The ethics of getting a good deal
- Thread starter Davidius
- Start date
- Status
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
Kevin, it is theft when one takes advantage of someone that wouldn't otherwise have sold an item. Such as the jr high student and the sub teacher in Tim's example. How could you not say that it was wrong for a teacher to take financial advantage of a student's ignorance and immaturity? Or to talk down a price with someone who is already starving? There is a difference between taking advantage of someone's circumstances vs taking advantage of someone who doesn't care to take the time to research something (trust me, I don't have anymore hours in the day to spend on researching an item I'm selling at a yard sale...If I'm selling it that way, I want it gone!). When speculation in land and housing cause pricing to rise so much that a good portion of the population can no longer afford to live there even in a house that has major issues, but neither can they afford to move, that is wrong In my humble opinion.
Kevin
Puritan Board Doctor
True enough, JC when you are talking about a teacher/student relationship.
A person in a position of authority has an obligation to care for those they are responsible for.
As an example I serve on several boards of Industry, nonprofits, trade assoc. etc. I never allow myself to profit in any way from any knowledge that I am privy to from that context.
If I learn from a meeting that the Govt is going to change the terms of Crown lease (a form of land use that we have here) I could make money off of that info, by either buying or selling stumpage (the right to cut timber). This would be immoral,in my opinion.
However if I learned or surmised that information based on my knowledge of the foresrty industry, and I profited from that information that would Not be immoral. (in my opinion)
What seperates the 2 cases is how I obtained the information. In the first case I learned it based on my job a president of an industry group, and my role was to represent the interests of our association. The use of my position for private income would be wrong. However if I devote myself to learning the forestry sector & I then am able to make money from that info I am just redeaming my time.
A person in a position of authority has an obligation to care for those they are responsible for.
As an example I serve on several boards of Industry, nonprofits, trade assoc. etc. I never allow myself to profit in any way from any knowledge that I am privy to from that context.
If I learn from a meeting that the Govt is going to change the terms of Crown lease (a form of land use that we have here) I could make money off of that info, by either buying or selling stumpage (the right to cut timber). This would be immoral,in my opinion.
However if I learned or surmised that information based on my knowledge of the foresrty industry, and I profited from that information that would Not be immoral. (in my opinion)
What seperates the 2 cases is how I obtained the information. In the first case I learned it based on my job a president of an industry group, and my role was to represent the interests of our association. The use of my position for private income would be wrong. However if I devote myself to learning the forestry sector & I then am able to make money from that info I am just redeaming my time.
Thomas2007
Puritan Board Sophomore
I don't think so - there is a lot of "moralism" in this thread. In essence, many folks are apply an inversion of the popular moral maxim that "It's not personal, it's just business."
There are a couple of problems in the presuppositions.
First, is the issue of fraudulent economic units such as our Federal Reserve Note that nobody has addressed. But the many moralistic arguments presented would seem to impose guilt upon someone that bought something for what is perceived as less "value" than it is worth if he doesn't inform the seller of the "proper" value. There is a certain masochistic element to that, bearing a burden of sin guilt if you don't pay the true "value" of something. But then, on the other hand, each individual readily acknowledges that salvation itself is something they didn't pay for, but Christ did. If one carried that principle out, we should feel guilty for God's election because we didn't pay the true "value" for our sin. But then, the moralistic reasoning never goes full circle, because while everyone perpetuates fraud by discharging debts and never paying for anything when we tender "Federal Reserve Notes" everyone will exempt themselves from the implication of that sin because it's the government "forcing" us to use them, or so they suppose. Of course, that's invalid reasoning and understanding because legal tender laws never coerce one to use a currency, but to accept a currency if tendered - hence, one bears the burden of that sin when one offers an unjust weight and measure in violation of God's law.
It doesn't matter if you've tendered $ 50.00 for a $ 500.00 item and it is accepted, or if you've tendered $ 1000.00 for that item - either way, you've defrauded the seller because you've received a real good for a fraudulent and worthless bankruptcy receipt. But I don't hear anyone getting moralistic about this and lamenting the theft of God's Justice and Righteousness.
Second, there is the presupposition that "price" = "value" that is directly related to the paradigm shift from an economic unit of just weights and measures to value based currency. That is to say, the legal definition of the term "dollar" is 416 grains of standard silver - dollar is a monetary definition of a weight of silver, the same way carat is a weight of a diamond. Since Americans have accepted this redefinition of the term they think of "dollars" in terms of "value" and thus the whole concept of ethical economics is turned on its head. Price is the mechanism of rationing, not "value."
The problem is that we are all statists economically and this then spills over and controls the rest of our lives. Hence, we connect very directly our work and labor to our money and then correlate that to fiat dollar "prices." A lot of the moralism in this thread, if it was regurgitated as a concern for social welfare and disguised as charity vis a vis the "New Deal" most here would recognize it and call a spade a spade - but when it becomes personalized it is then disguised as the personal ethics and morality of the good Christian.
Thomas
Thomas, those are some interesting points. So let's get away from our current situation. You're in OT Israel, and an individual from your community is selling his land. However he has miscalculated the amount of time left until the year of jubilee, and so he is charging you only half of what the law would allow. Should you correct his mistake?
On your election analogy, I don't want to take this too far off topic, but I think one weakness there is that salvation is a gift, not a financial transaction.
On your election analogy, I don't want to take this too far off topic, but I think one weakness there is that salvation is a gift, not a financial transaction.
timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
If we don't treat corporations as moral persons, and take a steal of a deal from them when they are in desperate need, are we not sinning against the corporation's employees? That Monet on the chair would pay a few annual salaries.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Spurgeon was a supporter of the old British Liberal Party in the 19th century; this was a classical liberal and free trade party, while the Conservatives - at that time - were the protectionists (i.e. they wanted Socialism for the rich).
Well, I wasn't thinking of a corporation in desperate need. Does it change anything if they are living off the fat of the land?
Does the OT prohibition against cursing the deaf or putting a stumbling block before the blind apply? Perhaps it is morally different if the seller is a minor or a bit retarded than if he or she is a competent adult who just chose not to do the required research to ascertain the true value of the item. In the case of a child or a retarded adult, one is taking unfair advantage of an inherent disability.
Thomas2007
Puritan Board Sophomore
A lot of it, yes. When we deviate from God's standards then the deviation compounds. Think of it like tiling a floor, a man may start off and think, "I'm off by a 1/16" of an inch here, but that will be covered up on the other side of the room by my moulding." But when he gets to the other side of the room he's off by 6" because that little deviation compounded all the way across the room and everything is off.
God's economic standard is the moral standard, when we deviate from that, all of our moral reasoning upon an immoral standard is skewed by the initial deviation.
The creation mandate in Genesis 1:26-28 is a religio-economic command. Adam was given a task that was a prototype for the whole earth, while he was limited to Eden, it was repeated to Noah, then Joshua and again by Christ in the Great Commission. Christ's temptation in the wilderness was an economic temptation - make these stones into bread, but He responded "man shall not live by bread alone but by ever word of God."
He specifically dealt with these pricing issues in the parable of the vineyard. He hired men at different times in the day, and at the end of the day he paid all the same. The men that worked all day felt cheated, because the men that had been there part of the day received the same wages. His response was:
"But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?" Matthew 20:13-15
In Biblical law every man is presumed to have responsibility and the agreement that a man makes with his mouth is binding, whether it is to his own hurt or not. So, the Psalm says, "He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not." (Psalm 15:4b) In English common law, from which our laws are derived, this was called a "beneficium." It presumes that every free man is responsible and has both duties and responsibilities to God and man, no where is a man ever irresponsible where his free actions, even from a lack of knowledge, impugn the liberty of another man depriving him of his beneficium.
John Wycliffe defined the beneficium this way: "Every righteous man is lord over the whole sensible world." It is this lordship we have in Christ that entitles us to own property and exercise dominion over it, outside of that we have no rightful claim to anything, even though many exercise an unlawful dominion over property - they do not have a rightful title.
In American jurisprudence the principle of the priesthood of every believer was further realized to where every believer also had the right to live in terms of his beneficium, hence, every believer is a lord.
The problem today is we are all slaves to the State and no one is willing to act in terms of his beneficium, or accept responsibility for it. Ultimately men hate freedom, but they merely resents slavery.
A good book on this subject is "Larceny of the Heart: The Economics of Satan and the Inflationary State" by RJ Rushdoony, he really ties this all together and demonstrates how the sin of larceny, or theft, is at the root of our entire economic system today and how that compounds and corrupts everything else we do.
Cordially,
Thomas
Thomas2007
Puritan Board Sophomore
I don't know, there are so many unknowns in these types of things. How did I learn of his so-called "mistake?" Generally, a buyer has the right to presume that every price is a bonafide offer and the owner of the property is responsible for setting the price. Consideration in a contract is to either accept the price or make a counter-offer, not attempt to accept the responsibility of every other man.
It's a gift that cost a price in which we are bought. (1 Corinthians 6:20)
JBaldwin
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Can you explain what you mean by that?
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
Hi, just what some others have said like taking advantage of kids, etc...an agreement made by someone in the household other than the head is not binding. So the slick vacuum cleaner guy tricks a wife or daughter into buying an expensive machine and she isn't bound by her word. If she is widowed and living on her own, then she is a head of household and bound by her word.
Thomas2007
Puritan Board Sophomore
A person has to have the legal standing to act in accordance with his beneficium. A woman, for example, can make a pledge but it can be invalidated by her covenant head (father, husband) once he hears of it. If he doesn't act to invalidate her oath, for whatever reason, then it stands because he has heard of it and failed to invalidate it.
A good example. One of my daughters and my son were having an argument over the last piece of cake or something like that, my son agreed that he would do certain of her chores for a week in exchange for the cake. It was a ridiculous exchange that was merely a gross expression of his glutony. When I heard of it, I invalidated her part of the agreement and validated his, she ate the cake and he did her work, for the term he promised.
The reason was it was a perfect Esau example and when I explained that to him, his heart sank and he realized he had grievously sinned in the exchange. Even though he recognized his sin, he brought up the fact that it was a valid agreement and it wasn't fair that I not hold her to her part of the agreement. In other words, if I'm going to be an Esau in this exchange, at least I want the pot of the stew! That's not what he said, but his heart was not fully cognizant of the responsibility imposed by his word. Esau lost his birthright over a mere pot of stew and it was binding. So, we turned to Deuteronomy 30 and I showed him where I was invalidating my daughters oath and validating his, the purpose being to teach them both the lesson from the incident. Teaching her to be subordinate to her husband and him to be a man accepting responsibility for himself.
Silly incident, but it had a very powerful effect.
You learned of his mistake (remember, there was if not a standard at least a calculable valuation based on the amount of years until the year of jubilee) because one of your wife's relatives just did the same thing with a comparable field and got a much better price.
Salvation did have a cost, of course; but a gift always costs the giver of it. I say that not to promote ingratitude, but because there is a different between receiving freely and buying.
Salvation did have a cost, of course; but a gift always costs the giver of it. I say that not to promote ingratitude, but because there is a different between receiving freely and buying.
JBaldwin
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
This should probably be the subject of another thread, but I don't think that is the case with the law we have in this country.
I am going to stick my neck out here with the chance that it might get cut off. While I would agree with you in principle (in my family my husband has the final say on financial decisions, and it should be that way), I have to take issue with your choice of the word "competence". Just because this is the way God set things up does not make the woman incompetent to handle finances. In some cases, I've seen women who were more competent than their husbands, and in fact, if the woman doesn't at least know what is going on with the finances, it can be devastating if anything happens to the man.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Actually, the virtuous woman considers a field and buys it, wheels and deals with merchants, etc., gets food from afar, and so on?
JBaldwin
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Thoughts of Proverbs 31 were running through my head as well. Thanks
- Status
