Weiss opens up his article with, “As a reformed online gaming thief, this ruling makes no sense to me. It places too much value on the time people spend playing video games. Video games are not work or investments for which people should be compensated; they are escapism.” (Alex Weiss) Some may say that time is money, but that may not be the case. The productivity in the game is what makes each individuals’ time valuable. Therefore compensation for piracy of an object that does not exist would place the value of the time spent to gain a merely hypothetical item.
It doesn’t matter how much damage it could cause, you are intentionally harming people. This would make it wrong all the time, because you know the products that you are selling are going to harm someone. With the second definition this becomes a little blurry. In a free market you should be able to sell your products at whatever price you want to. But it becomes wrong when you are selling your products at such a low price that you put all other companies out of business.
Hence, even after the hammer falls, the contract for sale remains conditioned on the seller’s approval. The question of how these rules should be applied to an online auction of a domain name, in which no hammer falls, came before a California
This response likely had the added effect of offending their employee base by suggesting that their employees would utilize the program to steal from the company. This offense has the significant potential for lowering employee engagement and retention. Clearly, Company Q is not educated in how ethical conduct and social responsibility by a company can actually boost its profits. Their current position only serves to perpetuate the long lived consumer mind-set that companies are inherently dishonest and only have eyes on profit. It is unrealistic to believe that Company Q can instantly jump from their current posture to one of deep and meaningful social responsibility and corporate ethics.
On the Self-Evidence of Copyright Abstract: Is there an innate or self-evident right to have control over the reproduction of work you have authored? Conversely, is the crime of unauthorized reproduction wrong in and of itself or wrong merely because it is currently illegal? At present, society as a whole does not share a common answer. On the Self-Evidence of Copyright If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. -Thomas Jefferson The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged ... to be a right of common law.
A society without laws would be a corrupt chaotic society that would put people in a state of crisis because people would be murdered for possessions they own, fundamental beliefs of how people preserve what’s right from wrong in a society would not be the same as a normal society, and a balance between individual rights and public order would not be a basis part of a society. In this society without a government people would not be prosperous and seek new ways to live as a group. The basis for money would not be the same as with a government and would result in different forms of exchange. Education would not be the same because that is part of a unifying government trying to educate its society, for which a society without laws and government would not unify in such a matter. Care for others such as medical treatment would not have the same basis as a normal society because of how people perceive the responsibility of others in a aspect of individual care.
The worst thing about it is that you can easily avoid every getting in trouble for stealing by earning your money and buying what you want with your money. Instead of stealing which will cause problems in the end you should just purchase the item you want. That is the better way to go by far. Stealing is wrong for many reasons but here are three main reasons why it is wrong and you should never do it. Three reasons why stealing is wrong is because it hurts the stores profits and the stores will lose money, it is a dishonest thing to do and you will have the guilt of stealing for as long as you have the item you stole, and it hurts family members that care about you and want you to do your best to stay out of trouble.
This causes many issues with people and society. There becomes an unneeded amount of people on the streets. This is an ethical problem because the people who choose to be on the streets could be off of the streets but they choose to be lazy and unmotivated although they shouldn’t be because they can relieve themselves of the predicament they are in. This is ethically wrong because people shouldn’t be homeless by choice. It’s not okay because it causes more money to be wasted towards people that shouldn’t be helped at all.
The central flaw is that Singer uses a bad analogy of how the global economy actually is, it assumes that the child has somehow appeared there of his own devices and that a simple act will save him. Many of Singer’s key principals, such as the importance of impartiality and the irrelevance of distance are very strong and I find it hard to disagree with them. Whilst I do not agree that to adopt Singer’s solution will cause actual harm to me it is not convincing as the most effective way to solve the problems of poverty. To follow Singer’s principal will amount to everyone else jumping in the water and drowning to some small degree. I believe that while Singer develops his argument by claiming that while people in rich states can survive without luxuries; those in poorer ones where most are manufactured could not survive, as their economic base would fall apart.
However, the outcome, getting a high mark, is considerd good. On the other hand, I disagree with ‘The end justifying the mean’ beacause the result might cause yet another problem than you have already made. An example of something the end not justifying the means is if a person saves up months to buy a new computer however they have stolen the money from their friends or others to do so, the end of the situation is not justified. This is because the individual gained the money by stealing which is illegal. Therefore, the end does not justify the means.