![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Sorry if I'm dragging up an oldish discussion - but I can't help this.
The holy-er than thou attitudes of some respondents are nothing short of humerous. I bet you half of them ahve an 'unlicensed mp3' lying about, or have made a copy of something theyve purchased (also in a suprising number of situations, illegal).
My main point is this: it is no more 'perverse' or 'twisted' to justify keeping the monitor than it is to claim retuning it is 'good' or 'right'.
The reason for this is simple: Morality is relative. There is no absolute standard that dictates what is right and wrong. It is impossible to point to one factually; we must instead create a standard for ourselves. Most frequently this is done through religion. (such things as the ten commandments.)
There is no requirement that we adhere to one standard over another. Put to the extreme, there is no way we can KNOW and PROOVE that a man who kills another for food is WRONG to do so. The vast majority of us follow standards that would deem this to be the case - but thats all we are doing.
In such a tame example as this, it becomes easy to approach the situation and deem it 'right' to keep the monitor. Doing so is not 'twisted'; it merely means we do not adopt the standard of that individual who no doubt loves the lord a little too much.
It would not be difficult, if we adopt one of the many utilitarian perspectives, for instance, to decide, upon consideration of the effort/time/cost involved in returning the monitor that keeping it conforms with the 'greatest good of the community' ethos.
So, whilst bible bashers (yes I am prejudiced - I've just watched the documentary 'Jesus camp' and it sickened me) may decide not returning the monitor is 'wrong' it is by no means 'perverse' to do otherwise. It is merely the adoption of a different (equally legitimate) moral code.
This constant battle is higlighted in our legal systems. Abortion is merely an argument between the 'Natural rights' of a child versus the utilitrian rights of the mother. Our prefferences for libertarian, egalitarian, or liberal economies are based on unspoken considerations of such 'rights'.
In this exact context, some law makers (to my admitted suprise - NY law) have, according to this thread, deemed the act as a 'gift'. In the UK, the act would almost certainly be considered as a situation where an equitable trust or bailment is created. This would mean the guy is legally liable in ensuring Dell regain what is still considered their property.
This difference of legal opinion was no doubt formed by people with differing moral standpoints. Each is as legitimate as the other and neither are perverse.
The examples can be continued....Canada's approach to IP rights/digital distribution/fair use, for instance.
I can go on, but think I've made enough of a point to hopefully continue this lively argument!
The holy-er than thou attitudes of some respondents are nothing short of humerous. I bet you half of them ahve an 'unlicensed mp3' lying about, or have made a copy of something theyve purchased (also in a suprising number of situations, illegal).
My main point is this: it is no more 'perverse' or 'twisted' to justify keeping the monitor than it is to claim retuning it is 'good' or 'right'.
The reason for this is simple: Morality is relative. There is no absolute standard that dictates what is right and wrong. It is impossible to point to one factually; we must instead create a standard for ourselves. Most frequently this is done through religion. (such things as the ten commandments.)
There is no requirement that we adhere to one standard over another. Put to the extreme, there is no way we can KNOW and PROOVE that a man who kills another for food is WRONG to do so. The vast majority of us follow standards that would deem this to be the case - but thats all we are doing.
In such a tame example as this, it becomes easy to approach the situation and deem it 'right' to keep the monitor. Doing so is not 'twisted'; it merely means we do not adopt the standard of that individual who no doubt loves the lord a little too much.
It would not be difficult, if we adopt one of the many utilitarian perspectives, for instance, to decide, upon consideration of the effort/time/cost involved in returning the monitor that keeping it conforms with the 'greatest good of the community' ethos.
So, whilst bible bashers (yes I am prejudiced - I've just watched the documentary 'Jesus camp' and it sickened me) may decide not returning the monitor is 'wrong' it is by no means 'perverse' to do otherwise. It is merely the adoption of a different (equally legitimate) moral code.
This constant battle is higlighted in our legal systems. Abortion is merely an argument between the 'Natural rights' of a child versus the utilitrian rights of the mother. Our prefferences for libertarian, egalitarian, or liberal economies are based on unspoken considerations of such 'rights'.
In this exact context, some law makers (to my admitted suprise - NY law) have, according to this thread, deemed the act as a 'gift'. In the UK, the act would almost certainly be considered as a situation where an equitable trust or bailment is created. This would mean the guy is legally liable in ensuring Dell regain what is still considered their property.
This difference of legal opinion was no doubt formed by people with differing moral standpoints. Each is as legitimate as the other and neither are perverse.
The examples can be continued....Canada's approach to IP rights/digital distribution/fair use, for instance.
I can go on, but think I've made enough of a point to hopefully continue this lively argument!
