Ethical Arguments Against Retardchicken
If “retardchicken” had to partake in an ethical argument against CD piracy, I think he would have a very easy time based on the perennial duties we should all live by. Historically, the philosophical world has agreed that we have several responsibilities toward other people. For example, “retardchicken” could claim that by pirating the CD, “overstand” is wronging another person. That is, “overstand” is basically stealing a copy of a CD that someone worked tirelessly on. Also, by “overstand” burning another copy, he is not promoting the beneficence of the band or person who created that particular CD. Additionally, “retardchicken” could claim that by “overstand” burning the CD, he is in part not showing his fidelity toward the record label.
…show more content…
When you buy a CD you are agreeing that you will not resell or recreate any of the media. In terms of pirating, this is a clear unethical action.
A libertarian could justify “overstand” copying the CD because a libertarian would believe that because “overstand” owns the original copy of the CD he can do whatever he would like with it because it is his.
His copying “begins with the freedom to have what’s mine doesn’t buckle before the demands of others” therefore, his infidelity is a non-issue due to the fact that he owns the copy of the CD (Brusseau 83). The freedom to do what he wants to do outweighs the injustice done to the record company in the eyes of a libertarian.
I happen to think they do not. This is because a negative right would be, being free, where as a positive right, one that protects my negative right would not do that in the case of the duplicate CD. To expain what I meant further, the negative right is something that has to happen and is almost natural, whereas the positive right seems to be man mad. The man mad part in this case is the code on the CD and that does not protect “overstands” rights to ‘owning’ freedom.
The Kant philosophy is that by helping “overstand” get around the code, they are not treating him as a means to the end. Ultimately, they are allowing him to work and therefore are “allowing them to earn a living, you’re actually supporting their projects and happiness” (Brusseau 74). Therefore, Kant would deem this
ethical.
I think the libertarian case for congratulating them has to do with the fact that it makes “overstand” more happy to be able to clone the CD’s than it would create more happiness for the record label. Additionally, the record label is infringing on his personal right to freedom when it pertains to things he owns. Therefore, the libertarians would agree that cloning the CD is ethical.
Yes, I think that these two people are not respecting the duties they owe each other. They are calling each other names which are not okay and you should treat other as equals. It may sound silly, but by calling each other names they are degrading everyone in the chat room. Therefore, they should refrain from doing such, like my mother use to say “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”
I think that online discussion boards can be extremely useful. However, some people can easily hide behind the keyboard. Therefore, the online discussion community can foster a tone that is negative. When it is negative, it is no longer beneficial to the community because people start to develop bad habits and will no longer realize the duties we owe to ourselves and others. Duties such as respect and treating each other like humans, rather than avatars.
When you buy a CD you are agreeing that you will not resell or recreate any of the media. In terms of pirating, this is a clear unethical action.
A libertarian could justify “overstand” copying the CD because a libertarian would believe that because “overstand” owns the original copy of the CD he can do whatever he would like with it because it is his.
His copying “begins with the freedom to have what’s mine doesn’t buckle before the demands of others” therefore, his infidelity is a non-issue due to the fact that he owns the copy of the CD (Brusseau 83). The freedom to do what he wants to do outweighs the injustice done to the record company in the eyes of a libertarian.
I happen to think they do not. This is because a negative right would be, being free, where as a positive right, one that protects my negative right would not do that in the case of the duplicate CD. To expain what I meant further, the negative right is something that has to happen and is almost natural, whereas the positive right seems to be man mad. The man mad part in this case is the code on the CD and that does not protect “overstands” rights to ‘owning’ freedom.
The Kant philosophy is that by helping “overstand” get around the code, they are not treating him as a means to the end. Ultimately, they are allowing him to work and therefore are “allowing them to earn a living, you’re actually supporting their projects and happiness” (Brusseau 74). Therefore, Kant would deem this
ethical.
I think the libertarian case for congratulating them has to do with the fact that it makes “overstand” more happy to be able to clone the CD’s than it would create more happiness for the record label. Additionally, the record label is infringing on his personal right to freedom when it pertains to things he owns. Therefore, the libertarians would agree that cloning the CD is ethical.
Yes, I think that these two people are not respecting the duties they owe each other. They are calling each other names which are not okay and you should treat other as equals. It may sound silly, but by calling each other names they are degrading everyone in the chat room. Therefore, they should refrain from doing such, like my mother use to say “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”
I think that online discussion boards can be extremely useful. However, some people can easily hide behind the keyboard. Therefore, the online discussion community can foster a tone that is negative. When it is negative, it is no longer beneficial to the community because people start to develop bad habits and will no longer realize the duties we owe to ourselves and others. Duties such as respect and treating each other like humans, rather than avatars.