I once had a longstanding debate with someone about the ethics and morality of people who swindle millions of dollars out of gullible marks.  You can imagine just about any sort of con artist you like, from promoters of medical pseudoscience to televangelists.  Since learning about the existence of pseudoscience, I've been a vocal opponent of any such practices, but my interlocutor casually supported the idea as ethical/moral because it served its intended purpose, which was generating money.  So, in a society that values making money over everything else, that probably makes some sense.  And if America doesn't fit that description then I don't know what does.  So my question is this, do you consider such practices to be ethical, moral or otherwise acceptable and why?  If anyone needs an example of such practices, just consider the many scam treatments and other way to address covid-19:

"ISM5 Invisi Smart Mask," "ISM5 Invisi Smart Mask (Black Edition)" and "ISM30 Invisi Smart Mask"
“Patanjali Coronil Kit,” “Dr. Reckeweg Arsenic Album Dilution 30 CH,” “SBL Arsenicum Album Dilution 30 CH,” “Kerala Ayurveda Balarishtam,” and “Kottakkal Balarishtam"
Salt scrub products
A non-alcohol-based consumer antiseptic nasal product
Neutralization Antibody Test kit (Colloidal Gold, Fluorescent, Elisa), a SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Kit (Colloidal Gold Immunochromatography), and a Saliva Antigen Rapid Test 
Nitric Oxide Support and Melatonin products
“COVxRDA Saliva Antigen Test” and a “COVx-RDA Nasal Antigen Test”
VIVERA + OMECARE Home Specimen Collection Kit
“Germaphobe’s Delight Spray”

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/health-fra...9-products

Swindling old ladies out of their pension cheques also serves it's intended purpose by generating money. I'd hesitate to describe it as ethical.

Contrary to the opinions of Signore Machiavelli and others, the end does not justify the means.

Boru

There are much worse cons for money. Examples: Theranos, Purdue, Mylan, Juul.

Should we throw organized religion and chiropractic in just for kicks?

(October 6, 2021 at 8:58 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Swindling old ladies out of their pension cheques also serves it's intended purpose by generating money. I'd hesitate to describe it as ethical.

Contrary to the opinions of Signore Machiavelli and others, the end does not justify the means.

Boru

This is front and center to what I'm talking about.  I'm curious what makes you hesitate.  What would make you even remotely consider it ethical?  I'm genuinely interested in how we process this idea of what's ok to do to make money and why.

---

(October 6, 2021 at 9:19 am)brewer Wrote: There are much worse cons for money. Examples: Theranos, Purdue, Mylan, Juul.

Should we throw organized religion and chiropractic in just for kicks?

Absolutely consider those and all others.  I just seeded the conversation with the covid treatments but that's not even scratching the surface.

I wouldn't consider Juul to be a con, though.  It delivers exactly what it purports to deliver.  Is there some misrepresentation in the product?

Chiropractic for sure, at least some aspects of it.  There are some legitimate aspects to the practice and a large number of its practitioners have stopped making all of the woo woo claims, but some are still at it.  So overall I still consider it a pseudo-science.  At best its a very expensive massage.

(October 6, 2021 at 9:22 am)Spongebob Wrote:

(October 6, 2021 at 9:19 am)brewer Wrote: There are much worse cons for money. Examples: Theranos, Purdue, Mylan, Juul.

Should we throw organized religion and chiropractic in just for kicks?

Absolutely consider those and all others.  I just seeded the conversation with the covid treatments but that's not even scratching the surface.

I wouldn't consider Juul to be a con, though.  It delivers exactly what it purports to deliver.  Is there some misrepresentation in the product?

Chiropractic for sure, at least some aspects of it.  There are some legitimate aspects to the practice and a large number of its practitioners have stopped making all of the woo woo claims, but some are still at it.  So overall I still consider it a pseudo-science.  At best its a very expensive massage.

Yes. Do a quick google 'juul product misrepresentation' and read.

(October 6, 2021 at 9:31 am)brewer Wrote: Yes. Do a quick google 'juul product misrepresentation' and read.

OK, you are referring to false advertising that claims the product poses to health consequences and is less addictive than cigarettes.  The first part is supported by a number of studies that show it is far safer than tobacco smoking.  It is, of course, addictive so the claim that it is not is false.  But I feel that this product is within the boundaries for a legitimate product and doesn't rise to the level of a con.  If you dig deep enough, you'll find that the marketing for almost all products have some distortions.  So there isn't a clear fine line to use for judgement.

Do suckers really deserve their money?

When I hear talk on this subject, talking about those who are ignorant or gullible and what they do or don't deserve, or the stakes of personal responsibility, it makes me think of how neurotypical that is. We have awareness nowadays of those who have disorders that allow them high functioning status in society, yet their cognitive function is different than what is considered typical or the ideal.

I know that might seem biased to reach for the extreme, "why isn't it okay then to take advantage of someone with mental disabilities?" But in my mind, there's very little to differentiate someone with high-functioning autism or Aspergers and someone who is uneducated, naive, or gullible. They both can dress and clothe themselves, hold a job, have relationships, etc. But they're missing certain aspects of cognitive function that some others typically have. Do they still have personal responsibility? Or are neurotypical people responsible for protecting their interests? Does the label/diagnosis make it okay/not okay, or is it the state of their mental awareness and capabilities that defines whether they're being taken advantage of or not?

That's the way I see it.

(October 6, 2021 at 9:22 am)Spongebob Wrote:

(October 6, 2021 at 8:58 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Swindling old ladies out of their pension cheques also serves it's intended purpose by generating money. I'd hesitate to describe it as ethical.

Contrary to the opinions of Signore Machiavelli and others, the end does not justify the means.

Boru

This is front and center to what I'm talking about.  I'm curious what makes you hesitate.  What would make you even remotely consider it ethical?  I'm genuinely interested in how we process this idea of what's ok to do to make money and why.

---

(October 6, 2021 at 9:19 am)brewer Wrote: There are much worse cons for money. Examples: Theranos, Purdue, Mylan, Juul.

Should we throw organized religion and chiropractic in just for kicks?

Absolutely consider those and all others.  I just seeded the conversation with the covid treatments but that's not even scratching the surface.

I wouldn't consider Juul to be a con, though.  It delivers exactly what it purports to deliver.  Is there some misrepresentation in the product?

Chiropractic for sure, at least some aspects of it.  There are some legitimate aspects to the practice and a large number of its practitioners have stopped making all of the woo woo claims, but some are still at it.  So overall I still consider it a pseudo-science.  At best its a very expensive massage.

Sorry, the use of ‘hesitate’ is simply an expression. Please take it to mean, ‘I wouldn’t call this behaviour “ethical” even if my only alternative was to be stripped naked, covered in brown gravy, and dropped into a pit of starving, rabid ferrets.’

I apologize for any confusion.

Boru

It's a form of robbery where deception is the gunpoint.   Burglary where stealth is the lie.