J.O. is my friend.
J.O. saw my D40 the other day and asked how much do they cost... I said, well I'll give it to you for 600 bucks right now. He said deal. So I handed him the D40 Kit plus Bag and Memory, which I had originally aquired for 600 dollars.
I then bought another D40 Kit + Bag + Memory for 550 on Amazon. Was that unethical of me to make a profit of 50 dollars from a friend?
Granted, he really doesn't care about the money, he drives a parentally funded MB G55 AMG around town. 600 dollars is a mere quarter of his weekly allowance.
Part of me feels that such a trivial difference in money paid for him will out weight the instant gratification of "getting it now". I, on the other hand, needed the fifty dollars to pay off a long overdue ticket. Although I do have the money, I have recently switched banks and thus is without a check or credit card. Since he paid me via Pay Pal, I can now use my Pay Pal debit card to pay the ticket online. If that had not happened, I would've had to wait at least two more weeks, by which time the ticket price would have increased. Thus, this situation worked out best for everyone involved, because it generated maximum happiness. This is the utilitarian rationalization.
Another part of me feels that he is by all accounts, once of the nicest and most honest person I know. Additionally, I feel somewhat obligated to treat anyone the way I want to be treated. Thus, this situation clearly fails the Rawls - Kant veil of ignorance test.
What are your opinions on this moral dilemma?
J.O. saw my D40 the other day and asked how much do they cost... I said, well I'll give it to you for 600 bucks right now. He said deal. So I handed him the D40 Kit plus Bag and Memory, which I had originally aquired for 600 dollars.
I then bought another D40 Kit + Bag + Memory for 550 on Amazon. Was that unethical of me to make a profit of 50 dollars from a friend?
Granted, he really doesn't care about the money, he drives a parentally funded MB G55 AMG around town. 600 dollars is a mere quarter of his weekly allowance.
Part of me feels that such a trivial difference in money paid for him will out weight the instant gratification of "getting it now". I, on the other hand, needed the fifty dollars to pay off a long overdue ticket. Although I do have the money, I have recently switched banks and thus is without a check or credit card. Since he paid me via Pay Pal, I can now use my Pay Pal debit card to pay the ticket online. If that had not happened, I would've had to wait at least two more weeks, by which time the ticket price would have increased. Thus, this situation worked out best for everyone involved, because it generated maximum happiness. This is the utilitarian rationalization.
Another part of me feels that he is by all accounts, once of the nicest and most honest person I know. Additionally, I feel somewhat obligated to treat anyone the way I want to be treated. Thus, this situation clearly fails the Rawls - Kant veil of ignorance test.
What are your opinions on this moral dilemma?
