[maverickronin]

Also just for reference:
 
Illegal =/= Civil Tort =/= Immoral
 
Those are 3 completely separate issues.

 

[LizardKing1]

Quote:

Also just for reference:
 
Illegal =/= Civil Tort =/= Immoral
 
Those are 3 completely separate issues.

 
And only the first one is an absolute, the other two are matters do discuss over a good wine, or write books about with titles in Times New Roman.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

And only the first one is an absolute, the other two are matters do discuss over a good wine, or write books about with titles in Times New Roman.

 
None of them are absolute.  Laws change over time.  Civil torts are laws too.  It's just that a private entity (person, corporation, etc) has to take you to court for them and the government doesn't do it by itself.
 
IMO "piracy" is basically a form of civil disobedience.

 

[LizardKing1]

"murder" is an absolute concept, it involves the ending of a life. Unless you're severely trying to go with grey shades here, and question how do we even know if we're alive and what being "alive" means, yada yada yada, there's a cear distinction between being alive and dead, and if someone killed someone else - more grey shades! - then it's a crime, while the law doesn't change. Of course I was sneaky clever enough to choose something as well-defined as murder, but you get the picture. I'm not saying it's a real absolute, nothing is, we all know. But a law, and what breaking it means, is much more concrete than any of the other two concepts, since it's actually, you know, a law. This sort of discussion usually leads nowhere.

 

[grokit]

When you try to reconcile warfare and murder, the absolutes get fogged up again.

 

[manveru]

Quote:

When you try to reconcile warfare and murder, the absolutes get fogged up again.

 
Really? I fail to see any distinction at all between them.

 

[grokit]

When you try to reconcile warfare and murder, the absolutes get fogged up again.

Really? I fail to see any distinction at all between them.

Then you've never had to actively defend yourself from foreign invaders.

 

[maverickronin]

Well depending on how tightly you define "murder" I'd say that it's always immoral but it hasn't always been illegal.
 
If you killed someone and took their stuff after they were declared outlaws does that count as murder or as the state subcontracting capital punishment?  What about tribal societies that place no penalties on a person for anything they may do to a member of the "out group"?
 
"Illegal" is just a category of actions that will get you punished by whatever passes for government in the society in question.  That's it.  It doesn't matter how absolute the concept or how tight the definition is.  It's illegal because there's a law and you get punished for it.  If the law is repealed, it's no longer illegal.  It's legality has nothing to do with it's morality either.  If murder was legalized it wouldn't suddenly become moral because those are two independent questions.  Slavery was legal in much of the world for quite a long time and is as easily defined as murder but it wasn't moral just because you were allowed to do it.
 
The morality of an action has nothing to do with whether or not the government will punish you for doing it.

 

[LizardKing1]

I know I should have put this in bold
Quote:

while the law doesn't change.

In the examples you mentioned, it's not a law at all. Again, I'm talking about laws as a concept. I'm not saying they're absolutes for what's right or wrong, neither that they don't change over time. I don't believe in a direct correlation between what's legal and what's not. Simply, if there is a law stating something is illegal, defining what that something is and where it starts being something else is much easier (what I meant by more absolute) than defining if that something is ethical or not (less absolute). I'm not saying it's right or wrong because it's legal or not.
I think we all got our points across and we're not even disagreeing, just seeing different sides of the same thing.
 
As for the original issue, I always liked buying records for the pleasure of owning something I can hold, not just hear. I can get a 100% accurate rip online, but it doesn't give me the same pleasure of holding a CD and reading the booklet's lyrics while I listen to the music. This is unnecessary, since the sound files are the same, but audio revolves around pleasure, even if there's not a very clear logical reason behind it (looking at you, AudioQuest). Any thoughts?

 

[grokit]

Well depending on how tightly you define "murder" I'd say that it's always immoral but it hasn't always been illegal.

If you killed someone and took their stuff after they were declared outlaws does that count as murder or as the state subcontracting capital punishment?  What about tribal societies that place no penalties on a person for anything they may do to a member of the "out group"?

"Illegal" is just a category of actions that will get you punished by whatever passes for government in the society in question.  That's it.  It doesn't matter how absolute the concept or how tight the definition is.  It's illegal because there's a law and you get punished for it.  If the law is repealed, it's no longer illegal.  It's legality has nothing to do with it's morality either.  If murder was legalized it wouldn't suddenly become moral because those are two independent questions.  Slavery was legal in much of the world for quite a long time and is as easily defined as murder but it wasn't moral just because you were allowed to do it.

The morality of an action has nothing to do with whether or not the government will punish you for doing it.

Agreed, and yet I would say that even though all life is sacred, it feeds, sometimes actively, on death. And then there's the conundrum of assisted suicide...

 

[manveru]

Quote:

I don't know what's taking so long.

 
Indeed.
 
Quote:

Then you've never had to actively defend yourself from foreign invaders.

 
Insofar as the idea of "foreign invaders" even makes sense (since we all live on the same planet), what was their original motive for doing so? People don't just invade, there is a deeper underlying issue. Kiling each other is not a solution. It doesn't solve any real problems. Is "he started it" really a good reason to start a war? Sure, if somebody is running at you to attack you you have to defend yourself, but if it turns into a war I think both sides are just as primitive. There is no right or wrong side in war, no "good guys" or "bad guys." If war is just, then why are there people who make huge profits off of it? It is utterly corrupt. Organized mass murder is a complete failure of the human race, and just a sign of how uncivilized we really are.

 

[grokit]

I am certainly not defending warfare, but just about every major advance in the history of human civilization has resulted from it.

Having said that, I would advocate feeding, educating, and caring for hungry people rather than killing or incarcerating them. Morality aside, it's cheaper and more productive.

 

[manveru]

Quote:

I am certainly not defending warfare, but just about every major advance in the history of human civilization has resulted from it.
Having said that, I would advocate feeding, educating, and caring for hungry people rather than killing or incarcerating them. Morality aside, it's cheaper and more productive.

 
What exactly do you mean by "major advances"?
 
The bottom two sentences: thank you.

 

[deadlylover]

Quote:

 
As for the original issue, I always liked buying records for the pleasure of owning something I can hold, not just hear. I can get a 100% accurate rip online, but it doesn't give me the same pleasure of holding a CD and reading the booklet's lyrics while I listen to the music. This is unnecessary, since the sound files are the same, but audio revolves around pleasure, even if there's not a very clear logical reason behind it (looking at you, AudioQuest). Any thoughts?

 
Yeah I like having something to hold too, it's kind of like a token for showing your support for the artist.
 
I personally view music as being 'free', and I only buy music to support the artists, not to 'own' anything. That's why I don't like buying used CD's, it doesn't really help the artist one bit, and it only supports the profiteering seller.
 
I don't think piracy is such a bad thing, and I wouldn't call it 'stealing' from the artists because you can't really say that one pirated album led to one lost sale.
 
lol at the direction the thread is going, I guess murder and piracy go hand in hand? 

 

[grokit]

What exactly do you mean by "major advances"?

Mainly in the areas of technology, from structural and civil engineering to manufacturing to medicine. The benefits of these advances are debatable however.

Oh and weapons technology of course. We are killing people in much more advanced ways