3 ms·

That's as may be, but it's orthoganal to the question I asked: Are you implying (not saying you are, but it is a parsimonious reading of your assertion)

That's as may be, but it's orthoganal to the question I asked: Are you implying (not saying you are, but it is a parsimonious reading of your assertion) that not getting caught doing something makes that activity legal/ethical? So. do you believe that as long as you don't get caught, it's ethical?

willcipriano 4y ago
My ethics have little to do with the law and more closely resembles Nicomachean Ethics[0]. I care more about the correct result as opposed to a correct process. A thought experiment: Someone is going to admit to you that they are actively molesting a child. It's illegal to record this conversation, and this person trusts you and considers you a friend, but if you did record it would provide evidence that would prevent the molestation of children in the future. In my view not breaking the law in that case is unethical. [0] "Aristotle emphasized that virtue is practical, and that the purpose of ethics is to become good, not merely to know. Aristotle also claims that the right course of action depends upon the details of a particular situation, rather than being generated merely by applying a law." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics
- nobody9999 4y ago
  I am familiar with the concepts. But you've focused on a severe edge case, rather than the discussion at hand. Moving the goalposts can be fun, I guess. Please do continue, as it's mildly amusing.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    You wouldn't know if someone recorded you saying something mundane, they would have no incentive to release it, if released nobody would listen. It would only really matter if you appeared to do something wrong or actually did something wrong. All of the things that I can think of, that anyone would care about, are worse than not obeying a particular state law about recording devices.
tallanvor 4y ago
I'm not sure why you try to present this as such a black and white situation. You yourself have stated that what is ethical and what is legal is not always the same thing. If I surreptitiously record you admitting to a crime, is releasing that recording unethical, even if it's technically illegal? And do you really believe that the law should be used to prevent such activity? I would argue that laws against recording people are unjust and clearly exist to make it harder to hold certain people accountable for their words and deeds. What you do with a recording certainly can be unethical or illegal. If I record someone purely so that I can go back and take better notes or otherwise remember what we discussed, I see nothing unethical about that. Conversely, using such a recording to embarrass you, misrepresent you, or blackmail you, those activities are clearly unethical and in some cases clearly illegal.
- nobody9999 4y ago
  You completely misunderstand my point. Which is probably my fault. I'll elaborate. I'm not so concerned about the legal ramifications of surreptitously recording conversations. I would never do that, as I believe it's unethical to do so. Whether it's legal (and in many places, only one party needs to know that a recording is being made) or not, I believe that recording someone without their knowledge is unethical. Full stop. That's it. I don't care (too much) about the law or whether or not there's any real jeopardy if someone breaks that law. It's still wrong. Some may disagree with that assessment. But I do not want to be surreptitiously (I keep using that word. It definitely means what I think it means.) recorded. tl;dr: Surreptitiously recording other people in the course of everyday life is wrong and unethical, regardless of circumstance.
  - tallanvor 4y ago
    It is your opinion that it's unethical to record people without informing them, and it's fine to take that position. My position is that the act of recording someone without their knowledge is not inherently unethical, and that the reason for the recording and how you use it is what determines whether or not you are doing something unethical.

willcipriano 4y ago

My ethics have little to do with the law and more closely resembles Nicomachean Ethics[0]. I care more about the correct result as opposed to a correct process. A thought experiment: Someone is going to admit to you that they are actively molesting a child. It's illegal to record this conversation, and this person trusts you and considers you a friend, but if you did record it would provide evidence that would prevent the molestation of children in the future. In my view not breaking the law in that case is unethical. [0] "Aristotle emphasized that virtue is practical, and that the purpose of ethics is to become good, not merely to know. Aristotle also claims that the right course of action depends upon the details of a particular situation, rather than being generated merely by applying a law." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics

nobody9999 4y ago
I am familiar with the concepts. But you've focused on a severe edge case, rather than the discussion at hand. Moving the goalposts can be fun, I guess. Please do continue, as it's mildly amusing.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  You wouldn't know if someone recorded you saying something mundane, they would have no incentive to release it, if released nobody would listen. It would only really matter if you appeared to do something wrong or actually did something wrong. All of the things that I can think of, that anyone would care about, are worse than not obeying a particular state law about recording devices.

tallanvor 4y ago

I'm not sure why you try to present this as such a black and white situation. You yourself have stated that what is ethical and what is legal is not always the same thing. If I surreptitiously record you admitting to a crime, is releasing that recording unethical, even if it's technically illegal? And do you really believe that the law should be used to prevent such activity? I would argue that laws against recording people are unjust and clearly exist to make it harder to hold certain people accountable for their words and deeds. What you do with a recording certainly can be unethical or illegal. If I record someone purely so that I can go back and take better notes or otherwise remember what we discussed, I see nothing unethical about that. Conversely, using such a recording to embarrass you, misrepresent you, or blackmail you, those activities are clearly unethical and in some cases clearly illegal.

nobody9999 4y ago
You completely misunderstand my point. Which is probably my fault. I'll elaborate. I'm not so concerned about the legal ramifications of surreptitously recording conversations. I would never do that, as I believe it's unethical to do so. Whether it's legal (and in many places, only one party needs to know that a recording is being made) or not, I believe that recording someone without their knowledge is unethical. Full stop. That's it. I don't care (too much) about the law or whether or not there's any real jeopardy if someone breaks that law. It's still wrong. Some may disagree with that assessment. But I do not want to be surreptitiously (I keep using that word. It definitely means what I think it means.) recorded. tl;dr: Surreptitiously recording other people in the course of everyday life is wrong and unethical, regardless of circumstance.
- tallanvor 4y ago
  It is your opinion that it's unethical to record people without informing them, and it's fine to take that position. My position is that the act of recording someone without their knowledge is not inherently unethical, and that the reason for the recording and how you use it is what determines whether or not you are doing something unethical.