Subject:
|
Re: Customs question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:34:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1162 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > 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:
(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 don't have a right to do that" or (this is horrifically
uncommon to see in people, but I think it's justified) "that's not
self-respecting". The "not fair" and "no right" fall under "justice" in my
system, as would lying. I dunno if lying is a subset of "not fair" or "no
right", or whether it's something else entirely... More on that...
> > --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.
Well, not really. That's just how it pertains to the example, in my thinking.
The category "justice" seems to cover "don't lie", in my book, as well as
coving things like "be fair", etc.
> > IE we cannot say "this is a gift" if we know it is not.
>
> Unless it is the fairest thing to do.
Strictly from a "truth-telling" perspective, we cannot. That's what my point is
at this juncture. Weigh the pros and cons against each other later, but for now
I'm just listing them. And not telling the truth is unjust, I think. Majorly
so? Not really in this example. Justifiably so? That's up for debate when we
weigh the pros against the cons.
> > 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?
Again, I'm analyzing from a truth perspective, since I think that's really the
only way this particular example violates justice. And since the government has
decreed that things marked "gift" go untaxed, you can potentially avoid lying
if your definition of "gift" *does* in fact match with the contents of your
package, perhaps even if only partially. As for whether the *law* *itself* is
unjust, that's another story. We're talking about the person, not the law.
> > --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.
Ok, I'll concede that you can win minor moral points by doing it, since there
are conceivable benefits to yourself...
> > --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.
Eh, I think it's still a violation of justice-- for the same reason as "is it
ok to break an unjust law?". While *yes*, it can be justifiable, it doesn't
mean that the law-breaking-part isn't unjust. I mean, you're really using this
other country's mail service to deliver your package. And even if you're using
FedEx or something, you're still paying for FedEx to be *allowed* to operate
within their country.
Basically, if my new widget is really cool (it's a soda can with a clock built
in), and I charge $5,000,000 per widget, fine. But you don't have to pay it. Is
that price fair? Probably not. And if I offer a discount of $2,000,000 if
you're a charity organisation, are you justified in lying to me about it just
to get the discount? I mean, sure, you can say that some other part
*balances*out* or 'justifies' your lying, but wouldn't it be better if you
didn't have to lie? IE isn't there some inherent "badness" in lying?
> 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.
Completely agreed-- the client's welfare may indeed outweigh your "honesty" to
the state in which they reside. That's for you to decide. And I think that's
the real issue. I still would say that *lying* is inherently wrong, but that it
can be *outweighed* by other factors.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) I guess, ultimately it's your decision, however if you go against the client's wishes (either lying without their consent *or* not lying after they ask you to), it may well be deterimental to any future dealing, so realistically, it's probably (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) I'm not sure. I guess my strongest notion about morality is that it's a bogus idea (like religion) designed to manipulate others into building a society that benefits certain people. (i.e. my sense of morality, had I one that I championed, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) even (...) was (...) 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: (...) You're defining justice as truth? I think it is fairness and/or equity. (...) (23 years ago, 21-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
|
|
|
|
