He will not get 200, because eBay 
1 Like
I was one of the people that said OP was not wrong. I feel like I should clarify. I believe firmly, that, in a vacuum, taking a great deal is not wrong. I don’t think many people would argue that snagging a deal on ebay without telling the seller is okay. However, it is different when personal connections come into play. I don’t think taking a deal like that from a friend is morally right. So, I guess it pretty much depends on the relationship.
2 Likes
I believe you said they were a colleague, that grouping can extend far and wide? Also i’m not convinced karma even exists so I think you’ll be ok 
If it was a friend, different story.
1 Like
Actually it’s easy to be honest with friends and family. If you can expand that morality further then you’re truly doing something special, and the reward is much greater.
Those are also the kind of people I’d rather deal with. There’s some extremely honest people here as well as guys like Rusty (Char Authority) and Ed B. They wouldn’t deceive others so I know they’d be straight up with me.
1 Like
The card was worth about a hundred dollar bill a few years ago. I would of given him that and walked away with it. But, $30 is just being a bad person…
Anyone care to go past the feel goods and offer a genuine ethical case for it being wrong?
I’m mostly interested in entertaining the case as a thought experiment.
I don’t think I’ve yet seen how one can say this is wrong and uphold that getting a deal of any kind ever is appropriate. Essentially that’s just an argument of degree that’s unfounded. Principally no one has offered anything ethical whatsoever as a counterpoint.
1 Like
The real test is honestly the inner guilt. You felt it necessary to validate your deal here in a place full of people who are always looking for deals.
Whilst I don’t have an issue on either side, my feeling is if you need to ask, chances are it isn’t sitting right with you. At the end of the day it’s up to you.
2 Likes
I disagree once more with any sort of personal conscience being the test of guilt. That’s a fast track to a dysfunctional emotivism that doesn’t work but in situational ethics, which we know is bunk.
How is this different than a yard sale find? Car boot? Obscure online store?
When is someone allowed to have a good deal? To what extent are we allowed to “underpay?”
Really press yourself. If this is an ethically corrupt scenario, it should hold of you describe it. Principally it should be wrong somewhere along the line. I’m glad to accept its ethically not up to par. I prefer to refine my ethical thinking in the kiln of alternate perspective. But no one is actually addressing ethics here.
2 Likes
I think you’re missing the difference here. With yard sales and flea market, you don’t personally know the seller. Same with eBay auctions. In this particular case, the seller is known to the buyer. There is a difference.
Ethics pertains to well-established standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans (that’s us) ought to do. Ethical standards also encompass virtues of honesty, loyalty and compassion. Application of these standards is lacking in this particular instance.
1 Like
What, critically, is that difference?
Why is it acceptable to underpay a stranger but not someone you know? That’s not ethically coherent. I’m sure the stranger would want to know just as much as the friend. If you’re right and it is an inherently wrong act, it’s wrong in both scenarios. Your lack of intimate knowledge might keep you from feeling bad, but it isn’t a different scenario.
I’m seeing perfectly well where you’re coming from, but I’m pushing you to reach a coherent, consistent ethical conclusion that can be applied universally. Because I think you’re operating out of a fallacious position.
EDIT: And I think lots and lots and lots of people think that way. It’s not a remark on who you are or anything like that. But I think we owe it to ourselves, as capable, intelligent, upright individuals, to think through these things as critically as possible.
2 Likes
Let’s not forget that the seller got all cocky in the first place by saying he KNOWS exactly how much it’s worth and didn’t even give his mate a nice discount… after thinking about it I would have paid the $30 and said Wow you really stung me dude you shrewd businessman you!
6 Likes
THIRTY dollars?
5 Likes
I wouldn’t feel bad. I’m sure some take a moral high ground here, but presented with an opportunity they’d take that opportunity, it’s human nature after all; besides, it’s not like he asked you how much it was worth, HE told you it’s worth at least $30, you just took his offer and got a great deal.
Reminds me of when I purchased a key date 1885 V nickel for a friend for 100 Colones at the time ($11-$12 USD), he didn’t know the value but said “give me 100 and it’s yours”, the coin is in VF-XF condition, so about $800 at the time, I was 14yo.
1 Like
“he smiled at me and said: haha you cant trick me i know what this card worth. it worth about 30 bucks.”
This here is the key piece of information for me. 2htu2 has not mislead this guy at all, he hasn’t given this colleague any misinformation or lied. Has he withheld information? Absolutely but I dont think in this situation he is obligated.
I am sure all of us here has paid far less for an item, whether it be cards or anything else in life, than what it was worth.
I can totally understand some reservations they have about acquiring it so cheap, but never look a gift horse in the mouth.
4 Likes
Sure, I can clarify the difference between the ignorance versus sense of responsibility here. 
Actor A initiated the deal and confidently asserted a price.
That’s the difference. If the burden is on a knowledgeable individual (dealer/collector/individual) to inform anyone of full potential market value regardless of the original actor’s inquiry or admission of uncertainty, then that burden carries over. The informed person would be required to inform any person with a card that has a sale listed on eBay. They would be required to tell anyone anywhere the full value of their card if they have even given a whiff of potential interest in selling it. We know that is unreasonable, so what is the difference? Why is this situation separate? I’m proposing that Actor A, once interested in selling, has an obligation to research if they are not informed.
What can this look like? Actor A could:
-Say they’re uncertain what it is worth.
-Look up the value.
-Ask about the value.
-Ask where to look up the value.
-Seek counsel in a third party.
And there is a long list of what Actor A could do given they have something for sale but don’t know the value. These are reasonable, generally understood expectations. The only people this could not be expected of are people who are hindered in some way from having this general knowledge (Children, Elderly, Disabled - probably others)
But that is not the case here. This situation in no way calls for the interjection of such information because the fully capable actor has asserted, confidently, exactly what they want. And they were paid in full.
Here are situations, given what I’m proposing, where Actor B, the purchaser, would be in the wrong:
-Talking the card down
-Giving inaccurate information about price (a lie)
-Refusing to provide accurate pricing to the best of their knowledge if asked
These are situations where Actor B would be wrong. But none of those are the case.
Perhaps another good way to look at this would be how we like to define value around here any time a conversation comes up. “It is worth what someone will pay.” Presumably, Actor A pitched it for what he would pay. Within the situation, that totally valid way of determining value was applied. Contextually, a fair value was determined. If you consider other markets, you could get a different value. But that wasn’t the market it was sold on. And if you are morally obligated to pitch the highest value in any market, well: Let’s just so you’re going to have a bad time. 
1 Like
Worded far more eloquently than I could have put it.
It might also be noted that I couldn’t buy the card for $30. But my morality is guided as such by religious affiliation, which isn’t helpful, in my opinion, to getting people to think critically about WHY they believe what they believe. I just get so tired of generic wisdom and what is essentially nothing more than a series of overlapping personal ethics dictating the entire conversation and where it goes. Do us all a favor and think through this out loud! You do everyone a favor when you explain exactly why you make your claims and consider how they’re consistent. Everyone is better equipped to making the best possible decision in different instances when they get to hear solid ethical arguments and claims explained ahead of time.
1 Like
This is such a good conversation! This example is great as it highlights an experience we have had at some point in our journey.
Here is my take on it: Imagine this situation where an ebay auction, “charzard hologram card” Buy it now for $30. The photo is of a 1st Ed charizard. You buy it, you receive the 1st ed charizard, what are you going to do? Better yet, what have you actually done? We have all had this happen to some degree. Do you message the seller and pay them more money? Probably not.
Ultimately this is a business transaction. General ethics, or general ethical feelings do not directly correlate, and more importantly are not 100% sound. Should someone feel guilty when they get a deal? I have purchased cards before way under market value, mostly through ebay. Is it my fault that someone listed their item the way they did? It is a marketplace, more specifically, a marketplace for non-essential goods.
As with the situation, and any deal on ebay, which again, we all have experienced to some degree, the onus is ultimately on the individual listing or selling the card.
3 Likes
To answer the OP’s original question: Would I have done the same thing?
Yes of course, since he was so adamant about the card being worth $30.
We have to look at the EXACT issue at hand here, what is in question is: the action of accepting a valid offer for an item valued by AND set by the seller at a price extremely lower than what would be considered “market value.” The seller also implied he knows the “market value” So in its simplest form, there is nothing unethical about accepting an offer for a price lower than what others think its worth.
It’s the sellers fault for being ignorant and lazy. In fact he may not even be either of those. Remember time = money. And the time it could have taken him to research the actual value could mean hours taken away of something else that could be making him money. Its easy for anyone here to say “its a charizard, he should have the known the value” but I promise you there are millions of people who could care less about any individual pokemon in this hobby, let a lone know the value of a single card.
I can give some hypotheticals to show how pointless it is to actually say this action was unethical, and I suggest (and hope) that anyone who feels it was unethical not actually get upset about it. Here why:
-
What if the seller knew all along the price of the card being well over $30, and he knew someone who collected the cards and wanted to be nice and sell it to them because they would truly appreciate the card; but he wanted to do it discretely.
-
What if the buyer told the seller the charizard was worth $500, then the seller used that money to buy heroin and overdosed.
Ironically, these hypotheticals are moot point, but the point I am try to make is, who cares if someone buys a Charizard for $30. ITS NOT THAT IMPORTANT to get upset over. To me a 1st edition charizard is worth $250, to my cousin its worth 5k, to my Grandma its worth NOTHING, and to my girlfriend its worth a headache.
Anyways, the whole act of just buying a card for even $30 could be considered unethical by some. It’s called consumerism. (Read/watch Fightclub to see what I mean). Also, money in and of itself has been known to be the “root of all evil”, so just engaging in the act of exchanging money itself could be considered unethical to some.
I would actually say its more unethical not to do research on what the value of an item is worth and expect others to just tell you the price is. That is called laziness, ignorance, and a sense of entitlement. Screw that. But to reiterate, even this to me wouldn’t be considered unethical enough to get upset over.
I think the most unethical thing to do is to take away someone’s freedom. Whether it be freedom of speech, thought, travel, and/or especially life. No freedom was taken away here in this scenario.
This debate could go on for hours, and books could (actually have) been written about them. Eventually we would have to get into self interest vs. utilitarianism, where morals even come from, etc.
I don’t even know how someone would believe in karma would think this is bad karma. I mean I would honestly think buying a piece of cardboard that was created by killing a tree would already be bad karma so… even that’s subjective. Remember ethics are relative too. I was the president at my University for the only off-campus community service volunteer group. We did a 3 hour community service project every Saturday morning for each semester. I remember getting off a shuttle after one event hearing a student complain about how some other person was an idiot because they completely ignored the money donation basket at her church. Meanwhile I was thinking I can’t believe some people think donating money is more important than donating your actual time. Meanwhile someone else could be thinking I can’t believe that guy thinks he is actually helping out by donating just 3 hours of time just once a week, he should be doing more. And the list can go on an on…
One last point, I find it really ironic a pack weigher would actually have the nerve to call someone a bad person lmao
1 Like
You are a terrible person for not countering his offer just a little lower! Always counter at least once!
6 Likes