Buying Someone's Records: An Ethics Question

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

I think offering Market value is too high.

AFter all, you are buying in bulk, without the considerable time
and effort (not to mention knowledge) required to sell these
at market cost.

I have quite a few LP's I'd like to sell but just don;t have (or rather feel like)
investing the time to sort, gather, grade, take pics, list on ebay, follow auctions, receive payment, ship out, deal with any lost in shipping or dissatisfied customers, etc.

We're talking days of time here. If you are willing to pay market prices, just buy the 20 or so items you really want at 50-70% of what you deem market price, and pay $1 -2$ for any others you just want that are not valuable - that's all he'd get anyway.

Also consider the economic circumstances of the parties involved. If this person was getting kicked out of their home, I'd offer more, or even suggest places to sell as I'd want to help no matter what.

If it's just found money to the seller, and you're not loaded, then enjoy the good deal. They come around too little in life.

If I went to a garage sale and there was an old book for sale with a parchment paper that read " Magna Carta", I would buy the book. Ask him what he feels is a fair price. If you like it give it to him.