Buying Someone's Records: An Ethics Question

thanks for all of the input. to clarify, my intention would be to keep, not flip, the records. i would particularly not look to sell the old blues 78s, which would probably fetch the most $$.

in most business transactions, i believe that as long as both parties have access to all relevant information that would form the basis for their decision to buy/sell -- and absent any fraud or duress -- an arm's length bargain is inherently fair.

My unease is due to the fact that i probably have significantly greater knowledge than the seller about the market value of the records, and I suspect he wouldn't even know where to look to find out what they are worth. My unease is also probably due to the fact that I know the gentleman who has offered to sell the records, and I like him. I wonder if I would feel the same about the situation if it was a stranger who I would likely never see again?

Classicjazz:

Thank you for a most erudite response to my original post. I can see that you are a student of political philosophy -- or at least you should be.

It seems to me that your position is informed by John Rawls' Theory of Justice, and if it is, I agree. Like Locke and Rousseau, I believe that what is right (ethical) and just depends on a social contract among all people. Unlike these earlier philosophers, however, I agree with Rawls that the roots of this social contract are not to be found in some higher principles or "natural law." Rather, what guides us is a sense of fairness -- what each of us would think was right and fair if we were behind a "veil of ignorance" about our own advantages and standing in society. In many ways, this sounds a lot like the "golden rule" (do unto others...).

All of that said, you seem to believe that the application of economics and ethics is a zero sum equation. I do not agree. I believe that purely economic motivations (make the most money, get the best deal) can and should be tempered by ethical standars (what is fair, the rules of the game). My experience in the business world (which involves advising businesses on strategic transactions, like buying other companies or selling their own business) is that a just and ethical deal is not the one that leads the parties to act against their self interest. Rather, it is one where the parties adhere to a common set of ground rules (equal access to relevant information, no fraud, no duress) and accept the outcome that those rules produce as fair/just/ethical "by definition."

As a result, if I decide to disclose/offer "market value" for the electrician's records, it will not be a denial of my "duty as an individualist" (as you seem to suggest). Rather, it will be because I believe that "rules of the game," in this case, require disclosure to ensure a just and ethical outcome.