[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tompe

You are confusing philosophy and psychology. That you are morally obliged to do something does not imply that you have to have some beliefs.

I did not say anything about beliefs or not.

Originally Posted by tompe

If you are a utilitarianist of some kind you always looks at the consequence of actions to decide if they are morally right or not. There are no absolutes. And that is a perfectly sensible opinion. And from this standpoint your questions previously in the thread is answered by "you look at the utility and try to maximize it" and that can lead to you doing an action that lead to copyright infringement.

I'm not sure I understand your point here.

Are you saying that to determine if something is wrong or not your look at the consequences of the action?

So for example, if you could determine with certainty that there would be no adverse consequences to yourself if you murdered someone in cold blood then this lack of consequences would mean that committing the murder is not wrong?

I'm also not sure what you mean by "you look at the utility and try to maximise it".

Are you sugessting that if you can maximise the utility(benefit??) of your actions then this negates the wrongness of those actions?

So in this example if the person you were murdering had something you could use and really wanted, and murdering him would give you that thing therefore maximising the utility of the murder, then this makes the murder ok?

I can't help but think that I am have totally missed your point here. Either that or we have diametrically opposed definitions of wrong and right.

Cheers,
PKFFW