Morals and ethics are similar but not the same, i would agree.
They suffer the same problem though in that morals and ethics do not have one universal standard. So something may be unethical to you but not to me but both be in the bounds of reason, or indeed the law.
You seem to accept that there is indeed ambiguity if you believe there to be a difference between a book pirated for a reason that helps someone, and a movie for entertainment in terms of piracy.
In addition, whilst you and i have access to libraries, this is very far from being common the world over.
Why then is it hyperbole? It’s just a simple example to show that piracy can in some cases harm no one and help someone. To wit: not all piracy is bad.
You claim that is unethical - which is all well and good, we do not share quite the same set of ethical values.
No. No you haven’t, at least not a singular unambiguous answer.
A lack of trust is not a reasonable reason to refuse to state a single verb or noun. Trust isn’t really a part of this - we are strangers on the internet.
I don’t believe that you are engaging with the discussion honestly because this is an extremely simple question to answer.
I believe this is because you have realised that you cannot defend the position you have taken.
I was simply using the word feel as a synonym for the word believe. No injury intended.
You still have not answered the very simple question though, and i might be a bit slow off the mark but i don’t see it answered elsewhere in this thread.
Apologies, I wasn’t suggesting i was closing down the conversation. I am trying to find a specific thing in the social contract that you feel is violated. We agree it’s not stealing it seems.
Re trespass, that’s not what the specific tort you referred to means. A chattel is a moveable form of property. You’re talking about the colloquial version of trespass. Happy to talk about that conception of it.
Is the idea of trespass the specific thing you feel is being violated in the social contract? If not, what is?
No, that tort specifically relates to depriving someone of, otherwise damaging their property.
We've agreed it's not stealing. We've agreed that not all piracy is immoral, for some definition of immoral.
I think we can agree that this specific tort does not apply.
Which specific thing in the social contract, some simple verb such as "stealing" are you equating piracy with. Then we'll have something concrete to discuss I think.
Without a clear definition of morality that is considered universal you cannot make any claims about generality.
There are many examples of piracy where no one loses out yet someone does benefit.
Painting such a complex subject with such a broad brush makes it seem like we’re just talking about your particular feelings rather than something universal.
Which is fine, but you’re making claims of generality without presenting a cogent argument.
And you are presuming that no pirates do by claiming that all piracy is immoral.
How do you stand on the idea that someone desperately poor, who cannot afford a text book that would be transformative to their life, pirates said book. Is that still immoral?
There is no singular conception of The Social Contract, nor indeed of morality.
You’re making a point about how you feel about it without presenting an argument.
The discussion of harms or lack of harm from piracy has been raging for a long time. It’s not going to be solved by appealing to the idea of right and wrong. It’s not universal in this instance which is why the argument continues.
You would have a point if everyone agrees it is wrong but some people do it anyway. However, that is not the case.
People are already trapped in a filter bubble. In general people do not seem open to ideas that do not confirm what they already believe. I don’t see how this differs.
I’m also not sure that i agree with your idea that the core principal of the internet should be in any way related to what information one might discover. The internet and the web provide means to disseminate and access information (amongst much else) but I don’t see how it should have anything to do with what you discover.
No idea - it’s quite hard. I didn’t suggest the original idea and I’m not trying to apply the concept. I was merely pointing out that your argument was based on a false premise.
Now you’re arguing about implementation, which is different.
They suffer the same problem though in that morals and ethics do not have one universal standard. So something may be unethical to you but not to me but both be in the bounds of reason, or indeed the law.
You seem to accept that there is indeed ambiguity if you believe there to be a difference between a book pirated for a reason that helps someone, and a movie for entertainment in terms of piracy.
In addition, whilst you and i have access to libraries, this is very far from being common the world over.
Why then is it hyperbole? It’s just a simple example to show that piracy can in some cases harm no one and help someone. To wit: not all piracy is bad.
You claim that is unethical - which is all well and good, we do not share quite the same set of ethical values.