[faboo]

I'm not so sure. People tend to have a very easy grasp of moral/immoral when it involves direct action ("It is wrong to stab this guy because he cut in line"), but the more abstract the situation, the more people need metaphor and analogies and conversation to determine what they believe is moral. It's hard to have a gut feeling about how many pieces of cheap paper is moral to take in exchange for a durable good.

[dextorious]

"It's hard to have a gut feeling about how many pieces of cheap paper is moral to take in exchange for a durable good."

Except it's not "cheap paper", it's very precious and expensive to the poor folks parting with it.

[faboo]

You miss my point I think. You can't eat a bank note, and you haven't killed a person you've parted it from. Indeed, requesting more bank notes than necessary for something is many levels of abstraction removed from doing a person direct harm, and that makes it harder for people to have a gut feeling about the morality of it.

That doesn't mean overcharging necessarily doesn't do real harm; it just means it requires mental effort to understand it as moral or immoral. Maybe not much, but more than deciding whether outright killing someone is immoral or not. Ergo, it is not necessarily true that no moral dilemma might benefit from discussion.