[runeks]

> > For some people this money could be incredibly important.

> That's exactly the problem.

I thoroughly disagree, and I feel like speaking up about this particular philosophy of consent.

If I buy a used iPhone for $100 from someone who would die if they didn't get the $100, have I acted unethically? Whereas if I bought it from someone who didn't really need the $100, I wouldn't be acting unethically?

This sounds not only wrong, but highly counter-productive to me, since the consequence of not entering into this trade, just because the seller really needs the money, is that the seller dies. How does that make any of us better off?

As a society, we should encourage trading with people who really need the money, not label it as unethical. Whether a trade is unethical or not can be determined solely from the trade itself, not how much either (or both of the parties) needs the proceeds from the trade.

Example illustrating the absurdity: imagine two people who both really need the proceeds trading with each other. Ouch! According to your philosophy, they are both acting unethically (when in fact they are doing the only reasonable thing).

[nebulous1]

> If I buy a used iPhone for $100 from someone who would die if they didn't get the $100, have I acted unethically?

In some cases, you have clearly acted unethically. For instance, if the iPhone is worth $800 and you have more money, but you're getting the $100 price because the man is dying now and there's nobody else around to offer him more than $100.

[lostlogin]

Doesn’t this argument give us child labour and sweat shops? Fortunately most places have laws that set a minimum standard to protect society against those who have lower ethical standards.

[gerbilly]

>If I buy a used iPhone for $100 from someone who would die if they didn't get the $100, have I acted unethically?

Yes, it would be unethical to both parties.

In the first case, it is unethical because you are taking advantage of someone's dire need to get a better price on an iPhone.

In the second case you are denying yourself a clear cut opportunity to really help someone in need.

To be in a position to help someone in such a state is a privilege that does not come around often.

[Wowfunhappy]

So say I don't buy the iPhone because I consider it unethical to pay only $100, but since I don't actually need a new phone, I'm not going to pay $200+. The seller dies because they were $100 short of some essential medicine they needed, or whatever. Is this really the outcome you want to see?

In an ideal world, I would just pay the person $100 and not take their phone—but, c'mon, this isn't the world we're living in. People die every day in the US—never mind the rest of the world—because they couldn't afford medicine/shelter/food/etc

[nebulous1]

You're contriving a situation where the seller doesn't have any other options AND you also don't have any ability to buy it to later sell at a profit (which would give the seller the ability to negotiate a better price than $100 with you while still allowing you a reasonable profit when you sell it).

I agree you can contrive a situation where the best ethical option is to pay the seller $100 for the phone but you really have to work on it (and the situation is pretty contrived to begin with)

[gerbilly]

> In an ideal world, I would just pay the person $100 and not take their phone—but, c'mon, this isn't the world we're living in.

In this case you could make it that kind of world, for that person, just for $100.

To be placed in a position where it's so easy to help someone is a privilege.