Subject:
|
Re: Customs question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Nov 2001 21:34:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
709 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Jason, you may be "honesty impaired" -- the condition of engaging in
> unseemly contortions just to be able to claim you were doing the "right
> thing."
Is that how you define "honesty"? Or is that how you define "moral"? Is
honesty necessarily moral? If you ask me, if you're honest with respect to
putting the little "gift" mark on a package, then you *DON'T* mark it as a
gift no matter *WHAT* you think of the moral implications of the law that
you're breaking. If you're "honest", you tell the truth. And the truth is
that it's not a gift. If you're *moral*, but not necessarily honest, that's
another ball game.
Agreed?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) You were asking him, but I'll answer with my opinion anyway... No, it is not immoral to lie, in general. Was it immoral for the UK to place large inflatable tanks in empty fields to mislead the Germans about where the invasion was being (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) Actually, no. Since we are essentially immune to this silly customs tax (certainly, I have never been thusly taxed as a person in the U.S.) if we white lie by marking items as "gifts" or "cadeaux" we do so for the benefit of others. I have (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
