Purchasing from multiple lists

[Generation]

Originally Posted by Chadridv

I'm genuinely sorry, I might just be too tired, but I think I need one more re-wording of the question. What confuses me is the use of "universal law" and the word "could", twice. "Could" just seems too open ended to be phrased with 'universal law'.

Do you mean... Do I think eventually 'Flippers' and gray dealers will be the only people buying the 'hard-to-get' watches?

¶ 1: I'll rephrase my question as, "Could you make a universal law that permits anyone to buy any Rolex they want from any AD, regardless of intent?" I'm using the phrase "universal law" here because that's generally how you talk about the categorical imperative, but in this context take it to mean "Rolex corporate rule." Basically the question is, "Would you be fine with everyone being able to do what you do?"

¶ 2: That wasn't my question; but since you mentioned it, do you think the Rolex AD market would be even worse for the average consumer? I already hear many people complain on TRF that only the grays have the rare references in stock -- and they always have them in stock, too, but for a premium.

Originally Posted by Chadridv

So I just looked up your original question and found this, which I more or less understand.

Categorical Imperative


"an unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose."

So, we basically have two different views on the subject. When you asked me if I think Categorical Imperative applies, did you mean do I think it applies to my perspective or yours?

I read quickly from your first link that this philosophy says 'Kant considered the "right" superior to the "good"; to him, the "good" was morally irrelevant.' I happen to think my view of the situation applies to both, the right and the good. Meaning;

"Right"
If I got the call for a daytona, it's my "right" to do whatever I want. I can buy the watch and throw it off a bridge. OR I can sell it for a profit OR keep it, even if I don't want it and have 10 more just like it.

"Good"
My original 3 part statement (which you seemed to disagree with me on) is that, if it's important to you to care about the happiness and well being of others:

A. The discussion of allowing someone else to take your spot to buy a $12.4k watch is silly, in regards to the "well being" of others and practice of altruism.

B. The only way to be sure that the watch does end up in the hands of a true enthusiast is to buy it yourself and choose the person you know will appreciate it, and sell it to them at MSRP. UNLESS of course, you happen to know the person who the AD will call next if you pass.

C. If you truly want to help others, buy the watch, sell it, and donate the profits to an actual charity that helps people who really need help.

Or maybe my interpretation of the philosophy and/or your question is way off? Just let me know.

¶ 4: I meant does the categorical imperative apply to your perspective, i.e. buying rare references from ADs only to flip them online. My perspective is that waiting lists should be reserved for genuine customers (a view also shared by Rolex). I think the categorical imperative does apply to my perspective because if you made that a universal law, everyone would be happy (except for the flippers, who are maybe just one step above ticket scalpers on the ladder of honest businesspeople).

¶ 5-11: I think it helps to look at the larger passage you quoted from Wikipedia:

The typical dichotomy in choosing ends is between ends that are "right" (e.g., helping someone) and those that are "good" (e.g., enriching oneself). Kant considered the "right" superior to the "good"; to him, the "good" was morally irrelevant. In Kant's view, a person cannot decide whether conduct is "right," or moral, through empirical means. Such judgments must be reached a priori, using pure practical reason.[citation needed]

To apply this to our scenario, the "right" is to allow the next person on the waiting list to get the Daytona (for example) they've been waiting years to own. The "good" is helping out a fellow member on TRF and maybe making some decent money in the process. Kant considered the former, the "right," superior. Wikipedia ends that section by bringing up this concept's relationship to human rights and equality: "This moral universalism has come to be seen as the distinctive aspect of Kant's moral philosophy and has had wide social impact in the legal and political concepts of human rights and equality.[citation needed]" Thinking about the categorical imperative often goes hand-in-hand with those two subjects.