Subject:
|
Re: Customs question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Nov 2001 00:13:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1373 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
>
> the client's welfare may indeed outweigh your "honesty" to
> the state in which they reside. That's for you to decide.
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 the client's decision.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) Yep. If you value your future dealing above your "honesty" towards their government, as well as valuing their happiness above your "honesty", so be it. (...) Nope. It's only the client's decision if they have that much sway over you. If you (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
