Page 6 of 6 « First 45 6
Reply
Thread Tools
ColdFusion is offline ColdFusion
2009-07-09 , 09:26
Posts: 397 | Thanked: 227 times | Joined on May 2007
#51
Originally Posted by fms View Post
Outside of the colonial US though, the opinion has been somewhat different, hasn't it? Just because you bend your ethical standards to help your current business model, does not mean they become invalid.
So you finally agree that there could be different opinions on core morals in different societies and that they change in time for better or worse.

Originally Posted by fms View Post
Who told you that? Any references?
I think I had Ancient History in 6-7 grade.

Evidence of slavery predates written records, and has existed to varying extents, forms and periods in almost all cultures and continents.[1] In some societies, slavery existed as a legal institution or socio-economic system, but today it is formally outlawed in nearly all countries. Nevertheless, the practice continues in various forms around the world.[2][3].
References are in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

Anyway, outside of the colonial US, even though banned in their countries, Europeans were very active in the slave-trading.
 
attila77 is offline attila77
2009-07-09 , 10:03
Posts: 3,319 | Thanked: 5,610 times | Joined on Aug 2008 @ Finland
#52
Originally Posted by fms View Post
Who told you that? Any references?
Here are a few examples (the largest ones, like ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, medieval European and colonial empires, are well known).
http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24156

Historically, it was the norm and not the exception. In certain more or less accepted forms it is present in even modern day societies (starting with sweatshops, through compulsory military service to trafficking).
 
fms is offline fms
2009-07-09 , 11:09
Posts: 1,418 | Thanked: 1,541 times | Joined on Feb 2008
#53
Originally Posted by ColdFusion View Post
So you finally agree that there could be different opinions on core morals in different societies and that they change in time for better or worse.
Actually, I have never disagreed with that. My original point is that there is a core set of ethical rules that lets you universally judge human behavior as good or evil, independently of a particular society. Different societies may add more rules on top.

The slavery examples you are giving only confirm my point, as slaves are always placed outside the society that enslaves them. Slave holders may sometimes go far enough to consider slaves inhuman. This is done exactly because once you admit that slaves are the same as you are, you are automatically obligated to apply the same moral principles to them.

Various other examples (copyrights, military service) are legal rather than ethical rules. The main difference is that while ethical rules naturally arise in a society, while legal rules are enforced by the state. While legal rules are usually a superset of ethical rules, they cannot be used for reliable judgment of "good" or "evil" human behavior.
__________________
Computer and Console Emulators for Maemo, Symbian, and more.
Pack Rat: The Maemo Package Aggregator.
 
ColdFusion is offline ColdFusion
2009-07-09 , 12:17
Posts: 397 | Thanked: 227 times | Joined on May 2007
#54
I think you contradict yourself in the first paragraph.
First you agree that the core ethics change in time and between societies, and then you say that you can universally judge by them.

I don't understand your argument regarding slavery either. Are you saying that for example killing someone is evil, but killing someone because of discrimination is ok? So a slave owner becomes evil only when he kills a free member of his society?

Using your universal moral code, who's the evil one here: a catholic priest having sex with altar boys or an ancient Greek mentor having sex with his student? The one is a crime and the other is an important part in their respective societies.

Legal rules are superior to morals in my opinion, because even though they may be flawed or become outdated, they are formulated with some kind of rationale. But morals arise spontaneously out of fear or gut feelings and so on. Good and evil are moral terminology. That's why when a court rules that you've broken a law, you're "guilty of breaking it", not bad or evil.
 
attila77 is offline attila77
2009-07-09 , 12:38
Posts: 3,319 | Thanked: 5,610 times | Joined on Aug 2008 @ Finland
#55
Originally Posted by fms View Post
Various other examples (copyrights, military service) are legal rather than ethical rules. The main difference is that while ethical rules naturally arise in a society, while legal rules are enforced by the state.
We're running in circles. Legal rules are codified enforceable ethical rules. When the underlying social standard changes, so does the law (with some lag, of course, with the exception of dictatorships). Slavery was legal because the ethical rules of the time defined them as such, and went away after the social background changed.

Slavery in most European colonies was fought not because of the deep love of human freedoms, but because slaves were 'badly kept' and denied of Christian practices (by no mean did they think ex-slaves are EQUAL humans, for that the US had to wait for Rosa Parks and that was a LONG time after the abolition). And after the initial push, countries that did abolish slavery had a vested interest from keeping others gaining an advantage over them by using slave labor (that's why England was such a key element in ending the Atlantic slave trade). The industrial revolution(s) sealed the issue and THEN freedom became an issue of universal human rights, without religious, social or economic strings attached.
 
fms is offline fms
2009-07-09 , 12:55
Posts: 1,418 | Thanked: 1,541 times | Joined on Feb 2008
#56
Originally Posted by attila77 View Post
Legal rules are codified enforceable ethical rules. When the underlying social standard changes, so does the law (with some lag, of course, with the exception of dictatorships).
The legal rules are actually a superset of enforceable ethical rules. The examples of this are plenty, from jaywalking to taxation. Also, legal rules do not cover what you call "unenforceable" ethical rules. Thus, it is not valid to bring up legal rules into this discussion about ethical rules: they are simply not the same thing.

And yes, this argument appears to have made the full circle.
__________________
Computer and Console Emulators for Maemo, Symbian, and more.
Pack Rat: The Maemo Package Aggregator.
 
Texrat's Avatar
Texrat is offline Texrat
2009-07-09 , 17:20
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#57
Originally Posted by fms View Post
You are mistaking legal taboos for ethical ones. The concept of intellectual property is quite recent one and it has no relation to the traditional set of social taboos. It does not matter how useful intellectual property is for certain groups or industries in the frame of this discussion.
I'm not mistaking anything. YOU are spawning the tangent.

My point: a majority of consumers condone theft these days, something that by all rights should be taboo.

Disagreement with or ignorance of the law is simply no excuse for breaking it. Try arguing otherwise in any court.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 
fms is offline fms
2009-07-09 , 18:54
Posts: 1,418 | Thanked: 1,541 times | Joined on Feb 2008
#58
Originally Posted by Texrat View Post
My point: a majority of consumers condone theft these days, something that by all rights should be taboo.
And now, let us quote yourself, from a little bit earlier in this thread:

One could say we're watching it happen now, when a poll can show over 70% of a population seeing nothing wrong with theft (as long as the product isn't tangible).
So, Texrat, does "majority of consumers" condone theft or doesn't? Or, maybe, the majority of consumers simply do not consider intangible things "things"? Before you start replying, make sure you carefully read the stuff I have written so far and try to understand it, before jumping to another argument.

Disagreement with or ignorance of the law is simply no excuse for breaking it. Try arguing otherwise in any court.
Please, go up and read the thread carefully. Try finding any statements (from me or somebody else) condoning breaking the law. Also notice how law, so fervently pulled into the conversation by some, has nothing to do with the ethical taboos being discussed.
__________________
Computer and Console Emulators for Maemo, Symbian, and more.
Pack Rat: The Maemo Package Aggregator.
 
Texrat's Avatar
Texrat is offline Texrat
2009-07-10 , 03:31
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#59
Originally Posted by fms View Post
And now, let us quote yourself, from a little bit earlier in this thread:

So, Texrat, does "majority of consumers" condone theft or doesn't? Or, maybe, the majority of consumers simply do not consider intangible things "things"? Before you start replying, make sure you carefully read the stuff I have written so far and try to understand it, before jumping to another argument.

Please, go up and read the thread carefully. Try finding any statements (from me or somebody else) condoning breaking the law. Also notice how law, so fervently pulled into the conversation by some, has nothing to do with the ethical taboos being discussed.
You're confusing me with your question above. I said a majority condone theft, and have been consistent with that. It's funny and ironic that you accuse me of failing to read and digest while you're retreating to semantical trenches to make your points. Your distinction above is moot: it doesn't matter what consumers consider the product to be-- they are aware of the law, know they are breaking it, and resort to defining the subject as intangible and the law misguided in order to rationalize the theft.

And I consider disapproval of theft an ethical taboo that's had law wrapped around it. Separating the two, in the context of this discussion, is disingenuous.

Anyway, maybe you could help us all by clarifying your position, since I look through the thread and see you as the sole defender of your stance, combined with consistency between your detractors in leveling allegations of self-contradiction and logical fallacies.

I think you need to aim that last bit of advice back at yourself, dude. I have indeed read very carefully and thoughtfully, yet I see you leaping all over the place with your arguments, apparently looking more for a desperate win than providing or gaining any sort of enlightenment. Your dependence upon semantics is the key indicator.

And if you're just going to talk to me like I'm an idiot or child, don't bother. I'm too old and busy to get wrapped up in that crap anymore.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 
Reply
Page 6 of 6 « First 45 6

Tags
hysteria, iran nokia boycott

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:39.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top