ComputerFix
Thread Starter
- Joined
- May 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,953
The Columbia thread led me to think of this, and I thought maybe a seperate thread would be better........
When one thinks in terms of collectables, and especially collectables obtained for investment purposes, death can be an instigator of value.
For example, a "collectable" samurai sword has a specific value, but one carried by a Japanese soldier during WWII is worth more.
This lead me to the question, are these people "capitalizing on death"? If so, is that wrong?
Obviously selling wreckage parts from the shuttle Columbia is just wrong, but what about, say, the guy with a commemerative coin?
Assume he bought it with the intent of selling it after a noticable increase in value. If that increase is now, is it morally wrong to sell it at this point?
When one thinks in terms of collectables, and especially collectables obtained for investment purposes, death can be an instigator of value.
For example, a "collectable" samurai sword has a specific value, but one carried by a Japanese soldier during WWII is worth more.
This lead me to the question, are these people "capitalizing on death"? If so, is that wrong?
Obviously selling wreckage parts from the shuttle Columbia is just wrong, but what about, say, the guy with a commemerative coin?
Assume he bought it with the intent of selling it after a noticable increase in value. If that increase is now, is it morally wrong to sell it at this point?