That example does not make any sense to me. Why would one side feel they'd gotten the better of the opposite side just because both are fully satisfied? Surely interests must be aligned for any trade to be successful and satisfactory to the involved parties, but in your example, each man is happy to have had what he wanted, and neither executed a deal feeling they had been shafted. Neither took an unfair advantage of the other or left the other with an unfair share as enabled by circumstance.
An instance of an unfair deal is exploiting the ignorance of a newcomer by offering to take something that has great value locally for a price far below what your neighbors would pay before the newcomer realizes that his belongings have much greater worth in his new vicinity than they had in the old. This is a fundamentally predatory deal, and even if you lay all of this out in the fine print, it's your duty to establish at least a basic reasonable assurance that the party at the other end of your trade understands the circumstances surrounding it and is satisfied with the proposed trade.
Another example is that of an individual in desperate straits who is required to offload a good he'd otherwise keep or sell for a much higher price. It is reasonable to expect this person to sell his goods, but it is not fair to exploit his unfortunate circumstance and purchase the goods at prices in extreme disproportion to market value. While the person may even offer the good at an absolute bargain basement price in an attempt to move it as quickly as possible, I do not believe it is moral to buy something at much, much less than its normal value if you have the means to pay more. Perhaps some discount is reasonable in order to move the merchandise quickly, but it should not be disproportionate to the circumstance; even if the seller believes he'll be happy with the trade, it's not very likely that that happiness will stay. You're better off just biting the bullet and at least paying something that resembles the low end of market value.
Remember that when it comes down to it, our lives are all about the people that are part of them. Things and money come and go, bank accounts ebb and flow; people last forever, and people give real value to experiences and things. It's not worth shafting your neighbors left and right to save some cash.
I recognize that many disagree and believe that it's "every man for himself" out there, and that you should take advantage of your neighbor when you can get it. I believe that is fundamentally wrong, no matter how many others believe otherwise.
> That example does not make any sense to me. Why would one side feel they'd gotten the better of the opposite side just because both are fully satisfied?
They'd feel this way if they did not know what the other side intended to do with what they received. I think it's pretty common to keep quiet on the the reasons why you want something during negotiations, to avoid giving the other party leverage.
I generally agree with you about fair and unfair deal-making. I think it is always important to consider more than just money when you are making deals, for example, you also are dealing in your own reputation when you make agreements with people. A deal that is grossly unfair to the other party from a financial perspective may also carry a heavy cost to your own reputation (which could also have future financial consequences).
That said, I don't think there is anything immoral in coming out of a deal in a better position than the person you made the deal with. Not every deal is equally beneficial to all parties involved. I have made some deals where I am sure the person I dealt with got a better deal than I did, but so long as I didn't feel ripped off, I was okay with that.
An instance of an unfair deal is exploiting the ignorance of a newcomer by offering to take something that has great value locally for a price far below what your neighbors would pay before the newcomer realizes that his belongings have much greater worth in his new vicinity than they had in the old. This is a fundamentally predatory deal, and even if you lay all of this out in the fine print, it's your duty to establish at least a basic reasonable assurance that the party at the other end of your trade understands the circumstances surrounding it and is satisfied with the proposed trade.
Another example is that of an individual in desperate straits who is required to offload a good he'd otherwise keep or sell for a much higher price. It is reasonable to expect this person to sell his goods, but it is not fair to exploit his unfortunate circumstance and purchase the goods at prices in extreme disproportion to market value. While the person may even offer the good at an absolute bargain basement price in an attempt to move it as quickly as possible, I do not believe it is moral to buy something at much, much less than its normal value if you have the means to pay more. Perhaps some discount is reasonable in order to move the merchandise quickly, but it should not be disproportionate to the circumstance; even if the seller believes he'll be happy with the trade, it's not very likely that that happiness will stay. You're better off just biting the bullet and at least paying something that resembles the low end of market value.
Remember that when it comes down to it, our lives are all about the people that are part of them. Things and money come and go, bank accounts ebb and flow; people last forever, and people give real value to experiences and things. It's not worth shafting your neighbors left and right to save some cash.
I recognize that many disagree and believe that it's "every man for himself" out there, and that you should take advantage of your neighbor when you can get it. I believe that is fundamentally wrong, no matter how many others believe otherwise.