This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Morality
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
But stuff like overtime pay and pirating music weren't explicitly addressed by Jesus.
This isn't a refutation of what I said. In fact, it is exactly what I said. Jesus doesn't explicitly address stuff.
This is the part where I normally go back and re-explain myself, but for some reason, I don't feel like repeating myself. Just scroll up and re read.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think pirating is a poor example, because that's stealing and that's clearly covered.
Post by
asakawa
I think pirating is a poor example, because that's stealing and that's clearly covered.
Stealing leaves someone without their property. This isn't, strictly speaking, stealing since you're not depriving someone of their property. Not that I disagree with what you're saying but it's something worth a moment's thought.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think pirating is a poor example, because that's stealing and that's clearly covered.
Stealing leaves someone without their property. This isn't, strictly speaking, stealing since you're not depriving someone of their property. Not that I disagree with what you're saying but it's something worth a moment's thought.
But it is depriving someone of their work. If someone was working for you for a pre-agreed wage, and then when it came time to pay them, you told them you liked the work but didn't feel like you should pay for it, you have robbed them of the value of their work. For intellectual property, the person or people agree to do a certain amount of work programming, writing, filming, etc., for the agreed wage of X amount of money for every person who wants to own a copy, X amount for every network that wants to show it, X amount for every company that wants to license it.
If someone thinks a tour guide's requested fee is too high, they can choose not to take the tour, but they can't enjoy the benefit of the work and then refuse to fulfill what the work was contracted for. Even if you try to argue that they would have led the tour anyway, and so you didn't deprive them of anyone else's money, you've still "stolen" the service by refusing to pay for it after receiving it.
Piracy is the same- if you don't think that the work of a writer, a game developer, a film studio, etc. is worth the money that they are asking then you have the right to not buy or rent that property. You can't, however, say I want the benefit of the work, but I don't want to pay what you ask, so I will take the benefit of your labor, without paying what you are asking for it, and because it doesn't prevent you from selling it to other people it's fine.
Unless it's your work that you're selling, you don't have the permission to make that call.
Post by
asakawa
As I say, I'm not disagreeing that it's in similar territory (morally speaking) but it is different and may require a different approach.
Those adverts before films on DVD that say "you wouldn't steal a car... (and so on)" are wrong because making a copy of an artistic work that has been paid for is not the same as stealing a car. I'm not making any comment on the morality of piracy, simply stating that there's a difference.
That said, I'll probably be guilty of derailing the discussion if I lead us into a long discussion of this but I'm sure you see what I'm saying.
Post by
MyTie
Stealing leaves someone without their property. This isn't, strictly speaking, stealing since you're not depriving someone of their property.
The value of the asset could be considered their property. You are depriving them of that value. Further, even pushing the limits of immorality is considered immoral. Run away from sin. Run. Don't court.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I do- I can agree that the resulting damage to someone for piracy of a certain value, when compared to theft of the same value, is less, and so it's a different degree of the same or a similar principle.
Post by
gamerunknown
Wasn't intended as a discussion of the morality of piracy, merely that following Christ's words can lead to different interpretations. For example, in Christ's time there was no concept of "intellectual property" as far as I'm aware. Such an idea arose during the advent of industrialisation and capitalism. One person espousing Christ's message could say that piracy is in concordance with giving everything to the poor, another could say that it is clearly theft.
Another issue would be perhaps with someone like Father Berrigan that believed he was fulfilling Christ's commands by violating the law.
Post by
MyTie
One person espousing Christ's message could say that piracy is in concordance with giving everything to the poor, another could say that it is clearly theft.
Uhm... uhhh... I'm having trouble forming a response without sounding obvious.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Maybe, but if teachings of Christ are written down and he said 2+2=4, then why are there people who say that 2+2=5 based on same teachings?Is 2+2=5 correct? No. Some people are incorrect on their understanding of the teachings of Christ. And why teachings of Christ? There are teachings of Buddah, Mohammad and others. Why not them? What is the right choice?
I'm just speaking about my personal beliefs. I don't believe in Buddah's or Mohammad's teachings.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Fair enough, but in that case how it can be a proper way to live a life, if it is not clear enough that 2+2+4?It is clear. It takes time and study, but it isn't unintelligible.
So, if I can pick any other teaching, I find compelling, why can't just ignore them and tackle every moral question one by one to create my own teaching of sorts?
You can. That's up to you, dude. Free will.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Maybe, but if teachings of Christ are written down and he said 2+2=4, then why are there people who say that 2+2=5 based on same teachings?Is 2+2=5 correct? No. Some people are incorrect on their understanding of the teachings of Christ.
Fair enough, but in that case how it can be a proper way to live a life, if it is not clear enough that 2+2+4?
And why teachings of Christ? There are teachings of Buddah, Mohammad and others. Why not them? What is the right choice?
I'm just speaking about my personal beliefs. I don't believe in Buddah's or Mohammad's teachings.
So, if I can pick any other teaching, I find compelling, why can't just ignore them and tackle every moral question one by one to create my own teaching of sorts?
@Boron- you're missing his points.
Lets pretend, on the math end, it's not 2 + 2, but some much more difficult and complex math problem. The answer to how to do it correctly is in the text book. A class of 50 people read the same book. Out of those 50, only 45 pass the test, and only 5 get every question right. That doesn't mean that the correct information wasn't laid out in the book- it means that the people all reading it didn't understand it.
I'm not saying that the Bible is as cut and dry as a text book. But evidence that someone doesn't understand something =/= evidence that it is not understandable.
And for the second question, he's not saying he "picked" his beliefs because he found them compelling, which leaves room for other people to do the same. He's saying he believes his religion is 100% fact, which would by definition make other religions 100% fiction. You don't have to agree with him, but him saying he bases something in his beliefs doesn't lead to the logical conclusion that he should believe that other people should be right when basing their actions on their own, different beliefs. If you actually believe that your own religion is fact, that logically excludes you from believing that other religions are factual, or as a result, as valid as your own. Because in your system of beliefs, one is actual truth, and the others are made up and keep people from being the "right" religion.
You can fully believe that they have the right to choose their own path, that they should not be harmed or discriminated against because of their religion, etc. But you can't believe that more that one religion that claims to be the only true religion is valid factually, because that would be a contradiction.
Post by
gamerunknown
Ok, here's a more complex moral hypothetical for a Christian: do people working in food preperation have a moral obligation to wash their hands based on Christ's teachings?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Ok, here's a more complex moral hypothetical for a Christian: do people working in food preperation have a moral obligation to wash their hands based on Christ's teachings?
Would you wash your hands if you were preparing food for a loved one, with the knowledge that not washing your hands would increase the chance of transmitting a virus?
Post by
gamerunknown
Would you wash your hands if you were preparing food for a loved one, with the knowledge that not washing your hands would increase the chance of transmitting a virus?
If I were a Biblical literalist, I'd be forced to follow
Matthew 15:20
.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.