4 ms·

I think you're making a blanket assumption that all businesses that have poor people as customers benefit the poor. This isn't always the case. The thing is,

by PakG1 15y ago

I think you're making a blanket assumption that all businesses that have poor people as customers benefit the poor. This isn't always the case. The thing is, it's not always the case for rich customers either. The simple fact may be that richer people are usually more educated and capable of determining whether or not they would be better off. So the question for me isn't whether it's OK for a business to be making money off of poor people. The question for me is whether poor people will be more negatively affected by immoral businesses. After we understand the question in that context, then we can clarify that yes, it's not right for these businesses to make money off of poor people. I agree with you for the most part. But I don't think we should say it's REQUIRED. I think we should be careful about making such a blanket statement because such blanket statements make for easy cop-out justifications for bad and unethical business practices. We unfortunately usually don't figure out that someone's getting hurt until it's too late.

true_religion 15y ago
They benefit the poor customers in so far as the customers were in a voluntary transaction. It's not up to anyone except the buyer to determine how much utility they gain from a given transaction. An examples of what would make the transaction involuntary are blackmail, deceitful advertising, and chemical addiction on the part of the buyer. ----- Though.... whilst I don't believe this, a case could be made that it is unethical to knowingly protect a monopoly, or run one over the long-term if your profits are maximized.
- vog 15y ago
  > They benefit the poor customers in so far as the customers were in a voluntary transaction. For this to be true, the decision for transaction must also be well-educated, not just voluntary. And this is by no way ensured in poor countries. > It's not up to anyone except the buyer to determine how much utility they gain from a given transaction. As long as it is very likely that the buyer is missing important information, this statement is quite optimistic (if not an invitation for fraud).
- PakG1 15y ago
  I'd have to disagree. Perceived vendor lock-in makes it very easy to manipulate customers into transactions that they'd not prefer, but to which they still agree because they don't see any other choice. Note that I say "perceived", because the vendor lock-in doesn't need to be real for this to happen. Of course, there are many cases where the vendor lock-in is real too. Subprime loans sounded like a great idea, but the homeowners never realized that they couldn't afford them. And then once they had them, they couldn't get out. You may place all of this kind of stuff under deceitful advertising. But nobody is forcing customers to agree to transactions that are based on deceitful advertising. The transaction is completely voluntary, if perhaps misleading or fraudulent. If 3rd parties could not determine how much utility was gained from a transaction, doesn't it follow that 3rd parties also cannot determine how much damage was done from a transaction, if the damage is not easily materially quantifiable? Because if so, that throws out the whole basis for legitimate class action lawsuits, etc, where judgments for punitive damages and the like are determined by people who were not involved in the transaction.

by PakG1 15y ago

true_religion 15y ago

They benefit the poor customers in so far as the customers were in a voluntary transaction. It's not up to anyone except the buyer to determine how much utility they gain from a given transaction. An examples of what would make the transaction involuntary are blackmail, deceitful advertising, and chemical addiction on the part of the buyer. ----- Though.... whilst I don't believe this, a case could be made that it is unethical to knowingly protect a monopoly, or run one over the long-term if your profits are maximized.

vog 15y ago
> They benefit the poor customers in so far as the customers were in a voluntary transaction. For this to be true, the decision for transaction must also be well-educated, not just voluntary. And this is by no way ensured in poor countries. > It's not up to anyone except the buyer to determine how much utility they gain from a given transaction. As long as it is very likely that the buyer is missing important information, this statement is quite optimistic (if not an invitation for fraud).
PakG1 15y ago
I'd have to disagree. Perceived vendor lock-in makes it very easy to manipulate customers into transactions that they'd not prefer, but to which they still agree because they don't see any other choice. Note that I say "perceived", because the vendor lock-in doesn't need to be real for this to happen. Of course, there are many cases where the vendor lock-in is real too. Subprime loans sounded like a great idea, but the homeowners never realized that they couldn't afford them. And then once they had them, they couldn't get out. You may place all of this kind of stuff under deceitful advertising. But nobody is forcing customers to agree to transactions that are based on deceitful advertising. The transaction is completely voluntary, if perhaps misleading or fraudulent. If 3rd parties could not determine how much utility was gained from a transaction, doesn't it follow that 3rd parties also cannot determine how much damage was done from a transaction, if the damage is not easily materially quantifiable? Because if so, that throws out the whole basis for legitimate class action lawsuits, etc, where judgments for punitive damages and the like are determined by people who were not involved in the transaction.