Subject:
|
Re: Customs question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:36:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1205 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > Of course this really is pushing it. It's such a little thing that it's
> > > nearly inconsequencial. But the principle says that it's an immoral act, • even
> > > if only very minisculy so.
> >
> > Or the principle says that it's a particularly moral act because you're
> > standing up, willing to deny funding (in a small way) to a corrupt
> > bureaucracy. If you think that's so. Those of us who think that governance
> > is bad have it particularly easy. ;-)
>
> Agreed I spose-- I was more or less implying my own morality for myself (or • was
> trying), but yes, if you find it to be moral, yeah.
>
> However, the more I think about it, the less I can concieve of it being actual
> "moral", so much as "justified". Qualifying it with respect to my beloved 3
> categories of morality:
Well, your three categories of morality isn't my baby, and I'm not even sure I
agree with it as morality-o-meter, but let's look at it this way:
> --Justice--
> On the one hand, I think justice is that which expects us to be truthful in
> all things.
You're defining justice as truth? I think it is fairness and/or equity.
> IE we cannot say "this is a gift" if we know it is not.
Unless it is the fairest thing to do.
> But we *COULD* say "this is a gift", however, if
> it were a bendable definition in the law, and be ok. Then we wouldn't be
> *immoral* by justice.
So your version of justice, and thus one of the three legs of morality are
based on the laws of the land? I know that you favor relative morals, but do
you claim that slavery was just?
> On the other hand, when applying it to another country's laws, one could argue
> via justice that the country in question has no bearing on you, and hence
> you are again not immoral by justice. Of course by the same logic, if they
> refuse to deliver your package-- or heck, even if they just decide to
> confiscate your package, by justice, they're not immoral either.
I guess that I almost agree with some of this. By relating justice to equity,
I guess I can't get too freaked out if they lie to me (about their willingness
to deliver) when I've lied to them (about the nature of the delivery).
> --Selfishness--
> Theoretically, you're really not doing it for your own benefit. You're marking
> it "gift" so the other person doesn't get slapped with a charge. So you really
> don't benefit. So according to being selfish (since you're neither benefitting
> nor losing), you're neither moral nor immoral.
Unless I'm doing it so that in the long run, foreign clients will continue to
buy my LEGO. Then I think I get selfish points.
> --Charity--
> This is the only real kicker. Since you're marking the package as "gift" to
> help someone else, it's definitely charitable, and thereby moral. Easy, right?
> 'Course go back to justice, and you may have a problem-- hence the debate at
> hand: is the recipient's fortune more valuable than your violation of justice?
Well, I don't think it's really a violation of justice. Since I think it's
unfair of a state to confiscate goods obtained through fair trade (which I
assume my clients' payments are) then I think it's fair to help my client avoid
their theivery. But even looking at it from what I surmise to be your
perspective, I think the real ballance to figure out is whether the charity to
the client outweighs the anti-charity to their state (which you sort of point
to at the end of your post). And the (let's say) $2 certainly seems to make a
bigger difference to the client than to the state as it is a larger portion of
their revenue.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) (Honestly curious) So how would you categorize subsets of morality? I've basically attempted to come up with different ways in which to violate morality. The two most basic being "that's not fair" or "that's mean". One might also say "you (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) Agreed I spose-- I was more or less implying my own morality for myself (or was trying), but yes, if you find it to be moral, yeah. However, the more I think about it, the less I can concieve of it being actual "moral", so much as "justified". (...) (23 years ago, 20-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
|
|
|
|
