Subject:
|
Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:02:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1064 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Weeeelllll... I know I'm walking into the same old debate as before!
> Old debates die hard :)
>
> Here's some valid points... if it is the case that the druggist's own person
> is at stake, I certainly agree. If he had to go through hell and high water
> to obtain the drug (even though he only 'paid' $400 for it) he can certainly
> justify his prices. If he's dependant on it for survival, same thing-- i.e.,
> he needs 4000 to live, himself; if he charges only $600, then he goes hungry.
> If he doesn't trust Hienz for some valid reason, like if Hienz is a known
> criminal or something, the druggist is still ok. Where we disagree is when
> it goes beyond that:
All of these are irrelevant to the main thrust. The druggist's motivations
for not selling are not important.
> > Heck, even if Heinz shows up with
> > the entire 4K in cash the druggist is within his rights to refuse to
> > sell.
>
> In other words, what if the druggist is just being selfish? In this case,
> let's suppose someone else got the drug for the 4K just like Heinz wants. Now
> Heinz comes along (let's say the druggist has a virtually unlimited supply of
> the drug) and the druggist denies sale (or Hienz tried first, doesn't
> matter). I'd say that the druggist doesn't have the right to deny sale, based
> on the fact that Hienz and the other buyer 'should' be treated equally.
Why?
> I think the other issue here that I'd disagree with isn't so much the rights
> of the conduct of sale, but that the druggist DOESN'T have the right to let
> the woman die. Now, not selling it to Heinz might not guarantee his wife's
> death, but suppose for some reason it did... I'd argue that the druggist was
> in the wrong for letting her die for the sake of his own profit.
Allow me to draw a parallel hypothetical situation. There is a natural
disaster, and several people are left in a state unable to care for
themselves. Several other people are made aware of this. Those other people
chose not to send food and clothing. The first group all die of exposure and
starvation. Would you argue that the second group are in the wrong?
> Again, it's null and void if the druggist's situation is otherwise than him
> only seeking profit. But this is a life-and-death matter. Certainly it
> doesn't apply with the McDonald's set thing.... Unless I've been uninformed,
> nobody was at death's door for a Lego set. :)
Why is profit the determining factor?
> Point of fact though-- Hienz still doesn't have a *right* to stealing the
> drug. His action of theft would still be evil. Perhaps it would be a *lesser*
> evil than the druggist denying the sale, hence it would be BETTER, and it
> tries to counterbalance the evil of the druggist, but it's still an evil, I
> think.
Responding to a wrong action with a wrong action does not make things better.
It contributes to the decline of a moral system. The correct response to a
wrong action is to (explain the wrongness of it to the offender, and) impose
and enforce penalties.
> It kinda sounds, however, like you're arguing against your own actions...
> let's say the McDonalds set was the cure... wasn't the point of your action to
> prevent some poor idiot from buying the set at 10x the regular cost? It kinda
> sounds like you thought the seller was in the wrong for not providing the set
> number, and you were trying to prevent victims from this wrong. You can say
> that since you were providing only neutral info you were behaving neutrally,
> but I still think the point of your action was to undermine the sale at such a
> ridiculous price. Hence it sounds like you were interfering the seller's
> rights of business conduct. Hmm... maybe that sounds unclear. My point is
> there that you may have committed a neutral act, but your intent was
> otherwise. But I digress... after all, you never claimed that your actions
> were moral/immoral/neutral to begin with.
I suspect that Larry would say that morality had little or nothing to do with
his actions. He was acting on his own initiative to improve the market,
within (what he understood as) the bounds of the contract.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
