6 ms·

Even so, the moral act would be to refuse to agree to the contract, not duplicitously agree to the contract with zero intent on doing what you claimed. And no,

Even so, the moral act would be to refuse to agree to the contract, not duplicitously agree to the contract with zero intent on doing what you claimed. And no, watching Avengers: Endgame is not on the same moral level as freeing slaves. I will not cede that ground.

fluoridation 3y ago
>Even so, the moral act would be to refuse to agree to the contract, not duplicitously agree to the contract with zero intent on doing what you claimed. The moral (if you insist) act would be to not offer a nonsensical contract. If I want to do something and I have to agree to a nonsensical contract to do it then I'll agree to it and then do whatever I want. If the other party doesn't like then next time they can offer a reasonable contract, and if they don't I'll just do it again. Sorry, but you don't get my firstborn just because you put it in an EULA that I had to agree to when I installed your software. >And no, watching Avengers: Endgame is not on the same moral level as freeing slaves. I will not cede that ground. Interesting. However, the one who made a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable clauses in a contract was me. The way you posed your question in your last comment implied that you think that, if you've already entered into an agreement not to do it, pirating a movie and freeing slaves are ethically equivalent. It would seem that respecting your word to you trumps everything else, no matter what. If that's really what you think, then fine, I can respect that. However, if it's possible that you could enter into an agreement that would require you to act in a way that you find unacceptable and you would rather breach the agreement than act in that way, you will need to concede that what you find unethical is not breaching the agreement per se, but the specific manner in which the agreement is breached. In other words, in such a case we have a simple difference of opinion. You think slavery is bad and pirating is bad (perhaps to different degrees, but still, they're bad), and I think slavery is bad and pirating is not bad. That there's an agreement or whatever else is just a distraction.
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  I'm confused; are you saying that (1) since there are some moral justifications to break a contract, (c) therefore all justifications for breaking contracts are moral I don't think you believe that, and I don't think you believe I believe that, either.

fluoridation 3y ago

>Even so, the moral act would be to refuse to agree to the contract, not duplicitously agree to the contract with zero intent on doing what you claimed. The moral (if you insist) act would be to not offer a nonsensical contract. If I want to do something and I have to agree to a nonsensical contract to do it then I'll agree to it and then do whatever I want. If the other party doesn't like then next time they can offer a reasonable contract, and if they don't I'll just do it again. Sorry, but you don't get my firstborn just because you put it in an EULA that I had to agree to when I installed your software. >And no, watching Avengers: Endgame is not on the same moral level as freeing slaves. I will not cede that ground. Interesting. However, the one who made a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable clauses in a contract was me. The way you posed your question in your last comment implied that you think that, if you've already entered into an agreement not to do it, pirating a movie and freeing slaves are ethically equivalent. It would seem that respecting your word to you trumps everything else, no matter what. If that's really what you think, then fine, I can respect that. However, if it's possible that you could enter into an agreement that would require you to act in a way that you find unacceptable and you would rather breach the agreement than act in that way, you will need to concede that what you find unethical is not breaching the agreement per se, but the specific manner in which the agreement is breached. In other words, in such a case we have a simple difference of opinion. You think slavery is bad and pirating is bad (perhaps to different degrees, but still, they're bad), and I think slavery is bad and pirating is not bad. That there's an agreement or whatever else is just a distraction.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
I'm confused; are you saying that (1) since there are some moral justifications to break a contract, (c) therefore all justifications for breaking contracts are moral I don't think you believe that, and I don't think you believe I believe that, either.