There are values important in any community in addition to "free discussion of ideas." Nor do I think it is even the "paramount" value; very, very important yes, "paramount" no. But we clearly disagree. And not every discussion of (to use your euphemism) a "loophole" is "commendable." If you found a bank vault unlocked, a discussion of how best to enter it would not be exploiting a "loophole" and it would not be "commendable," it would be conspiracy to commit theft. And it would be morally wrong, even it it were somehow legal.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> i'm not aruging it's not legal fraud at all. i'm not capable of positing such an argument....

You're a student, no? You may wish to take some more moral philosophy courses or ethics courses then. Particularly since you seem to think (per your post upstream -- "take for example, plato's discussions on the republic. is it immoral? that's for every person to individually decide" ) that Plato's Republic is counseling that everyone has the right to decide for him- or herself re a given moral issue. (You also might wnat to consdier some work on orthography, especially the proper capitalization of words)

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> i do not see how this discussion reflects upon me as a person. i have not done it, nor am i condoning it. i brought it up. ...this reminds me of peter singer, a famed bioethicist. he advocated that infanticide was ethically permissible. he didn't condone it, of course, but using interesting thought experiments, he provided an interesting perspective. of course, there were those who misunderstood his stance and condemned him....

As one with advanced degrees in philosophy, please know that I am aware of folks like "peter singer" [sic -- for capitalization]. I'm also aware of arguments that some philosophers have made for child abuse through touting the "benefits" of older men having sex with young boys. It's easy to make an argument for a morally repugnant position, while disclaiming the "condoning" of the position. It also helps in the tenure rat-race. The harm it does is when folks who are less thoughtful, moral, and articulate than gentlemen like Peter Singer take up those positions and trivialize and misunderstand them for purposes of an "academic" discussion. I'm not sure Singer would be pleased to know that you are quoting him with approbation in order to justify what appears to be stealing.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> i'm interested to hear what others say. is it unethical to exploit a loophole if the loophole is legal? ...

Yes it is. Since you want to cite philosophers, 1) it is clearly unethical on utilitarian grounds since it very quickly will undermine the greatest good for the greatest number (as also implied by a poster or two upstream); 2) on deontological grounds ( pace either Kant or Rawls, e.g.) it is not an action that you could will universally (John Rawls' A Theory of Justice would be particularly helpful here); 3) on Aristotelian grounds, the habits of action you are proposing will lessen the character of the community; 4) and if you're inclined to Christian theological ethical norms, you are proposing an action that clearly wouldn't stand the test of "Do unto others....."

Thank you for editing out the tawdry details of your intial post, though.

(Edited to take account of more closely reading the upstream posts)

[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited 12-22-2001).]