8 ms·

At least it's clear what he's saying, but I was surprised at this -- it puts Linus well and truly in the postmodern camp. He says ethics are completely relative

by benhoyt 16y ago

At least it's clear what he's saying, but I was surprised at this -- it puts Linus well and truly in the postmodern camp. He says ethics are completely relative and personal. (Which of course is not the case: if I try to kill someone, the cops aren't being "sanctimonious dick-heads" when they stop me.) Anyway, all this is off topic, but I was just surprised at Linus's relativism when he seems so "absolutist" about many other things, for example, how much C++ sucks. Edit: OTOH, Linus is talking in the context of software licenses -- I agree with him that it can get holier-than-thou the way some folks push the GPL (not least its original author).

DisposaBoy 16y ago
And the cops aren't there to stop you based on ethics. In fact, they have no right to stop you on ethics. EDIT(oops accidentally pressed send), anyway... They're there to stop you based on applicable laws, the minute you start to base such things on ethics is the minute you become vigilante.
Raphael_Amiard 16y ago
To reiterate, even if murder is universally considered as being wrong, other issues such as property, copyright, profit and a lot of other things are treated extremely differently in different cultures. So it's as easy to find something we all mostly agree on (murder) than something we all mostly disagree on (property). Also taking the murder example is quite dishonest. Linus wasn't talking about murder issues. He was talking about intellectual property issues. Do you claim there is objective right and wrong in this domain ? Do you claim to know what it is ? EDIT : Didn't see your edit, so correction about the "dishonest argument" part :)
- zurn 16y ago
  He's a US citizen now so it's called targeted killing when it's not wrong :)
- riffraff 16y ago
  FWIW, even killing people is/was considered acceptable: if the victims have property X where X varies between having the wrong race, being the firs born girl, being physically impaired, being sentenced to death, being a sacrificial offer and plenty more.
naner 16y ago
He says ethics are completely relative and personal. No. He did say ethics were personal but ethical relativism was not even hinted at. Those two ideas are not interchangeable.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

by benhoyt 16y ago

DisposaBoy 16y ago

And the cops aren't there to stop you based on ethics. In fact, they have no right to stop you on ethics. EDIT(oops accidentally pressed send), anyway... They're there to stop you based on applicable laws, the minute you start to base such things on ethics is the minute you become vigilante.

Raphael_Amiard 16y ago

To reiterate, even if murder is universally considered as being wrong, other issues such as property, copyright, profit and a lot of other things are treated extremely differently in different cultures. So it's as easy to find something we all mostly agree on (murder) than something we all mostly disagree on (property). Also taking the murder example is quite dishonest. Linus wasn't talking about murder issues. He was talking about intellectual property issues. Do you claim there is objective right and wrong in this domain ? Do you claim to know what it is ? EDIT : Didn't see your edit, so correction about the "dishonest argument" part :)

zurn 16y ago
He's a US citizen now so it's called targeted killing when it's not wrong :)
riffraff 16y ago
FWIW, even killing people is/was considered acceptable: if the victims have property X where X varies between having the wrong race, being the firs born girl, being physically impaired, being sentenced to death, being a sacrificial offer and plenty more.

naner 16y ago

He says ethics are completely relative and personal. No. He did say ethics were personal but ethical relativism was not even hinted at. Those two ideas are not interchangeable.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]