Does the person who created the software have a moral right to expect others to respect the software as something that must be purchased from him, originally, and then only resold in transactions in which only one copy exists and changes hands from new owner to new owner as if it were a material object like a car or tv set?

That's an interesting way of putting it, Indy. I think you're on to something. I would cut out the "purchase" bit though because money need not change hands; we wouldn't want to outlaw gift-giving now would we? I'm pretty satified now that we've hit on the main differences. Good job, everyone.


And Druid, it's always a pleasure to engage in a philosophical discussion. The contemplative pleasures are among the greatest, if not the absolute greatest, I have experienced in my admittedly (relatively) limited experience. That's one of the reasons I decided to major in Philosophy.

You may be right about us having the same basic idea as well. I'm 100% objectivist and believe that there are universal moral truths that we should all live by. These truths are the ones that should inform our laws. You seem to be saying the same thing. (Yay!) As far a Kant is concerned, I actually have only had relatively minor exposure to him at this stage. I am familiar with some of his ideas but I won't be studying him in any sort of depth until some time next semester.

ok this thread has run its course and i am satisfied that we have chosen that as long as it isn't pirated it will do

druid clears throat prior to becoming devil's advocate and prepares to run when reply button is depressed. sorry master in chief but it's been over 10 yrs since i finished my philosophy degree and i really wanted to test this point...tee hee!

i totally agree with indy

---

Does the person who created the software have a moral right to expect

---

only if you take out the word moral. the producers right to expect copyright to be adhered to is still just a social management rule. if i produce a car, indy a tv, codename a computer code, and master in chief an advert jingle we all want our intellectual capital to be protected and to recieve our dividends for hard work and so respect the other persons right only because it helps defend our own.

if such a morallity were innate are all humans born with it, then instead of it being a social construct would'nt the pirates share that morallity and the problem would not exest in the first place? *i don't deny that good and bad people exist i just question whether or not we are born that way or are raised that way*

@codename. read any Sartre lately?

A few points of clarification:

@Code

The notion of purchase is necessary in this discussion because, if the software is freely submitted as a gift by the creator of it, there is no issue no matter how many times it is replicated ... as there is no piracy or theft of it involved, i.e. freeware.

@Druid

This thread was posed as one in which the morality is to be examined. Hence the need to determine whether the notion of property and rights of ownership is one of moral weight and legitimacy and if of such moral weight and legitimacy, what rights, if any, should follow.

I would say that you comment supports the notion that there is moral weight and legitimacy to the notion of property and rights of ownership.

indy my friend you are good. can we agree that there is some some sort of morallity, which is an agreed set of rights and wrongs with regards to acceptable behaviour between humans. whether or not we are born with them or develop them over time does not take from the fact that they do exist.

as to them being innate or not one hint towards these ideas of right and wrong being codenames sought after universal truths, is that with all of the various world cultures and beliefs the same general ideas of what is or is not acceptable usually exist. for example, that of injuring an innocent party like a child

Druid said:

---

can we agree that there is some some sort of morallity, which is an agreed set of rights and wrongs with regards to acceptable behaviour between humans. whether or not we are born with them or develop them over time does not take from the fact that they do exist.

---

I think yes although I hesitate to say that a code of morals is something that one is born with. I see it that along with ethics, the general "shoulds" or "oughts" in society are those codes which have evolved over time to have universally beneficial application from both a subjective and objective standpoint ... within a given culture.

Now that we are more "global" in terms of physical contact or means of communication, the verdict is still out on whether we also have arrived at a system of moral codes which have universal acceptance.

But as far as those who regularly post here are concerned, I believe one may safely say that all are familiar the same set or system of morals codes ... regardless of whether all are in agreement with them.

While it's true that we may not be born with a "moral code" I do believe that there are some other things that we are born with. Take the concept of "good" as an example. We know what is good when we see it but good luck to anyone who tries to define it. (For a more in-depth explanation of this idea read G. E. Moore's On the Subject-Matter of Ethics ) Since we can still talk about it, the idea of "good" must be similar to the idea of "yellow" in that we just know it when we see it. For this to be true we must be able to perceive "good" the same way that we can perceive the color yellow. It seems, then, that we are born with the ability to see good and from that we can distill an comprehensive moral code.

I have had a bit of experience with Sartre; I was involved in a project on Existentialism in high-school. My area dealt more with the pre-Existentialists however, people like Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.

@ indy, sorry i was not clear on what i was about there. really in any of the other responses i gave here you'll see that i was more existentialist, pushing the point that people are not born moral. my comment about most cultures not accepting the intentional injury of a youth is perhaps my fading hope and a consolation to code that there may be agood after all.

perhaps this is all down to what you define the word moral as meaning. if moral is a set of values determining what we see as good or evil then these values could be taught to us and no innate sense of good would be required. in this case yes there is difinately a morality existing in todays society. if these are not innate we must have developed them ourselves. it would make sense i think that we would develop them to suit our needs and requirements. morals then would be utilitarian, designed / evolving to suit our purpose. although idon't want to misrepresent code, i think the thread was aimed at finding something which would show that human nature instincively tells us what is good or evil and tthat his instinct would drive our morallity?

of course since as you say there are very few cultures existing with no contact from the rest of the world, and an experiment confining a child or group of children from birth to adulthood just to see what values they developed without outside contact would be morally reprehensible proof will be hard to find.

This is fun