Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 21:48:09 08/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2001 at 23:54:53, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On August 07, 2001 at 22:56:08, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On August 07, 2001 at 19:01:55, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>>What bothers me when people say, "I saw these terms, but I choose to break them, >>>and this is alright because <fill in the blank>." That's a transparent attempt >>>to *avoid* responsibility. >> >> >>I'm uncomfortable with your way of looking at things. For instance, suppose >>there is law that requires exposing Jews for extermination. As you can see, >>there are good reasons that can "<fill in the blank>" quite well. > >This is an abhorent example. You compare not stealing software with gassing >people. Terrible example, but I got Ricardo's point. Let's get a better example: In many (most?) places in US it is illegal for mothers to breastfeed their babies in public (and there are many other idiotic laws but this one will suffice). Even in a parking lot, inside your car. Some people breastfeed anyway just because they do not know the law or because they *believe* that the law is outrageous and even anti-constitutional or because righteously believe that their children are first. Would i judge them as doing something wrong? of course not, in fact I admired them to follow what they think is correct in their conscience. You present a very linear picture of what is right or wrong, based upon the written law. It is not that linear. If it were, we would have burocratic employees doing the justice rather than judges and jurors. There is always interpretation and there are always laws that contradict each other and many that contradict the Constitution. It is not an exact science, because the concept of "right" and "wrong" it is not black and white. There is a lot of greys. Particularly in US, there are lots of people that were willing to disobey the written law just to have the chance to go to court and show that the law is.. illegal... (anti-constitutional for instance). Right or wrong Larry Flint comes to mind. Disobedience is not always a bad thing, and besides, US was built on disobedience (the second amendment is still there as a living proof). Chaos is not good, but a perfect order (monopoly) is also bad. When you have sumise people willing to accept everything you are in real trouble as a country. Regards, Miguel > >Of course I wouldn't argue that anyone should follow such a law. This can be >flipped around to make equally abhorent examples the other way, but I won't do >that. > >My point is that the terms are broken for personal gain, but there is some >excuse so that the person doesn't have to consider themselves a thief. People >steal the software not as social protest against Microsoft, but to save money. > >These people who are arguing this would happily buy multiple copies of this >stuff if by some economic quirk there was a 200% rebate. > >>In the case of Microsoft, if one believes they are a monopoly, I can see how >>someone might believe they are justified in not following Microsofts dictates if >>they feel Microsoft does the public (and them) harm as a monopoly. Whether they >>are really justified (or whether it is "wise" to to defy Microsoft) is a >>different story, but I would not say they are way off base. > >I think that it's too convenient to say that if a company does this or that >objectionable thing, that it's okay to steal from them. > >"This company desecrates the rain forest, therefore I am morally justified in >stealing money from them." > >Come on. The company's behavior is just a lame excuse to benefit personally. > >bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.