Ethics Of Selling/Buying Unused No Gum Postage?

I have always believed that ethics, opinions, legalities, liberty... are NOT the same thing, and yet are not completely independent of each other.

Independent of the law, I don't think anybody can ignore the fact that re-using used postage is basically using a service without paying the provider for it. Whether that is ethical or not -- well this thread has definitely provided the various views.

I obviously don't agree with all laws, and of course, obeying them is a separate issue. And certainly, obeying the law doesn't make someone "ethical". The question posed is one of "ethics", not whether any member here is "ethical/unethical". However, I personally do find them useful in examining my ethics. I've discovered over the years, that sometimes it's not a problem with the law that I disagree with. Sometimes a law reveals a concept or problem that I hadn't noticed/considered before, and I change my ethics accordingly. The same thing with opinions that I read. Some of them do change my mind or way of doing things when I see things from a "different" perspective.

It is neither legal, nor ethical. You are stealing from the Postal Service by fraudulently claiming to have paid them for the delivery of your letter. You didn't pay them, the previous user of the postage stamp did and the service paid for was previously delivered.

It is theft. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is literally a "perfect" analogy. Assuming it's still valid for postage, a stamp is nothing more than a receipt for future services to be performed. Reusing an uncancelled stamp is EXACTLY like finding a receipt laying on the ground and then trying to get the item on the receipt free of charge.

I find it a tad ironic that we who so often on this board have complained about the disfiguring "marker-monkey" cancellation of stamps by mail carriers are now complaining that so often packages covered with stamps don't have their stamps cancelled. I know that we are frustrated by both and that what we want, as collectors are nice, neat cancels.

But it is just a tad ironic.

40 years ago, I used to collect covers that had cancels on at least one stamp, but in which the cancel would miss one or more stamps. I quit that a couple of decades ago -- it's too hard to get mail with multiple stamps that have any cancel at all!

It is illegal and that can be proved by the reference postal laws. Whether is ethical is a subjective question. Depends on the code of ethics. Without referencing a particular code of ethics its pointless arguing whether something is ethical. Just as its pointless saying its illegal without giving reference to a particular set of laws.

Each of us should decide for ourselves what is ethical. Some people choose to leave that decision to others (religion, law, tradition).

When referencing my code of ethics, I can find sympathy for those that wish to use uncanceled used stamps for postage, even though I probably wouldn't do it myself.

Well, not really. Ethics may be subject to dispute, people may disagree over whether something is ethical or not, but that's not the same as saying ethics is subjective. Scientists may disagree whether explanatory model X is superior (more true, better explains data) than explanatory model Z but natural science is not subjective.

Historians may disagree over which factor was most important in a battle or an economic depression or the fall of a monarchy but that doesn't mean history is subjective.

Ethics is a science, a field of knowledge. As in all fields of knowledge, practitioners may disagree (or they may largely agree). In ethics, there is vast agreement over basic principles: taking of innocent human life is always wrong, no exceptions.

Disagreements arise in ethics, usually, over the application of principles to a specific set of circumstancies: is action X a case of taking of innocent human life or not. Is action z a case of unjust taking of that which does not belong to you (theft) or not?

Law is no more and no less "subjective" -- people can and do disagree about whether Law X or Law Y are just laws or unjust laws. Ethically, most systems of ethics allow for disobedience of unjust laws if the matter at stake is serious enough. But such systems of ethics also point out that if you, for conscience reasons, disobey a valid law because you believe it to be unjust, you must be prepared to accept the punishment provided for by the law.

Otherwise we'd end up with anarchy, which is always unjust and damaging to everyone.

Yes, of course most collectors would like their used stamps to be in that Goldilocks zone. In my case, no one needs to feel too sorry for me as my desire for neatly cancelled stamps is nothing more than greed. I don't even collect US (either used or mint) so the stamps I receive on my mail will not go into my own collection. However, there is a nice resale market for recent used US commemoratives and neatly cancelled stamps are worth more. No, I don't expect the postal service to subsidize my selling by giving me neatly cancelled stamps every time. Just stating that the only reason I care about the cancels (or lack thereof) at all is due to how much I can get for them. Whatever I get out of them is basically like free money, anyway, so it's all good.

Years ago a member of my local stamp club bought a rather large lot of stamps on the club's auction night that were described as "MINT stamps but with no gum." I think he paid like 60% of face. When he started using them on mail (for his small business), many letters came back undelivered, with a USPS rubber stamp stating the stamps had already been used.

Did he pay any fines? Other than having to pay for more postage, that is.

It's pretty hard to argue against the idea that re-using an unmarked stamp is theft (inasmuch as it costs them to deliver it, and so that should be paid for). The real question, as I see it, is whether it matters. What are the consequences of doing it? In my view, practically none. Where I live (UK), they make a profit on postal services, which comes from people like me posting things - so I take a tiny bit back and their profits are shaved a little bit. It really doesn't present me with any ethical dilemma. If they don't like it, the answer's simple - cancel the stamps first time around!

Ethics is a branch of philosophy. Calling it a "science" is begging the question of its subjectivity. Ethics is not the same as an Ethos or code of ethical behavior. You will find very few philosophers in modern universities today that would admit the objectivity of any particular code of behavior. In fact, I got chewed out once (and rightly so) when I was a lad for proposing such an objective system to my advisor based on the nickel and dime philosophy of Ayn Rand. There have existed and probably still exist mores, customs, or codes of behavior in which taking "innocent" human life is acceptable.

In fact in my Saturday evening satanic worship ceremonies we frequently perform human sacrifice. Does that mean we have no standards of human behavior. I think not! You just don't approve. :-P

DId I say it was objective? I just said it was not subjective. And I used "science" in its proper sense: knowledge, subdivided into natural sciences, philosophical sciences, ethical sciences/knowledge.

That most modern philosophy professors are subjectivists just as most modern people are doesn't mean they are correct in being subjectivists. I don't give a hoot what most modern philosophy professors say. I care what Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, and a host of others say.

That we all agree that universal ethical principles exist is proven anytime you blurt out "that's unfair". If ethics were merely subjective, there'd be no point in saying, "that's unfair"--when you say that you are assuming that some standard of moral conduct extists that the other guy also agrees with. If you truly believed that all moral/ethics are subjective/relative, you'd have to say, "I subjectively think what you just did is unfair, but ethics is subjective, so, from your perspective what you did was fair, so there's no way to decide." Try that when the tank is rolling over you in Tiannamen Square.

No one in any culture and no philosophy professor who is sane thinks cowardice is good or taking innnocent human life or double-crossing a friend is moral. Philosophy professors and common citizens can disagree about whether a particular act is cowardly or whether a person killed was innocent.

That's what my first comment said. This is the basis upon which I said it.

In the example at hand: everyone agrees that theft is wrong. The disagreement here is over whether reusing a stamp that has already been used but seems not to have been used is an instance of theft.

And if ethics were merely subjective, there'd be no point in arguing over whether this is an instance of theft. The very fact that we are arguing shows that we think theft is wrong and employ reasons to explain why we think that this is or is not an instance of theft.

Just because I say ethics is not subjective does not mean I have any use for Ayn Randian objectivism. She may have been right on some things but her "objectivist" philosophy is immoral.

Just my subjective two cents.

I have received a few stamps on evelope that were uncanceled after going through the USPS system.

I think it was due to the fact that they covered a good portion of the envelope and after going through the spray cancel machine the envelope would have been rendered a total mess.

I will admit I have wondered about re-using stamps but have never and would never do it.

-MV