Comment author: Elo 17 May 2015 02:39:05PM 0 points [-]

(Sounding a bit rude, but thats okay I can deal with that in my own head) Yes it was a good sale; well above the asking price, but considering the market now; they should know better. This was an easy way for them to make their commission before auction, but they also probably lost out on a few extra thousands of dollars for themselves.

My concern is not so much about myself; but about not soliciting the rest of the market (all the parties with contracts) before auction.

I am currently in the decision to let it be. (you raise a good point that the owner has part responsibility, however real-estate agents tend to have the upper hand in people manipulation to convince an owner to settle on a lower deal)

In response to comment by Elo on Wild Moral Dilemmas
Comment author: zarebski 18 May 2015 12:29:33AM *  0 points [-]

I was questioning your judgment for the sake of argument, but you're probably right about the numbers. Without more knowledge of the area, it's impossible to say if you're being reasonable or not, and it doesn't really matter. You say it's not about yourself, but you wouldn't know it if it was about yourself, and that was what I was trying to say. It's not about you in particular, but about you being the prejudiced party. That's something to take into account in the resolution of the dilemma. But I should be more clear/careful.

In response to Wild Moral Dilemmas
Comment author: Elo 13 May 2015 12:20:32AM 1 point [-]

I recently faced a dilemma.

A real-estate agent called me to notify me that a property I was inquiring about was sold before auction. I was an interested party and the fact that they did not try to solicit a price from me before accepting a signed contract to another party means they did not do their best to secure the best deal for the owner. I happen to actually know the owner as well, (I have no great worries about losing the deal) I wonder if I should report the events to the owner who effectively lost out on an unknown number of dollars (AUD~$10,000-$50,000), from myself or possibly a number of other interested parties who might have taken the opportunity to bid - had the property either gone to auction or been offered to other parties before the auction.

Extra info: The owner is currently unwell and does not need any kind of further stress in their life; also I don't think anything can be done to change the situation as contracts have been signed (also this was a week ago); also property prices in this local marketplace have gone wild recently, causing stupid things like this to happen - probably frequently. I wonder if regulation of the bidding marketplace would make this less likely to happen.

In response to comment by Elo on Wild Moral Dilemmas
Comment author: zarebski 17 May 2015 11:02:49AM *  0 points [-]

The owner chose them, did he not?

And so he has responsibility for his (supposed) loss. Doing their best isn't in the contract.

Now the question is whether the owner would like to know about it. I think not, unless he plans on making use of their service again.

On top of that, you say they didn't solicit a price from you before selling, and so you may have thought about the price more seriously, had they done so, and maybe this extra number of dollars wouldn't be there if there wasn't the bias of possible anger/pride (no offense). For all we know, the sale could have been a good sale, and that's why they didn't auction. They're the real-estate agents, and you're the someone who they didn't solicit. Sorry if that's a bit rude (I have testosterone problems), but that's the way it is. They're not malicious agents, they do what they can. I think it's better to let it be (but I'm also unsure).

(Also, if they had to chase every best offer then there would be no end to it. They're making trade-offs and maybe you valued the property differently than most people would value it. It's not so easy to say that they're being incompetent when we're incompetent in this domain ourselves.)

In response to Wild Moral Dilemmas
Comment author: [deleted] 12 May 2015 03:20:24PM 12 points [-]

What kind of moral dilemmas do you actually encounter?

Should I tell the truth and weaken social bonds or keep silent and maintain social bonds?

I cinsider the importance to me of a truth or a bond then I make my choice. Outcomes vary.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Wild Moral Dilemmas
Comment author: zarebski 17 May 2015 10:26:40AM *  -1 points [-]

It shouldn't be the "importance to me", but the importance to everyone and everything. On top of that, dilemmas tend to be about what we have a bias in. The calculus of virtue is a real danger, and unwise. We shouldn't do it, but we do it anyway. Remember, the bright are the most likely to be biased.

The compromise is to at least ask opinion to another person.

"The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions." - Oliver Wendell Holmes