Legal Disclaimer

"...For Dummies" is a registered trademark of Wiley Publishing, Inc. Wiley has not given authorization for this title, nor is it associated in any way with the Wiley (nee IDG Books, nee Hungry Minds) series "... for Dummies."

October 23, 2004

The (Un)Ethicist?

A while ago, Doug and I got in a very minor spat over his sale of Lance Armstrong Foundation bracelets on eBay. As stupid arguments go, milk was pouring out of my nose quite a lot at the two of us acting like awesome Kantian highschool dropout IRC'ers.

Out of curiosity as to who really was right, I decided to send the question to the New York Times ethicist, Randy Cohen. His response via email spake:

Assuming that there is no fraud, that the buyers clearly understand that those reselling these bracelets are not affiliated with the Armstrong Foundation and are not donating to it, then I see no problem with the sale. Mere silence is not enough here. Because there is a reasonable chance of misunderstanding, the seller has an ethical obligation to clarify the matter. A single sentence could easily accomplish that.

A couple of weeks later, I got a phone call saying he might like to run my question and his response in the Times. And in it went this week. The answer is probably as close to opposite to the private answer as is humanly possible (which is fine, read on).

So I sent a new ethics question to the New York Times this week: When answering questions for an advice column, is it ethical for the private answer given to the respondent to differ greatly from the answer issued to the public?

I would have agreed to have the question run no matter the answer (heck, I thought he just answered them in print and that there was none of this approval business). But I can certainly see situations where someone's agreement to have the question run as a public spectacle is dependent on the answer given to the question...

I am finding all this to have odd timing considering fellow anizer Volker recently had a run-in (and hopeful recovery) with the Big C.

| TrackBack

It is worth noting that the line,"Mere silence is not enough" was stricken from the printed answer. The printed response reads:

"Assuming there is no fraud, that your friend does not claim (or even imply) that any of his profits go to the Lance Armstrong Foundation, he does no wrong. If ever there were a marketplace clearly devoted to reselling bric-a-brac purchased elsewhere, it's eBay. There's little chance of a customer misunderstanding this transaction.

Nor is there anything untoward or even unusual about combining charitable and noncharitable activities. Many businesses goose the sales of their products by announcing that a percentage of their profits goes to charity. Many people out for a good time -- joggers, walkers, extravagant party-givers -- link their events to charities. Your friend's venture seems a variant of these activities (albeit one in which the charity gains before he enters the picture). And of course this entire question would be unnecessary if the Armstrong foundation simply heeded the laws of supply and demand and increased bracelet prices or production."

Posted by: dfc on October 23, 2004 09:45 PM

that was interesting. I hope he prints the other letter too.

love, love.

Posted by: becca on November 4, 2004 08:30 AM
Post a comment










Please enter the number above into the box below.









Further back...

Archives