Immoral business practice? Or not?

[crayola]

It's obviously both illegal and immoral to make your living from selling a product that you know doesn't work, by offering a service that you know doesn't work or by publishing and profiting from things that you know are obviously wrong or untrue.

But what about the case when someone offers a service that they believe works but obviously doesn't? It's legally wrong but is it morally wrong?

An example might be someone who claims to be a psychic and believes deeply that they are a psychic but has no psychic power whatsoever. Think of someone whose predictions are always wrong so there's no doubt that their service doesn't work and we can sidestep the issue of whether anyone is psychic.

This person may be trading in a way that this contrary to the law but are they also immoral if they really believe in their heart that they are psychic?

A similar example would be an astrologer who always gets things wrong but still believes they have astrological powers. They may be stupid but are they also immoral?

[Phill]

Would it need a bit of intent, or to 'knowingly' misleading people to be immoral?
As far as their morals are concerned they believe they are doing good / delivering service. But if they knew they were talking a load of cobblers then it could be claimed as immoral.

[teenybash]

If someone believes what they are providing is genuine and good ,offered without malice or evil intent, then it is not immoral.....Astrological powers confuse me as I have always believed Astrology is a science.

[Metalattakk]

Astrological powers confuse me as I have always believed Astrology is a science.

Astrology ≠ Astronomy.

[crayola]

Would it need a bit of intent, or to 'knowingly' misleading people to be immoral?
As far as their morals are concerned they believe they are doing good / delivering service. But if they knew they were talking a load of cobblers then it could be claimed as immoral.

But is believing that they are doing good or delivering a service sufficient for them not to be deemed immoral by society?

Think of a 'faith healer' who truly believes they can cure an ailment, an ailment that subsequently kills their 'patient' because they decline the conventional treatment that would have saved them.

[Nacho]

i don't know which comes first ...

gullible people with pounds in their pockets looking for an 'alternative' answer or business type folk, low on morals who will relieve them of said pounds.

it's like chicken and egg question (although that was recently solved)

which came first ?

Stupid or Clever ?



(Phill will claim they both came at the same time)

[Phill]

Phill will claim they both came at the same time

Nah, that's some crazy idealistic tosh from mills n' boon about coming together!!

[Phill]

I don't get it....maybe I'm concentrating on the wrong thing...............

[crayola]

i don't know which comes first ...

gullible people with pounds in their pockets looking for an 'alternative' answer or business type folk, low on morals who will relieve them of said pounds.

Indeed. But the latter are much lower in my book.

it's like chicken and egg question (although that was recently solved)

which came first ?

Stupid or Clever ?



(Phill will claim they both came at the same time)

I think stupid came first here because the arrows are pointing in the wrong directions. The model should have been turned around and the photograph taken from the other side! It's clever though.

[crayola]

Astrology ≠ Astronomy.

Important distinction.

Or just alternative spellings for the same thing if you're incorrigibly unscrupulous?

How is your study of psychics and astrology going?

Okay, I know I'm validating Godwin's Law straight away, but what about Hitler? He believed he was doing the "good" and "right" thing by attempting to exterminate the Jews and homosexuals, etc., so are we trying to say that he was not malicious, evil or immoral? And don't bother saying that he is some sort of exception as what he did was pure evil, and it was by the way don't get me wrong, because you have already set out the parameter that if he believed in what he was doing he can't be evil. To me this seems like a debate about objective/relative morality, and for me there is only one choice, objective. The idea that the level of morality of an act depends on the circumstances is rubbish - if you steal from a rich man or a poor man it's still the same level of immoral, this doesn't change just because one man can handle it better than the other. In my opinion it is to do with the act and not the circumstances. So let's say psychic abilities are impossible (this is a hypothetical I'm not actually saying either way) - then no matter whether you believe you actually have psychic powers or not, it is immoral to be psychic (in this hypothetical example I stress once again).

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Your first is a good example of an extreme case where the conclusion is not in doubt.

Your second 'hypothetical' is similar to my example of the 'psychic' who always gets things wrong. I think both are immoral.

We are building a case around the boundaries here. Next we need to go inside it.

[gleeber]

Or just alternative spellings for the same thing if you're incorrigibly unscrupulous?

How is your study of psychics and astrology going?


Your first is a good example of an extreme case where the conclusion is not in doubt.

Your second 'hypothetical' is similar to my example of the 'psychic' who always gets things wrong. I think both are immoral.

We are building a case around the boundaries here. Next we need to go inside it.

I thought Alan made a fine job of opening the box without going inside it.
This is only a question an atheist, or similar, would ask.
Maybe someone who believes in that type of stuff will judge particuar psychic sellers from different angles and although they may condemn someone for being no good, they still largely believe in the nonsense the fraudster canna produce. Both believe its possible though?
Any atheists will know that the people who live in this kind of world are deluded and no such reality exists.
Legally and morally it's completely wrong, but we're in it till the neck.
God save us?

[crayola]

The box was already open and I'd already pinned down one edge. Alan16 nailed another two down hard. The easy bits are done.

Only an atheist, or similar, would claim that only an atheist, or similar, would ask this question. Not all religions are like the ones you know.

Now that the boundaries are set would you like to buy some of my magic beans to relieve the pressure on your chakras?

[Bazeye]

Indeed. But the latter are much lower in my book.


I think stupid came first here because the arrows are pointing in the wrong directions. The model should have been turned around and the photograph taken from the other side! It's clever though.

Or stupid.

[Tubthumper]

A similar example would be an astrologer who always gets things wrong but still believes they have astrological powers. They may be stupid but are they also immoral?

A similar example could be any religious practitioner claiming to work on behalf of a god. Wars, floods and earthquakes still happen, the good still die young, the horrible diseases and famines persist and the midges thrive, yet people keep turning up for the sermon and paying to repair the spire, minaret or whatever.

That's the thing; most people NEED to believe in something and are quite willing to turn a blind eye to the obvious flaws, as long as they get a bit of comfort for their money.

We're a Gemini by the way.

[Kenn]

When a person believes absolutely in some thing it does not affect the legality or the moralty of the matter if their belief is untrue or misguided then they are culpable of misleading and misinforming if they choose to try and influence others.

That opens a new can of worms as just who's legality and morality are they to be judged by?

[Welcomefamily]

The mind has some wonderful powers, just look at many of the placebo studies done world wide.

Where the boat meant to be?

[Whitewater]

There are a lot of Quacks around, always has been and always will be. Having said that I enjoyed the pictures, keep them coming. By the way, What boat? I gazed for ages.

[crayola]

A similar example could be any religious practitioner claiming to work on behalf of a god. Wars, floods and earthquakes still happen, the good still die young, the horrible diseases and famines persist and the midges thrive, yet people keep turning up for the sermon and paying to repair the spire, minaret or whatever.

I deliberately steered clear of religious organisations because the genuine ones are not businesses and they are not selling a product per se.

When a person believes absolutely in some thing it does not affect the legality or the moralty of the matter if their belief is untrue or misguided then they are culpable of misleading and misinforming if they choose to try and influence others.

That was my opinion when I started this thread and after much thought and consideration of the issues it is still my opinion.

That opens a new can of worms as just who's legality and morality are they to be judged by?

That could be another way of posing the question. Thank you.

[orkneycadian]

It's obviously both illegal and immoral to make your living from selling a product that you know doesn't work, by offering a service that you know doesn't work or by publishing and profiting from things that you know are obviously wrong or untrue.

But what about the case when someone offers a service that they believe works but obviously doesn't? It's legally wrong but is it morally wrong?

An example might be someone who claims to be a psychic and believes deeply that they are a psychic but has no psychic power whatsoever. Think of someone whose predictions are always wrong so there's no doubt that their service doesn't work and we can sidestep the issue of whether anyone is psychic.

This person may be trading in a way that this contrary to the law but are they also immoral if they really believe in their heart that they are psychic?

A similar example would be an astrologer who always gets things wrong but still believes they have astrological powers. They may be stupid but are they also immoral?

If psychics are "given the gift", as suggested in another thread, why do they always charge money to pass it on?

[weezer 316]

The mind has some wonderful powers, just look at many of the placebo studies done world wide.

Where the boat meant to be?

The mind indeed does have some wonderful powers, but reading the thoughts of others, let alone dead people who have none is clearly nonsense.

Id imagine though that within a century science will have devised a machine to literally read your thoughts, they are after all eletrical pulses in your mind