A Question on ethics

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by volwrath

Of course I would argue that the US is moving away from a republic and towards a democracy.

And I'd agree with you. U.S. Senators used to be chosen by the State Legislatures, for example, now they're a direct election.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by NatCh

In its purest definition, often called a direct democracy, it's a method of governing where everyone votes on everything, and a simple majority rules. I don't think that there's any government that works that way at the moment. If there is, I expect it'll implode in due course.

No, it doesn't work for large, modern countries.

Democracy was invented in the 5th century BC in the city-state of Athens, and there it worked pretty well. It was direct rule by the demos - the people - but to be a member of the demos you had a be a male Athenian citizen over the age of 30 and there were never more than approximately 30,000 such people.

The Athenians themselves recognised that direct democracy was impractical when the size of the demos exceeded about 100,000 people.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by slayda

Ah but to which god(s) -- there is the rub and the relativism that is not universal. The morality of your god may be quite different from mine and definitely different from the atheist's god (or whatever is substituted of his god). So morality is relative, even among those who profess to serve the same god.

Not to take us too far afield....

The God I referred to was the God as the OP cited, which I made sure to specify.

I don't know if this helps but as Francis Schaeffer argues, morality exists if and only if there's an Infinite Personal God -- note that his specification of "Infinite Personal" is imperative. Lacking a reference point, we have pure moral relativism, but then morality doesn't actually exist at all. For example, if I say murder is moral for me, you have no way to argue against that.

Sadly, I don't think legal electronic editions of Schaeffer's books are out, so you'd have to buy the paperbacks and scan them or download from the "darknet" -- which may or may not be ethical!

-Pie

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by NatCh

It depends on how you define "democracy."
The real problem with a direct democracy is that there are more stupid people than smart ones, and if everyone gets an equal say, all you do is guarantee that the stupid thing gets done.

Interesting discussion on democracy, however I definitely don't agree with this statement.

I have some very conservative friends who said "idiots voted for Clinton," forgetting, I hope, for the moment that I had voted for Clinton. Some liberal friends said exactly the same "how stupid did you have to be to vote for Bush" hoping once again, that they overlooked my vote for Bush when lumping me in with the "stupids." (True story!)

Basically, in politics, I've come to the conclusion that "stupid people" are the ones who don't agree with you (or me).

In terms of true "stupidity" I just don't think that many people are mentally deficient. Uneducated, possibly, but not mentally incapable of making sound decisions -- as even the uneducated can form valid political opinions.

I think a much larger problem with democracy today has become the legal jargon in laws. I vote "no" on the vast majority of laws in my state simply because I cannot figure them out, and I know many laws get passed with hidden stipulations. For example, "The Telecomunications Decency Act" used as a hook to pass "The Telecommunications Act" of which it was a part. I don't think this is a function of my stupidity (though my liberal and conservative friends may disagree ), but a function of laws gone mad... or "lawyer hell" as I like to put it.

In terms of Copyright Law -- which would need to be changed for us to be able to legally download texts freely -- the problem is more complex. The economic factor is the greater influence on the law here. Authors won't make money if everyone legally downloaded their work for free -- same goes for movies and music. To change the law, we first must change the "economics of the arts" -- to, say, a comission-based system as employed in the 1700s for Classical Music (the king would comission a work from Mozart, or employ Haydn as court composer). This way, the artist can eat, pay rent, and send their kids to school, and we can enjoy the artists work freely.

But, as it stands, the artist gets payed on a per-sales basis, and copyright law exists to protect that. When those economics change, copyright law might change.

-Pie

[yvanleterrible]

Democracy's a farce!

If you have lost your elections at some time you will have felt the dictatorship of democracy as in where 51% of those who voted, actually less than 30% of a population, rule everything.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Not to take us too far afield....

as Francis Schaeffer argues, morality exists if and only if there's an Infinite Personal God -- note that his specification of "Infinite Personal" is imperative.
-Pie

This is a circular argument used by those in religious circles (no pun intended) to prove the existence of god. Once accepted it follows that since there is morality then there in an infinite personal god - QED. However every religion claims god as their very own, implying that the remainder of humanity is therefore immoral.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by NatCh

In the U.S. we have a "liberal democracy" in the sense that everyone that meets a set of extremely not stringent requirements is allowed to vote.

Nate, this is of course why our "Pledge of allegiance" states in part "... and to the liberal democracy for which it stands", or did I misquote?

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Interesting discussion on democracy, however I definitely don't agree with this statement.

Well, since I meant it tongue in cheek (sorry, should have been clearer about that), I'm not particularly bothered by your disagreeing with it.

I also agree that it's a gross oversimplification of the situation. Your quite correct that intellectual capabilities aren't the problem it's more lack of information. Of course it often seems that there's some sort of deliberate action toward making it hard to get that information. You mention the laws which are so complicated that no one can follow them enough to know whether you want to support them or not. It's an excellent example of the phenomenon.

Normal, honest people, who actively want to do the right thing simply don't have the time and energy needed to wade through all that rubbish to figure out what that right thing might be. They're too busy wish being self sufficient.

I'd like to see some of the effort to make voting a non-effort put towards making the information needed to make an informed decision more accessible.

I have to spend hours each election just figuring out what races I'll be voting in, and that's before I even start to research the actual issues. There's just no good reason for it to be so difficult.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by slayda

This is a circular argument used by those in religious circles (no pun intended) to prove the existence of god. Once accepted it follows that since there is morality then there in an infinite personal god - QED. However every religion claims god as their very own, implying that the remainder of humanity is therefore immoral.

This is not the only piece of evidence for an Infinite Personal God. Schaeffer develops a three-fold argument, morality being the easiest to discuss in circles like these -- and it just happened to be closely on-topic. Also, an "iff" statement is not a circular argument, it's a logical construct.

Now, while I absolutely understand your problem with "every religion claim[ing] god as their own" that does not preclude the existence of an Infinite Personal God. Nor would I even count it as evidence against an Infinite Personal God.

As Mark Knopfler so eloquently put it "Two of them claim their Jesus / One of them must be lying." Note that he doesn't say two of them must be lying. Yes, I'm being both silly and serious at the same time... the serious part being that someone being wrong about God doesn't make everyone wrong about God.

Are we far enough afield yet?

-Pie

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by NatCh

Well, since I meant it tongue in cheek (sorry, should have been clearer about that), I'm not particularly bothered by your disagreeing with it.

I suspected, but wasn't entirely sure... But since it gave me a chance to shoot my mouth (fingers) off, I couldn't resist responding!

I fully agree with your post.

-Pie

[nekokami]

HarryT asked:

Tell me, if you started a business manufacturing widgets, do you think it unreasonable that you should be allowed to pass on your widget-making business to your descendents as a part of your estate? Would you say that 70 years after your death all rights to that business should be forcibly taken away from your descendents, and that they should no longer be able to gain any profit from it?

Um... I don't think very much should be passed on to my descendents at all, unless they're minors at the time I die and incapable of supporting themselves. Items with sentimental value, ok, but not gobs of money or property or whatever. I realize that I'm very much in the minority on that one, though.

Should we ban the stock market on the grounds that it allows people to profit without doing any work?

Well... since you asked... yes. But again, I don't expect most people to agree with me on this.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by NatCh

Voyage From Yesteryear, by James P. Hogan.

I've read it. Several times. Thanks!

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I've read it. Several times. Thanks!

Heh, that suggests that you liked it.

I've only read it once so far, but I fully expect to read it again, likely several times.

[Egghead]

If I understand U.S. law correctly, if you purchase a work in one format, you can convert it to any other format you'd like for your own personal use, right? So if I buy a Harry Potter book in dead tree format, I can read an electronic version on my computer while the paper book is sitting in my closet, correct? Here's my question, then: If I purchase the U.S. version in paper format, is it acceptable to have the British version on my computer - or must they be the exact same version? (Some of the informal speech actually needed to be translated between the cultures, as there are some major differences in colloquial meanings.)

[bingle]

Originally Posted by Egghead

If I understand U.S. law correctly, if you purchase a work in one format, you can convert it to any other format you'd like for your own personal use, right?

This has been discussed a lot recently! I think, actually, that this is still a legal gray area - a while ago, attorney Ray Beckerman (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/) stated that the legality of format shifting CDs hasn't actually been established one way or another. The record industry apparently doesn't want to assert it, for fear they'll lose.

There was a recent case involving DVD ripping by a video server company that's analogous - they were allowing users to rip their movies to a server, which then could play back the content without the original disc. The DVD CCA (Copy Control Association) sued them, and lost.

Unfortunately, the case wasn't about the legal right to copy one's own content to a different format, but rather about the contract that the company had signed with the DVD CCA. So it wasn't a DMCA- or Copyright Act-based challenge, and has no implications for those laws.

There's a whole thread here about the ethical implications of format shifting as it relates to books. Basically, some people think it's not OK, some people think it's only OK if you own the original book, some people think it's only OK if there's no legal digital version, and some people think that it's always OK. ;-)

Edit: Here's an article about format-shifting. Obviously, it has a strong point of view on the ethics, but he does discuss, a little bit, the legal landscape. http://newmusicstrategies.com/2006/1...for-criminals/