Replies to post #6277 on The Free Zone Board

[was Graywolf]

Why wouldn't you just wait 'til he comes back and say, "Hey, mind if I borrow your scissors?" - Rogue

Perhaps you don't know when he is coming back and you need to use them for a project that is due very soon. - Spall

If the person has a standard policy of "do not take or use anything from my desk", then yes, you are wrong to violate his will. We're talking about property rights here, and you do not have a right to use his property without his specific or general permission. The same applies whether you are talking about scissors or a house. If a guy working at a store takes the reciepts to the Casino instead of depositing them, but wins, then returns the money in the morning, are you arguing that he did nothing wrong?

[RoguePlanet]

Scissors vs. your home

Spall, come on. You don't see any "moral difference" between a pair of scissors and a home? I mean, please. ;) - Rogue

No, I don't. Can you explain this moral difference to me? I'm being serious. They seem to me to be different in degree, not different in kind. - Spall

Well, they're similar in kind in that they're both items of property. The "moral difference" is that the home has a higher dollar value, plus you have a higher (much much higher) expectation of privacy and interest in protecting the autonomy of your home than you do in keeping someone from using your pair of scissors. So I guess you're right that the difference is one of degree, not kind, but they're still DIFFERENT.

[RoguePlanet]

Harm

I'm building my concept of morality on harm done to another. If the "victim" is completely unaware of the act, and it does not harm him in any way, it is difficult for me to recognize the element of immorality, other than through simple intuition, and that is not sufficient in my opinion.

That's not intuition, that's your conscience talking. ;)Sometimes if an act feels wrong, it's because it IS wrong.

I'll grant you that if you download a couple of Madonna songs, or entire CD's for that matter, that you weren't going to buy anyway, you haven't by that act alone caused her any financial harm. However, if you grant that she has a right to control the disposition and use of her property, then your act in a small way is violating her right. So even granting that you have "perfect knowledge" in this argument, and no one downloads her songs other than people who would have bought them anyway, the downloading still causes harm. It's a teeny tiny harm, sure. Of course, if you don't recognize any moral justification for ip rights at all, even limited ip rights, then there is no harm whatever.


As for this statement: "I'm building my concept of morality on harm done to another," aren't there plenty of instances where an act would be immoral even if it doesn't result in harm to another person? What if you drove 90 miles an hour through a crowded parking lot and manage not hit anyone or anything? You haven't harmed anyone, but that doesn't mean your act wasn't morally wrong, because of its potential to cause harm.