Q&A: Deception in Our Times
Deception in Our Times
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Suppose there is some game in which an economy is conducted online among different players involving various in-game items. The items have real monetary value as well as in-game monetary value. Within the game, sometimes someone offers to sell or buy something and is willing to do so at price X out of ignorance that he could have gotten a better price. Is there an obligation to inform such a player of his mistake, or may one take advantage of his lack of knowledge in order to profit? (Both morally and halakhically.)
Best regards,
Answer
From a halakhic perspective, the only issue is overcharging or underpaying. If there is an item that has a market price, then it is forbidden to sell or buy it at a different price. But even that—when it is done within the game—I do not think is forbidden. It is a game, and what determines things there are the rules of the game. I once wondered about the BBC's Golden Balls game (it's online: https://g.co/kgs/YKdSrE). There people are playing a prisoner's dilemma, and the options are to keep your word or break it. The question is whether there is a moral problem in not keeping your word. It seems to me not. Those are the rules of the game, for the same reason I wrote above.
From a moral perspective, there may be a problem even within the game. Unless the purpose of the game is to test your economic ability and your ability to investigate prices. In that case, if the other person does not check prices, then he has failed at the game and there is no reason to help him.
Discussion on Answer
Apparently I didn't understand the situation. Items are being sold in the game, but ownership also transfers in the real world? So in what sense is this a game? I don't understand.
In the laws of overcharging or underpaying, if there is a market price, you are forbidden to buy for less. Regardless of the question whether the other person is under pressure to sell or not.
It's a bit hard to explain, but basically this is a game in which items are collected and preserved over a long period of time. Such items can also be sold for real money.
Regarding the laws of overcharging or underpaying, presumably the seller is willing to waive the underpayment for me so that the deal will go through. After all, that is also in his interest. Also, if I remember correctly, in the laws of betrothal there is a concept called "immediate benefit," which says that if the benefit arrives more quickly, that raises its value. So why is that not the case here? Also, the laws of overcharging or underpaying belong to civil law and not to ritual law like interest, so issues of compensation for waiting or shortening the waiting period should not apply here.
The unfairness could also be on his side. He didn't tell you that he would have been willing to pay you an even higher price.
I don't understand the situation. If the items are actually acquired and have real value, then it seems to me that the fact that this is a game has no significance at all.
If he is aware of it and waives it, that is perfectly fine. It is like stipulating that you will have no claim of overcharging or underpaying against me.
The concept of immediate benefit appears in several places, and its meaning is that the value of the thing is close at hand for him. Giving a poor person money as charity is not immediate benefit, because he has to convert the money into products. But giving him food is immediate benefit, because he receives the value of the thing right away. I don't see the connection to our case.
In a market where the other players do not observe the prohibition of overcharging or underpaying, does that prohibition still remain in force?
In such a market there is no market price.
Why is there no market price? Suppose there is some item X that most people sell for price Y, and suddenly I come across someone who doesn't really understand prices and is willing to sell me that item for half of Y. Anyone who came across him wouldn't think twice and would take this worthwhile deal (that is, nobody observes the laws of overcharging or underpaying), but there is still a market price here.
If there is a market price, then there is overcharging or underpaying. I don't see any implication from the fact that many people are dishonest and take advantage of the naive. Just because they eat garlic, should he eat garlic too?
But the naive themselves would take advantage of other naive people if they were put in such a situation. If someone is willing to take advantage of someone else, why should morality grant him protection that he himself is not willing to give?
How do you know that the naive would take advantage of others? But even if so, that does not mean you are allowed to take advantage of someone who takes advantage of others. You are allowed to take advantage of him in order to defend yourself against him, but not just to take advantage of him when that is forbidden.
This reminds me of what you say about tax evasion or being lax about state laws, like crossing on foot at a red light. In a society where people commonly cut corners on this, the force of the prohibition weakens.
Regarding the prohibition of overcharging or underpaying, why should it matter that this is being done in a game, if the virtual items there have real value? You could think of it like collectors of NBA cards. Each card has value, and collectors exchange cards with one another for money or for other cards.
And another question: after all, you can always say that a person is selling below market price in order to make a quick deal, or because he needs the money fast. Sometimes it is hard to find a buyer at a fair price for a given item. Do we still need to be concerned that perhaps he is doing so out of ignorance?