i think PG and wormwood are expressing exactly what cblaisd said best!
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
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....."
</font>
so, i'm curious - there seems to be a greater number of individuals who agree that this is destructive. HOWEVER, couldn't exploiting all loopholes be deemed unethical by the thinking above? doesn't cycling money through c2it qualify for ethical d***ation?
if a loophole/exploitation scheme is morally/ethically unacceptable for some individuals (it cannot be described as universally, since someone should come see the volume of email in my inbox regarding this), does that make it wrong to discuss in on FT? i think in that respect, to answer wormwood, yes, the opinion of others counts here.
(a clarification for wormwood - no, i'm not arguing that because it was posted here before that it must be alright. that would be just bad logic on my part. i'm just trying to point out that the c2it promo wasn't tackled using this moral/ethical perspective at all. nothing else)
merry christmas eve
(edited because i didn't realize da-m was an offensive word)
[This message has been edited by fireflyreaction (edited 12-24-2001).]