 |
|  |
 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
I just heard on the radio that Hollywood is all upset that people are "stealing" their movies. Apparently they are traded over the Internet and some people try to take recording devices into the premier showing to sell copies later etc. My question is, on what basis can you say that this is "wrong." Or, how can you say that it is "right"? Who are what determines the moral standard? Do people just vote on it? What if someone was "stealing" the movies to show to poor orphans and widows who are shut up in some institution somewhere. Is it OK then? Again, what is the basis for your moral standards, or do you have a basis at all? And what prevents your standard from evolving to something evil? After all most evil empires thought they were doing the right thing. Even Hitler thought he was cleansing the world and most of Germany agreed with him. So how does your particular moral compass prevent such abuses, either individually or collectively?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
do u really not understand the concept of intellectual property rights? or is this thread some sort of bait for a certain response? I can't tell.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
It is kind of funny that Hollywood is complaining about the lack of morality. I never though of it from that angle. Maybe they are reaping what they sowed. Somehow there seems to be some justice here...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
I have to go to bed now but I should say that I base my morality on the words of Jesus: "Love your neighbor as yourself." If I made a movie I would want to get the money from the sales. On the other hand, if it had a social value I would give it away. Stealing is wrong. You can only take something if you have the permission of the owner.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
Good post GS, and can you answer this question:
And what prevents your standard from evolving into something evil?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Giant_Squid
|
 |
Fun Guy from Yuggoth
Jan 1970 time: 00:28
|
|
Lincoln: I think your question is a little odd. What I was trying to say is that we can't say something like "his standard is evil" or "my standard is evolving into something evil". It's possible that your standard could disagree with my standard (for example, you think fairness is good, I think fairness is bad) in which case it's your job to either convince me my standard is wrong through logic (which you have no way of doing unless we can agree on a premise - your "treat your neighbor as you would like to be treated" would make a decent premise as long as I agreed with you) or if there's no possible way to convince me through logic, either leave me alone or, if your moral system tells me that what I'm doing is too horrible to be left alone, try to stop me. Would this lead to vigilanteism and anarchy? Of course...except that most humans, luckily, have the same basic standards, like suffering = bad and justice = good that can be used for more rational argument. In the same way that mathematics can't be "proven" but can be obtained reasonably from certain postulates people just happen to like, there's no objective "proveable" morality, but one can construct one out of the postulates upon which we all agree.
UR, you're quite right. That was an awful argument I used, and I only used it as an example of the sort of debating technique I might try, since Lincoln (I think) doesn't actually care about the movie issue and is just trying to have a philosophical debate about the origin of morality here. If I had to actually debate it, I would probably hope that your standard of fairness implies honoring a contract and that the movie company distributes the movie under the implicit contract that you'll pay them for it. if you wanted to get all utilitarian and say that it probably causes more happiness when I got to see the movie than it does harm when the movie company misses out on $8.95, I would throw in the categorical imperative and say that with enough of that sort of thing no one would make movies at all and THEN where would we be. But in both cases I would be working off of a relative system of morality (in the first, our postulate that it's good to honor contracts, and in the second, utilitarianism)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
reds4ever
|
 |
of the Spion Kop
Mar 2001 time: 05:28
|
|
If hollywood doesn't get it's act together people will stop sealing their films! In a shocking display of negligence last week a top hollywood distributor, sent me a copy of Spiderman when I specifically entered XMen2 in the Kazaa seach engine! My bandwith was tied up for hours D/Ling the incorrect film, when will the RIAA clamp down on the studios willful and misleading practice of erroneously advertising films on Kazaa?
Last edited by reds4ever on 11-05-2003 at 10:18
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
The way to enforce a moral code is by law and punishment. People will not restrain themselves willingly in any great numbers. And even if the majority do restrain themselves from taking whatever they want it only takes a small number to screw up the whole society. eg. "Hey, if they can steal then so can I..."
Now the problem with enforcing a moral code with law is that if the moral code is bad then they are enforcing evil (ala Saddam). The founders of the United States had the right idea when they put the moral code on paper. But even then that code enforced slavery!
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|