Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
You're engaging in reductionist thinking: all untruths are the same. To me, they aren't. In the particular facts of this case, and with no harm, and with many concerns and factors at play, it may have been the lesser evil. That doesn't make me any less of a hater of altered cards and nondisclosure of material facts that hurt people. Context, nuance, can matter. It's a very weird, possibly unique situation.
|
To be fair, his argument may be reductionist, but you're begging the question. You're starting from the premise that there's "no harm" to bidders and underbidders, because you're assigning zero value to their time and opportunity cost. Others might reasonably disagree with your premise that financial harm and property loss are the only things that matter.
If you want to argue that Memory Lane, acting as a fiduciary, made a difficult but rational choice to use bidders as pawns for the benefit of consignors and hypothetical insurance requirements, then that's fine. But to suggest that the bidders have no cause for complaint because Memory Lane did what was best for Memory Lane is a hot take.