|
Critical Care
Medicine - List |
Internet Discussion on Business Ethics.This is a discussion between Dr. Crippen and a diverse population of participants of a rare book discussion List concerning business ethics. Some analogies to medical ethics are offered near the end of the discussion. Names, places and circumstances have been changed. Mr. White: I'd like to ask for feedback on a question of ethics in the trade. I am a buyer and seller of rare books. While exploring one day, I found Albert Einstein's original doctoral dissertation in a pile of nondescript manuscripts in the back of a rare book store. When I took it to the seller, he looked at it briefly with no sign of recognition, and said "ten bucks". Given the context of the find, I assumed that my colleague had no idea what he had. Without another word I fished out a ten spot and left quickly. Now, as it happens, this all occurred in a context in which the guy owed me one, and I can't honestly say that I feel at all guilty about it. Now, as it happens, this all occurred in a context in which the guy owed me one, and I can't honestly say that I feel at all guilty about it. But what exactly are the ethics of the situation? Dr. Crippen: You should feel guilty about it. You allowed an naive individual to give up something of value without letting him know what he was doing. Would you allow a cashier at your local grocery to inadvertently slip you an extra twenty dollar bill in mistaken change. Could you salve your conscience that because she didn't know she was mistaken that it served her right.? What if the cashier was called on the carpet by the boss and made to make it up out of her own pocket...a minimum wage pocket. >But what exactly are the ethics of the situation? The ethics of the situation are simply that of "informed consent". This person did not give informed consent to enter into a transaction that benefited you and hurt them. In fact, you are guilty of "passive" theft. You didn't take the book and walk out the door when the clerk's back was turned, you took advantage of a functionally disabled "opponent", yielding the exact same result. The fact that "dues" might have been involved is totally irrelevant. No "dues were negotiated. >Should I have told him what it was? Yes. And you should give it back, then make a deal that is fair to both parties. Mr. Green: I disagree with Dr. Crippen and further suggest that T. White did nothing wrong. He was in a buy/sell situation, not somebody's living room, and dealers generally feel that dealers selling them books are responsible for knowing their wares. Indeed, the whole structure of exchange among dealers who sell to each other is often based upon knowing a little more about an item than the dealer from whom you are buying. And when you know a lot more about something, sometimes it adds up to a great find." Mr. Purple:
Dr. Crippen: There is an ethical difference between gain by deceit and gain by good fortune. If I go to an auction and a rare book comes up for bid that I feel is undervalued, and my low bid is accepted, I am fortunate. There are many checks and balances in this public process that protect all concerned. If the entire literary establishment (such as it is at this auction) undervalues the book, but I am smart enough to speculate that the book has more value, and I outfox them....so much the better for me. Tough bounce for them. However, if I am on one-on-one terms with another individual and there is no set price for the book, all those checks and balances go sour. There is no established price to mark a bargaining point whereby I can haggle. If the seller does not know the value of the book, I am taking unfair advantage of him if I manipulate the situation to deceive him. I am not bidding on a book that others have the option to bid on as well, which tends to "find" the real value. I am deliberately hoodwinking a sole individual to his detriment and my gain. Mr.White did not use any kind of dialectical process to explore the value of the book and find a common ground beneficial to both the seller and the buyer. He allowed the seller to believe something that was not true in order to benefit from it. He knew he was on shaky ground and that is why he posted this problem asking for advice or input from others. He suspected where the truth of the matter lay but was hoping others would come forth and palliate his unrest by saying it's not only OK to stiff the competition...it's the American Way. Mr. Black: Dr. Crippen states that fundamental ethical principles ARE black and white, but he doesn't say what those principles are, or at least which ones apply in this case. Dr. Crippen: I think that it can be considered an ironclad ethical principle that one should deal fairly with one's cohorts. Few would argue that Mr. White followed this maxim. Mr. White, by asking for advice on this issue suggests that he recognizes that this was questionable judgment. Mr. Black: Referring back to his earlier accusation of "theft" one might conclude that he is referring to "thou shalt not steal" as a viable moral absolute. But it takes a tortuous definition of theft to apply it to this case, where the book was freely given away. Dr. Crippen: Depends on how you want to define "theft". If I may digress to offer a medical analogy, we define euthanasia in two ways: 1) Active euthanasia- the act of ending life by an active therapeutic maneuver. Me squirting 40 milliequivalents of potassium Chloride into the blood stream. 2) Passive Euthanasia- the act of ending life by withholding a lifesaving maneuver. Me volitionally removing oxygen from a patient in acute pulmonary edema. One has me doing something to stop life and the other has me not doing something to sustain life. The end product of these two maneuvers is the same. I use this as an illustration only; please do not draw any parallels between Dr. Kvorkian and haggling over books. If Mr. White waited until the bookseller's back was turned and snuck out of the shop with a valuable book, he would be guilty of theft- the acquisition of valuable goods without adequately remunerating the rightful owner. If Mr. White, in the course of an inquiry about the value of a book, allows the seller to believe that the book has little value, then as a consequence of that diversion, accepts the book........what is the difference between these scenarios? Mr. Black: If it is, as I believe, impossible for me to "steal" that which you are giving me freely, then some other moral or ethical principle must apply here. Dr. Crippen: If the seller chose to give Mr. White the book as a gift, or because he "owed Mr. White one", that would be perfectly acceptable. However, it is freely given that the seller clearly did not know the value of the book. Or even if he did, it was not clear to Mr. White that this was the case. Therefore, the question has to be asked- if the seller was advised by Mr. White of the true value, would he still have given the book away? We will never know the answer to this question because Mr. White did not want to know the answer either. Mr. Black: We think we know what Dr. Crippen would do if he were in a similar situation. Dr. Crippen: There is a very big difference between knowing what the "right thing" is and "doing the right thing". Mere humans are subject to intolerable pressures to do what self interest dictates. I cannot, with a straight face, claim that I would have acted any different. Mr. White found great value in this manuscript...enough value to keep silent even after he knew what the right thing to do was. I can assure you I have been in this position as well, and I have come up short as well, as might anyone else placed in this difficult position. None of this is the point, which is....how did Mr. White resolve this situation. Once we know that, we will be in a better position to argue the fine points of philosophy. You guys are trying to find ways of circumventing it but we keep coming back to the same place. Some contributors said that the rules of business invariably follow the maxim- Caveat emptor...period. Others were more willing to look further than "what's good for business is good for business". I remain curious as to what Mr. White thinks about all this now that we have cracked the roof and let the sun shine in. Mr. Purple: By your postulation of the "ifs" or possibilities, the black/white nature prescribed for any situation reported to us about the alleged transfer of the Einstein dissertation to Mr. White's possession leaves me to believe that you have cast a net a tad too wide for the classification of "thief" to encapsulate the nature of that transfer. I recall when a customer paid me the price I had placed on a book for several dollars, and he finished the transaction and then waved the book under my nose chortling, "Do you realize you just sold me a book worth $300?" I could only smile and say (a) I made a reasonable profit on it, and (b) that is the tuition I pay to learn the book-trade. I feel that hypothetically had I learned the true value before selling it, I should have looked up the person who sold it to me so I could share the good fortune that could have happened to me, according to the world of absolute ethical values of Dr. Crippen. We live in real world where we may not be dealing with life and death, but neither are we dealing with absolutes. We try to act ethically, and yet we feel that a bookdealer who disrespects his own stock by not learning what he had deserves every loss that he incurs by not learning. We are in a knowledge business. Either you know or you do not sell. If you sell you accept the consequences. The bookdealer I hold in most disdain of all the bookdealers that I know is somebody who will not spend one dime to buy a price reference, a bibliography, a copy of AB Bookman, or anything else to help him learn the value of what he sells the public. In my eyes, that dealer who gave Mr. White the Einstein manuscript felt that it was easier to get rid of the artifact than to find out what this sheave of papers in a foreign tongue was. So he lost the Einstein manuscript. He did it; and Mr. White was only the fortunate beneficiary of the other's neglectful and disrespectful treatment of his own stock. In the real world, the rain comes in when we crack open roofs. Mr. Brown: Having adjudicated many similar conflicts among the 8-12 year old sports card collectors in the neighborhood, I can assure you that what you did was sneaky and wrong. If you are not moved by the excellent intellectual argument offered by Dr. Crippen, might I suggest the one that works best with the pre-adolescent set: put yourself in your friend's shoes. How would YOU feel if he did that to YOU? Ripped off, angry, betrayed? The fact that you posted this question shows that your conscience is bothering you and that you're spending a fair amount of time mulling it over and rationalizing your decision. Are a few bucks worth that time---not to mention losing the trust of a friend or dealer with whom you will be doing business in the future? >Should I have told him what it was? Yes. Go back to your "friend", level with him, sell the dissertation and split the profits with him. You'll both come out ahead. You imply that this person has ripped you off in the past ("he owes me one") and are using his (inferred) unethical behavior to justify your own. Again, as I say to the boys, "Two wrongs do not make a right". If he has not dealt with you fairly in the past, confront him about it, work it out, or don't deal with him anymore. The alternative is the sort of game-playing you're doing now. If there was nothing wrong with what he did, why the need for secrecy? Why the worry? Because Mr. White understands that it will affect his relationship to this dealer, despite any rationalizations and support from biblioland. The bookselling community is a small one, even smaller in Iowa. I just don't see where the secrecy and gaminess gets you in the long run. Mr. Violet: I think Dr. Crippen, for all his ability to put a readable English sentence together, has a weaker argument than it would appear. I also tend to look somewhat askance at moral absolutists, not because I don't believe there are any absolutes but rather because experience has shown that many (most) people don't agree on what they are and, worse, tend to extrapolate from their own moral absolutes and declare their extrapolations absolute as well. I believe Dr. Crippen is guilty of this kind of faulty argumentation. He states that fundamental ethical principles ARE black and white, but he doesn't say what those principles are, or at least which ones apply in this case. Referring back to his earlier accusation of "theft" one might conclude that he is referring to "thou shalt not steal" as a viable moral absolute. But it takes a tortuous definition of theft to apply it to this case, where the book was freely given away. It is here that one begins to drift away from the black-and-white, I believe. If it is, as I believe, impossible for me to "steal" that which you are giving me freely, then some other moral or ethical principle must apply here. I don't buy the logic that Dr. Crippen and others have applied: "you asked the question so you must know it's wrong; therefore you must know what's right." A question is a question; it was asked, as I understood it, because he did NOT have the answer; all the rest is posturing and pop psychologizing unworthy or treatment as a serious and legitimate argument. We think we know what Dr. Crippen would do if he were in a similar situation. But would his choice be more moral than all others, and, perhaps more important, would the reasons for it make more sense? Would he be in fact acting more in accordance with the judeo-christian values that underlie our society than someone who simply accepted the gift and adopted the posture of, say, "live and let live." I guess I'm a little more of the "no harm, no foul" school; I didn't see any attempt to deceive here: it wasn't like he tried to sneak the Einstein manuscript past someone. There was not any obvious INTENT to steal the book, mislead anyone, etc. And I don't think the obligation is upon us to protect others from themselves, especially in a commercial situation or relationship. Sorry to be so long-winded, but I do think these matters are serious and I think Dr. Crippen's pontificating tended to be a little bit more simplistic than it should be, and than these questions deserve. Mr. Green: I remember attempting behavior something like that after a bookscout sold me a number of books, and I discovered that some of the books were worth more than I had originally thought, and I ran into the bookscout in a restaurant, went up to his table where he sat and plunked down some more cash, explaining that his books were worth more than I had originally thought. He looked at me strangely, took the money, but he never offered me another book. Dr. Crippen: He was probably Mr. Black. Mr. Brown: We live in a real world where we may not be dealing with life and death, but neither are we dealing with absolutes. Dr. Crippen: If that is true, then it would not be unreasonable to place a conspicuous sign in your business establishment: "There are no ethical absolutes in life.......so caveat emptor......and have a nice day". Mr. Brown: In my eyes, that dealer who gave Mr. White the Einstein manuscript felt that it was easier to get rid of the artifact than to find out what this sheave of papers in a foreign tongue was. So he lost the Einstein dissertation. He did it; and Mr. White was only the fortunate beneficiary of the other's neglectful and disrespectful treatment of his own stock. Dr. Crippen: Or he was not familiar with that particular piece of stock as he might have been a "temp", or he mistook it for a similar piece of stock that had much less value, or he had just received a phone call relating the death of a close relative, or lots of things never explored. Mr. White knew the worth, the seller was in a compromised position for undetermined reasons. Mr. White took advantage of the situation for his own gain. So when he sits his young children down for a father-to-progeny talk about how to order their lives what does he say? Kids....You should always to treat your fellow man fairly...unless of course you can benefit by not doing so". Mr. Yellow: I have read the "ethics" discussion with much interest. As with most of the important questions life poses to us, ethical considerations being one of them, there is no final, simple, truth. It has been my experience , however, that there never is a shortage of people willing to provide one. This is as it should be, for what are we all if not entitled to opinion. However, history is replete with individuals whose observations have transcended opinion , thrusting with a self-propelled force righteousness into the realms of high dogma. These lofty types do not give opinion, they deliver lectures. They do not question but castigate and condemn. They do not consider other voices , for those may be out of tune and disturb the solitary and sterling harmonies their own produces. I find these attributes to be disturbing, in general, but when trained upon my profession, I view them as nothing short of dangerous. Our company has been on-line quite a long time, and although often tempted, I have managed to steer clear of anything that was not "strictly business". However, the diatribe that Dr. Crippen has delivered is such that I cannot remain silent. I believe Dr. Crippen is illustrative of the mind set which I have described above. His moral thunderbolts are hurled from the Olympus upon which he sits, down upon Mr. White, with the arrogant force of a schoolyard bully. Not only does he object to what Mr. White did, he reprimands and harangues ...he demands guilt. His tone of response is deprecating to the point of cruelty as he showers Mr. White with his personal fire and brimstone. As the owner of a rare bookshop of some repute, I take great exception with Dr. Crippen's point of view. I happen to be of the opinion that Mr. White has not committed the sin of the ages. This profession is filled with currents and eddys of business practices which are unique unto itself and which, at times,are undecipherable to laypersons attempting to carry out moral litmus tests upon it. I daresay this is most certainly true in Dr. Crippen's medical universe. Nevertheless, Dr. Crippen's opinion is certainly welcome in the arena of free discourse. What is not welcome and is , to me, quite distasteful , is the apparent arrogance and intolerance of his manner. By what right, other than that enabled by sheer force of self-importnce, does Dr. Crippen purport to pronounce judgment of another member of our profession? Opinion is one thing, indictment , quite another. As I stated at the outset, the ethical world is not a black and white one. Even the concept of theft, an act which Dr. Crippen accuses Mr. White of in his flippant " theft is as theft does" comment, may, at times, be subject to interpretation. As an example, one need only look at Dr. Crippen's address ( crippen+@pitt.edu ) to realize he is utilizing his University's Internet connection to engage his personal interest in books and conduct personal business on the biblio list. I wonder if the funds which purchased and maintain this University system were intended for that purpose. I would advise Mr. White to regard Dr. Crippen's comments with the same consideration one would extend to Forest Gump's insights into nuclear fission. Mr. Black: Dr. Crippen's arguments have fallen off the end of the ethical flat earth that they reside on and probably don't deserve any more comment. But since there's no moral problem with killing a patient who's already dead, let me deliver the post-mortem, because unlike Dr. Crippen, I DO believe that the gravity of the ethical issues raised here merits comparison with Dr. Kevorkian: for Dr. Crippen buying or selling books may be an enjoyable hobby; for those of us who do it for a living, these issues represent the difference between living a life with integrity or not.
What would I have done in this situation? I don't know. Probably I would have missed the Einstein altogether, as the seller did, so it wouldn't have mattered. I think White should be commended for finding a great book, and bringing it back into the world. As for what it's "really" worth, and how much of that the seller "deserves"-- how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? These are irrelevant questions about a matter of no moral consequence. Mr. White shouldn't be penalized for recognizing a good book and trying to buy it; and he shouldn't be penalized even more because the seller chose to give it to him. Dr. Crippen should realize that human life is not a zero-sum game: if White benefits it doesn't mean the seller was hurt. White has actually performed a service by bringing a historically important book into the light, and the seller could be criticized for being derelict as a bookseller for failing to do so; that's one of the "purposes" of our "jobs" as booksellers, or at least one of the functions that we fulfill in society. White did a good thing; I might have done something different; Dr. Crippen's simplistic pronouncements require a moral universe of simplistic dimensions, a flat-earth view of the world that bears only a passing resemblance to real life. Mr. Black: Dr. Crippen's arguments have fallen off the end of the ethical flat earth that they reside on and probably don't deserve any more comment. But since there's no moral problem with killing a patient who's already dead..... Dr. Crippen: The only thing left is to call me a sadistic necrophilic, but that would be kicking a dead horse. Mr. Black: I don't claim to know what Dr. Crippen should charge for his services, or what percentage profit over expenses is "acceptable" in a moral universe, or even what his expenses are: how much of Pitt's overhead is it "fair" for him to include in his charges? I don't know. Who gave him the authority to decide these kinds of issues for book buyers and sellers? And who, exactly, are "one's cohorts" in his ironclad ethical principle? Is it OK to stiff somebody who's not a cohort? Is everybody a cohort? Dr. Crippen: None of this has anything to do with the original premise, which is simply whether or not you endeavor to treat your cohorts as you would want to be treated. Lets argue the following premise. Mr. Black, whilst traveling through Pittsburgh to a book auction suddenly develops right upper abdominal quadrant pain of such an intensity that he feels the need to divert to the world famous University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and ends up with the noted surgical magician Dr. Crippen (that's me). Mr. Black (presumably) doesn't know squat about obstructed biliary trees. What he does know is he's uncomfortable and wants someone who does know something about these things to "do the right thing". What is the right thing? Mr. Black would like to trust me to give him the straight dope as to what is best for him. I could look Mr. Black in the eye and tell him he needs me to invade his right upper quadrant with spring steel right away to fix his problem. I have a strong incentive to do that as well. I have Ferrari payments, a big house, lots of spoiled kids, a wife with numerous credit cards. I have expenses, and I meet many more of those expenses by carving up people than I do by giving them a prescription and a pat on the head. He doesn't know diddly about it and I do. I could offer him an operation that would not be any more effective than conservative medical management and I can assure you I could arrange the paperwork so that the sharpest quality assurance reviewer could not tell the difference either. In so doing, I might take advantage of him and no one would ever know...except my Ferrari mechanic who would get his payment on time. At this point Mr. Black becomes a very strong believer in absolutist ethics. He is not interested in exploring ways either of us can extract more benefit from the other. He wants the painfully straight dope, with no sloppy reasoning. If I take the position" Too bad if the sucker doesn't know anything about ascending cholangitis, infarction of the gall bladder, free air in the biliary tree...that's his problem and I am free to exploit it. If he cannot deal with me at my level, he is fair game for me to extract whatever benefit I can. This scenario is really not so much different than that under consideration, only with higher personal stakes. Therefore, I suggest that the difference between relative and absolute ethical values are merely a matter of who is doing what and to whom. Mr. Black: Dr. Crippen still doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between buyer and seller. In his example, I would be buying his medical expertise and, yes, he would have an ethical obligation to impart his best judgment. White was buying, not selling; and yet Dr. Crippen (and perhaps others) seem to feel that White was under some obligation to impart his best knowledge of the item in question -- for free. In fact, they suggest he should have to pay dearly for the privilege of educating the seller. When Dr. Crippen finally learns to distinguish between buyer and seller, he will realize that the medical analogy he was looking for to compare to White's case would be: Dr. Crippen, because he knows more about medicine than I do, should be required to impart his knowledge and expertise to me -- and to perform whatever \ operations I need (i.e., redress both my ignorance and bad health) and he should pay me a handsome sum in addition. When he agrees that those are appropriate ethics for the medical profession, I'll agree that his analysis of the White case is appropriate. But I don't think it will happen. Mr. Black: Dr. Crippen should realize that human life is not a zero-sum game: if White benefits it doesn't mean the seller was hurt. Dr. Crippen: A truly great man (I think one of the Isley Brothers) once said that life is a process of sequential disappointments. Maybe we should tell the former seller all about this and see how disappointed he is. Mr. Black: Dr. Crippen's simplistic pronouncements require a moral universe of simplistic dimensions, a flat-earth view of the world that bears only a passing resemblance to real life. Dr. Crippen: That is the law of nature: life is a brainless struggle, and the "meek" will jabber and die like brain damaged rats in a maze long before they'll ever think about inheriting the earth- much less quality first edition manuscripts. Mr. Black: White was buying, not selling; and yet Dr. Crippen (and perhaps others) seem to feel that White was under some obligation to impart his best knowledge of the item in question -- for free. Dr. Crippen: This would be true in an Ayn Rand-like world where every single commodity has a fiduciary value, every commodity is for sale and nothing is ever given without negotiating a price. In fact, we do not live in that kind of world..... mercifully. Some of us live in a world where helping hands are extended for free, merely because it is the humane thing to do. Those less fortunate in some sense tend to get a helping hand in this world, often without expecting to make a profit on the transaction. Some might speculate that humanitarian efforts should extend to business transactions; especially business transactions lacking a parity of power. Mr. Black: When Dr. Crippen finally learns to distinguish between buyer and seller, he will realize that the medical analogy he was looking for to compare to White's case would be: Dr. Crippen, because he knows more about medicine than I do, should be required to impart his knowledge and expertise to me -- and to perform whatever \operations I need. Dr. Crippen: Mr. White is getting ready to make a deal. He and his seller are going to negotiate a price for something of value. Mr. White knows more about the subject than his opponent. He has the potential to make more on the deal by taking advantage of his opponent's weakness. What is his moral obligation? Mr. Black and I are getting to make a deal. I am getting ready to treat his medical condition and he is getting ready to pay me. I know more about his condition than he does. I have the option to make more money on the deal by taking advantage of his relatively weak position. Where is my moral obligation? I think it is my moral obligation to do the right thing for Mr. Black even though I won't make a profit on the deal. What do you think Mr. White's moral obligation is? If you say it is Mr. White's moral obligation to come away with the best deal he can, and too bad if his opponent can't hold up under the bargaining. Law of the jungle and all that, then I see no reason why I should not relieve Mr. Black of his offending organ, even though I could treat him the same way as effectively without surgery. Everyone would be happy. Mr. Black, after a convalescence, would be happy he no longer has right upper quadrant pain, and my Ferrari Mechanic will have a nice day. What's wrong with this picture? Whats wrong with this picture is that we sometimes have moral obligations to do the right thing even though it does not generate a profit. That is what makes us moral agents and that is what maintains the thin line between holocaust and civility. Mr. Blue: As I recall, Mr. White said that he asked how much he wanted for the book. Doesn't that make your argument unnecessary? Dr. Crippen: Not necessarily. Mr. White clearly indicated that the seller seemed not to know the value of the book. He did not specify the reasons for that lapse but they might be important. I might concede that the seller had no interest in the value of the book. In that case, Mr. White might have made out like a bandit and no one could criticize the deal. However, if the seller just got a phone call ten minutes earlier informing him of the death of a close friend, or the seller's wife just informed him hours earlier she was throwing him out, he might have been functionally incapacitated to make value judgments. Therefore, I think a conversation such as the following might have obviated this entire thread:
At this point we have a big fork in the road, John Fowles style.
At this point, the forks converge again. The players have met on a level field and the entire scenario is played out in the bright light of day. Real value is explored and the "right thing" happens. Sound reasonable? Mr. Purple: Dr. Crippen will always win these moral arguments because, like or not, and regardless of our bibliographical expertise & skills, we bookdealers are all, at bottom line (merely) traders. Dr. Crippen: It is not an argument and there are no winners or losers. The purpose of this thread is simply to promote critical thinking about subjects that are difficult by their nature. That this discussion has been as amicable as it has, considering the diversity of it's discussants, is a testimony to the intellectual curiosity of it's participants and also their forbearance and tolerance. I dare say that everyone involved will think about this in a different light than when it first began. How they think about it is their own concern. Ms. Beige: I want to thank you. You were a large part of the reason I changed my mind. Despite what some folks wrote, and despite my discomfort with what I still feel was rather strong language bordering on inappropriate, you made some very valuable and valid points. I am persuaded by you that as a professional bookseller I do have an obligation greater than the average buyer. And as administrator and owner of this list I suspect I have an even greater obligation to ethical constraints by virtue of my willingness to make myself visible to the bookish community at large. You helped remind me of that and compelled me to take a longer and harsher look at my positions. Thank you. If I were in need of emergency surgery I can think of no other hands I would rather be in. Mr. Brown: Dear Doc: Thanks for ruffling a few bookseller's feathers. I do not agree with a great deal of your recent postings on ethics in bookselling, but my, what an educational entertainment you've sparked. (This means, that I do agree with a bit of what you've said). Mr. White never posted again. Mr. Plum: I have been hoping that the spirited ethics thread would warp its way in a direction that i find interesting on a more practical level and perhaps worthy of discussion, sadly it seems to have wound down... (thanks for hanging in there doc, ya done good!) I ask non rhetorically: should the price of a "rare" book be based on a persons ability to pay? I offer for discussion an actual transaction that took place a while back. (the prices i am quoting are the result of my somewhat fragmented memory, trade hearsay and are not deemed accurate).a famous celebrity asked their local dealer (a retailer of some repute) to locate a first edition of an american high spot. this book in fine condition generally retails for lets say $2-3000. the dealer located the book in question, contacted the buyer and consumated the deal for $8000. the word got out, the local trade was incensed about the ethics of the dealer and this poor blighter was excoriated by virtually everyone who heard of the transaction. it should be noted that the customer makes a zillion dollars a year. the $8k represents about 5 minutes of effort by this individual. Jealousy aside, is the trade justified in its rightous indignation? Dr. Crippen: Is it unethical to make a stunning profit from the ignorance of others? My opinion is..(surprise)....such a transaction is wholly unethical. The seller knew what the real value was and that that the book was not worth the inflated asking price. The seller mislead the buyer into believing that the asking price reflected the real value. The fact that the buyer is not savvy enough in the value of books is not relevant. The seller should have calculated a "fair" profit for his time and effort and "done the right thing". What is a "fair" profit? Does $5000.00 profit for a $3000.00 item sound fair to you? Mr. Grape: The point I am making is that there is no ethical violation committed by the act of pricing a book, according to the definition of "ethical" given above, if we agree that the ethical standard is defined by how the majority of booksellers would conduct themselves in the specific situation cited by Mr. Plum. Dr. Crippen: You bought a book for $1000.00 that was worth $2000.000 and then sold it to some guy for $8000.00. I submit two comments:
Mr. Grape: Speaking for myself, it would certainly be irritating to know that a dealer was asking more for a book from me than from someone else, but this is the seller's privilege, and I would not consider that the dealer had violated his/her integrity. Dr. Crippen: Then you should make it known to any prospective client right up front, preferably by a large sign in your establishment, that you are in the business of getting all you can and your only interest is milking them for whatever the traffic will bear. Then you can go about your business with a clear conscience. Mr. Peach: It is indeed an odd world. Dr. Crippen longs for the good old days when Surgeons charged on a sliding scale, but castigates booksellers who try to do the same thing. Dr. Crippen: Ah Ah Ah......can't let you get away with that one. I didn't say I agreed with t this kind of pricing structure, I only said that was the reality. Buying a book is an elective maneuver. You can live without the book. Getting your appendix out before it bursts causing peritonitis, sepsis and death is less negotiable. If you cannot afford it, you get it anyway. If you can afford it you pay the full freight. The net income to the provider falls somewhere in the middle. I didn't invent that structure but I understand the rationale for it. That is not necessarily to say that I am obligated to charge outrageous fees to recoup having to deal with those who cannot pay. There are special ethical obligations for physicians that deal with that sort of thing that I personally take seriously, although I can assure you there are those who don't. So I freely admit that some physicians take the same philosophy as some booksellers. Get all you can with no stops. Kind of like a value added tax from whatever crosses their path. Because it is done is not an excuse to condone it. Mr. Pear: I find your parting shot more than a little offensive. one of the harsh realities of the book world is a dynamic called the feeding chain. any singulary important book can start its upward climb at the salvation army where it is scouted for $1, sold the the neighborhood dealer for $7, priced at $20 where it then becomes fodder for a big city dealer, whos clientele are over paid doctors, (sorry couldnt resist) lawyers and indian chieftains. the high end dealer generally resides in high end locations with high end rent, a well paid staff and innumerable other fixed and variable overhead items. (just like the real world!) I defy you to tell me from an ethical standpoint why any given profit along the way is in some way less than honorable. btw who made you the arbitrar of what is an acceptable profit margin. did you ask your ferrari dealer what his margin was, $15000? $ 25000? Dr. Crippen: Not the same thing. Clearly, it cost more to maintain my Ferrari than it does to maintain a Ford Escort. Driving a Ford Escort is basic transportation. Driving a Ferrari is a religious experience and that is factored into the price. Related Ferrari goods and services costs more for a lot of other practical reasons.The price of each good or service reflects the additional value, difficulty of acquisition, and, yes, I also pay for the privilege of driving an exotic. However, the increased price required to maintain this vehicle is not outrageous nor is it unfair. If you lead an uninformed consumer to believe that a $2000.00 book that you paid $1000.00 for is worth $8000.00, that seems to have short circuited the process that I willingly pay more for my Ferrari. I choose to divert money from other of life's staples into this beast because it is my informed preference. I have weighed the detriments vs. benefits and decided I want it and I can afford it. I know what it is worth and I am willing to pay the price as an informed consumer. Your sucker thinks only what you manipulate him to think. He is not an informed consumer and therefore it is his fault, and he is fair game to take advantage of. You justify a profit you would be outraged if your wife got stuck with. So spare me platitudes and wingeing about what is offensive. Offence is in the eye of the beholder. The more you pay the more it's worth sounds good in theory until it's your wife who writes the check from your joint checking account, then I think your opinion of what constitutes a "shrewd business deal" changes a little ;-). Ig you wouldn't want to come home and find out this deal from your wife, would you want someone else to have the same pleasure? Parting Shots- Dr. Crippen: At the risk of having my scalp liberated, I would like to offer a brief parting comment. Contrary to popular opinion, this was not an acrimonious thread. This was a conversation between a very diverse population of people who see things different ways. It was entirely constructive though spirited. For those of us who remained with it, we learned something very valuable I think. We learned to think about a problem constructively and to dissect other peoples viewpoints in a stepwise and logical fashion. This is the true value of the Internet. Some of the opinions you read are those of the people that purchase your goods and use your services. I dare say that, no matter what our opinions, we all will think differently about the subject when we approach it again. That is a very good thing. I wish all of you the very best of luck, success and may the really big prize be just around your corner.
|