Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1561752" data-attributes="member: 10201">You're right. It was obviously past my bedtime when i wrote that.That's a very good point. For the most part, i agree with it. I never thought of this as a s lippery-slope issue, or at least not WRT who the copyright holder is (i do see it as a slippery-slope issue WRT to fair use, but that's another topic). The question becomes, what do you do about an unjust law? In this specific case, i see distinct shades of meaning and behavior, so that some violations of the law are moral, while others are not. But how do i know whether other people violating the law are doing so out of moral conviction, rather than simple disregard for the law? My argument isn't "because i don't like the victim", but, rather, "because the victim is somehow different and undeserving of protection of this sort". This analogy will probably seem really bizarre to you, but let me try it anyway: Under current law in most parts of the US, if you poison someone, it is murder. If they were suffering horribly from disease, it is still murder. If you are a doctor caring for the person, and they were suffering horribly from disease, it is still murder. If you are a doctor caring for a person, they are suffering horribly from an incurable disease, and they ask you to help them die, it might be assisted suicide, or it might still be murder. If your pet is suffering horribly from disease, and you poison them, perhaps no crime has been committed (probably depends on jurisdiction and circumstances). If you are a vet, and an animal is suffering horribly from disease, and you poison them, no crime has been committed. So, legally speaking, humans and non-humans are clearly distinct entities, and treated differently in many ways. Morally/psychologicall/sociologically, most people do not start down the slippery slope of assuming shooting people is ok just because shooting deer is ok. Me, i see a lot less distinction between humans and non-humans, so i think there is a definite connection between how we treat animals, and how we treat humans (not just on the individual level, but on the societal level). But that is, perhaps, just an article of faith on my part--i'm not even going to try and prove it.Back to the topic at hand. You seem to see corporations and people as being very similar, or at least fear that society at large sees them as very similar. (please, correct me if i've misunderstood you.) I don't. I have no fear that society will sanction a given treatment of people just because it sanctions that treatment of corporations. Nor do i think that the typical person equates the two. But i could very well be wrong on the distinction between "megacorp" and "mom-n-pop store"--maybe it doen't exist, and/or maybe most people don't see the distinction.</blockquote>

Verification