Ethics of con artists

[Spongebob]

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

OK, darn.  I thought I detected a hint of an idea there.  So to address some who consider gullibility a justifiable reason to con someone, what about the more sophisticated cons out there.  These people are getting more and more complex.  Is it ever justifiable to take advantage of someone's confidence?  To put another way, to steal someone's money by misleading them?  I suppose I was raised on a culture where being honest in one's business was as important as being honest in any other pursuit.

[Foxaèr]

The only con I can see myself justifying is the Robin Hood kind, where the rich is robbed to help the poor.

[Fake Messiah]

Mediums, clergy, psychics are all crooks. To better demonstrate what I am talking about, I'll quote few paragraphs from now a free book written in the 1976 "The Psychic Mafia" by a medium/ psychic who decided to come out clean.

And the money. . .

Well, it poured in. I discovered that people will pay any price to communicate with their dead loved ones.

I remember a woman who came to our first service, Bertha Jenkins, who had lost her only son. She was thrilled beyond measure to find that through my mediumship she could talk to her beloved Jack. Until then her life had been hopeless. We put the stars back in the sky– and she repaid us amply.

Though she wore tennis shoes and dressed like a rag-picker, she gave large amounts to the church– which is to say, to Raoul and me. If she was pleased with sitting, she would leave two hundred dollars. And when we started talking about building a church edifice, she called me to her home and handed me a paper bag. It contained six thousand dollars. (She believed there was only five thousand dollars, but we kept the extra and didn’t tell her.)

In eight months Bertha gave us another five thousand dollars and, of course, her son in spirit, Jack, always encouraged her in the good work she was doing.

Before Jack was through with his mother, she had given us thousands of dollars.

Eventually, she became a little suspicious of Jack’s repeated urgings that she give even more to the church. Possibly I was overeager and had pushed too hard.

At one point during a seance she said, “Jack, I want you to call me what you used to call me.

...

One medium’s husband dealt in dubious antiques. With his wife’s help he sold a credulous woman, with more money than brains, an ordinary communion chalice as the authentic Holy Grail! Price two thousand dollars.

...

Mediums live under great tension. They are estranged personalities because of the nature of their work– cheating people. Loneliness and secrecy are a way of life for them. They can’t afford to have close friendships, except with other mediums, and these are rarely if ever true friendships. The spirit of professional competition is too great.

As a matter of fact, the rivalry and jealousy among mediums is almost unbelievable. Each one wants to be better than the other and, of course, to make more money. And I was no different.

...

There is no way of accurately computing the money from which people were separated at Chesterfield.

One of the saddest stories was of a woman who gave a large sum to the camp because of spirit urgings through Mable Riffle. Then she returned home and found that her house had burned to the ground. She came back to the camp and asked Mable if she could redeem part of the donation. Mable flatly refused.

[brewer]

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.

Same argument could be made for Mylan and Purdue and most of the products in the OP. So we got ethics on a sliding scale, and apparently the potential to do harm also.

Did you skip over the marketing to the under age?

[The Grand Nudger]

What about MLMs. They don't lie to you, they tell you the truth, that you could make a ton of money if you get people on your downline. You wont, but it's true that you could make a ton of money if you did. In the meantime, you voluntarily part with your hard earned cash because you believe in your ability to succeed.

Lying and stealing a bad things, sure, but you don't have to lie or steal to con someone. You just have to know one thing they don't. The entire food labeling and marketing industry is based on this.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What about MLMs.  They don't lie to you, they tell you the truth, that you could make a ton of money if you get people on your downline.  You wont, but it's true that you could make a ton of money if you did.  In the meantime, you voluntarily part with your hard earned cash because you believe in your ability to succeed.  

Lying and stealing a bad things, sure, but you don't have to lie or steal to con someone.  You just have to know one thing they don't.  The entire food labeling and marketing industry is based on this.

‘Real chocolaty goodness = no fucking chocolate.’ - George Carlin

Boru

[Spongebob]

What about MLMs.  They don't lie to you, they tell you the truth, that you could make a ton of money if you get people on your downline.  You wont, but it's true that you could make a ton of money if you did.  In the meantime, you voluntarily part with your hard earned cash because you believe in your ability to succeed.  

Lying and stealing a bad things, sure, but you don't have to lie or steal to con someone.  You just have to know one thing they don't.  The entire food labeling and marketing industry is based on this.

That's a valid, and far more subtle, point.  At what point is it a con?  If I learn a secret that everyone wants, I can market that, even if the secret is a simple thing that anyone could do.  For example, would it be unethical if I learned of a substance that could make a car go 300 miles per gallon of gas and it turns out the substance is something really simple and easy to produce?  I patent it and put it on the market for $10 an ounce and get rich, but of course it also helps everyone who uses it because one ounce turns a tank of gas into 10 tanks.  I don't think its a con because the buyer gets what they paid for even if it turns out the secret ingredient was just cat piss.  But its certainly a con if the substance does absolutely nothing except maybe damages the engine.  A product similar to this was marketed a while back.

[Angrboda]

What about MLMs.  They don't lie to you, they tell you the truth, that you could make a ton of money if you get people on your downline.  You wont, but it's true that you could make a ton of money if you did.  In the meantime, you voluntarily part with your hard earned cash because you believe in your ability to succeed.  

Lying and stealing a bad things, sure, but you don't have to lie or steal to con someone.  You just have to know one thing they don't.  The entire food labeling and marketing industry is based on this.

That's a valid, and far more subtle, point.  At what point is it a con?  If I learn a secret that everyone wants, I can market that, even if the secret is a simple thing that anyone could do.  For example, would it be unethical if I learned of a substance that could make a car go 300 miles per gallon of gas and it turns out the substance is something really simple and easy to produce?  I patent it and put it on the market for $10 an ounce and get rich, but of course it also helps everyone who uses it because one ounce turns a tank of gas into 10 tanks.  I don't think its a con because the buyer gets what they paid for even if it turns out the secret ingredient was just cat piss.  But its certainly a con if the substance does absolutely nothing except maybe damages the engine.  A product similar to this was marketed a while back.

As with Nudgers point, a confidence man succeeds by manipulating your confidence. That's why people fall for cons -- they become confident that going along with what is asked will ultimately be beneficial for them. If I believed a Nigerian prince would send me a million dollars, I'd happily part with a few hundred quid to make that happen. The fraudulent part is that the encouraged confidence is false or misleading. If I know I'm going to get 10 tanks of gas, that's not a con. If I believe I'm going to get less than $10 worth back, that's still not a con if I get less than $10 of worth back because I had no reason to expect different. The con is in misleading people, not in the balance of benefit. If someone wants to throw their money away knowing that they are throwing their money away, they aren't being conned.

I don't know where to put state lotteries on this scale.

[Spongebob]

As with Nudgers point, a confidence man succeeds by manipulating your confidence.  That's why people fall for cons -- they become confident that going along with what is asked will ultimately be beneficial for them.  If I believed a Nigerian prince would send me a million dollars, I'd happily part with a few hundred quid to make that happen.  The fraudulent part is that the encouraged confidence is false or misleading.  If I know I'm going to get 10 tanks of gas, that's not a con.  If I believe I'm going to get less than $10 worth back, that's still not a con if I get less than $10 of worth back because I had no reason to expect different.  The con is in misleading people, not in the balance of benefit.  If someone wants to throw their money away knowing that they are throwing their money away, they aren't being conned.

I don't know where to put state lotteries on this scale.

Yeah, sure I don't disagree with that.  What I'm asking is more along the lines of false advertising where a product claims to do something when in reality it is likely to do nothing at all.  People buy the product expecting results but likely knowing that the claims are overblown.  I think we kind of excuse false advertising because of its mass acceptance and exposure.  Cold medicine is one example that I can think of.  Studies have shown that some of them are almost totally ineffective.  And I'm always amazed when I buy toothpaste.  There's an entire isle dedicated to it with dozens of types and flavors and what they supposedly will do.  Personally, I buy a very cheap brand that costs $1.  I like the flavor and it cleans my teeth.

[arewethereyet]

Sometimes I wonder how fine the line is between marketing and con.