A moral view of competition

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

“It is wrong to lie for one’s personal gain at the expense of another”.

This is a pretty commonplace moral expression - chosen for two reasons. The first is that most people would agree with it on its face. The other is that the issue of lying has often posed a particular problem for moralists.

My contention is that this is a perfectly sound moral tenet, despite that it does not hold water in every case. This may sound odd, but that it is not odd is the premiss of this post. In other words, I agree that it is correct, but not always.

Scenario: You’re at the used car dealer, trying to buy a car. The salesman asks you how much you have to spend. You have US$10,000 to spend on a car. You tell the salesman that you have $8,000. You have lied. This puts the saleman at a disadvantage, because the more he knows, the better he can do his job. (I have sold cars myself - not at a used-only lot, but, of course, one that had used cars.)

You lie here because it is to your advantage to. At the saleman’s expense. Is this wrong? I submit that most people would say it is not wrong, or that even if it is deemed wrong, they would do it, anyway. I would say it is not wrong. Why this dichotomy?

Sometimes we are in a competitive situation, and sometimes we are not. The salesman here has not lied, has not done anything bad to you (so far, at least). Hasn’t cheated you. Is, by all appearances, a pleasant young fellow. Why lie? Because lying, in this case, is a defensive position. We are entitled to take a defensive position in every competitive situation. Where a defensive maneuver is not required, the rules change.

So, we have “It is wrong to lie for one’s own advantage at the expense of another in a non-competitive situation.”

It’s okay to lie as defensive strategem. This leaves the problem of accurately ascertaining which stance we should take in any given situation - when we need to be defensive. But that is a technical matter.

The problem becomes one of strategic alliances. This, in the context of a social contract. In brief, the social contract conceived as one that contains many parties - groups. A given individual can, and must (situationally) belong to more than one group, sometimes permanently, and sometimes fluidly. These groups may compete (just like in the real world), and rules must be formulated to accomodate these exigencies. Moral rules arranged in concentric circles.

To wit: Lie to your wife, but never to your lawyer - your lawyer is actually on your side.

If anyone is interested, I wonder what lie you have told recently that you thought was justifiable, and why it was justifiable in your view.

f

2

Hmm… really interesting post! but before I give a final answer may I change the context and ask you to change the scenario slightly. What if it wasnt a salesman for a company but you were buying a used car off an individual of similar status to yourself, it would still be the same tenet of competition but you may feel differently as to whether its ok to lie to him. I dont know?

3

I would not lie to just anybody. I have to be smart enough to understand the situation. This is not a moral system for the stupid. If it was still a competitive situation, however, the relative status of the two parties remains the same, as it relates to the moral decisions I would make. It would not change just because I was buying from a private party.

This did come up tonight, as I asked my brother-in-law about a car his son may be selling. I would not lie to him. It would be stupid to. But that’s because I do not view this scenario as a competitive one. His son wants a new car, I was thinking about helping out by providing a ready buyer. In fact, my idea was to give the car away to a young friend who needs one.

I will use here a favorite quote from Ernst Werklempter. I don’t have it at hand, but since I was the first (and only) to translate it, I can take enough license to change a word or two. “Be as nice as you can under the circumstances, don’t be too stupid if you can help it, and try to look as good as you can, just in case.”

I will rely here on the stupidity principle. I said earlier that we are entitled to lie in a defensive stance. Why are we entitled? Because it might be buck stupid not to. Morality operates in concentric circles. It might be stupid to lie in other circles. And the smaller the circle, the less I could justify a lie. I think this would hold up in the court of public opinion. That court is easily manipulated - which is actually a moral technique. But that’s another post.

But I need some clarification of your example. How is the status different? If I know the seller personally? Just because he is a private seller, and not the automatically evil used car saleman? I ask because I usually consider a used car saleman of equal status to myself. Just last week I helped a friend to buy a used car. I saw no inequality in status in that transaction. I just need a more specific example to answer your question, for I do not at this moment know exactly what the question is.

4

Yes I understand that the car salesman is of equal status to yourself on a human level but the consequences of lying to the car salesman is that FORD Motors loses $2000 not the salesman himself, whereas if it is a private seller he is directly effected.

For me personally within the concept of a moral system this should not change whether the lie is moral or immoral simply whether it is justifiable or unjustifiable.

I asked the question to see if you were of the same opinion, does this clarify?

5

danchoo - I’m not sure. Firstly, my example does not provide for any particular sale price. I am speaking here only of a negotioating strategy. I think negotiation, and the strategies employed, are important in ethical matters. I follow Rawls here a bit - he puts forth his case in quasi-ecnomic terms, and I agree with his reasons for doing so.

It’s a used car lot, owned by a guy named Ernie, who has a wife and three kids. He goes to church, doesn’t commit any crimes, pays his taxes, sponsors a soup kitchen, and doesn’t swear, spit or scratch his balls in public. He’s a model citizen, beloved by all who know him.

But it’s a competitive situation. That does not mean we are enemies - we need each other. I need a car, and he’s got one. Opposing football teams are not enemies. They don’t want to kill each other, only to defeat each other. Despite a certain testosterone-driven imagery that might have us believe otherwise, if we watch too much television.

Where does this leave us?

6

05.09.06.1295

Actually, depending on the circumstances, it can be RIGHT and not WRONG. Morality is such a trivial thing. Allow me to elaborate given the senario you provided…

Okay, the problem with this scenario is it creates a medium within itself to justify what you would call “lying.” When the salesman asks how much money you have to spend, instincts and intuition automatically put you on the defensive; suggesting to yourself that: “He asked me how much money I have; meaning he must be looking to get it all.” So you have $10,000USD, but out of fear you use the defensive strategem and say you have $8,000USD because you believe that he may try to sell you a car that’s actually worth $8,000USD yet charge you $10,000USD for it. In the end, the best decision would be to leave the place and go find a car to buy elsewhere.

The problem with your scenario was the morality of semantics, which is a degrading proposition. If the first thing to come out of the salesman’s mouth was: “Great, what kind of car are you looking for?” …instead of: “Great, how much money do you have?” …you may feel to trust the man more based on his words because they tell you whether he’s out to get your money, or really want’s to help you find a good car for your money.

It’s funny how morality is so entertwined with the concept of trust.

7

Sage - you are a really emotional guy. Fear has nothing to do with it. Instinct has nothing to do with it. It’s a calculated negotiating strategy. There is nothing automatic abnout it - most people are not good negotiators simply because it is not instinctual or automatic. I have negotiated hundreds of automobile sales, from both sides of the desk. Being fooled by the salesman’s gladhanding is just stuipidity - it doesn’t change the moral eqution at all. Buying the car elsewhere is again, fear speaking. If I am going to buy the car elsewhere, then the example means nothing - then so does your criticism of my technique.

I would love to have you walk in and buy a car from me - you would be what we called a “bunny”. Helpless. You don’t know the rules of the game.

f

8

05.09.06.1296

Pardon me for engaging in your ignorance, I’m only trying to help.

Regardless, I find it rather audacious of you to assume what kind of person I am based on my post. Say what you will though, morality is as much an illusion as time. If you don’t want to heed my advice, then ignore it; otherwise, keep your thoughts to yourself. Which reminds me, I wasn’t criticising your technique, merely explaining why your scenario was inefficient in illustrating your point.

I am however humored by your sad attempt to insult me with petty name calling; how perfectly immature! For the record, I wouldn’t buy a used car; at least not from you anyway. [size=167]And for the love of philology, please learn to spell![/size]

9

I meant my car-buying technique. Sorry for the typos. I was in ahurry. And dude, lighten up. I characterise you only as a car buyer. Not as a person. If morality doesn’t exist, than how can lying ever be right, as you claim? Pardon me if I engage in your logical inconsistency.

10

05.09.06.1298

Remember that when posting on ILP, you are not subject to the ideation of time. Do not worry yourself with time, do not feel you have to rush things and post in a hurry. This is not a chat room or phone call, where the response is expected to come immediately.

I wish you would not characterize me at all, under any circumstances. That is a great offense anyone could make against anyone.

You ask how can lying be “right?” Well, I ask you: If you had to lie to save your life, would you not do it because lying is “wrong?”

Would you die to be “right?”

11

Dude, you’re just not paying attention. You seemed to have hurried past the first part of my question. What I don’t have time for is this sort of crap.

12

05.09.06.1299

LOL! It looks like you’re the one who’s not paying much attention. Why? It’s obviously clear you worry too much about that one thing I told you not to worry about: time. Perhaps you shouldn’t be posting on ILP if you can’t relax enough to devote a moment of “your time” to it.

Remember, before you can talk objectively about the effect of “morality” on daily living, such as competition, you must first prove your case for “morality.” When you have done that, your point will gain some sense of the concept of “credibility.”

By the way, my name isn’t “Dude.” I have a name, and it’s Sagesound. Some call me Sage, and you can call me that too if you like; but if you want some free advice, stop making yourself look the fool.

When you’re ready to join ILP intelligently, do so.

13

Dude - That you told me not to worry about? That you told me?

Who says I’m talking objectively? What does that mean, and what does that have to do with philosophy? Tell me that, dude.

I’m concerned about something that is timeless. Logic. You state that morality is an illusion, and then say that lying can be right sometimes, and wrong sometimes. These are moral judgements that you are making, evidently based on what you consider to be an illusion. I don’t know under what basis you joined ILP, but “intelligently” is a case that you will have to make, after such a basic error in logic.

I am discussing morality under the assumption that it exists, yes - this is a message board - I will not make my cases from my first assumptions on every post. That would be stupid and repetitive.

I devote way too much time to this board. What I don’t have time for is posts by people who think they what they are talking about and don’t. My question was, how can you saying that anything is right, morally right, if you also state that morality is an illusion? “Right” is a moral concept. You said “right and not wrong”. Did you mean “accurate and not inaccurate”? Have I made it simple enough for you to understand? I don’t have time for gibberish. I’m just making time right now because…because…er, um. I don’t know.

Again, dudemandude. Lighten up.

14

Speaking of dichotomy:

I can agree with both faust and Sagesound, at different points.

I agree with faust that under the concept of condicio et hominis congressus, most certainly his assertion is workable, and more importantly, accurate with respect to the current order.

From a strictly philosophical stance of treating the social norm of any contract as being banal, Sagesound is also correct.

For myself, my morality is centered in antiquated concepts/precepts … lying is unacceptable, period. That being a personal opinion, adjudicate accordingly.

15

Mastriani - I can go along with treating social norms as banal. Personal hygiene is banal. That is not in contradiction with my position.

But what do you mean by “social norm of any contract”? You mean a social contract, as in social contract theory?

f

16

deception is the greatest asset of a poker player

17

faust,

I won’t agree that personal hygiene is banal, it is a necessary function for any creature to maintain health and longevity - necessity meaning cannot be done without.

In my opinion, I don’t believe the intent was upon relating to social contracts as a theory, quite antithetically, the intent was as I believe Sagesound, (no sir, I am not speaking for you), was meaning, that the social norm being an intra-entity, intra-social comparative based upon an insipidly vacuous premise, founded upon a subliminal agreement of perception, can be viewed as utterly fallacious, dependent upon individual perspective. Of course the counter can also be asserted, as well.

The problem of morality in any context, and the inherent difficulty continually, is the relativity of the general, by inability to maintain a strict definition.

Also, in my opinion, due to the fact that the true object of the morality, in this instance, is based upon a socially constructed belief of currency having value, fear is more directly involved.

Perhaps your initial premise was more complex than a first sight opinion would lead one to believe. It tends to entail a great number of social constructs, which would need be very exhaustive on inclusion of all parameters.

Salut` … you chose a difficult journey, best wishes.

18

ohhhhhhhhhh.

19

05.10.06.1300

Thanks be to you, gracious Mastriani! You succeeded where I failed: in helping “dudemandudefaust” understand, and especially in calming him down. I believe that my approach, if continued, would have led to his ultimate abandonment of ILP.

[size=150]What a wonderful example![/size]

20

?

I erred again?

What did I do wrong? I thought I made it plainly clear that I wasn’t speaking for the venerable Sagesound, just adding my perception to what you had academically stated.

?