undefined | Better HN

Skip to content

Top Best Ask Show New Jobs

0 pointsmindslight10y ago0 comments

One can have a consistent set of ethics in which imaginary property does not exist.

For example, my personal opinion is that it is unethical to directly support companies working to put the Internet genie back in the bottle, especially for mere convenience.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

twoodfin10y ago· 3 in thread

One can have a consistent set of ethics in which imaginary property does not exist.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but an NBA player's livelihood depends quite a bit on the "imaginary property" that makes it illegal to rebroadcast games and sell counterfeit jerseys.

mindslightOP10y ago

Yes, at least ostensibly.

But the author wasn't the one who brought up ethics. A "hustle everything" set of ethics seems like it would include both breaking copyright law and utilizing it, depending on how it benefits oneself. Perhaps this is approaching a "null" ethics, but if those values are shared by his peer group then it seems like they should still qualify as ethics.

It's just a bit disingenuous to appeal to ethics and morality while really referencing laws, especially when we can see (historically) that laws are often wrong.

webwanderings10y ago

Remove the notion of laws, and you'd arrive at the same situation. Laws are auto generated through human evolution, they are not forced in themselves.

Look at it this way: does anyone get hurt if 50 cent donut is being sought for $1? There's no Napster of donut business.

Lawtonfogle10y ago

Perhaps the issue is that when saying anything is moral, ethical, or legal, we seem to be acting as if there is some universal system of morals, ethics, or laws that we are applying to.

Even the worst behavior is moral, ethical, and legal given certain frameworks.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse