Ethics, Experience & Education Worth Anything?

[PedigreeMan]

Objectivists see things as completely right or completely wrong with no middle ground whatsoever. If there is any twinge of guilt felt when doing an action, it is wrong, no matter the circumstances.

 

What? This seems more like a description of Catholicism than Objectivism.

...

Snippage of Gene giving me a schooling

...

 

Ah , I knew I'd blow that description of Objectivism. I probably filtered what little bit I had read about it through my Catholic upbringing (as Gene stated) to come up with the simplistic tripe I posted above.

 

You're right about the altruistic aspects of it being good, thus it wouldn't apply to JC. So I withdraw all references to him as an Objectivist and apologize for the confusion. I'll still consider him a "lost puppy" ethically who needs to find some enlightenment ... at least until he can give me a proper schooling like Gene did above.

 

Thanks again, Gene. I needed the refocusing.

 

Alan

[joe_collector]

I'll still consider him a "lost puppy" ethically who needs to find some enlightenment ..

 

Coming from you, I take this as a compliment of the highest order. I would never want you thinking I fit your "ethical model" for conducting business transactions.

[shiverbones]

wow, on and on it goes. I am going to throw out a more metaphysical and karmic outlook on things. I am a fair and honest person, all of my ebay sales are 100% legit, my grading is spot on & i stand behind my merchandise. I treat buyers well & would hope to be treated that way as well. Recently i have had a run of bad luck with buys on ebay, i bought a "VF-NM" spotlight #5 which ended up being VG, and not at all the book pictured in the auction & the seller is unreachable. I got scammed on 2 lots that were "lost in the mail" and have been bummed about that. I do also think that people are rewarded in odd ways if they deserve it or punished if they deserve that.I think energy is cyclical and energy is attracted to like energy, negative people continually draw negativity to them & vice versa. Perhaps my find which sparked all of this debate was positive energy to make up for the hits i had taken. Maybe the same Energy will benefit the person who sold me the book with using that money to buy a $100 winning scratch off ticket, or perhaps he has been stealing money from his ailing mother and he himself deserved to loose out himself. I don't pretend to know how things work, or to be able to decide absolutes on right & wrong. I know in times when i have most needed a boon it has come. The day of My grandfather's funeral, whom i was very close to & introduced collecting to me (though it was stamps), a relative gave me a box of comics they found. Inside were showcase #11, Atom #2, Detective #250 etc. So in the midst of my grief a comfort came. At a time when i was absolutely broke and could not afford to live when i first left home, i found 2 classics illustrated giants for $10 which i sold for $1500 which was what i needed to get back on my feet & have been on my feet ever since. I honetly believe in doing the right thing as defined by my own personal moral code, which is much higher than most people i come into contact with. I think it pays off to do so in many ways, not just monetarily.

[joe_collector]

You know what Shiver, your explanation makes at least a modicum of sense, but it still doesn't explain people like Chuck.

[Zonker]

Objectivists see things as completely right or completely wrong with no middle ground whatsoever. If there is any twinge of guilt felt when doing an action, it is wrong, no matter the circumstances. Consequently, most Objectivists end up seeing the majority of people as immoral and tend to end up isolating themselves from the "great unwashed."

 

And of course the most famous Objectivist for many on these boards would be... Steve Ditko. Though Spidey doesn't reflect this philosophy, look for later Ditko works like the original (pre-Denny O'Neil) Question, or the independently-published Mr. A.

 

Those characters were the model for Alan Moore's treatment of Objectivism in his Watchmen character of Rorshack.

[mrwoogieman]

And for J_C too

 

Let's get this down to the real world instead of dealing with hypothetical scenarios. I am a long-time collector, like many of you. I have accumulated a fair amount of arcane knowledge concerning comic books, including relative values for books spanning many decades, like many of you. I often seek out collections of books for the purpose of growing my own collection while selling enough so that I'm not dumping lots of cash into my closet, like many of you.

 

Here is where we get real world: I am in contact with a long-time collector, someone who has amassed a few thousand books from the mid-seventies through the eighties. He would like to sell his entire collection (to me or to someone else), and I will be seeing him and his books on Saturday (two days from now). Having spoken to him about his books and why he is selling, I can tell you the following: 1) he knows some books are more valuable than others because they are key books; 2) he knows some books are more valuable than others because of their condition; 3) he is a collector/reader of comic books and does not sell or trade books from his collection; 4) he knows about Overstreet, ebay and CGC; 5) he has indicated that he is not inclined to go to the effort of selling his books in order to maximize his return; 6) he views the money he spent buying his books as 'entertainment cost' not as an investment; 7) obtaining the full value (however that is defined) of his collection would not materially change his life or lifestyle.

 

What, if any, are my obligations as to: 1) offering a price or waiting for him to name a price for his collection (who goes first in this circumstance, and why); 2) taking his price, whatever it may be and haggling with him, even if I think he's quoted a fair (or even good) price; or 3) accepting his quoted price and paying it even though I am knowledgeable enough to know that he is undercutting the value of his collection (and does it matter if he is severely under-valuing or only under-valuing a little)?

[PedigreeMan]

I'll still consider him a "lost puppy" ethically who needs to find some enlightenment ..

 

Coming from you, I take this as a compliment of the highest order. I would never want you thinking I fit your "ethical model" for conducting business transactions.

 

Let me clarify the "lost puppy" statement, because it may have gotten lost in my incorrect description of Objectivism above: Most people see ethics in shades of gray. They would say there is a difference in stealing a candy bar and robbing a bank, despite the fact that both actions are “thefts” and are both wrong. However, if someone in this majority doesn’t explore the “why”s behind this belief, I would consider them “a lost puppy” crawling around “in the dark.” I’m not saying a person has to quote Nietzsche or Kant to become “enlightened,” but they should at least be willing to think a bit deeper than, “Yeah, there’s a difference.”

 

You, however, make no distinction between stealing a candy bar and robbing a bank. Your interchangeable use of the actions of “swindling” someone out of a $100 comic book and swindling him out of his house demonstrates this. Therefore, you are on the fringe, and make no bones about letting us all know this ethical stance time and time again. In the end, these two characteristics make you a legitimate target for criticism; both from those who feel their view is being attacked and from those who have a genuine interest in hearing another side of the story.

 

Unfortunately -- and here's where the "lost puppy" analogy comes in -- you have yet to delve deeper into the “why”s behind your ethical position. All of your rebuttals are either a deflection of the true issues at hand, repetition of your base stance, or simple name-calling. Again, there appears to be no foundation to your arguments, and if you’re going to make fringe claims your foundation has to be fairly rock solid.

 

I mean, for crying out loud, the least you can do is spout some canned religious dogma or something. Give us something more, Joe! Heck, we’ve even made it easy for you: You can start by simply answering one of Pov’s or Donut’s or my “ethics quizzes!” Give it a shot!

 

Alan

 

[fantastic_four]

All philosophies and religions see things in black and white.

 

Zen Buddhism, which is the philosophy that I've studied and practiced the longest, doesn't see anything in terms of black and white. Fundamentally, it's a rejection of the entire Aristotelian way of dissecting reality...you don't take reality and cut it up so that you can put it into categorical cubby-holes, you take reality as one large, continuous whole with no real distinctions between anything.

 

It's not really a religion that guides all of your actions...if it were, there'd be no intellectual distinction between "hungry" and "not hungry" and you'd stop eating and eventually starve, although that's not to say Zen is a rejection of instinct. It is useful as a way of clearing your mind of clutter and bias when you're stuck down 15 levels of hierarchical thought. Zen is the reason I find that I'm inordinately objective as compared to 90% of the people I know...after practicing it for so long, I find it extremely easy to step into a complex path of reasoning and step right back out again once I find conflict or contradictions along the way.

[delekkerste]

Objectivists see things as completely right or completely wrong with no middle ground whatsoever. If there is any twinge of guilt felt when doing an action, it is wrong, no matter the circumstances.

 

What? This seems more like a description of Catholicism than Objectivism. Many of Objectivism's tenets may feel "wrong" (e.g., Rand's condemnation of altruism) if you have been brought up with traditional Judeo-Christian principles, so it doesn't make sense to say that "if you feel guilt, then the action is wrong". Also, "right" and "wrong" in Objectivism is based on what is right or good for enhancing the human existence, and not what is right or wrong because you will burn in hell if you choose poorly. In that light, I don't think most Objectivists see most people as "immoral", just "unenlightened" or "not fulfilling their potential". "Immoral" has such a heavy-handed religious connotation...Objectivism is a philosophy, not a religion. Self-interest rules, but those who are altruistic or bureaucratic are not considered "immoral" in the traditional sense of the word.

 

 

As I understand it, Objectivism seems like a very short-sighted view of an abnormally complex world...I realize I could just go read Atlas Shrugged, but this philosophy seems more like something that should be dissected via an Aristotelian approach.

 

All philosophies and religions see things in black and white. After all, the Ten Commandments says simply "Thou shalt not kill", not "Thou shalt not kill except in self-defense, in armed conflict, to end suffering, or if the person really, really deserves it". So, to call Objectivism "short-sighted" in that context is somewhat disingenuous, as it is no more so than any other philosophy or religion.

 

As for the second part of your statement about taking an Aristotelian approach, the metaphysical and epistemological tenets of Objectivism (no, it is not just a philosophy about politics and ethics) are pretty much straight from Aristotle.

 

Gene

[garthgantu]

Nice rationalization in order to make a truckload of money. Otherwise, why not do like those two "super nice guys" did recently and donate the books to a University/College reference libray or museum?

 

Those two are the real deal, and everyone else trying to walk the same line is a BS-artist.

 

The fact that they got a STAGGERINGLY large tax write-off probably had nothing to do with it. They donated their books purely out of the goodness inherent in their hearts.

 

From the articles I read, it didn't seem as though either of the two "super nice guys" were anything more than middle class, in terms of income/wealth. Would they really be able to take advantage of the tax break much? Wouldn't they have made 20-50x more $ selling the books...there were something like 50,000 comics in their collection, right? Even if they make $150k each per year, they could only take a one-time write-off for the 'donation' of the books, right? So they might 'save' $100k in taxes (collectively), whereas selling the 50,000 books would have netted many times that amount...?

[joe_collector]

 

The fact that they got a STAGGERINGLY large tax write-off probably had nothing to do with it. They donated their books purely out of the goodness inherent in their hearts.

 

From the articles I read, it didn't seem as though either of the two "super nice guys" were anything more than middle class, in terms of income/wealth. Would they really be able to take advantage of the tax break much? Wouldn't they have made 20-50x more $ selling the books...there were something like 50,000 comics in their collection, right? Even if they make $150k each per year, they could only take a one-time write-off for the 'donation' of the books, right? So they might 'save' $100k in taxes (collectively), whereas selling the 50,000 books would have netted many times that amount...?

 

Thanks for stating that, as I was gonna post something similar, but really didn't think it was worth the effort. Anyone knows that unless you've got a multi-million dollar annual salary, a large sum of cash in the hand is way better than some elusive tax write-off in the same amount.

[dam60]

wow, on and on it goes. I am going to throw out a more metaphysical and karmic outlook on things. I am a fair and honest person, all of my ebay sales are 100% legit, my grading is spot on & i stand behind my merchandise. I treat buyers well & would hope to be treated that way as well. Recently i have had a run of bad luck with buys on ebay, i bought a "VF-NM" spotlight #5 which ended up being VG, and not at all the book pictured in the auction & the seller is unreachable. I got scammed on 2 lots that were "lost in the mail" and have been bummed about that. I do also think that people are rewarded in odd ways if they deserve it or punished if they deserve that.I think energy is cyclical and energy is attracted to like energy, negative people continually draw negativity to them & vice versa. Perhaps my find which sparked all of this debate was positive energy to make up for the hits i had taken. Maybe the same Energy will benefit the person who sold me the book with using that money to buy a $100 winning scratch off ticket, or perhaps he has been stealing money from his ailing mother and he himself deserved to loose out himself. I don't pretend to know how things work, or to be able to decide absolutes on right & wrong. I know in times when i have most needed a boon it has come. The day of My grandfather's funeral, whom i was very close to & introduced collecting to me (though it was stamps), a relative gave me a box of comics they found. Inside were showcase #11, Atom #2, Detective #250 etc. So in the midst of my grief a comfort came. At a time when i was absolutely broke and could not afford to live when i first left home, i found 2 classics illustrated giants for $10 which i sold for $1500 which was what i needed to get back on my feet & have been on my feet ever since. I honetly believe in doing the right thing as defined by my own personal moral code, which is much higher than most people i come into contact with. I think it pays off to do so in many ways, not just monetarily.

 

Shiver, really great post. A little off topic, but I remember coming home from my grandfather's funeral and took in the mail to find a package of Batman comics from a seller whose integrity I had been questioning. When I got back to the city that night I went to my local store (another shameless plug for the Time Machine in NYC) and was able to get a few more Batmans. It was a nice little perk to a [!@#%^&^] day.

 

DAM

[Bugaboo-migration]

What is your problem? You've been acting like a tool for a bit now, saying nothing, doing nothing and contributing nothing, yet following me around like a puppy dog while spouting on with some bizarre agenda.

 

Are you apprenticing under Bug? And yes, I said UNDER Bug.

[shadroch]

Here is my take on the oriinal question

If I am at a public sale where any peson who shows up can buy the books at the price the seller set-ie a yard sale advertised and publicized and I see Silver Age Marvels for a quarter apiece, why should my knowledge of books preclude me from buying them as opposed to the man who is getting them for his six year old.

If, however, I find someone who happens to have comics in their house,doesn't know they have any value and wasn't planning on selling them untl I came along,I feel I owe it to that person and myself, to give them a fair deal.

To me that is the difference between ethics and experiance.

 

[buena_vista]

Are you taking advantage of a seller if you find an Action #1 at a flea market for $20? Of course not. If the seller really cared about the book and thought it might be worth serious change, he would have looked into it.

 

I hope you'd be as forgiving of an accountant taking your money (due to his greater knowledge and time invested in his craft), or the big monster at the gym laying a beating on your pasty frame (he works out 10 hours a day, so he deserves it) or a lawyer snookering you with a hidden clause (shoulda gone to law school comic-boy)?

 

Hey Joe, I hate to dissapoint you but it happens to almost everyone. What do you think banks are? They take your money and give you a certain percent interest. They then use your money for investments that make your interest back and then some -- thereby making their profit. The have knowedge and access to investments that most account holders do not. Why is that? Because they have thousands of people doing their homework on investments.

 

The banks, investment companies, brokers and YOU only have the moral obligation not to steal or lie.

 

 

[PovertyRow]

Where you're completely wrong is your concept of investing and what an investment is in the first place. I seriously doubt you put your bazillion hours into comics purely to make money. That's what an investment is, at the end of the day.

 

The primary and secondary definitions of "invest" are:

 

1) To commit (money or capital) in order to gain a financial return: invested their savings in stocks and bonds.

 

2) To spend or devote for future advantage or benefit: invested much time and energy in getting a good education.

 

I was really thinking in terms of the 2nd definition. I spent (invested) much time in the hopes of increasing my knowledge, making me aware of restoration, etc etc. (hey - "spent" is always used forst for money and then for time! Interesting coincidence!)

 

This HAS helped me financially by letting me spot restoration, gauge condition and in doing so make an informed purchase. Also it was and is a hell of a lot of fun.

[FlyingDonut]

 

The fact that they got a STAGGERINGLY large tax write-off probably had nothing to do with it. They donated their books purely out of the goodness inherent in their hearts.

 

From the articles I read, it didn't seem as though either of the two "super nice guys" were anything more than middle class, in terms of income/wealth. Would they really be able to take advantage of the tax break much? Wouldn't they have made 20-50x more $ selling the books...there were something like 50,000 comics in their collection, right? Even if they make $150k each per year, they could only take a one-time write-off for the 'donation' of the books, right? So they might 'save' $100k in taxes (collectively), whereas selling the 50,000 books would have netted many times that amount...?

 

Thanks for stating that, as I was gonna post something similar, but really didn't think it was worth the effort. Anyone knows that unless you've got a multi-million dollar annual salary, a large sum of cash in the hand is way better than some elusive tax write-off in the same amount.

 

Once again, my ethics are just wrong I guess. These guys donated their books purely out of the goodness of their hearts. Why, I bet they aren't even going to take the tax break (which can run over several years, if they had any brains and made themselves into a foundation) that they would get from making this donation.

 

Anyone knows that unless you've got a multi-million dollar annual salary, a large sum of cash in the hand is way better than some elusive tax write-off in the same amount.

 

I don't have a multi-million dollar annual salary. I will tell you however, that there have been several times in my life when having a tax writeoff in my back pocket was siginficantly better for my finances than having the cash. The day that I sold my IPO-bought (bought at the equivalent of $0.21) was one of them. The day that we sold our house was another. Please do not make blanket statements about tax laws and writeoffs.

[mlovest]

Pov,

 

Ethics, morals, integrity must always trump greed, profit, etc. There's nothing wrong with making money on a deal, but you shouldn't take advantage of someone. For example, if someone is trying to unload a box of comics at a garage sale, they are definitely not expecting the highest price obtainable. That's the definition of a garage sale--getting rid of junk for some pocket change. However, the person does expect to be treated with respect and with fairness. If they have a comic of very high value, you should make them a better offer. Otherwise, you are simply taking advantage of someone. Would it be OK to buy a child's father's Action Comics #1 for $10 just because you know more than they do?

 

Just my thoughts...

[PovertyRow]

That's the definition of a garage sale--getting rid of junk for some pocket change. However, the person does expect to be treated with respect and with fairness. If they have a comic of very high value, you should make them a better offer. Otherwise, you are simply taking advantage of someone. Would it be OK to buy a child's father's Action Comics #1 for $10 just because you know more than they do?

 

First, I inhabit flea markets and antique stores primarily. In those venues I will buy what I can for what I can. And that includes an Action #1 for $10.

 

There's nothing wrong with making money on a deal, but you shouldn't take advantage of someone.

 

There is also nothing wrong with NOT putting oneself in a situation where they CAN be taken advantage of. It is a simple thing to go to a book store and just stand in the aisle and read a price guide. And look up what one has. And at least get a glimmer that they have something.

 

Ethics, morals, integrity must always trump greed, profit, etc.

 

Also - why greed and profit? What if I want to keep that Action #1 in my collection permanently? I am not making evil money from it. I am simply enjoying a comic book that, amoung an incredibly small percent of the population, has any value at all. And what about the concept of auctions? Why put people at each others' throats bidding up and up? Isn't that immoral, playing on people's emotions and desires like that? Why not just put a BIN on the book and let someone say "Yeah. I'll take that."

 

However, the person does expect to be treated with respect and with fairness.

 

That is something of a stretch. Maybe you haven't been to many yard sales. I've met some fun people and I've met some major league jerks who treat you like doodoo. Why is this yard sale owner automatically elevated to a superior moral and ethical level?

 

Would it be OK to buy a child's father's Action Comics #1 for $10 just because you know more than they do?

 

Would it be ok to buy an Action #1 for $10 from someone who didn't know any better and gave $2 to someone else for it?

 

The potential for circumstance is insanely great here. Trying to reduce it to the most extreme is, and I apologize for it, inane. Suddenly the seller is a saint, the buyer is a devil and there is only one solution.

 

What I want to know is how the integrity, circumstance, honesty and motivation of the seller is even determined here? These ARE supposed to be real life situations but all the ethical moral ones focus on are the most banal facts that make presuppositions about the extreme integrity of the poor seller and the greed of the evil buyer, yet offer no clue as to how those presuppositions were even formulated.

 

If people want to use real life examples, then do what the yard sale owner should do: examine what they are offering. Otherwise the yard sale owner ends up with a bunch of newsprint and the ones citing examples end up with pre-packaged generalties.

 

Sorry if I am sounding harsh. But this argument gets under my skin - and not just from you. Life is not pre-packaged black and white. Life is complex and offers a tremendous range of shadings that are constantly shifting.

 

To try to pin someone down to a simplistic and unexamined example does no one any good.

 

::yeah yeah - typo edit::

[ninanina]

Pov, I've seen on national television examples of people buying stuff cheap at garage sales or antique stores, some knowing and some not knowing what they got till later. The general consensus by the public, is good for them for getting a deal. I don't see any difference between this or getting an Action comic #1 for $10.00 at a garage sale. I also suspect there may be people spending many hours going through a lot of junk to find that treasure. Why not benifit not only from your knowledge, but your time as well. In my view, you get a deal once in awhile...good for you.