Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
If that means breaking the law (and I'm not for a moment suggesting that you are), that brings up the question of whether we have a moral right to break laws that we disagree with.
Isn't one of the duties of being a citizen in a democracy to obey all the laws, not just those that we happen to agree with?
IMHO, if one thinks that a law is unjust, one should fight to change it using the appropriate judicial process, not simply say "I don't agree with that law, so I'm not going to obey it".
Imagine the chaos if everyone in society decided on an individual basis which laws they were going to obey and which they weren't.
If one does think that a law is unjust and decide to disobey it "on principle" then surely one should have the "guts" to do so openly and accept whatever the punishment is, rather than break it secretly and furtively, and then claim some sort of "moral superiority" for having done so, don't you think?
|
Someone, I forget who, once said that in a democracy it is the citizen's responsibility to break those laws with which he disagrees. Granted, it is an extreme position. There are many who, I think, would be moved to break certain laws on principle were it not for the fact that only the wealthy are able to prevail in court. When last I was involved (peripherally) in litigation, it was the suits with the $500 an hour lawyers who made the rules and walked away with the stuffed panda. It is not "guts" that is needed, but money. So we are left with a sort of guerrilla mentality where netizens take little bites out of the system wherever they can. The only answer to this that I can think of is to devise systems that are perceived as fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EatingPie
The public vs. private morality is a form of moral relativism. Morals change based on who, what, where you're dealing. I want to note, however, that the OP, DeusEXMe, brought up serving God. In this case, we are NOT dealing with moral relativism, but universal morality -- and thus if it's wrong to do something to your brother, it's wrong to do it to a stranger. This isn't a function of affluence, it's a universal function, applicable across the board.
To whit, let me make it applicable to this situation, as it WAS part of the OP.
Let's say a rich person who downloads a stranger's e-book without paying is wrong. How can it be right for a poor person to do the same? Saying "it's okay because they can't afford it" is actually justification.
So I fully disagree with this "function of affluence" argument. Certainly there are 3rd World countries (China in particular) pirating DVDs like mad, and it's facilitated by the relative cheapness of the DVDs and the relative poverty of the people. That does not mean it's okay. It's still piracy, and still -- ultimately -- wrong. The same would go for e-books.
-Pie
|
You are absolutely right. It is difficult to convince the world's poor of that however. I suspect that equality is the basis of compliance -- morally and legally.