantage over this-a single, elderly music lover with a collection of nearly 10K well cared for 78's and LP's passed away. A local jerk offered to his distant neices and nephews to "haul away his junk and dispose of it," for a $200. Yep, that's what he charged them. Those of us who would have put a stop to it learned too late. Inquired about legal action and were sent on our way. None of our business.

Following this thread, It seems like the question of the ethical is being confused with a question of the economic. Which is the dominant logic that should guide the transaction? If it is economic and a one-time event, it seems that offering the lowest price would make the most sense: there will be no future bargaining sessions and thus no opportunity for feedback from this transaction to harm a future round. If it is an ethical one, then regard for the other supervenes economic calculus and should guide one's actions.

To state that there are no universal ethical standards is to fail to grapple with the essence of the ethical. That we can talk of ethics as relevant to this transaction implies a universality. After all, ethics is about sociality and the duty of one to the other. The question then, concerns the substance of one's choices here. What is the ethical standard which applies in this case? Here one can consider the duty to the other and the duty to oneself and the traits with which one chooses to live his life.

Is there a duty to inform the electrician? If so, why? If not, why not?
Perhaps the duty is to embrace community and realize that economic gain is not the sole criterion by which one marks his time in this world. To share the information - this collection may well be more valuable than you think- is to open a space for friendship or at least amicability rather than material competition. It is to act well (in the classical, aesthetic sense) and treat the other with respect as a fellow community member who will benefit unexpectedly from the windfall just as you will benefit from the collection. To fail to disclose is to deny the other's equality in the transaction. There may be many reasons for this, all rationalizations, each more or less compelling [save the elderly gentleman the physical pain of moving the records (empathic), the wasted time of driving to some store for a pittance (economic), the benefit of a windfall that the man could surely use (patronizing)].

As for the buyer. After the purchase, what would the transaction conditions be that give you pause? Failure to disclose? Would you be balancing the joy of saving money against your choice not to disclose, thus mitigating the joy you have in the name of some $ figure? To be ethical is precisely to make a choice in which you meet your duty to the other (this duty can be discerned for yourself if you scrutinize your decision criteria and your moral philosophy, if applicable). What is the vision you have of your life's conduct? If you conceive of your ethical duty as individualist, then offer low. If you conceive of it in other terms then go with that (trust your instinct, there are reasons, too detailed here to elaborate, that we have them).

Classicjazz:

Thank you for a most erudite response to my original post. I can see that you are a student of political philosophy -- or at least you should be.

It seems to me that your position is informed by John Rawls' Theory of Justice, and if it is, I agree. Like Locke and Rousseau, I believe that what is right (ethical) and just depends on a social contract among all people. Unlike these earlier philosophers, however, I agree with Rawls that the roots of this social contract are not to be found in some higher principles or "natural law." Rather, what guides us is a sense of fairness -- what each of us would think was right and fair if we were behind a "veil of ignorance" about our own advantages and standing in society. In many ways, this sounds a lot like the "golden rule" (do unto others...).

All of that said, you seem to believe that the application of economics and ethics is a zero sum equation. I do not agree. I believe that purely economic motivations (make the most money, get the best deal) can and should be tempered by ethical standars (what is fair, the rules of the game). My experience in the business world (which involves advising businesses on strategic transactions, like buying other companies or selling their own business) is that a just and ethical deal is not the one that leads the parties to act against their self interest. Rather, it is one where the parties adhere to a common set of ground rules (equal access to relevant information, no fraud, no duress) and accept the outcome that those rules produce as fair/just/ethical "by definition."

As a result, if I decide to disclose/offer "market value" for the electrician's records, it will not be a denial of my "duty as an individualist" (as you seem to suggest). Rather, it will be because I believe that "rules of the game," in this case, require disclosure to ensure a just and ethical outcome.

Jeffrebowman2k -
Great decision. Good for you! Congratulations. I loved Classicjazz' statement, "economic gain is not the sole criterion by which one marks his time in this world."

Hi,
It is always nice to run into a fellow thinker. As for Rawls, I am impressed with his work but in the end he still valorizes the individual's position. Any contractarian disaggregates society into component parts. Ontologically, the person is prior and the social is the agglomeration of individuals who come together. Whether by contract or coercion is another matter.

As for fairness and reasonableness, I find this conceptual glue to be alluring but how exactly does one define reasonableness? That is the slippery slope and it may end up being some arbitrator who "knows it when she sees it". However, here I would agree with Wolin's criticism of Rawls' resort to comprehensive doctrines getting along (Habermas also does this in his own way). CDs are inclusive, demand faith and delineate obligations that cannot be questioned and these rules guide life in many spheres. That was I think Kierkegaard's point. Faith and reason (and even the human ethical) are incommensurate and the former supercedes the latter. I tend to be interested in exploring foundations of the ethical rather than definitions (which are either made already viz. Wittgenstein or under contention i.e. Foucault).

Finally, I would maintain that conceptually ethics and economics are separate and that it is the political that brings them together (which is what Rawls is doing). This is where I agree with Levinas. And no, I don't mean that economics is purely zero sum but from a rational choice perspective of a one-time transaction between two strangers at arm's length, it would seem that maximal gain by whatever criteria (satisficing?) you use is the order of the day.

Best,
Wm