Quote:
Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj
No, I depend on the fact that it's not a sentient mind, and doesn't have feelings.
Fine for you, I guess. I'm not sure how far your morality extends though - do you apologize to chairs when you sit on them?
|
Yes, you're right, fine for me. I don't expect anyone else to do as I do.
The second sentence, though, sounds like you're seeing this all from your sentient-vs.-non-sentient perspective, and in a one-dimensional way.
I thought it would be understood that the ethics of this thread has to do with greed. In your example, you give two outcomes:
- receive extra Kindles for the price of one: do nothing and take the extra Kindles. Lucky, you say. You'd do nothing.
- receive extra Kindles and lawyers who demand payment for all of them. Unlucky, you say. Would you also do nothing and just pay? If so, you've displayed no greed. You'd lose sometimes, you'd win other times.
On the other hand, if in case 2 you'd fight back, then these are two-factor ethics, depending on both A) the sentience of who you're dealing with, and B) whether the outcome is favorable to you. That would be convenient ethics. Conveniently in your favor. No sentient being would let you get away with keeping the Kindles, they'd punish you (ostracism, telling your friends what you've done, calling police, charging theft). Corporations won't really punish you. So everything is set up in your favor, you take what's not due you whenever you can't really get caught. I don't really mean you, but that's what comes out of the one-dimensional sentient-vs-insentient model you seem to be describing.
I saw your post and reacted to the suspiciously convenient ethics. It's about greed, not sentience, so your chairs analogy indicated that you missed the point entirely. I'm not saying anything about you, personally. You might be the better person out of the two of us. (After all, I feel the need to practice not being greedy.)