Ethics Of Selling/Buying Unused No Gum Postage?

Not only modern philosophers, but Protagorus, Hume, and a host of others have espoused subjectivism. Descartes had he not made fundamental mistakes in reasoning (begging the question) would also have stopped at "I think therefore I am" and concluded that everyone else is a figment. But the point is not whether philosophers are subjectivists, but whether anyone has the arrogance to assume their version of right and wrong apply to everyone.




Well that's absolutely untrue. There are a number of cultures in which taking innocent human life was (is) considered a natural way of life. Human sacrifice in ancient Peru, native tribes leaving mentally handicapped and aged tribe members to die, cannibals killing and eating their victims are all instances in which the ethical standard viewed the actions as good. More modern examples might get this thread even more off-topic so I won't mention them. These actions were ethical only in relation to an particular ethos. In relation to the Christian ethos they aren't. That is MY point. Judgements about morality are purely subjective and must have a standard for a judgement to make any sense.

We would consider rampant bribery in government wrong, but for many its an accepted way of doing business. Ask any savvy traveler to [some continent] how to get around the export restrictions at an airport. At one time, a bag of delicious apples would get you just about anything you wanted in certain countries. These things are not "wrong" there, but they are here. That's subjectivity at work.




Everybody does not agree that [all] theft is wrong. This particular kind of theft, reuse of used postage at least for me is borderline. Some kinds of theft I would probably also not classify as wrong. It depends on a lot of factors, including the victim, the perpetrator, the circumstances, and the culture in which it occurred. While you might champion the Sheriff of Nottingham I throw my support to Robin Hood or while you might support the workhouses of old England I support the right of a waif to steal a loaf of bread.

Thus, I conclude that the decision as to whether to defraud the government of a small amount or a large amount through reusing postage is a personal question with regard to ethics and a legal question with regard to US law.

[edit: deleted specific references that might cause offense]

Hungary, I notice you ignored the cowardice example. And cannibals eathing their enemies would not be eating, to their minds, innocent victims. And human sacrifice of war captives, which largely the case in ancient Meso and South America, is similar. In other cases ïnnocents voluntarily consented to their own deaths out of religious zeal or some other motive. And then there's scapegoat (Rene Girard) theory -- in each case they go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that their victims are guilty, not innocent. Such rare exceptions in which people truly thought to be innocent are executed against their will are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Am I saying that all of the above are good? No. I disagree with the application of the principle in all of the above cases, but my point was that those who did these deeds went to great effort to ensure that their actions were justified by some kind of non-innocence, even if I am convinced their victims were innocent. What we all agree on is that deliberate taking of innocent human life is wrong.

There are principles widely shared. Ethics is not merely subjective. Our disagreements are over applications of principles. That's basically what you yourself say about theft. Our disagreements over ethics are no more and no less subjective and no more and no less objective than the disagreements of natural scientists over, say global warming explanatory model or, in the past, heliocentrism or Big Bang theory or general theory of relativity. Obejctive and subjective are almost always involved in almost all fields of knowledge. The exceptions are logic and mathematics.

To me, ethics all boils down to one question, and this should pretty much be universal to all human beings in all cultures. That question is "would I want this to be done to me?" If the answer is "no", then it's not OK for me to do it to someone else. Basically it comes down to empathy. That still leaves some room for subjectivity, of course. If I'm a masochist, then would that make it OK for me to inflict pain on others since that's what I want from them? Everyone is not the same, so this isn't perfect, either, but it's about as close as one can get. I understand that there are few hard and fast, universal truths. But to me it's not much more complicated than having a little empathy for your fellow human beings, whether they're sitting right next to you, halfway around the world, a huge corporation or a government entity.

I can see how reusing postage can lead to cannibalism, but I'm not convinced that it is a gateway to satanism though.

Although it seems this discussion has gotten far off the topic of the ethical decision as to whether one would "re-use a postage stamp", some of this discussion led me to think of an old episode of "All in the Family", where the main characters were all discussing the subject of "stealing". Consider these points:

Archie "borrowing" a power tool from his job to do work at home over the weekend (rationale: I'll return it Monday morning before anyone even notices that it's gone...);

Gloria "taking" product samples from the cosmetic counter where she works (rationale: "But the store gives them away to customers...", countered by the question "But are you a customer?)

Mike receiving a person to person phone call where he told the operator that Mike won't be back until the next day or two (rationale: His way of signaling the person calling that he didn't have an answer but to call back another day and it saved the cost of a phone call by not talking directly to the person, countered by the question "You got your message through without paying for it...")

To stealing a pen with the name of his company printed on it. To taking coins that might be in the coin return of a vending machine. To accidentally dinging a door of a car in a parking lot and not leaving a note to tell the person about it.

It's an interesting study in human behavior to say the least.

I may never affix another postage stamp onto a letter again, regardless of whether or not the postage stamp is genuinely never used. The possible repercussions and philosophical implications are just too mind-boggling.

I'll stick to simple things, such as sorting and moving around little colored bits of paper...

If you read the text from the USPS on page 1 of this thread it is somewhat clear that one who reuses postage violates these rules if that someone reuses a stamp that was "used". But how is "used" defined? Is a stamp without gum "used"? It would be it was soaked off an envelope that was actually mailed. It could also have been in an album and soaked in water to remove the stamp from the album. Hence, you can plead innocence if you buy a lot of stamps sans gum as these may have never been "used" for their intended purpose.

If YOU want to make sure that YOUR stamp that YOU paid for is not re-used; Then Cancel it YOURSELF!
I have a Permit to cancel stamps, and I use my own rubber stamp to cancel my mail before I even send it.
So, no theft of my postage!
Problem Solved.

It's called stealing. Maybe nobody knows, and maybe it's only a few cents, but it's still stealing.

I was responsible for hiring many people before I retired...I would NOT hire someone with this type of ethics if I were able to determine it. (I was sometimes able to determine it, and never hired an applicant like that.)

An ethical man does not steal because he knows it is wrong.
A criminal steals even though he knows it is wrong.
Ethics are not flexible according to the situation.

Or...
An ethical man that believes stealing is right steals because it is right
A criminal that believes stealing is right steals even if he knows its right and is entirely ethical in his actions
Ethics are not flexible in reference to a particular code of behavior

That's usually NOT how it works in business. Theft is a loss, not lower profit, although it does reduce your profit if you have one. Both for-profit and non-profit businesses that sell goods/services will factor in loss due to non-payment (whether through default, theft...). They usually don't just say, "Oh well, I'll just have less profit (or take a loss in the case of a non-profit business)".

They may raise their prices accordingly to compensate for those losses. Which means everybody else who responsibly pays for their services/goods ends up covering the loss due to those who don't/won't/can't pay. The goal of any business is to achieve a certain profit margin (this is true even for non-profits, although some may choose 0% as their goal). Somebody does pay to make up for the loss, and it's not always the business itself.

I do a lot of social work, so nothing surprises me anymore. There are some people who have no qualms about stealing things from non-profit organizations. Their reasoning is straight-forward: "They weren't planning on earning a profit anyway, so what's the problem?"

This is not an indictment of anybody. Obviously not everybody has the same code of ethics. I'm always interested in seeing how other people look at things. However, I encourage people to develop their conclusions consistent with facts/reality, not just what we wish it were or based on incorrect information.

If I deposit a letter (1 oz or less), properly franked, the post office will deliver it almost anywhere in the world. That's their end of the deal. My end of the deal is to pay them 49 cents to deliver it anywhere in the US or $1.15 for anywhere outside the US. If they uphold their end of the deal, I can't fathom a reason why it would be justified not to uphold my end of it, regardless of how much money they may be making or losing. Pretending to pay them via previously used postage only adds a layer of deceit.

Hieronymus,

My last response (thank Old Nick).

I didn't "ignore" cowardice. It is irrelevant given that killing is a far more interesting example. Simply because some cultures share common principles does not make them objective or absolute. It only makes them common. They remain subjective and relative to the cultural mores. To say they aren't is arrogant in the least. Wars are waged today for the very reason that too many people believe their principles are absolute.

Shifting the argument as to whether morality is subjective in the general case to whether the innocence of a victim is subjective in a particular case is sophistry and a tactic for avoiding the actual argument. This doesn't change the argument, merely the language and the focus. In fact, your capitulation that the opinion of the killer as to the innocence of the victim is critical to the moral judgement about the action concedes the subjectivity of mores, at least in the particular case of killing.

But theft is more appropriate for this thread. At least then there is a semblance of staying on topic.

My disagreement with you is not "over applications of principles". You have proclaimed absolutes about the morality of certain actions and the phrasing of your absolutist assertions, such as "everyone agrees that theft is wrong," are doubly arrogant. That is mainly why I replied. Doubly arrogant because you both assert your morality is absolute and at the same time speak for me, other people and other cultures. Stating absolutes about morality without reference to a standard is equivalent to making statements about measurements without units, such as "the stamp image is 3.75 long". Its nonsense.

My ethical standards differ from yours. No amount of argument or sophistry will turn your ethical standards into absolutes and mine into nothingness. They are both opinions. It is not an opinion that reusing used postage is illegal in the US. Were you to state otherwise, you could easily be proved wrong. But I can't prove that certain kinds of theft are ethical in your system of beliefs. Nor can you prove that all theft is unethical in my system of beliefs.

Maybe not everyone thinks theft is wrong in a general sense, i.e. it might be OK for me to steal or for people to steal in certain situations or from certain people. Theft can also take many forms. Slavery is the theft of labor or wages, for example, and many people in the US had no ethical problem with THAT for a good couple centuries. There are countless stamp issues honoring those thieves (i.e. slaveholders*) in the US catalog. But I'd guess everyone, or very nearly everyone, would say theft is wrong if it happened to them. That's where opposition to theft becomes for all intents and purposes universal.

*Note how today most of us will make excuses for Founding Fathers such as Washington or Jefferson owning slaves. "It was OK then", "they were a product of their times", "but they were good masters" would all be common things said if one raised hackles about them buying and selling their fellow human beings for the purpose of stealing their labor. Many of the same people who would today say that they are NOT moral relativists will do exactly that with regards to slavery. Anyone trying to buy or sell another human being in this country today would rightly be considered a despicable person. If that makes someone a monster today, wouldn't that also make Washington and Jefferson monsters? After all, it was OK - in fact a status symbol to strive for - to own people in their day. But if you're a moral absolutist, you can't make such excuses for them. They were despicable monsters for owning human beings for the sake of stealing their labor, or if they weren't, then people doing the same today aren't, either.

Artful: You have gotten a long way away from discussing the ethics of using used stamps (and others have as well). OK maybe you are still discussing ethics, but I don't think you are making any impact on the topic of postage. Your point that ethics don't change even though laws and opinions do change is well taken.

Aside concerning your examples of Washington and Jefferson as slave owners: Both men were (late in life) bothered by the issue of slavery, but were unable to come up with a satisfactory solution even for their own slaves. Jefferson managed to free his slaves before he died and Washington freed his slaves in his will. To quote Jefferson "Slavery is like holding a wolf by the ears...if the present situation seems unpleasant, try turning loose!"