The Car Sale

Two men are told they may purchase the car at a very low price. Both men want the car and are told that whomever comes to get the car first shall have it.

One man shows up before the other, commits to the car, and tells the owner that he has to run to the bank to withdraw money to purchase it.

The second man, who may or may not have shown up before the first man, first went to the bank and therefore lost the car.

Who should have morally been given the car?

From the seller's perspective, the primary concern is quick money as can be inferred by the low price and stipulations of the selling contract. The initial response would therefore be to sell to the second man, regardless of whether he has shown up before or not or if other commitments have been discussed, he definitively was the first to show up prepared and also therefore to satisfy the contract. However, this argument is weak. By selling to the second man, the seller has compromised their confirmation (or at least cognition) to a committed purchase and therefore has weakened the trust of both individuals. The sale will be made regardless, however by selling to the first man integrity of the commitment has been upheld to the first man (by virtue of honoring his commitment), and the second man can therefore (even if he dislikes it) witness your honoring of the first man's commitment. While increased trust may be good to future interactions with these individuals, to the seller this is another reason the second man should be sold the car. By increasing truth of both buyers in the seller, both buyers are aware that they can manipulate the seller to a greater extent. The key to the seller's perspective is, based on the information given; he holds supplies which are in great demand and is interested in quick money. The buyers must therefore be aware of who is getting the deal.

The first man may therefore be upset or disenfranchised; however the biggest issue with not selling the car to the first man is the seller may have propagated a potential trust issue. The man's hesitation to bring money to deal, leads one to believe he likely believes the car to be too good of a deal. If this is the case, the guilt of furthering his lack of trust in people does rest of the seller. However, if the lack of trust is founded in the first buyer's lack of trust himself to make quick decisions, then not selling him the car could be a benefit, as it would teach him to trust himself more.

The second man outright benefits from the purchasing of the car. His preparedness can be contributed to his ability to complete the contract. However, if he had shown up before and not made a commitment, then he is being rewarded for playing games with the seller. If he had not shown up before his readiness to buy the car shows a great level of trust in people and should be rewarded.

Further, if a point system is assigned where maximum out come for that person is rated on a scale of 1-7 and all scores are totaled and compared, the selling of the care to person two appears better.

For the seller, if we assign quickest income 3 points, future interactions 2 points, and overall trust of each buyer 1 point. One can observe, 5 points are given if the car is sold to person two (3 for quick sale, 2 for future interactions), while only 2 are given if sold to person one (for overall trust). For person one and two, if 3 points are assigned for getting the car, and 2 for whether the hypothetical effects on trust. Then no matter what the outcome, both will always be the same score. Therefore, it is up to that which benefits the seller the most, which is selling the car to person two.

Most likely the difference in thinking between the first man and second man is that the first man prioritized beating the second man to the deal whereas the second man prioritized having the money in hand, and therefore, being more responsible.

So the question is, is the moral soundness of winning the race more or less viable than being more prepared to actually purchase the vehicle on the spot.

The first buyer, once committed, is most likely to return with the money. The buyer did not stipulate that one must bring money to the exchange, but only vaguely stated "whomever comes to get it first" - this could be perceived as committing to the sale, and could also be perceived as bringing money and purchasing it.

I think I was too verbose.

I would argue the second person deserves the car because of their ability to read the implicit message sent by the seller. While the seller did not directly state their desire for a quick sale, they are likely looking for one. Unless this seller is trying to make friends by selling cars, I would find it difficult to justify their miscommunication as anything more than poor expression of desire.

More fundamentally, the second person showed a greater sense of empathy, so the benefits of morality should be lent to them.

shame on the man who sold the car. He knew he had only one car and should not have offered it to two men.