Divinity n' stuff

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lorizael
You say murder is wrong across the board, for example, yet in Confucian China it is less wrong for a person of higher social standing to murder than it is for a person of lower social standing.

What? Wait. This is absolutely not true. There's an old Chinese saying that goes, "When the Emperor commits a crime, he is as guilty as a commoner."

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
Sorry, St. Leo, but it must be said: this sort of half-assed rationalization is a perfect example of what I was saying re: the moral ineptitude of human beings. In situations, especially, where the absolute considerations of right and wrong are tainted by the promise of personal gain, anybody can find a way to say "[X] is right."

What's the gain? I can't sell the song for a profit, all I got is a bunch of bits on some magnetic media. What's my gain?

Originally posted by Elok
In this case, using specialized equipment to gain for free what you would otherwise have to pay the creator for, essentially cheating an artist of his or her livelihood to some extent.

First of all, there are many other ways to have access to a song. For example, I can listen to a radio station, and switch to another one when the commericals come on. Is there any difference between doing this than downloading a song? Secondly, most artists don't own copyrights to songs. It's the studios. That's why you are seeing the RIAA, not the artists, got all steamed over music sharing.

Originally posted by Elok
The Bible obviously couldn't cover anything resembling this because the technology did not exist back then.

It's not a technolgy, it's a concept. It's the concept whether somebody could hold a monopoly to an artistic creation or not.

Originally posted by Elok
And with no printing presses, the profit from copyright infringement would be moot.

Why? A person could surely have made a counterfeit of Mona Lisa and sold it for big bucks.

Originally posted by Elok
Technologically aided theft is still theft, but we are quite capable of rationalizing it here because of the electronic middleman.

What theft? What was lost? What got stolen?

Originally posted by Elok
Similarly, many other improprieties can be altered by a little "logic" in the right direction. When a professor exchanges As for sex with a student, everybody wins, so what's the problem?

This is entirely different. The problem here is similar to that of bribery.

Originally posted by Elok
When you desire a certain answer you WILL get it.

What you are positing here is there are absolute rights and wrongs, based on some sort of transcendental moral system. Any deviation from this system is wrong, any attempts to explain one's position is rationalisation.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


What? Wait. This is absolutely not true. There's an old Chinese saying that goes, "When the Emperor commits a crime, he is as guilty as a commoner."

Oh damn... I seem to have gotten my facts horribly wrong. Okay... this was definetely true in Japan, though, I know that. Samurai could pretty much do as they pleased (unless their daimyo told them otherwise).

[Urban Ranger]

Yup, Samurai were above the law mostly.