Shoes on in the house, Yes or no? Discuss.
I honestly don’t understand why the tape on the edges matters. The recipient is just going to rip the tape off and throw it away, anyhow. As you say, it harms the media in no way, so the only thing that is actually changed is the recipient can tell you’ve opened the package. I wonder the same thing about people who read books so carefully “nobody would ever know.” I mean, if reading/watching/playing someone’s gift before you give it to them is totally fine and dandy, why should it honestly matter if they can tell you’ve done so, provided the product isn’t damaged?
They weren’t taking what you said personally. They were taking what someone else said personally, because that person decided to be insulting about it, full well knowing that his comment applied to other people in the thread.
When somebody does that sneaky way of insulting people outside the pit, they deserve to be called on it. And, as I’ve said repeatedly, if you don’t apologize when you realize you’ve offended someone, you don’t get to say it was misinterpreted. People who don’t mean to offend apologize when someone is offended. Even if you didn’t originally intend it, the lack of apology means you do mean it now.
As for the topic of this thread, I’m trying to figure out the rational reasons behind the morality you guys are expressing so strongly. This is a board about fighting ignorance, which requires rationally questioning assumptions, so I assume you guys have done this and come up with a reason why it is better to maintain this moral than to lose it.
I sure can’t use utilitarianism, because what you don’t know doesn’t hurt you. If the person who gets the book doesn’t know you read it, they are happy. If you get to read the book, you are happy. That’s one more happy person than before, so that should be an ethical win.
I can understand the idea that, if you got the item for yourself, it is less special than if you got it for that person. And that doing this can actually result in your happiness being less. What I don’t understand is the assumption that, if you choose to read it, you must have gotten it for yourself. You know your own motivations, and no one else need ever know, so you don’t have to worry about appearances.
All I can conclude is that, if the other person will not know the item is used, there is no harm in using the object ahead of time. Once there’s actual signs of use, then it becomes a push and pull situation, depending on how much the other person would care and how much you would care that they care, as well as how much you get out of reading the book. (These days I’d probably err on the side of reading the book from a download online, to avoid any risk of damage. I have no ethical problems with getting an object in one medium if I own it in another.)
Especially with books, since people, you know, go to the stores and read books (or at least portions of them) without buying them all the time. The book you bought from a store is almost certainly used already. While today you might actually buy an unused book, chances are that, in the past, you always gave used books. You only didn’t care because you thought it was new. Nothing about the book changed.
I need read no further, since I can just ditto the above.
I do not like the use of the word sacrifice. The ultimate gift creates happiness both in the gifter and the giftee. Said gift should be given out of expendable funds, not actually causing you to have to sacrifice something.
I mean, would you be happy knowing that someone delayed their rent and almost got kicked out of their house, just to give you a present you really wanted? Most of us would say no. The fact that it was a sacrifice did not make the gift more special. It made you feel worse, and decreased the happiness of the giver.
No, gifts are not about sacrifice, but just the thought involved. The reason buying something for yourself and later gifting it seems tacky is that you spend less time thinking about finding the right gift for them and more time thinking about finding something that was right for you. It’s the amount of effort, both physical and mental, that makes it special, not the sacrifice.
Even if the other person never figured out what you did, you have deprived yourself of the happiness of the time spent thinking about the other person. That makes sense to me. You are subtracting something from the experience instead of merely adding. That does not hold true for reading a book that you bought someone else.
That time and effort is the sacrifice, at least in part. It’s time and effort you could have spent on yourself. Of course, I’m not suggesting that someone shouldn’t pay the rent to buy someone a gift, but it’s about treating someone else rather than yourself.
If your point is that, because spending that time or money on someone you care about rather than yourself makes you happier it’s not a sacrifice, then fair enough. Maybe there’s a better word for it, I can’t think of one at the moment.
If you’re in a position where you can’t afford to buy someone a gift, but can give them something you already own, of course that’s more than acceptable. Really, it’s always fine as long as it’s clear that’s what you’re doing, I just think there’s something fundamentally different between “I read this book/watched this film and thought you’d enjoy it too, here have it” and “I know you really want this book, so I bought it for you”.
it’s not morality, it’s etiquette. This is why words like “tacky” are being used instead of “evil”. Buying a gift for someone, then using it for your own personal pleasure before you give it, is tacky.
Let us consider the DVD angle. People won’t do this with a DVD because it affects the packaging. Do you find unwrapping a DVD a valuable and enjoyable experience? I don’t, and I don’t know anybody that does. Frankly unwrapping that shit is a service. But, it’s not OK because it is now obvious that you did something that we are to believe is perfectly fine to do.
I had the opposite happen. My mom gave me a wonderful book about our city history and long lost buildings. I had it for maybe 2 days, when she called and wanted to quickly borrow it. She had some friends in town and wanted to drive them around and show them pictures of before and after.
I got it back about a year later. The dust jacket was ripped and wrinkled, and the book was not “new” anymore. I know it’s just a book, but I treasure my reference books and I’m still pissed about it.
Fair enough. I’m happy with the word “sacrifice”.
To my mind, the “sacrifice” is in the effort of selection, not in the relatively trivial expenditure of money and effort that goes these days into puchasing a new book.
Finding a good book, one that I know the other person will like, is hard. Buying a new book, once you have found it, is easy - one click on Amazon, something I do every couple of weeks.
Thus, if I have a good book (that is, one I know the other person would like) from a used bookstore, from my library, or from Amazon, it doesn’t matter that much - as it were, the extra “sacrifice” involved in buying it new (assuming of course it is available new) is trivial. The main “sacrifice” was in choosing, not buying. The “treat” was the effort of comming up with something the other person would enjoy. It isn’t much of a gift to just buy a random new book.
Etiquette, in the ultimate result, is about smoothing the way for others. Not about insisting that things be a certain way or you will get offended. Hence the negative reaction upthread to the person who said they would discard their friends if their friends violated this exact bit of etiquette.
My favorite anecdote about etiquette involves Queen Victoria. It may or may not be true, but it is instructive either way.
Allegedly, Queen Victoria was a real stickler for etiquette. One day, she had some foreign visitors to a formal banquet - maharajahs from India, I believe. Before the banquet began, finger-bowls with slices of lemon were set out in front of each guest. The foreign visitors, not knowing what these were, picked up the bowls - and drank them.
There was a collective gasp of horror from the assembled English nobility at this terrible breach of etiquette. What terrible consequences would follow?
However, Queen Vic responded by picking up her finger bowl and drinking it herself. Seeing this, so did all the other English nobles, and the feast proceeded in an atmosphere of goodwill.
The lesson here is that what is important was the cordiality of the occasion. The foreign dignitaries intended no harm or insult, so Queen Vic did the right thing - to put them, and everyone, at their ease. A stickler would have caused a scene, and for what? Etiquette exists to serve people, not the other way around.
How does this story relate to the issue of not removing the packaging? Well, quite simply. Unlike a book, with a product that comes pre-packaged, there is an expectation that the packaging will still be attached when people get it. It puts people at their ease, exactly because of this expectation, to retain the packaging on a gift. If you know the person, and the occasion, and know that they would not be offended by an unpackaged DVD, then by all means, give them one. If someone genuinely thinks (wrongly, as it turned out) that you would not mind an unpackaged DVD, and gives you one, they are in the same position as the foreign dignitaries in the above anecdote - it is best to do as Queen Vic did and, as it were, “drink the fingerbowl” rather than creating a scene.
Of course, if they were just giving you any old crap from their collection because they couldn’t be bothered, that’s a different story - same as if they gave you (say) a brand-spanking-new paperback of Dan Brown because it was the first thing they saw in the bookstore. A crappy gift is a crappy gift.
This is my favorite. It’s okay as long as you don’t get caught!
This thread, though, is not really about one’s reaction to a breach of etiquette, but what is the appropriate etiquette in the first place.
Queen Victoria is a model of proper etiquette in the face of a breach. However, if the guest had asked “Do we drink from these bowls?” I doubt very much that she would say “Sure, go for it, it’s all good.” She would indicate the correct action, would we then chastise her for insisting that things be a certain way?
To me, the purchase of a gift precludes my own use of the gift, it is NOT purchased for me. After it’s given, it becomes the property of someone else, and I may request to borrow it, just like any other item. The fact that I can use the gift without the recipient knowing does not change anything on my side.
Most books I lend out meet a similar fate. I’d definitely prefer they read it BEFORE giving it to me so they don’t lose or ruin it!
Certainly.
The general proposition that emerges from the Queen Vic anecdote is that etiquette is all about putting others at their ease - NOT about adhereing to some formalized set of rules for their own sake. It is really quite arbitrary whether the bowl with lemon-water is a “finger bowl” or “lemonade”. Certainly, when in Rome one should do as the Romans do - hence, if Queen Vic explained in advance that these were finger-bowls, the visiting dignitaries would be wrong to drink from them.
What we have in this thread, is a widespread difference of opinion as to what the proper etiquette is (can there be any doubt of it, when half the posters say one thing and half say another?). It is, in the end, arbitrary. There is nothing, I submit, essential about this particular bit of alleged etiquette that demands that it be one way or the other. What we get is a lot of argument-by-assertion of the “it’s just wrong” variety, which isn’t convincing to those who do not feel that it is wrong.
In such a case, one should strive to put others at their ease.
This means that when giving gifts where it is obvious when it has been opened, like the wrapped DVDs in your example, the “default” ought to be to not give stuff that is opened … unless you know the recipient doesn’t care. Why? Because, as we know from this very thread, some folks don’t like that. Why cause them annoyance?
On the other hand, when it comes to objects where the origin can’t be determined by the recipient - like a book - the default ought to be that it doesn’t matter, unless there you know the recipient has a specific phobia about that. Why? Because it will not upset them, or put them out of their ease, if they don’t know where the present came from, and except in the case of a specific phobia, it’s unreasonable for them to inquire (a/k/a “looking a gift horse in the mouth”).
<emphasis mine>
You’re still missing the point here. There’s no problem with giving as a gift a book from any of the sources that I’ve highlighted. Nobody has suggested that it is objectively ‘wrong’ (for some definition of ‘wrong’) to give a book purchased from a Used Book Store as a gift. Nobody has suggested that it is wrong to take a book form your personal collection and give it as a gift to someone who would appreciate it; indeed, I can easily see how that might make the gift all the more special, as it’s then the gift of a treasured item rather than just something ordered off the Internet. And certainly nobody has suggested that all gifts must be purchased new, never before touched by human hands. For example, I don’t have a problem with “Oh, I bought this book for myself, but I can’t really get into it…but I know my sister would love it! I’ll give it to her for her birthday!” (assuming it’s still in good condition).
What has been suggested is simply that it is wrong to purchase a book (or any other item, really), with the explicit intent of giving it to another person as a gift, and then to decide to read (use) it yourself before giving it. The idea here, IMO at least, is that once an item has been purchased as a gift, it ‘belongs’ to the giftee; it’s no longer yours to do with as you please.
I’ll agree with you that the ‘sacrifice’ is in the choosing, not the buying. But to me, once you’ve chosen the gift, it’s rather tacky to then go ahead and use it for yourself. There is a big difference between “I bought this book and really enjoyed it, and I thought you’d enjoy it to, so I’m giving it to you” and “I bought this book for you because it sounds like something you’d enjoy, but then I decided I’d go ahead and read it first”…and it has nothing to do with the state of the book, but everything to do with the intent of the giver.
I also thought some more about the whole “I will read a book but won’t take the tape off a video game” and the conclusion I came to for my reasoning is that unopened copies are valuable. I assume that the person wants it in order to play it, but how am I to know? They may want it to put on display next to their other collectibles for a specific series. On top of that, there’s things like one-time free DLC and the like that I wouldn’t want to accidentally use up on a brand new copy. Furthermore, if they didn’t actually want that game they couldn’t return it if the tape had already been removed. The last one’s a pretty good reason for not messing with any sort of packaging, period. If I picked up a shrink-wrapped book for someone, I wouldn’t be taking the shrink-wrap off.
On the contrary, lots of people upthread are suggesting exactly what you are claiming no-one is suggesting. The “suggestion” made is that only those things specifically purchased as gifts can be given as “gifts” and so it it tacky to give (for example) a favorite book out of your own library as a “gift”.
To provide but one example, Inner Stickler posted as follows in post 157:
My own position is, and always has been, that whether it is “tacky” or not depends on circumstances - that you can’t make a hard and fast rule.
As for the specific scenario of buying a gift specifically for someone else and then reading it first, it is IMO only “tacky” or “bad” in two situations I can think of off the top:
(1) Where you really bought it for yourself and, in effect, don’t really care whether the other person would like it. This is just a variant on “Homer buys Marge a Bowling Ball for her birthday” - the “gift” is for you and not her, you are just pretending otherwise. This would of course apply whether you read it first or hope to borrow it later - both are tacky.
(2) Part of the “gift” is that the other person be first with the story. The OP may be an example of that. For example, where some teens are into the Harry Potter series when it came out, and one gets another the very latest hot off the press - part of the excitement of the gift is that the receiver be first to read the very latest. This doesn’t really apply to (say) Great Expectations.
Otherwise, the person resceiving it should, objectively, be totally indifferent to whether you read it first or not. If the gift was chosen with care, for them and not for you, and it isn’t something where being first makes any difference, there is no reason why they would care.
I stand corrected. I should have known better than to use the word “nobody”. But I maintain that the majority of the people who have participated in this thread to not think that “gifts must under all circumstances be newly purchased, never before used, items”.
The only argument I have with you here is that the person receiving the book should be indifferent as to it’s prior history. I think that if it looks like a brand-new book, and there is no history of giving ‘pre-read’ books, that it’s perfectly reasonable for the person to assume and expect that it’s a brand-new book.
Imagine a scenario where you give someone a book, and you tell them “I know this book looks like it’s brand-new, and it was when I bought it…but then I decided I’d go ahead and read it before I wrapped it up and gave it to you”. If the other person is likely to say (and think) “Cool! thanks for the book!”, then there’s no problem. If the other person is likely to say “Oh…thanks,” while thinking, ‘that was kinda rude’, then you’ve done a ‘wrong thing’. And if you would never think to actually say such a thing out loud to someone (as it seems that some people upthread were implying), then you’re simply being dishonest.
Ultimately, it’s up to you to do what you think is most appropriate for yourself and the people you are dealing with. I would prefer to err on the side of caution (or formality, or ‘taking extra care to make sure I don’t do something that might be perceived as rude’), and I guess I’d hope that other people would provide me the same courtesy.
I don’t agree that it is “simply dishonest” to fail to tell someone you read the book before gifting it. Why would it be incumbent upon you to tell someone stuff like that if you know they would disapprove, any more than to tell them (say) “buy the way, I know you think gambling is low class and a bad thing, while I am of the opinion that it is a perfectly acceptable pastime if kept within reason - well guess what, the money I paid for your gift was won by gambling! Enjoy!”. That strikes me as rubbing someone’s nose in it, which is the opposite of polite. Going out of one’s way to mention the gambling in association with the gift is not “honesty”, it is more like deliberately being abrasive. Sure, if they knew the source of the money, there is a good chance they would be unhappy. But there is no reason for them to know. Nor is there any reason for the giver to permanently give up gambling in order to not “spoil” gifts to someone who dislikes it.
The recipient really should not be playing Sherlock Holmes here - that’s known as “looking a gift horse in the mouth”.
Now, if they have a real phobia about it, sure, better not to take the chance that they accidentally find out and are hurt. That’s analogous to why one should not give an Orthodox Jew something non-kosher, even if they are unlikely to know the difference.