4 ms·

Assuming you are referring to the social contract, I refer you again to the definition of "social"; corporations are not part of it, any more than a scorpion is

Assuming you are referring to the social contract, I refer you again to the definition of "social"; corporations are not part of it, any more than a scorpion is, or a calculator. Could you answer some of these questions so I can understand your position better? > What implicit rule is it that you think applies to purchasing stuff? > This ethical agreement not to pirate stuff, is this something that pirates can refuse?

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Who owns corporations? Who makes deals on behalf of corporations? Who makes the works that are pirated? People. People. People. Corporations are made up of people, owned by people, and creators of works are people. And those people have rights, just like you. And no, you can't really opt out of the social contract other than by opting out of society. This is a feature, however, not a bug, and participation in society without adherence to the social contract is called "Free riding." Intellectual property pirates fall into the category of "free riders" or people who benefit from the social contract but do not adhere to it.
- ineptech 3y ago
  First, I will cede the idea of corporations being bound by the social contract. It's not so much that I think it's wrong as nonsensical, like claiming a submarine can swim. I guess you can think of corporations as participating in the social contract, in the sense that they are subject to laws and in return they create social value, but it's not as if they could decide not to do those things. Corporations can't even exist outside of a society! But I also don't think it proves what you think it does, so sure, let's say that submarines are excellent swimmers and corporations are totally part of the social contract. I can't wait for Apple to remember that they're supposed to pay US taxes! Second: do you claim it is inherently immoral to break laws or not? I've assumed the answer is no despite your dodging the question, but I don't see where you're trying to go with all this discussion of the social contract, if not there. There's more I'd say, but I hate typing out "if you think X then I would respond Y, but if you think Z then I would reply with W" stuff, I'd much prefer a straight answer to this.
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    Corporations don't take actions, they don't make decisions, they don't breathe, think, or live. Every single thing a corporation "does" gets decided by one or more people, and its those people who are responsible for whatever the consequences of their decisions are, good or bad. There is no concept of a "corporation" other than as a group of individual people collectively taking action. You clearly have some form of disgust with corporations, but as a moral entity, they're just people. Really, by accepting the idea that corporations are more than just a group of people, you're acquiescing to their conceit. Their trick of making themselves something "special" or more complex than just "people making choices" is part of the problem, IMO. And no, breaking laws is not, itself, immoral. But laws represent agreements between parties, or conditions upon which an interaction is predicated. There's an implicit presumption that a transaction will comport with the laws it's governed by unless stated otherwise. I don't have a problem stating otherwise, but relying on that presumption because it's to your advantage with no intention of following through on your end is immoral.
    - ineptech 3y ago
      > You clearly have some form of disgust with corporations... Nope. Recall that I said, "corporations are not part of [the social contract], any more than a scorpion is, or a calculator." Do you suppose I'm disgusted by calculators? For the record, what corporations share with scorpions and calculators is that they lack agency, but I don't think it matters here anyway. Your whole position is that piracy is immoral because the people who pirate stuff promised (at some point, in some sense) not to, and I don't think your position or my response to it really hinges on whether that promise was made to a corporation or a person. > And no, breaking laws is not, itself, immoral. Great, we agree on something! The problem is, this contradicts your position up to this point. "Piracy is immoral because it involves breaking laws" cannot co-exist with "Some laws can be ethically broken." The former is what you've been claiming all along, and the latter is what you just conceded, and they can't both be true. And NB, you can't get around this with something like, "Well sure there are some exceptions, but it's still usually immoral to break laws" because the position you're arguing against is that piracy is one of those exceptions. You can't use a rule to disprove an exception to that rule. Bottom line, I don't think this line of thinking is going to go anywhere. I can't help noticing that you seem fine with the idea of judging actions by consequences when it comes to corporate employees: > "...those people who are responsible for whatever the consequences of their decisions are, good or bad." All I'm arguing is that the same is true of pirates. Whatever you say in response must, at some point, deal with the fact that some people think pirating music is morally equivalent to stealing a bike and some people think it isn't. That, and not some abstract matter like how one interprets Hobbes or whether corporations have feelings or whatever, is the core of the dispute and also the thing you're trying to skirt around. Well, it was an admirable effort and I thank you for making it because I enjoy debates like this, but I don't think it's working. No shame in that! Trying to demonstrate that piracy is bad without arguing that piracy is bad was always a bit of a tall order.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago

Who owns corporations? Who makes deals on behalf of corporations? Who makes the works that are pirated? People. People. People. Corporations are made up of people, owned by people, and creators of works are people. And those people have rights, just like you. And no, you can't really opt out of the social contract other than by opting out of society. This is a feature, however, not a bug, and participation in society without adherence to the social contract is called "Free riding." Intellectual property pirates fall into the category of "free riders" or people who benefit from the social contract but do not adhere to it.

ineptech 3y ago
First, I will cede the idea of corporations being bound by the social contract. It's not so much that I think it's wrong as nonsensical, like claiming a submarine can swim. I guess you can think of corporations as participating in the social contract, in the sense that they are subject to laws and in return they create social value, but it's not as if they could decide not to do those things. Corporations can't even exist outside of a society! But I also don't think it proves what you think it does, so sure, let's say that submarines are excellent swimmers and corporations are totally part of the social contract. I can't wait for Apple to remember that they're supposed to pay US taxes! Second: do you claim it is inherently immoral to break laws or not? I've assumed the answer is no despite your dodging the question, but I don't see where you're trying to go with all this discussion of the social contract, if not there. There's more I'd say, but I hate typing out "if you think X then I would respond Y, but if you think Z then I would reply with W" stuff, I'd much prefer a straight answer to this.
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  Corporations don't take actions, they don't make decisions, they don't breathe, think, or live. Every single thing a corporation "does" gets decided by one or more people, and its those people who are responsible for whatever the consequences of their decisions are, good or bad. There is no concept of a "corporation" other than as a group of individual people collectively taking action. You clearly have some form of disgust with corporations, but as a moral entity, they're just people. Really, by accepting the idea that corporations are more than just a group of people, you're acquiescing to their conceit. Their trick of making themselves something "special" or more complex than just "people making choices" is part of the problem, IMO. And no, breaking laws is not, itself, immoral. But laws represent agreements between parties, or conditions upon which an interaction is predicated. There's an implicit presumption that a transaction will comport with the laws it's governed by unless stated otherwise. I don't have a problem stating otherwise, but relying on that presumption because it's to your advantage with no intention of following through on your end is immoral.
  - ineptech 3y ago
    > You clearly have some form of disgust with corporations... Nope. Recall that I said, "corporations are not part of [the social contract], any more than a scorpion is, or a calculator." Do you suppose I'm disgusted by calculators? For the record, what corporations share with scorpions and calculators is that they lack agency, but I don't think it matters here anyway. Your whole position is that piracy is immoral because the people who pirate stuff promised (at some point, in some sense) not to, and I don't think your position or my response to it really hinges on whether that promise was made to a corporation or a person. > And no, breaking laws is not, itself, immoral. Great, we agree on something! The problem is, this contradicts your position up to this point. "Piracy is immoral because it involves breaking laws" cannot co-exist with "Some laws can be ethically broken." The former is what you've been claiming all along, and the latter is what you just conceded, and they can't both be true. And NB, you can't get around this with something like, "Well sure there are some exceptions, but it's still usually immoral to break laws" because the position you're arguing against is that piracy is one of those exceptions. You can't use a rule to disprove an exception to that rule. Bottom line, I don't think this line of thinking is going to go anywhere. I can't help noticing that you seem fine with the idea of judging actions by consequences when it comes to corporate employees: > "...those people who are responsible for whatever the consequences of their decisions are, good or bad." All I'm arguing is that the same is true of pirates. Whatever you say in response must, at some point, deal with the fact that some people think pirating music is morally equivalent to stealing a bike and some people think it isn't. That, and not some abstract matter like how one interprets Hobbes or whether corporations have feelings or whatever, is the core of the dispute and also the thing you're trying to skirt around. Well, it was an admirable effort and I thank you for making it because I enjoy debates like this, but I don't think it's working. No shame in that! Trying to demonstrate that piracy is bad without arguing that piracy is bad was always a bit of a tall order.