cblaisd

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).]

fireflyreaction

i am humbled.

a tremendous post with excellent ideas.

i lay down my sword. my bachelors, masters and medical degrees (well, medical degree to be) need rest

but i'm still going to type using small letters.

regards

dave99

"Looking for Loopholes" is the working title of Randy's hagiography. He makes a living helping people get the maximum value out of FF programs.

Hundreds of posts a week here seek "loopholes" in FF programs and many find them. If this warrants eternal ****ation, at least you'll have many FT friends to keep you company. Unfortunately, the heat may melt their luggage tags.

(Edit: I can't believe that the word in the previous paragraph was censored. I don't think there is a dictionary in this dam nation that questions its use as taboo.)

[This message has been edited by dave99 (edited 12-22-2001).]

UserMark

What was this idea anyway? Can someone email it to me please?

artboy

I have to confess at being surprised by the universal moral outrage I'm reading (I didn't read the original post but can guess at the nature).

I believe the major disconnect that may be happening here has to do with the nature of what we're participating in -- this is a business relationship. We're not getting FF miles for being nice guys or for having upstanding moral courage, we get them by fulfilling the completely arbitrary rules of the game.

I don't think the correct moral/ethical question here is one of "do unto others" because FF Programs/airlines are not people -- they have only fiduciary and legal responsibilities, there is no moral or ethical requirement for incorporation that i know of.

Obviously since people are tossing around words like "fraud" this proposal was on shaky ground beyond the ethical considerations.

But if you really want to discount the idea on ethical or moral grounds, I think you first have to explain why we have a responsibility to the program in the first place to do anything beyond fulfilling the letter of the rules of the FF program?

Why do we have so many threads about loopholes and tricks in the first place? Ethically, the only "correct" way to get the miles would be to fly them, but we have never seen a clear consensus on how many boxes of kellog's cereal are ethical and how many are immoral.

Someone who flies 49,950 miles and is refused Gold status is keenly aware that the airline has no interest in the "spirit" of the programs -- ultimately their only obligation is to the letter of the contract.

They may do you a "favor" by giving you Gold status regardless, but this is only a favor. You have clearly lived up to the "spirit" of the FF program by flying the large number of miles, you have only failed to achieve the letter of the contract, and we see nothing immoral about their actions.

So the more significant question is whether we have any ethical or moral obligation to the FF programs at all? Or is it simply a matter of enlightened self-interest that we should avoid tampering with the value of the programs? Because that doesn't seem like a particularly high moral ground from which to throw stones.

(edited to clarify :P)

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

PG

I'd like to know too. The only thing I could figure out was that it involved buying gift certificates.

cblaisd

You raise interesting questions that are certainly worth considering. But, fyi, the original proposal had nothing to do with FF miles; it had to do with using real money to take advantage of a retailer.

IMO, fireflyreaction is to be commended for editing the info out of his post and hope that he'll not email the information out.

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

SAN man

Bravo to the consistent outrage in this thread! You are the ethical, play-hard-within the-rules group I want to learn from!

fireflyreaction

hello all

i specifically edited out the details of the loophole for a reason. i thought of a way to replace that content with "spirit". i do not want the loophole exploited. simply, i was trying to raise a debate on legality/ethics/morality of exploiting loopholes that:
a) could be on shakey legal grounds
b) if legal, were they moral and/or ethical?

the actual loophole isn't important. it's the issues i'm interested in. i think artboy had an interesting response. the original loophole took advantage of a retailer and by doing so, enabled the gain of many FF points for very little money. but, based on what artboy says, can we apply his thinking to businesses. simply replace FF with businesses and what happens?

by tampering with businesses who are in partnerships with FF programs, are the businesses not extensions of the FF programs? (a real question - i'm not sure of the answer.)

i'd love to hear someone's response to artboy .


as an aside, i will not be emailing out the loophole i found. i deleted that specific information out to prevent exploitation of the loophole.

cblaisd, i'd love to hear more of a response to what artboy said. regardless of the original proposal, i'd love to hear what you think about specific ethical or moral obligations we might have to FF programs (if any)!

2:21 is my bedtime. goodnight all

regards
firefly

zrs70

I missed the argument here. Are people saying that it is immoral to buy thousands of dollars in mags to earn miles? Or is it something else?

cblaisd

Something else entirely.

Kremmen

To have a sensible discussion, it is important to have at least some idea what we are discussing.

As has been mentioned, the airlines, etc, write the rules and generally uphold them to the letter. I'd say any "loophole" is fair game, in the absence of any illegal, fraudulent, etc, behaviour.

After all, FT is often about loopholes of some sort. $30 trans-atlantic air fares. 0$ Hilton stays. Obtaining bonuses the airline didn't tell us about. Obtaining status in hotel schemes without any stays. Getting cheap Priceline stays and then getting upgrades with hotel status.

fscher

I don't believe that the businesses are an extension. They buy the awards and give them as an incentive since they know that is what people want. If we were collecting S&H greenstamps instead, they would purchase large units of those. In most cases the airlines say they are NOT responsible for what these businesses do and will refer you right back to them when something goes wrong or THEY (the other businesses) don't send your miles to the particular frequent flyer program. Another example is there have been some holiday promotions giving away $10.00 Toys R Us Certificates with purchases......but it is made clear that Toys R Us has NOTHING to do with the promotion or any affiliation with the other company. These companies are simply giving their customers what they want. They may get a discount from Toys R Us for buying them in bulk, but that is it.

dave99

By revealing the alleged loophole, FT's collective morality could really be tested.
Later, the people able to milk the most "loophole miles" could be forced to wear a large scarlet letter "L" while traveling. This would warn the airlines about the person's bizarre loophole driven proclivities. In the long run, however, I really think we may need a national Director of Loophole Security.

PG

How about a new "business idea". Buy GCs (and get miles) through Goldpoints and sell the GCs on ebay for a discount.