3 ms·

Well sure, they can have independent moral compasses, but they shouldn't. They both depend on a civilized society. Dropbox needs to uphold and defend the values

by wissler 14y ago

Well sure, they can have independent moral compasses, but they shouldn't. They both depend on a civilized society. Dropbox needs to uphold and defend the values of civilization (which don't include a paternalistic authoritarian monitoring system), not thwart them.

mc32 14y ago
I disagree. Just because I could open a grocery store which found it morally repugnant to sell animal-derived products does not mean everyone should share the same values. People and firms should be able to do the same within the framework of law
- wissler 14y ago
  Animal-derived products are not morally repugnant, and the framework of law is no substitute for having a good moral sense. "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." --Martin Luther King, Jr.
  - mc32 14y ago
    >and the framework of law is no substitute for having a good moral sense. Well, then, they're covered doubly. They are following moral sense and are also following the law. I.e. I do not see how taking this path breaks laws and I don't see their choice as being immoral. W/re animal-derived products. You and I might feel that eating animal flesh is a-ok, morally speaking. Conversely I and others might feel otherwise -that's it's morally indefensible. (see animal rights activists, or "the sexual politics of meat", for example). Dr. King used that phrase to make a point, he didn't say that to prove the legality of what Hitler did.
    - wissler 14y ago
      How you or others "feel" is not a moral argument. And you do not understand the point of Dr. King's quote.
      - jeremyarussell 14y ago
        Actually how people "feel" is about what makes up ALL of a moral argument. It's moral for you to waste an animals life when tofo rice and beans give you the same amino acids and proteins? It's moral for us to eat these things and spend a hundred times more for the chicken then for the rice? It's moral for us to do this when that money could be spent on a hundred meals for starving children? Much like beauty, morality is in the eye of the beholder, it's what society accepts. There were groups which at one point thought it was morally acceptable to assault women if they were peasants, but not if they were royalty. Everyone at the time thought that was morally okay, since Kings chose their knights, and god chose the king. Sure some things will get a more broadly accepted morally wrong or right vote by people. (not many people today would say rape is okay for instance) but abortion, animal eating, stem cells and LBGT's are still accepted by some and wrong by others. It's called Freedom.

by wissler 14y ago

mc32 14y ago

I disagree. Just because I could open a grocery store which found it morally repugnant to sell animal-derived products does not mean everyone should share the same values. People and firms should be able to do the same within the framework of law

wissler 14y ago
Animal-derived products are not morally repugnant, and the framework of law is no substitute for having a good moral sense. "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." --Martin Luther King, Jr.
- mc32 14y ago
  >and the framework of law is no substitute for having a good moral sense. Well, then, they're covered doubly. They are following moral sense and are also following the law. I.e. I do not see how taking this path breaks laws and I don't see their choice as being immoral. W/re animal-derived products. You and I might feel that eating animal flesh is a-ok, morally speaking. Conversely I and others might feel otherwise -that's it's morally indefensible. (see animal rights activists, or "the sexual politics of meat", for example). Dr. King used that phrase to make a point, he didn't say that to prove the legality of what Hitler did.
  - wissler 14y ago
    How you or others "feel" is not a moral argument. And you do not understand the point of Dr. King's quote.
    - jeremyarussell 14y ago
      Actually how people "feel" is about what makes up ALL of a moral argument. It's moral for you to waste an animals life when tofo rice and beans give you the same amino acids and proteins? It's moral for us to eat these things and spend a hundred times more for the chicken then for the rice? It's moral for us to do this when that money could be spent on a hundred meals for starving children? Much like beauty, morality is in the eye of the beholder, it's what society accepts. There were groups which at one point thought it was morally acceptable to assault women if they were peasants, but not if they were royalty. Everyone at the time thought that was morally okay, since Kings chose their knights, and god chose the king. Sure some things will get a more broadly accepted morally wrong or right vote by people. (not many people today would say rape is okay for instance) but abortion, animal eating, stem cells and LBGT's are still accepted by some and wrong by others. It's called Freedom.