@pbacot said:
Jeff,
Just interjecting--for sake of the discussion: Are you arguing some sort of moral relativism? We can't tell other cultures how to behave, therefore there's no debate?
yes, i guess i'm arguing moral relativism.. in that it's incredibly likely our values in this neck of the woods will be different in a hundred years from now just like they were different a hundred years ago.
and that moral values don't change at a consistent pace for every individual or culture.
so yeah, at this very exact point in time in the u.s, software piracy is illegal and is also seen as a moral wrongdoing.. but it's all relative and we can't (or shouldn't) expect every other culture to see things the way we do.. especially when realizing it's very possible that in a hundred years time, those people might look back at us going "holy crap! i can't believe they made a french fry recipe top secret and allowed a handful of individuals to profit so immensely off of doing so" (or whatever)
(though honestly, i do think things will probably get worse in these regards before they start getting better.. so maybe 500 years time for that example )
but really, who am i to say what's right or wrong? who is anybody to say that? but to make things worse, the people who are saying what's right or wrong aren't doing so from a moral standpoint..
at the top, it's the people who are making money (and i mean-- bringing money into existence in the first place.. the creators) that are creating the laws on how we are to use the money.. we're arguing about the morality of using money but the system itself is rotten from the top down.. and the more we continue to enforce these people's rules, and especially the more we allow the institution of money to be a guiding moral light, the longer the problem will continue..
@unknownuser said:
By bringing up past legality of slavery, therefore all criminality (all rule of law?) is not only suspect but not worthy of discussion? Do ethics, fair trade, fair payment for services, and private property also fall to the wayside, because some authorities allowed atrocities at some other time and place?
not really and it wasn't the point i was trying to bring up when mentioning those things.. just meant to say that 'right and wrong' changes and can do so in relatively short amounts of time..
however, our current lawmakers are committing huge crimes themselves.. so yes, their laws are baloney or they're certainly not practicing what they preach.. we're sitting here arguing about stealing software and yeah, it's illegal under current law.. just like it should be illegal to invade a country and rob it's citizens of the natural resources under their feet.. but the lawmakers simply have to change the law to make that act ok..
morals and laws aren't the same thing.. if the law suddenly changed to "it's illegal to charge money for software" would you quit using software since it's violating your personal code of ethics?
point being, there are lines being crossed in the conversation where legality and morality are being used interchangeably when really they are different.