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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5420017" data-attributes="member: 18280">My point doesn't require that I agree the behaviour is unethical, or that you do so.Again, I wish I had your certainty that ethics only applies to "something fundamental to human existence".  Personally, I tend to think that things which are not are deeply involved in ethical debate.  Examples:  Liberty, dignity, pursuit of happiness.YMMV, though.Ownership in any sense is a socially granted phenomenon, and is rooted in what that society views as ethical.  Ethics very much enter into what can be owned, what should be owned, and how far ownership rights should extend.Note please that I do not say "How far ownership rights do extend".  That is a matter of law, and is therefore as objective as the law is objective.  Should, OTOH, is subjective, and therefore open to debate.My point doesn't require that I agree the current should needs to be changed, or that you do so.  It merely requires that what is ethical cannot be objectively known.Legal duty =/= ethical duty.Please explain this objective system of ethics you refer to.  Humanity has been looking for it since the dawn of history.  Do you really feel it is fair to keep this knowledge from the rest of us?  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />Every ethical system deals with, but is not limited to, fundamentals of human existence.Why not?So?Are you claiming that something is ethical simply because it is done, or that it must not be unethical because we would otherwise be guilty of acting unethically?That's pretty shaky ground, my friend.RC</blockquote>

Verification