Is legitimacy enough when making money?
- Thread starter Mikhaila
- Start date
What an interesting thread! A veritable philosopher's honey pot!
I like some of Acey's and Kristine's posts. Being on leave, I will indulge myself in some mulling. I am essentially a capitalist. That is why I am in RE. Because of skills and specialising, I hopefully do 'make' in RE transactions. That is how I will finance my expenses, maintain my family's needs and charities beside, etc.
Am I a hypocrite for coming up with profits? Is the situation not a win-win? In most cases, if the parties to a transaction have full faculties, are free and willing, it should be a win-win.
If circumstances dealt a poor hand to one of the parties to the advantage of the other party, does it make the other party a hypocrite for stepping up to the plate? No. We all cannot have the ideal and perfect situation at the time of our choice. We all have to make do. In other words, by stepping up to the plate, I may relatively be worse off than 'others'. I have taken risks, forgone other opportunities and taken on responsibilities. Hopefully, the outcome of the transaction is some justifiable and well-earn profit.
What about the other party who may be 'disadvantaged' from the transaction? It was the best option the party had. If the transaction had not gone ahead, would he be worst off? Shouldn't he be grateful that a 'knight' came to the rescue?
If the other party needed charity, the other party would have approached a charity. In most cases, people eschew charity that is volunteered because of self-pride. It is not my place to provide charity or financial advice in an RE transaction. That would be confusing my role and there will be conflict of interests.
Unless you can afford to be generous wherever you are, leave charity to the specialists providers like government, charitable organisations, individuals who have retired, have the time and funding.
I will stop here with a thought on legality:
The law is the last refuge of scoundrels. No offense intended for those who are law practitioners.
I like some of Acey's and Kristine's posts. Being on leave, I will indulge myself in some mulling. I am essentially a capitalist. That is why I am in RE. Because of skills and specialising, I hopefully do 'make' in RE transactions. That is how I will finance my expenses, maintain my family's needs and charities beside, etc.
Am I a hypocrite for coming up with profits? Is the situation not a win-win? In most cases, if the parties to a transaction have full faculties, are free and willing, it should be a win-win.
If circumstances dealt a poor hand to one of the parties to the advantage of the other party, does it make the other party a hypocrite for stepping up to the plate? No. We all cannot have the ideal and perfect situation at the time of our choice. We all have to make do. In other words, by stepping up to the plate, I may relatively be worse off than 'others'. I have taken risks, forgone other opportunities and taken on responsibilities. Hopefully, the outcome of the transaction is some justifiable and well-earn profit.
What about the other party who may be 'disadvantaged' from the transaction? It was the best option the party had. If the transaction had not gone ahead, would he be worst off? Shouldn't he be grateful that a 'knight' came to the rescue?
If the other party needed charity, the other party would have approached a charity. In most cases, people eschew charity that is volunteered because of self-pride. It is not my place to provide charity or financial advice in an RE transaction. That would be confusing my role and there will be conflict of interests.
Unless you can afford to be generous wherever you are, leave charity to the specialists providers like government, charitable organisations, individuals who have retired, have the time and funding.
I will stop here with a thought on legality:
The law is the last refuge of scoundrels. No offense intended for those who are law practitioners.
JFChan
Lets look at an extreme case. I heard about a story on tv second hand about an older lady who was trying to sell a block of land next door to her house to fund her retirement. Somewhere along the line somebody stuffed up, and the contract of sale was actually for her house, at the price of a vacant block. The buyers, whether or not they realised this before signing, said bad luck, we bought your house.
Is it really fair to say bad luck lady, you should have gotten a survey, its your fault. Surely that is not the course of action that any decent person would take. She was quite clearly ill-informed. If you were in that position, especially if you knew better before signing, would it be fair to say "well I'm not your financial advisor or a charity this is a free market". I know this is an extreme case, but I have heard numerous times people talking about "getting the vendor to make a poor decision". Is it really a level playing field when a seasoned property investor plays mind games with a trusting elderly person?
Sanchez
Lets look at an extreme case. I heard about a story on tv second hand about an older lady who was trying to sell a block of land next door to her house to fund her retirement. Somewhere along the line somebody stuffed up, and the contract of sale was actually for her house, at the price of a vacant block. The buyers, whether or not they realised this before signing, said bad luck, we bought your house.
Is it really fair to say bad luck lady, you should have gotten a survey, its your fault. Surely that is not the course of action that any decent person would take. She was quite clearly ill-informed. If you were in that position, especially if you knew better before signing, would it be fair to say "well I'm not your financial advisor or a charity this is a free market". I know this is an extreme case, but I have heard numerous times people talking about "getting the vendor to make a poor decision". Is it really a level playing field when a seasoned property investor plays mind games with a trusting elderly person?
Sanchez
Originally posted by jfchan
I will stop here with a thought on legality:
The law is the last refuge of scoundrels. No offense intended for those who are law practitioners.
The law is more like the first refuge for decent people. I am genuinely surprised to see several disrespectful responses regarding the role of the law. The ethic and moral standards are often dangerous when applied instead of the law.
Sanchez, I’ve heard of this case. Terrible really! It is extreme and really has more to do with human error, rather than investing. As for me, I would have been treating this case by my day to day ethics not as a RE investor – i.e. I bought the land, so deliver me the land and leave the house. However, I completely agree with JFChan in all other circumstances. The difference is – I think it is still unethical to buy below the market/fair value under some circumstances, and I clearly realise and accept that. I don’t need any excuses. This is the way it works. I leave my day to day ethics out of this. As long as it’s legal it’s OK with me. JFChan on the contrary saying it is perfectly ethical to do that and comes up with some nice convincing excuses. The result is the same the state of mind is different.
Last edited:
I am confused by your comments, in the case above where you benefited by an unfair but legal advantage.
- you would switch rule books and start playing by your personal ethics book and give the house back in exchange for the land you purchase?
- you would keep it, if it is legal its OK. You may personally would feel guilty about it; but since this is both an investment and legal, ethics belong at home.
Hi Mikhaila,
Least harm is not easy to practise and is of Buddhist origin I think. No harm cannot be practised because as you correctly point out, all is relative and nothing is black or white to all people. Yes, $20k to some is loose change and to others a fortune; but money is simply a tool it is the method of aquisition that counts.
I want to live so I eat (I believe that being alive is a good), in so doing other life forms die so that I may do so (some believe that this is a bad). Some vegetarians (there are other motivations I know) do not eat meat in attempt to do less harm, however this is merely based on an assumption of a hierarcy of lifeforms ie. animals are of more value than plants, and just to confuse us some vegetarians eat fish!
Unfortunately (in my opinion) our society revolves around winners and losers and in any transaction no matter how fair some will feel hard done by. Anyway as interesting as this is I will have to end by saying I do try to practise least harm in my dealings and strive for win/win. No it doesn't always happen but at least I tried.
regards, MC
Least harm is not easy to practise and is of Buddhist origin I think. No harm cannot be practised because as you correctly point out, all is relative and nothing is black or white to all people. Yes, $20k to some is loose change and to others a fortune; but money is simply a tool it is the method of aquisition that counts.
I want to live so I eat (I believe that being alive is a good), in so doing other life forms die so that I may do so (some believe that this is a bad). Some vegetarians (there are other motivations I know) do not eat meat in attempt to do less harm, however this is merely based on an assumption of a hierarcy of lifeforms ie. animals are of more value than plants, and just to confuse us some vegetarians eat fish!
Unfortunately (in my opinion) our society revolves around winners and losers and in any transaction no matter how fair some will feel hard done by. Anyway as interesting as this is I will have to end by saying I do try to practise least harm in my dealings and strive for win/win. No it doesn't always happen but at least I tried.
regards, MC
Hi all, great thread,
Sanchez, I love the example you gave. It is the difference between "my word is my bond"(ethical) and "legally I can"(unethical).
I've been in a similar position, gave a sigh, said to myself it was nice while it lasted and torn up a "legally binding" contract, that had been signed by both parties, as it was not what we both had understood to be true.
bye
Sanchez, I love the example you gave. It is the difference between "my word is my bond"(ethical) and "legally I can"(unethical).
I've been in a similar position, gave a sigh, said to myself it was nice while it lasted and torn up a "legally binding" contract, that had been signed by both parties, as it was not what we both had understood to be true.
bye
Investment Psychology??
Perhaps we are now considering "Investment Philosophy".
One would love to take an objective view on ethics . . . yet we can only ever live an individual life, based on our own very personal Moral Code of Ethics.
Thus an ethical standard (as opposed to an imposed legal standard) can only ever be subjective . . . hence the broad 'grey' reference to the subject of ethics.
Realistically, each individual is the sole judge & jury of their own actions . . . only psychotics have the ability to lie to themselves.
The test then is can you sleep at night . . . and if so, then your justice is the consequence that your actions come to bear upon yourself.
Sincerely,
Steve
Perhaps we are now considering "Investment Philosophy".
One would love to take an objective view on ethics . . . yet we can only ever live an individual life, based on our own very personal Moral Code of Ethics.
Thus an ethical standard (as opposed to an imposed legal standard) can only ever be subjective . . . hence the broad 'grey' reference to the subject of ethics.
Realistically, each individual is the sole judge & jury of their own actions . . . only psychotics have the ability to lie to themselves.
The test then is can you sleep at night . . . and if so, then your justice is the consequence that your actions come to bear upon yourself.
Sincerely,
Steve
G'day people,
I can't recall how many times I have read "Love this thread" - and, I agree, it is a very insightful thread, and provides a wealth of alternatives to the thinking person.
So, having reached the end, go down just a little more to the "Rate this thread" box - and rate it according to your thoughts.
And, Mikhaila, I wondered just where you were heading with this thread - but now, I really don't mind WHERE you were heading, as it has provided such a wealth of information/thoughts/angles. Thank you for posting it,
Regards,
I can't recall how many times I have read "Love this thread" - and, I agree, it is a very insightful thread, and provides a wealth of alternatives to the thinking person.
So, having reached the end, go down just a little more to the "Rate this thread" box - and rate it according to your thoughts.
And, Mikhaila, I wondered just where you were heading with this thread - but now, I really don't mind WHERE you were heading, as it has provided such a wealth of information/thoughts/angles. Thank you for posting it,
Regards,
Steve, I thought that everyone had the ability to lie to themselves. Everyone justifies their actions and most of us tell 'white lies' to salve our consciences....even the term 'white lie' is really a justification - unethical people are better at lying to themselves than the rest of us
And when the rest of the world comes after you with burning torches & pitchforks, you can assume that they have judged your actions and found you wanting ethically
Of course, most people hire better PR spinners than this, except perhaps the former Governor-General...
The rest of your post I agree with.
Cheers,
Aceyducey
Everyone has the ability to lie . . . yes.
But not to themselves . . . they know they are lieing!!
Of course they think they might get away with it, yes and they will come up with all sorts of justification. . . and they will especially rationalise their own form of grey ethics, BUT they are still aware of the lie.
See when one tells a lie, it is not the other persons reality that is affected (they are unaware that they are being lied to) it is one's own reality that is being distorted . . . for you know it is a lie and yet choose to live with the false reality.
Now, when one starts to believe one's own lies . . . best to see a shrink
Regards,
Steve
Hi,
When I did Philosophy A01 a couple of decades ago the following was given as the classic and most adults answered as follows;
Q. Is it OK to steal?
A. No.
Q. Is it OK to steal food if your kids are starving?
A. Yes
Q. Is it OK to steal food if your kids are starving if it means anothers kids that you know will starve as a result?
A. ? (Most had great difficulty answering this)
Q. Is it OK to steal food if your kids are starving if it means anothers kids you don't know will starve as a result?
A. Y and ? (Again many but not all had difficulty answering this)
Q. Is it OK to steal anything if your kids are starving?
A. Only the amount required to buy food to stop them starving.
Q. Is it OK to steal anything if they are not starving?
A. No.
And so it went on until most had clarified their limits. The interesting thing is that 'grey' areas appear with maturity. Ask a 4 year old the second question and you will receive a definite NO, when they reach about 7- 9 the answer changes to maybe and then eventually to yes at about 10-12.
The most simplistic the the Q and black and white resonse, the more immature (mentally developed) the person. Doesn't say much for fundamentalists of any persuasion does it? - even investors having the age old shares vs property debate!
regards, MC
When I did Philosophy A01 a couple of decades ago the following was given as the classic and most adults answered as follows;
Q. Is it OK to steal?
A. No.
Q. Is it OK to steal food if your kids are starving?
A. Yes
Q. Is it OK to steal food if your kids are starving if it means anothers kids that you know will starve as a result?
A. ? (Most had great difficulty answering this)
Q. Is it OK to steal food if your kids are starving if it means anothers kids you don't know will starve as a result?
A. Y and ? (Again many but not all had difficulty answering this)
Q. Is it OK to steal anything if your kids are starving?
A. Only the amount required to buy food to stop them starving.
Q. Is it OK to steal anything if they are not starving?
A. No.
And so it went on until most had clarified their limits. The interesting thing is that 'grey' areas appear with maturity. Ask a 4 year old the second question and you will receive a definite NO, when they reach about 7- 9 the answer changes to maybe and then eventually to yes at about 10-12.
The most simplistic the the Q and black and white resonse, the more immature (mentally developed) the person. Doesn't say much for fundamentalists of any persuasion does it? - even investors having the age old shares vs property debate!
regards, MC
Hi Michael,
If you have Property and shares . . .
Your kids will never be starving
Steve
If you have Property and shares . . .
Your kids will never be starving
Steve
Just to complicate things, perhaps you wouldn't steal to feed your starving kids when it means that somebody else's will starve, but what about when you know full well that the "others" would steal from you if the tables were turned. Would that justify it?
Isn't it great that we don't have to live like that!
Isn't it great that we don't have to live like that!
Following from MC's post,
People studying children have found that there is a large change in ethical awarenss around the age of 5-6. This is when children begin to be more aware of the different layers and are able to think through them more coherently.
A question they use (I paraphrase as I don't remember it exactly):
"Which is worse:
A child who breaks four plates when drying the dishes as a surprise for their parents.
A child who breaks one plate when they are upset."
Children under 5 years old answer that breaking the four plates is worst (more = worse).
Children over this age answer that the breaking of one plate is worse.
Another thought on ethics....
There are two well known cliches that to me sum up the wholistic ethical decisions we face:
'The end justifies the means'
'The journey is more important than the destination'
We all face this choice at times - do we sacrifice a goal because to achieve it would be to betray our own principles, or do we use any means necessary to achieve the goal and then attempt to repair the damage that may be caused afterwards (or ignore any damage altogether).
So to think about, what is more important for you, your goal or the means you use to get there?
Cheers,
Aceyducey
People studying children have found that there is a large change in ethical awarenss around the age of 5-6. This is when children begin to be more aware of the different layers and are able to think through them more coherently.
A question they use (I paraphrase as I don't remember it exactly):
"Which is worse:
A child who breaks four plates when drying the dishes as a surprise for their parents.
A child who breaks one plate when they are upset."
Children under 5 years old answer that breaking the four plates is worst (more = worse).
Children over this age answer that the breaking of one plate is worse.
Another thought on ethics....
There are two well known cliches that to me sum up the wholistic ethical decisions we face:
'The end justifies the means'
'The journey is more important than the destination'
We all face this choice at times - do we sacrifice a goal because to achieve it would be to betray our own principles, or do we use any means necessary to achieve the goal and then attempt to repair the damage that may be caused afterwards (or ignore any damage altogether).
So to think about, what is more important for you, your goal or the means you use to get there?
Cheers,
Aceyducey
Interesting questions Michael ! Even more interesting conclusions. Completely agree with it when applied to children. I am not so sure if it is as simple with adults. The dominance of ‘grey’ certainly comes with grey hairs, sometimes it can be called wisdom or maturity. However, often it is also can be interpreted for adults as signs of giving up/apathy/lack of energy or/and desire to fight for what you believe(d) in. Don’t you think? I don’t agree to call the fundamentalists of any persuasion mentally immature or worse undeveloped individuals. It’ll be too simple.
The most fascinating thing with these questions is that even the same person will give rather radically different answers under different circumstances. It may only be not the case with extremely religious people or extremely strong personalities. It depends a lot on the level of stress, and if your children/yourself is really in danger. Response will vary from one social-economic-political formation to another. When you answer these question in the comfort of a university in the developed Western World country beginning of XXI century is one thing, if it is the same time but somewhere in Ethiopia is another. You probably know it very well yourself as you saw the 3rd World countries not like a tourist.
'The journey is more important than the destination'. The journey is undoubtedly more important for me. I actually like that saying and use it often to motivate myself. The big difference is my interpretation of the sentence. For me it is not at all about the means in use, but rather about relative unimportance of the destination compare to the journey itself. This is about not having a final destination I guess, as once you arrive this is pretty much death.
The most fascinating thing with these questions is that even the same person will give rather radically different answers under different circumstances. It may only be not the case with extremely religious people or extremely strong personalities. It depends a lot on the level of stress, and if your children/yourself is really in danger. Response will vary from one social-economic-political formation to another. When you answer these question in the comfort of a university in the developed Western World country beginning of XXI century is one thing, if it is the same time but somewhere in Ethiopia is another. You probably know it very well yourself as you saw the 3rd World countries not like a tourist.
'The journey is more important than the destination'. The journey is undoubtedly more important for me. I actually like that saying and use it often to motivate myself. The big difference is my interpretation of the sentence. For me it is not at all about the means in use, but rather about relative unimportance of the destination compare to the journey itself. This is about not having a final destination I guess, as once you arrive this is pretty much death.
If the journey is more important than the destination, isn't that a great ethical approach to Everything that you do? including property investment. If the journey gets disrupted by unethical practises, then the destination will definately be different than originally intended.
Final destination? Whats that? To retire wealthy and well, support my family and others if possible, while not working. Hope thats not death.
jahn
Final destination? Whats that? To retire wealthy and well, support my family and others if possible, while not working. Hope thats not death.
jahn
