On 26/02/16 04:13 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 26/02/16 22:06, Blaise Alleyne wrote: >> It does mean that bludgeoning people / copyright isn't always >> wrong. > Something can be bad yet necessary. One can e.g. reject power as a bad > thing, but still accept that children should perhaps not have the > freedom to choose their own diet, should their choices lead to a > harmful diet; there is no conflict here. One can bludgeon someone to > escape murder and copyright software to prevent someone from making > software nonfree, all the while maintaining that bludgeoning and > copyright are evils. >
Guess we have a diffrent ethical philosophy then. I don't think it's ever ethically okay to *do* evil, even though there may be situations in which we *tolerate* evil effects of good or neutral actions, because we can't separate out the evil effects. To get the discussion back on track... whatever the ethical philosophy, I think we agree that copyright is sometimes necessary or at least useful, that, ethically speaking, copyright isn't something to be avoided always at all costs. >> It is, perhaps, morally neutral, or maybe only prima facie wrong, >> but not intrinsically/always wrong. > I do not accept morals. > > As for copyright as well as bludgeoning people, I think both are -- > ethically speaking -- evils. > So... s/morally/ethically/g
