Ethical Arguments Against Retardchicken
If “retardchicken” had to partake in an ethical argument against CD piracy, I think he would have a very easy time based on the perennial duties we should all live by. Historically, the philosophical world has agreed that we have several responsibilities toward other people. For example, “retardchicken” could claim that by pirating the CD, “overstand” is wronging another person. That is, “overstand” is basically stealing a copy of a CD that someone worked tirelessly on. Also, by “overstand” burning another copy, he is not promoting the beneficence of the band or person who created that particular CD. Additionally, “retardchicken” could claim that by “overstand” burning the CD, he is in part not showing his fidelity toward the record label.
…show more content…
His copying “begins with the freedom to have what’s mine doesn’t buckle before the demands of others” therefore, his infidelity is a non-issue due to the fact that he owns the copy of the CD (Brusseau 83). The freedom to do what he wants to do outweighs the injustice done to the record company in the eyes of a libertarian.
I happen to think they do not. This is because a negative right would be, being free, where as a positive right, one that protects my negative right would not do that in the case of the duplicate CD. To expain what I meant further, the negative right is something that has to happen and is almost natural, whereas the positive right seems to be man mad. The man mad part in this case is the code on the CD and that does not protect “overstands” rights to ‘owning’ freedom.
The Kant philosophy is that by helping “overstand” get around the code, they are not treating him as a means to the end. Ultimately, they are allowing him to work and therefore are “allowing them to earn a living, you’re actually supporting their projects and happiness” (Brusseau 74). Therefore, Kant would deem this
His copying “begins with the freedom to have what’s mine doesn’t buckle before the demands of others” therefore, his infidelity is a non-issue due to the fact that he owns the copy of the CD (Brusseau 83). The freedom to do what he wants to do outweighs the injustice done to the record company in the eyes of a libertarian.
I happen to think they do not. This is because a negative right would be, being free, where as a positive right, one that protects my negative right would not do that in the case of the duplicate CD. To expain what I meant further, the negative right is something that has to happen and is almost natural, whereas the positive right seems to be man mad. The man mad part in this case is the code on the CD and that does not protect “overstands” rights to ‘owning’ freedom.
The Kant philosophy is that by helping “overstand” get around the code, they are not treating him as a means to the end. Ultimately, they are allowing him to work and therefore are “allowing them to earn a living, you’re actually supporting their projects and happiness” (Brusseau 74). Therefore, Kant would deem this