eBook piracy, how common is it?

[sirbruce]

There are troublesome cases in most absolute moralities as well. The classic case is the exhortation to "always tell the truth" -- and then the Nazis show up at your door, asking if Anne Frank is in your attic.

But personally, I'm a fan of morality first, and utilitarianism second. It's *impossible* to know all the plusses and minuses of our actions, and moral guidelines exist to be followed almost regardless of their results. If you're face with two or more equally moral actions then weighing the utility of each to help make one's choice is wise; however, one must undertake it with the full knowledge that one's estimate of the outcomes may be incorrect, and in any case it doesn't make any decision "right" or "wrong", just one "better" and one "worse". But even those evaluations can change over time.

[Andybaby]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

In this case, would "file-sharing" the full text of the ebook through a mechanism such as p2p to unknown persons be considered wrong? Would obtaining a copy of said book through such a mechanism as p2p be wrong?

Cheers,
PKFFW

Yes, it would be simply, as that is everything that the pirates ask for.

Some people will never buy it though, but in this case. if they try to justify it to themselves as not wrong than they are lying to themselves. any adult who has a job should buy this fictional book.

but i think and hope, most pirates are Peoples Under 25, who dont have jobs. who someday will, and then they will buy their stuff

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

This statement really makes no sense. You reply to people who insult you but not to those who describe you?

Makes no sense? Yet, you seem to understand what I am saying perfectly so I'm not sure why you say it makes no sense.

Yes, I do not respond to someone who simply describes me and does not add anything to the discussion by doing so. On the other hand, if someone directly insults me I choose to respond, usually by asking them to refrain from insulting me.

How does that not make sense? Or do you mean you don't understand why I would choose to act that way? If that is what you mean, that is entirely different and perhaps that is what you should say.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

I love how you stack all the "Try to"'s in order to make your example seem more dramatic.
So, you aren't allowed to be "personal" but you are allowed to give silly dichotomies like this in order to force me to choose the former? Kudos.

Yes, I believe one should not get personal in a discussion. One should debate the issue at hand. Do you disagree?

As for silly dichotomies, I stated you should choose any sort of thing you would not want to have happen to you. If you don't like my example choose anything else you like. That way you are not forced to choose from either of my "silly dichotomies". Fair enough?

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Anyway, first off, don't be silly: "murder" isn't an act that can be established, unless someone freely confesses to it (and you're certain he/she isn't covering for a spouse/sibling/child etc.) The term is already loaded with preconceptions about the reason why someone did it. (ie. for no good/selfish reason)
"murder in cold blood" is a statement lawyers use to convince juries; it's not descriptive of anything, apart from an accusation as to the psychological state of the person who acted it out. Which is, again, an accusation society makes in order to chastise the killer, or an accusation one person in society makes to convince the rest of the irredeemability of that person. It is, in itself, not an argument.
Similarly, "murder is wrong" is also as redundant as can be, and when used as an argument, circular. "Murder" already means "wrongful killing". Luckily, however, there is a legal system that forces the accuser to prove that the accused indeed had the intention, rather than just ascribing it to someone and hanging them before they can respond.

Seems to me you are playing semantics rather than simply answering. Arguing about what constitutes murder, arguing about the description given to it, arguing about whether or not it can be established. That's all beside the point and I think you know it.

Do you agree or disagree that murder is wrong? That there is no justification for murder? If so then there would be your absolute. If you don't want answer because it is one of my silly dichotomies then feel free not to as I don't really care about your answer, I'm asking so as to prompt you to think about the question.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Killing, on the other hand, is what you should be talking about. And "killing" is considered justifiable in so many scenarios. There's self-defense, there's just war, there's even "preemptive war", there's crimes of passion, etc. So yes, I can think of examples where killing would be justified, without being one of those scary psychopaths.

I did not use the example of killing because, as you say, there are many scenarios where killinig would be considered justifiable. That is precisely the reason I used the example of murder and tried to make the example as clear cut as possible. Whilst murdering someone does constitute killing them, killing someone on the other hand does not necessarily constitute murdering them. So why would I use as an example of an absolute something I do not think constitutes an absolute? That would be kind of silly don't you think?

So having hopefully cleared that up, can you think of any reason why someone murdering you for absolutely no reason whatsoever would not be considered a "wrong" act?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[tompe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I did not say anything about beliefs or not.

Well you did in "think of something you would really really not like to happen to you" and "try to convince yourself that if someone did that to you they would not have done something wrong". All this is actual states of the mind and is psychology and is orthogonal to what ought to be done (moral philosophy).

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Patricia

In classical Utilitarian theory, utility is defined as that which brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number. It is essential to consider the well-being of everyone potentially affected by the proposed action.

Your murder example would not meet with the approval of a utilitarian. Firstly, murder causes immense distress to the victim's family and friends. Secondly, it causes fear and unease in wider society and people value security very highly. Thirdly, most later versions of utilitarianism also value individual autonomy which, of course, is is permanently violated by murder. (I am thinking of the theories of R M Hare, Peter Singer and Jonathan Glover).

I'm not particularly interested in defending the theory. However, there are troublesome cases where killing may be the right thing to do. The classic example is the trolley problem.

A madman has tied five people to a railway line. There is a runaway trolley hurtling towards them. The madman has also tied another person to an adjacent line. You are standing beside the points. You have a choice.

1. Do nothing. Five people die. But you didn't kill them. You didn't save them either.
2. Switch the point. One person dies. Five are saved. But you have killed a person and saved five lives.

Take your pick.

Thankyou for clearing that up. I did think I must have been missing something.

As for the example of the railway line, I would say that is an example of killing rather than murder, which as I stated in my reply to zerospinboson, can be considered justifiable in some circumstances.

So if I'm understanding correctly, I guess if a utilitarian could see that an act caused only harm or pain etc and no good, then that act would be considered an absolute wrong.

Take my murder example. If the murder was done for no reason at all, in "cold blood"(apologies for using an easily recognisable description to aid in understanding) it could be argued that it did not cause any good to anyone but only pain and loss. Therefore would not the utilitarian consider this an absolute wrong?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[tompe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

So having hopefully cleared that up, can you think of any reason why someone murdering you for absolutely no reason whatsoever would not be considered a "wrong" act?

If you subscribe to a utilitarian theory then you can easily construct a world were reasonless murder is not wrong.

I really do not get you point? Do you know about different moral philosophy theories and the basics of moral philosophy that you learn in an introductory course or by reading an introductory text?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

So if I'm understanding correctly, I guess if a utilitarian could see that an act caused only harm or pain etc and no good, then that act would be considered an absolute wrong.

The specific act in a specific situation is wrong. You do not talk of an "absolute wrong". What do you mean here by "absolute wrong"?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well you did in "think of something you would really really not like to happen to you" and "try to convince yourself that if someone did that to you they would not have done something wrong". All this is actual states of the mind and is psychology and is orthogonal to what ought to be done (moral philosophy).

Ok, point taken.

Belief is at play here. My point was that if no justification can be found for some "wrong" act, for example that there is no justification for a reasonless, cold blooded murder, then that is an absolute regardless of what one believes. Unless of course one is a psychopath, in which case, they could be considered an "outlier"(to use a statistical term) and their belief can be discounted for the sake of the discussion.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tompe

If you subscribe to a utilitarian theory then you can easily construct a world were reasonless murder is not wrong.

I'm not sure how but I'll take your word for it.

If they could "easily" construct such a world I think they could reaonably be considered to be fundamentally wired differently to normal human beings and therefore not really relevant to a discussion about the morality of humans but that's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by tompe

I really do not get you point? Do you know about different moral philosophy theories and the basics of moral philosophy that you learn in an introductory course or by reading an introductory text?

Yes I do. Obviously we simply differ.

Those who do not believe there are absolutes find it easy to find rationales for such a belief. That is fine. It does not mean they are automatically correct though.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tompe

The specific act in a specific situation is wrong. You do not talk of an "absolute wrong". What do you mean here by "absolute wrong"?

You began by explaining that utilitarians consider the consequences of their actions to determine whether those actions are wrong or not. Patricia explained a utilitarian view point as one that considers an act with regards to what will give the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

So, if it is the consequences that make an action wrong or not, and if the definition of an action not being wrong means that it provides good to many people(good and many being relative terms of course but I hope you get my point), does it not follow that the definition of a "wrong" act would be if the harm done by the act outweighed the good done by it?

Therefore doesn't it follow that if an action does no good whatsoever and instead causes only harm, would that not be "absolutely wrong"? How could the action not be wrong if it causes absolutely no good at all?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[tompe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

If they could "easily" construct such a world I think they could reaonably be considered to be fundamentally wired differently to normal human beings and therefore not really relevant to a discussion about the morality of humans but that's just my opinion.

Well I think that killing somebody driving a car is equivalent to murder and satisfy your example so we already have the situation. But that is just my opinion

Those who do not believe there are absolutes find it easy to find rationales for such a belief. That is fine. It does not mean they are automatically correct though.

What does "correct" mean here?

My point was that there are some basic moral philosophy theories that works radically different. Different people subscribe to different theories or no theory at all. So the correct question to ask is if the basic theories lead to the same conclusions.

And in the case of copyright it seems that people subscribing to a rights based theory tend to come to different conclusions then people subscribing to a consequence ethics theory.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well I think that killing somebody driving a car is equivalent to murder and satisfy your example so we already have the situation. But that is just my opinion

Not sure accidently running someone over in a car is the same as premeditatedly, deliberately, conciously and willfully murdering someone do you?

Originally Posted by tompe

What does "correct" mean here?

My point was that there are some basic moral philosophy theories that works radically different. Different people subscribe to different theories or no theory at all. So the correct question to ask is if the basic theories lead to the same conclusions.

And in the case of copyright it seems that people subscribing to a rights based theory tend to come to different conclusions then people subscribing to a consequence ethics theory.

So if the basic theories lead to the same conclusions that could be considered an absolute, correct?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[tompe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

So, if it is the consequences that make an action wrong or not, and if the definition of an action not being wrong means that it provides good to many people(good and many being relative terms of course but I hope you get my point), does it not follow that the definition of a "wrong" act would be if the harm done by the act outweighed the good done by it?

Well, not exectly. All acts that do not lead to the greatest good (optimization) is wrong if your theory is an optimizing one. So it is not enough to increase the utility you have to find the action that gives the greatest utility.

Therefore doesn't it follow that if an action does no good whatsoever and instead causes only harm, would that not be "absolutely wrong"? How could the action not be wrong if it causes absolutely no good at all?

I do not get what the difference is between "wrong" and "absolutely wrong". Usually people use terms like "absolutely wrong" in rights based theories were you do not look at the consequence of an action to see if it is wrong.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Not sure accidently running someone over in a car is the same as premeditatedly, deliberately, conciously and willfully murdering someone do you?

Well, it has some similarities since you choose voluntary to drive a car and you know how dangerous it is...

So if the basic theories lead to the same conclusions that could be considered an absolute, correct?

Well, it depends on what you mean by "absolute" I suppose. And I do not think all theories can be shown to lead to a conclusion since one theory is that "an action is good if entity X says it is good".

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Patricia

Thirdly, most later versions of utilitarianism also value individual autonomy which, of course, is is permanently violated by murder. (I am thinking of the theories of R M Hare, Peter Singer and Jonathan Glover).

Are you thinking about Hare's Moral Thinking or some other work? I suppose you try to maximize individual autonomy in some way or mix it in in the utility function. But that should not lead to that murder is always wrong by definition.