> I think it's helpful to separate out pricing from product when talking about morality in business.

I don't think the two are so easily separable. If you take for example, "a dozen eggs", most people would consider that an acceptable product. But if you said "a dozen eggs for ten cents", for those to be legitimate eggs, they must be stolen. If you could somehow inspect them and guarantee they were legitimate, I am sure plenty of people would accept those stolen eggs at that price, but their willingness to pay for it doesn't mean the existence of a market for "a dozen eggs for ten cents" is moral.

I'd argue that blaming the buyer is not appropriate though - the problem is the lack of regulation (preventing theft in this case) so you can blame the thieves and/or the police/government, but you can't expect the buyer (or anyone) to determine exactly what price is too good to be true. If you could, then we wouldn't need to have a market pricing system in the first place.

I'm reminded of how people would express outrage over products made in a low wage country being defective or toxic, and sometimes a response would be "well, people who demand ultra-cheap products deserve what they get". That's a denial of the fraudulent aspect of such a transaction, and the inability of the consumer to solve it.