Quote:
Originally Posted by Mujokan
Well, one has to agree on the basis of why things are right or wrong to get anywhere. Lots of these discussions go on for ages, and really one side believes in "rules-based morality" and the other believes in "consequences of actions" morality, and so it doesn't matter if they talk forever. If both sides agree on the former, then they can decide if the action breaks the rules; or if the latter, they can work out what the consequences are. Otherwise people tend to talk at cross-purposes.
I think analogies are more helpful in the former case, for people who have rules based morality. If you have a black and white rule, "theft is always wrong", then you can try to come to a decision as to whether pirating fits the definition of "theft". One will try to define the essential characteristics of "theft" and see if piracy fits. But why does one have that rule? If it's not ultimately based on consequences, then it has to be based on religion or some other definitive "rulebook".
If it's based on consequences, in my opinion the best thing to do is look at statistics on piracy and see how much harm it does, and compare that to the benefits it provides. Ars Technica has done some articles in this vein.
|
I agree with most of this. But sometimes you can do som reasoning that is independen on the basic principle. If X is wrong and you can show that Y is equivalent to X then people have to agree that Y is wrong also independent of the reason they think it is wrong. But I can agree with that this kind of situations are less common.