HAHAHAA my uncle knows NOTHING about guitars...

now that i'm on your guys good side... i don't want to bad mouth my uncle.... but still...

he rips ME off TONS of times... like for my wii.... i couldn't find one ANYWHERE and he got one for me for next christmas (which was 10 months later) so i asked him if i could buy it from him... he offered it for a "cheap" 620 :-( that's not cheap...

but he is still my uncle ... :-(

he rips ME off TONS of times... like for my wii.... i couldn't find one ANYWHERE and he got one for me for next christmas (which was 10 months later) so i asked him if i could buy it from him... he offered it for a "cheap" 620 :-( that's not cheap...

That's very cheap compared to how much they go/went for on ebay.

now that i'm on your guys good side... i don't want to bad mouth my uncle.... but still...

he rips ME off TONS of times... like for my wii.... i couldn't find one ANYWHERE and he got one for me for next christmas (which was 10 months later) so i asked him if i could buy it from him... he offered it for a "cheap" 620 :-( that's not cheap...

but he is still my uncle ... :-(

I am by no means the morality police to dont take this as criticism or whatever. You are looking at it backwards. When someone does something to you that is not nice, wrong, immoral, etc... it in no way affects the person that you ARE. Only the way that you respond to "IT" reflects on your person.

Secondly, say your uncle offered it at twice that price.. it still doesnt make him a bad person. If that is the price that he is wanting for something that is his, well.. more power to him.. but that is what is great about open market.. he wont sell it cause there are other people out there with a better price. Still, its his to sell at whatever price he wants to sell it for. Right?

Either way, doesnt reflect on you.

Jim

Geoo has a pretty fair point there, Afo, and its the point I was trying to make when I first posted on this thread.

Irrespective of what your uncle does or doesn't do, your actions and comments are judged independently of that. no matter what your uncle is like, you still have a choice about how you behave and about what kind of person you are going to be (or at least the kind of person you're gonna try to be, we're all human afterall).

From your posts in this thread, I really don't think you've understood the criticism you received here. You shouldn't just act a certain way because a bunch of strangers gave you a hard time, and you shouldn't feel you have a right to behave a certain way because your uncles gives you (in your opinion) a hard time. Frankly, none of us know you or your uncle and, within reason, its pretty fair to say its not really our business what you're like or what your relationship with your family is like.

(I'm assuming a general consensus here, so apologies to anyone who feels differently)
People posted here to give you a heads up that you'd acted pretty immaturely. And we did that to make you think about your actions and about what kind of person you want to be in the long run, not just the short term of this one incident. No one was ragging on you just for the sake of ragging on you, and no one was siding with your uncle. We just figured that by posting you might reconsider how principled you are.

You're pretty young, so I'm gonna cut you some slack, but I reckon you should reread this thread sometime and think about what has been said. The fact is that in life you're gonna come up against a whole host of really crappy people. But if this is how react in each of those situations, you're just gonna end up doing yourself in, getting worked up about it, and putting yourself in a bad place as a result. Sometimes you've gotta look at the situation and say, "alright, this guy's a bunghole, but I don't have to be a bunghole too," and then walk away from it.

I think that was the overriding message in this thread. what your uncle is like is utterly irrelevant - you can't make him be a certain way or do certain things. and what we think of your uncle aint gonna change things one bit, either. but you can have that level of control over who you are and what you do. and that's a pretty important and valuable lesson in life, and one most of us learn the hard way. you got it for free from a bunch of strangers, which is better than a lot of people do.

and you got a nice guitar in the bargain.

$85 is a lot more than I'd pay for a classical guitar but it sounds like you got a good deal.

I wouldn't worry about the morality issue if I were you. You got a guitar, your uncle is ahead $85.

$85 is a fantastic deal for a guitar of that quality,

but that's not the point of where this topic went is it?
who got what isn't anywhere near the point either.

your Morality is an important facet of the type of person you become and how your life will turn out. maybe the most important facet.

How you treat others and understanding how it reflects back on you is something young people would do well to take seriously.
Heed well what Scrybe summed up well in her last post. This was it pretty much in a nutshell. (imo)

very well said Scrybe.

your Morality is an important facet of the type of person you become and how your life will turn out. maybe the most important facet.

How you treat others and understanding how it reflects back on you is something young people would do well to take seriously.
Heed well what Scrybe summed up well in her last post. This was it pretty much in a nutshell. (imo)

Your morality is very important, and Scrybe hit it right on the head. Words of wisdom to live by. "Do unto others..."

Dan

Congratulations on doing the right thing! :D And see, it did work out didn't it. 8)

$85 is a fantastic deal for a guitar of that quality,

but that's not the point of where this topic went is it?
who got what isn't anywhere near the point either.

your Morality is an important facet of the type of person you become and how your life will turn out. maybe the most important facet.

How you treat others and understanding how it reflects back on you is something young people would do well to take seriously.
Heed well what Scrybe summed up well in her last post. This was it pretty much in a nutshell. (imo)

I read the post but in my opinion, it's not good advice. Throwing away the chance at an amazing deal for a moral high road, a warm feeling inside or whatever the reason is. The problem with doing the 'right' thing is people assume the right decision is the best decision. Plus, you help someone, they go on their way and you have no idea if they were better off. Maybe you give a homeless person money to buy food but another person in his situation attacks him, takes the money and leaves him for dead. They probably would have been better off with "get a job you lazy bum!" Maybe he says no the guitar is worth way more than that so the uncle decides to take it to a dealer but gets in a car accident along the way. There is no way of knowing if something will happen if you help someone but it means you shouldn't beat yourself or anyone else up for it if they don't take the moral high road.

Of course, you need to respect people and their property which is the case. The uncle valued the guitar at $85 (which he's allowed to do) and got $85 for it. I'm sure my advice won't be popular or seen as good, but I say the same about what's been said here. People sell things for way less than they are worth because they don't know what they have all the time. Go to a flea market, you'll see tons of items way less than they are worth. Or go to ebay where people sell things way cheap because they don't know what they have. We all take advantage of it and it's not fair to beat someone else up for doing it. Bottom line, the uncle can sell the guitar for any price he wants, be it more or less and he got what he asked for it.

Considering the consequences of an action is a must, but doing good things don't mean good reactions and doing bad things don't mean bad reactions. Consider this, make the best decisions, make it appear you have all the good qualities and you'll go far in life.

Edited: Nothing more to add. Nice looking guitar though.

Jim

Of course, you need to respect people and their property which is the case. The uncle valued the guitar at $85 (which he's allowed to do) and got $85 for it. I'm sure my advice won't be popular or seen as good, but I say the same about what's been said here. People sell things for way less than they are worth because they don't know what they have all the time. Go to a flea market, you'll see tons of items way less than they are worth. Or go to ebay where people sell things way cheap because they don't know what they have. We all take advantage of it and it's not fair to beat someone else up for doing it. Bottom line, the uncle can sell the guitar for any price he wants, be it more or less and he got what he asked for it.

I think this sounds like great advice for purchasing stuff from a pawn shop, garage sale, eBay, etc. It's horrible advice for dealing with family and friends unless you don't want them be close any more. If you want to treat your dealings with those close to you purely in business terms then don't be surprised when the become hurt and decide that they don't want to deal with you any more.

There's no problem with buying stuff from or selling stuff to family and friends but you owe them a level of consideration more than you do the random person. Many times family might be selling cheaper to help the other out or because they, gasp, "love them". If you do too then you won't treat them as if they were just some pawn shop owner.

Also, the earlier comment from the original poster about his uncle "gouging" him because he wanted $600 for the Wii that he planned to give him for an XMas present. I too would have done something similar or just not bothered with an XMas present for the nephew in that case. A Wii as an XMas present from an uncle is a pretty nice gift. Asking for it 10 months early is rude. I'm an uncle to 4 nieces and 2 nephews and if any had done that they would have been lucky to get a picture of a Wii for XMas instead.

I think this sounds like great advice for purchasing stuff from a pawn shop, garage sale, eBay, etc. It's horrible advice for dealing with family and friends unless you don't want them be close any more. If you want to treat your dealings with those close to you purely in business terms then don't be surprised when the become hurt and decide that they don't want to deal with you any more.

Like I said, it's their property to sell at any price they want. It would be different if they wanted to sell me a guitar at $600 and I said "Oh that's an entry level guitar, it's probably only worth $75-$100" If they flat out offer it to me for $85 for whatever reason, don't like it, need the space or family discount, I'm not going to question it or feel like I'm taking them. When I got my first job my Aunt and Uncle offered me their car for $600 I think it was, didn't buy it so I don't remember. I know nothing about cars other than "ooo pretty" but my dad who is a car expert knew it was a steal. It would be silly of me to say, "$600 is too low, I'll give you $1,000 for it."
There's no problem with buying stuff from or selling stuff to family and friends but you owe them a level of consideration more than you do the random person. Many times family might be selling cheaper to help the other out or because they, gasp, "love them". If you do too then you won't treat them as if they were just some pawn shop owner.

Maybe the $85 includes a family discount who knows. I never do business with family, I either price something too low because they are family and sell for less than I originally wanted, or go too high and feel like I'm taking them. Too much conflict of interest. So either I do it in a pure business sense or just don't do it all. It's just easier for me to say, "if you want it, you can have it." It's not business if I can make it a gift.

Not that my family would be hurt if I treated selling something to them as business. I've done it with my parents, uncle/aunts, once with my cousin and they don't find anything wrong with it. I can understand if they want to make some decent change off selling something to me and they have the same respect to me.

Not that my family would be hurt if I treated selling something to them as business. I've done it with my parents, uncle/aunts, once with my cousin and they don't find anything wrong with it. I can understand if they want to make some decent change off selling something to me and they have the same respect to me.

There is nothing wrong with selling to and from family and friends at "market" rates nor is there anything wrong with selling at discounted "family" rates. There is, however, a certain amount of extra care that needs to be taken in a transaction with a family member or a friend.

You need to be absolutely sure that they know they are giving you a good price when you buy from them and you need to provide extra disclosure when selling. Maybe old uncle Fred doesn't really know the price of guitars and he sold it at $85 because he didn't know. Great you got a deal. If it was a pawnbroker then that would be the end of it. But it's uncle Fred, your mother's older and respected brother, so you're going to hear about this at every family get-together for the next 30 years and you'll pick up the family nickname of "shady".

Much better to say something as simple as "But Uncle Fred that guitar is worth a lot more than that. Are you sure?" If he's giving you the discount out of love then he''ll let you know that "it's ok, I want to do this for you" and everything will be fine. If not then at the very least you've saved yourself 30 years of hellish family get-togethers.

GrungeSunset,

I'm not a utilitarian, so I don't judge actions by their consequences. A basic requirement of any system of ethics/morality is that in order for an act to be deemed moral or immoral, the person must have had the chance to act differently. Without a sense of free agency, morality/ethics becomes pretty pointless and, since you can't know for certain the consequences of your actions until you have committed those actions, the scope of moral agency is limited in a utilitarian system. Further, you often can't single out the causal factor of events, which means you can't simply draw an act-consequence line by which you can then judge an act to moral/immoral. It's one of the major criticisms of utilitarianism.

I would argue that the intention of the person committing the act is the integral deciding factor involved in deeming an act moral/immoral. The intention doesn't have to have a causal influence over the consequences of an action. In this situation, the uncle got $85 for a guitar he thought was crap, and Afo got a bargain. If morality was all about consequences, then you could argue that the uncle potential benefited from this situation. But it seemed pretty clear (to me, anyway) that Afo's intention wasn't solely to get a bargain; their intention was also to rip off their uncle. The justification for this seems to be revenge/payback for the uncle being stingy.

My position is that an impartial observer could look at the situation and say it's bad karma and the uncle got what he deserved. But only an impartial observer could make that judgement. The person (Afo, in this case) who is ripping off the uncle (in this case) can't use the uncle's bad karma (stemming from being stingy) as a justification for how they have acted.

And, going on the details of the OP, the uncle did state to Afo that they had no idea of the guitar's value, and based his selling-price on the guitar being pretty cheap. Afo knew otherwise, but didn't say anything to correct their uncle. A lie of omission is still a lie. There's little disputing that, it has been a component of many legal systems for hundreds of years and pretty much every moral philosopher has agreed on that point. The only critics of it are utilitarians and those who feel that morality cannot be quantified in any way since it isn't objective. I've already stated some arguments against the robsutness of utilitarianism as an ethical/moral framework. As for those who think morality can't be quantified, those philosopher's think morality is merely a collection of subjective value-judgements. There are numerous counter-arguments I could argue about here, but it isn't necessary for me to do so. I only have to say that, if anyone agrees with those philosopher's, they have to conclude that everyone who posted critically of Afo in this thread expressed a negative value-judgement about Afo's actions and/or intentions. And, on my reading of this thread, it seems the criticism was by and large criticism of Afo's intentions, not the consequences, which stretch out infinitely and thus can't be fully assessed.

But, on whichever schema you wish to hang morality/ethics, I think my primary point still stands - you can't sidestep moral judgements by pointing to the alleged morality/immorality of those around you.