THE MORALITY OF "EXPERTISING."
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] Sur,—I wish to protest against your writer's argument in favour of " expertising " (Spectator, October 20th). The present world is carried on on the principle of giving in return for something received. Everything has its price, and we call that man dishonest who gives an unfair one. In money transactions there are, of course, many considerations to be taken into account, in this case the purchaser's superior knowledge, which, as your reviewer says, is his property just as plate might be, and he is no more bound to give away his intellectual property than any other kind of property. But, on the other hand, when he receives money by means of this property, he is surely bound to give something in return. A doctor or a teacher gives his hard-won knowledge, his patiently acquired skill, and his time in return for the money he receives. An expert buys a cabinet for £1 which he knows is worth 220 ; that is to say he practically receives e.,19 from the seller. What does he give in return ? He has gained the £19 by means of his knowledge, just as the doctor gains his fee by means of his knowledge : but there is all the difference between them. The doctor gives his knowledge in return to his patient, the expert keeps his knowledge for him- self. ' But,' he might say, my knowledge can be no good to the man who has sold me the cabinet.' True. But then he ought to give an equivalent in money ; that is to say, he ought to offer a fair price in the first instance. This surely meets your writer's argument. I do not mean to say that the expert should give the full market price. He is, in such a case, in the position of a middleman, and should give a middle- man's fair price.—I am, Sir, &e., X.
Previous page
