Sales & Ethics

[Axiomatic]

Is it ever ethical to sell a product that you would never personally purchase and that may or may not be used for self/other destructive purposes given that you do not know or want to know the intentions of the people you sell the product too?

[aequalsa]

Is it ever ethical to sell a product that you would never personally purchase and that may or may not be used for self/other destructive purposes given that you do not know or want to know the intentions of the people you sell the product too?

Wow...maybe an example would clean that up a bit.

So, is it morally permissible to sell pot, that I would not personally smoke, not knowing whether or not the buyer is using it as a treatment for the side effects of chemo or recreationally as a driving aid?

I have to go with yes. Other people can make their own responsible or irresponsible decisions.

[bluecherry]

A man may never use tampons and somebody could potentially use them to stab somebody in the eye, therefore no men should sell tampons? XD Your question really is too vague. I think it also largely depends on how likely it seems somebody could do something how dangerous with your product. The tampon thing is really not something many people would be expected to want for a weapon and even if they did they probably would have a hard time doing much damage with it. On the other hand, maybe if you just work in the sale of various cultures of diseases, not doing anything but selling them, you may want to check more carefully who you sell cultures of Ebola to - somebody with an established record of working in a reputable medicinal research facility, or a shady looking person who seems to have just popped into existence yesterday and worked for places you've never heard of doing things you aren't sure what they are.

[TLD]

Is it ever ethical to sell a product that you would never personally purchase and that may or may not be used for self/other destructive purposes given that you do not know or want to know the intentions of the people you sell the product too?

In that context, absolutely not.

You are suggesting fraud and/or evil behavior.

Because you don't use it - no issue.

Knowingly destructive use - no.

Without knowledge of the need of the buyer and/or failing to reveal the negatives to the buyer - no.

Now, do you have an example where you believed otherwise?

[Chops]

Knowingly destructive use - no.

Anything can be used for a destructive use. You can beat someone to death with a pineapple. If you have a *reason* to believe they intend on using it for destructive reasons beyond "they could, if they wanted to", then sure, you might have grounds for refusal to sale. Otherwise, it's fully unnecessary.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Is it ever ethical to sell a product that you would never personally purchase and that may or may not be used for self/other destructive purposes given that you do not know or want to know the intentions of the people you sell the product too?

I assume the intention is to make a profit. Thus the only ethical concern is that the product is being marketed honestly and does what its manufacturers claim it will do. You need not want or need this product, but as long as you are certain you are not misleading potential buyers can can sell it with a clean conscience.

Bob Kolker

[Iudicious]

I actually fail to see why you're ethically obligated to worry about how someone uses something you sell. It's not -unethical- to be concerned with it, but why is it unethical to not be concerned with it? You're not causing harm, you're not making the decision to harm anyone.

[bluecherry]

I think part of the question is if what you are doing counts as productive when/if you are acting to provide a means of destruction of value and if it ever could not count as productive then, at what point do you cross that line from productive to not productive, what are the guidelines and how do you know when they have or haven't been met.

[SuperMetroid]

I think part of the question is if what you are doing counts as productive when/if you are acting to provide a means of destruction of value and if it ever could not count as productive then, at what point do you cross that line from productive to not productive, what are the guidelines and how do you know when they have or haven't been met.

The one and only guideline is whether or not you're making a profit.

[softwareNerd]

The one and only guideline is whether or not you're making a profit.

Money isn't everything.

[TLD]

Anything can be used for a destructive use. You can beat someone to death with a pineapple. If you have a *reason* to believe they intend on using it for destructive reasons beyond "they could, if they wanted to", then sure, you might have grounds for refusal to sale. Otherwise, it's fully unnecessary.

You missed the word "knowingly."

[TLD]

I actually fail to see why you're ethically obligated to worry about how someone uses something you sell. It's not -unethical- to be concerned with it, but why is it unethical to not be concerned with it? You're not causing harm, you're not making the decision to harm anyone.

No one said that. It is unethical to sell knowing they are going to use something destructively; you would be an accomplice.

[Axiomatic]

Wow...maybe an example would clean that up a bit.

So, is it morally permissible to sell pot, that I would not personally smoke, not knowing whether or not the buyer is using it as a treatment for the side effects of chemo or recreationally as a driving aid?

I have to go with yes. Other people can make their own responsible or irresponsible decisions.

I would offer an example, but with so many that you can think up for yourself to test whether it is moral in every case is half of the fun! I would never wish to deprive you of such an entertaining and enlightening exercise of mind.

As for going with the 'yes' option, do you think that holds true for all examples you can think of?

[Axiomatic]

I actually fail to see why you're ethically obligated to worry about how someone uses something you sell. It's not -unethical- to be concerned with it, but why is it unethical to not be concerned with it? You're not causing harm, you're not making the decision to harm anyone.

One reason you might be concerned is the continuation of your business. If your customers are not using a product responsibly, they may harm themselves or others and that can seriously effect the future profitability of your business.

[Axiomatic]

I think part of the question is if what you are doing counts as productive when/if you are acting to provide a means of destruction of value and if it ever could not count as productive then, at what point do you cross that line from productive to not productive, what are the guidelines and how do you know when they have or haven't been met.

Right!

[aequalsa]

As for going with the 'yes' option, do you think that holds true for all examples you can think of?

Qualifiedly yes. Certain extreme extreme examples(selling a nuke in New York to a fellow with a thick Iranian accent) or particular context (legal liabilities, proper or not that would accrue or damage I might incur to my reputation as a result which might damage my business generally) would probably be exceptions.

These are just ways of applying the same principle of my rational self-interest to the issue.

Something that might make it a more difficult question was when it was something that I thought was likely to be misused or used for evil that would only harm the purchaser. In that case quite a few issues might rise up, such as my sense on general benevolence or my relationship with the purchaser.

[DavidOdden]

One reason you might be concerned is the continuation of your business. If your customers are not using a product responsibly, they may harm themselves or others and that can seriously effect the future profitability of your business.

Or, your life in general. This is where close attention to the details of Objectivist epistemology is important. The arbitrary has no proper influence over men -- they give no consideration to the arbitrary. If you have a real reason to believe that the person will harm your life, then you should not evade that knowledge. If you have no such knowledge, then arbitrary claims should not be considered in making a decision whether to act.

[TLD]

Or, your life in general. This is where close attention to the details of Objectivist epistemology is important. The arbitrary has no proper influence over men -- they give no consideration to the arbitrary. If you have a real reason to believe that the person will harm your life, then you should not evade that knowledge. If you have no such knowledge, then arbitrary claims should not be considered in making a decision whether to act.

Or if you have reason to believe that the person will harm the lives of others....

It is about LIFE, not just your life. Enable a person to harm others - with any knowledge that he intends to do so - is a violation of rights. Same for selling a product that is harmful or selling to people who will cause harm with it.

"Given that you do not ... want to know the intentions of the people you sell the product too" (in original questions) says something about one's negative motives in selling the product.

[DavidOdden]

Or if you have reason to believe that the person will harm the lives of others....

It is about LIFE, not just your life.

To the extent that supporting the lives of others benefits my life. Under no circumstance is my life to subordinated to that of others. I may morally sell goods to Smith, knowing that doing so will result in less profit for a third party Jones. Maybe Smith will use my product to efficiently create a product in direct competition with Jones', thus a negative effect on Jones. I properly act for my own sake, not the sake of others.

[TLD]

To the extent that supporting the lives of others benefits my life. Under no circumstance is my life to subordinated to that of others. I may morally sell goods to Smith, knowing that doing so will result in less profit for a third party Jones. Maybe Smith will use my product to efficiently create a product in direct competition with Jones', thus a negative effect on Jones. I properly act for my own sake, not the sake of others.

Of course; that does not negate what I said re "harm."

[Jake_Ellison]

Is it ever ethical to sell a product that you would never personally purchase and that may or may not be used for self/other destructive purposes given that you do not know or want to know the intentions of the people you sell the product too?

Yes. One small observation would be that you should never not want to know something. You might not want to spend too much effort finding out, but if you can know, then you should know, and if you know, then you should act on that knowledge.

And yes, I know: know, know, know. I should've thought of some synonyms.

[Axiomatic]

Yes. One small observation would be that you should never not want to know something.

Well that's not true. There are many things I do not want to know as I am just not interested. The crux is whether it is worth it or not for me to know.

[Jake_Ellison]

Well that's not true. There are many things I do not want to know as I am just not interested. The crux is whether it is worth it or not for me to know.

I'd love to hear your case for ignorance. Please, proceed.

[Axiomatic]

I'd love to hear your case for ignorance. Please, proceed.

I have no interest in ancient Chinese history for example. That is something that I don't want to know about.

[Jake_Ellison]

I have no interest in ancient Chinese history for example. That is something that I don't want to know about.

If a man takes no thought about what is distant, he will find sorrow near at hand. - Confucius