After paying their dues, should hobbyists who committed fraud be allowed back ?

G1911 · #1 11-12-2022, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Right, I was just exploring the limits of transactions at extreme prices, not suggesting it was analagous.

So when is it a 'moral crime'? $50 for a million dollar item you think is. Is my 1% (closer to .75% actually) case a moral crime? If we believe an act is moral or immoral, there logically must be a point where it goes from moral or having no ethical value and becomes immoral. It's not a slippery slope or a heap paradox. There must be a point it becomes immoral, if you believe buying a card for 20% below, still a bargain, is moral. It will be somewhat arbitrary, as most moral evaluations are, but an arbitrary limit does not make it a heap or a slope. We use them in our societal and personal values every day.

Peter_Spaeth · #2 11-12-2022, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

So when is it a 'moral crime'? $50 for a million dollar item you think is. Is my 1% (closer to .75% actually) case a moral crime? If we believe an act is moral or immoral, there logically must be a point where it goes from moral or having no ethical value and becomes immoral. It's not a slippery slope or a heap paradox. There must be a point it becomes immoral, if you believe buying a card for 20% below, still a bargain, is moral. It will be somewhat arbitrary, as most moral evaluations are, but an arbitrary limit does not make it a heap or a slope. We use them in our societal and personal values every day.

I don't know. I know that driving 56 is not dangerous but 120 is. But damned if I know where I would draw the line in between. I guess saying, it depends, doesn't really help because it's still a line drawing problem its just adding variables. (E.g., it might be safe for Lewis Hamilton to drive 100 down Colorado Boulevard, but not me.)

G1911 · #3 11-12-2022, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know. I know that driving 56 is not dangerous but 120 is. But damned if I know where I would draw the line in between. I guess saying, it depends, doesn't really help because it's still a line drawing problem its just adding variables. (E.g., it might be safe for Lewis Hamilton to drive 100 down Colorado Boulevard, but not me.)

The problem is that we must have a line, because we are relying on said line to even define what this crime you and Snowman are advocating even is.

For example, "speeding" is a thing most people consider to be wrong. It describes going 56 in a 55, or 120, or 200 or 1,500 if that was practically possible. 54 is fine, 50 is fine. Not everyone will draw the line in the exact same place, it is arbitrary, but generally understood and accepted. Even with a population of almost 100% speeders, the vast majority support the notion that speeding is wrong and that those doing so deserve some sort of punishment in the legal system, which is separate from morality.

You have said "getting a bargain" is the wrong and inaccurate term, even though that's quite literally exactly what buying a card a seller of their own free will offers for $50 when it is worth $1,000,000 is. So what one is doing is not the crime, it is a crime only at a certain point. But we cannot define what that point is at all. We cannot say if I am or am not a hobby criminal for the moral crime, which we can't define, of which I may or may not be guilty of because we cannot define it.

It leaves me with no definition or understanding of what this alleged moral crime even is. The general descriptor of what is happening, what we normally use for such things, is rejected, for an argument of degrees, that this bargain is fine but this bargain is not because it's too much of a bargain, but the degrees also cannot be stated. To be a wrong or a crime, I would think we would have to first be able to define what it even is, following the Socratic principle, which it seems cannot be done.

I still have no idea how this vague and indefinable 'crime' can be worse than Mastro's actual crimes and wrongs that do not rely on a new standard.

Peter_Spaeth · #4 11-12-2022, 03:06 PM

Lots of things are hard to define in life. Where is the line, for example, between tough but appropriate parenting and child abuse? Just because there are cases where it may be less than clear doesn't make an extreme case unclear, IMO. One doesn't always need a hard and fast rule or definition to make judgments.

G1911 · #5 11-12-2022, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Lots of things are hard to define in life. Where is the line, for example, between tough but appropriate parenting and child abuse? Just because there are cases where it may be less than clear doesn't make an extreme case unclear, IMO. One doesn't always need a hard and fast rule or definition to make judgments.

Then, if we don�t need rules or definitions or reasonable criteria, it shouldn�t be difficult to determine if I am or am not a hobby criminal, for this act of X, where X represents the crime we cannot term.

The line between tough parenting and child abuse, and I am not a lawyer, is defined in every states law, as the later is a prosecutable offense, and a very serious one. Like all moral judgements it is arbitrary (ant least I am unable to think of any that are not) and some may not agree, but this is not some undefined offense whatsoever.

It is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to meaningfully engage with an idea of a moral crime that cannot term the offense, cannot define it, cannot identify any of the boundaries between right and wrong, and for which the moral judgement on which the moral argument hinges appears to be your gut feeling at the moment. It�s not a very logical case, or one another person can do much of anything which. I would certainly not take my gut feeling of distaste for another�s actions to mean they are guilty of a crime, moral or actual, if I cannot specify how.

Peter_Spaeth · #6 11-12-2022, 03:30 PM

With that you can have the last word. Good discussion, interesting subject.

View Poll Results: After paying their dues, should hobbyists who committed fraud be allowed back ?
Yes	67	18.56%
No	257	71.19%
I don't care	37	10.25%
Voters: 361. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hobby history: The hobby 50 years ago, July 1967	trdcrdkid	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	8	07-23-2017 04:41 PM
Hobby history: Card dealers of the 1960s: James T. Elder (+ hobby drama, 1968-69)	trdcrdkid	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	12	03-08-2017 06:23 PM
the list (of criminals) is revealed	sflayank	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	998	03-30-2016 07:54 AM
Autograph News Live - criminals or just cowards?	Michael Frost	Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports	186	10-25-2013 11:36 PM
criminals and heroes of the t206 set	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	19	01-11-2009 08:03 PM