Hi Elana,
I just wanted to provide a contrary opinion to that expressed by xris. I still think that the other party has acted unethically.
No, its not. Treating the ones one loves with disrespect is unethical. If all were fair in war, then it would make no sense to distinguish between justified and unjustified acts in war. (Bombing military installations is just; bombing a school full of children is unjust.) And so we come to real estate. It is not the case that anything goes in RE. RE as an activity does not stand outside of our normal sphere of moral consideration, but falls firmly within it. People are people, whether they are our friends, or people we are conducting business with. People ought to treat others well. The fact that people don't is an indictment on the people concerned. It doesn't mean that anything goes, it just means that there are people who are prepared to act unethically in order to further their own financial position.
The person may have been doing "smart business", but the original question was whether they acted unethically. These are two different things. Sure, some "socially responsible" businesses now believe that they can increase their profits by acting ethically in the marketplace. But note that their motivation for acting ethically is not because it is the right thing to do, but rather because it will increase profits. Some RE-related businesses encourage the kind of activity described by Elana. RM's "sixth D" - dummies - tells us that bargains can be found by exploiting dummies. Elana in this case was the dummy. Sure, Elana may have revealed more information than was fiscally prudent. But she didn't deserve to be shafted by someone out to make a buck.
Once bitten, twice shy.
Paul.
I just wanted to provide a contrary opinion to that expressed by xris. I still think that the other party has acted unethically.
Originally posted by xris
No, its not. Treating the ones one loves with disrespect is unethical. If all were fair in war, then it would make no sense to distinguish between justified and unjustified acts in war. (Bombing military installations is just; bombing a school full of children is unjust.) And so we come to real estate. It is not the case that anything goes in RE. RE as an activity does not stand outside of our normal sphere of moral consideration, but falls firmly within it. People are people, whether they are our friends, or people we are conducting business with. People ought to treat others well. The fact that people don't is an indictment on the people concerned. It doesn't mean that anything goes, it just means that there are people who are prepared to act unethically in order to further their own financial position.
Originally posted by xris
The person may have been doing "smart business", but the original question was whether they acted unethically. These are two different things. Sure, some "socially responsible" businesses now believe that they can increase their profits by acting ethically in the marketplace. But note that their motivation for acting ethically is not because it is the right thing to do, but rather because it will increase profits. Some RE-related businesses encourage the kind of activity described by Elana. RM's "sixth D" - dummies - tells us that bargains can be found by exploiting dummies. Elana in this case was the dummy. Sure, Elana may have revealed more information than was fiscally prudent. But she didn't deserve to be shafted by someone out to make a buck.
Once bitten, twice shy.
Paul.
Comment