Stolen Goods - Ethical...?

don9999

In 'theory'......I can't believe that anyone (with any morals!) would "KNOWINGLY" buy stolen goods.

I can't think of ANY valid reasons to support a decision to buy such goods.

Of course, there is ALWAYS the chance of 'un-knowingly' buying stolen goods, whether buying off of E-bay, from your local free-ads paper, or from a friend,

Having said that....I refer you to my opening words...'in theory'...

'In practice'.....how many of you have copied a CD? Copied a film? etc.etc.
Not 'quite' the same thing as buying a 'stolen good' but is effectively the same thing. Since you are obtaining (ie. buying for free!) something which is an illegal copy, then you are effectively 'buying a stolen item'!

Having copied a CD myself in the past (who hasn't?) I cannot claim any moral highground over anyone else. However, I would still not buy any (physical) goods that I know have been stolen.

(Thinking about it I find myself in a conflict of morals here....)

Cheers,
Don

Jeryth

It CAN be a moral conflict; unless there can be a clear definition of "stolen" goods. Goods stolen from another home, person, institution, tangible entity are one thing. Intellectual property is another. I would not condemn someone for getting knock-off DVD's, but don't have any myself. But if I find the persons responsible for the repeated burgling, car breaking-in, or malicious damage, I have suffered recently, I'd like to show them the sorrow, upset, and shock it causes.

don9999

The problem is, what gives any individual the right to decide which laws it is acceptable to break, and which are not?


If society deems that theft is illegal, whether it be of physical property, or intellectual rights; then surely we must condemn any acts of EITHER theft?

It's like drivers who complain that they should not be prosecuted for driving at 80mph, but believe that 90mph is too fast and such drivers should be stopped and prosecuted. Who gives any individual the right to determine what is the acceptable limit to drive at? The law (that WE, as a society, have determined) says that the maximum speed is 70mph. Anyone who drives faster is driving illegally. What they 'should' be doing is arguing for an increase in the speed limit.

But I digress......

I suspect that victims of burglary would argue for the full force of law against the perpetrators. But I ALSO suspect that the victims of property theft would argue likewise. Hence, it is not appropriate for an individual to determine what is right or wrong, since they would tend to diminish the seriousness of those acts that least affect them (eg. copying a CD doesn't affect me, so it's not so bad.)

Hence the dilemma.....

Cheers,
Don

Jeryth

Yup, hit the nail on the head; what I consider most important to me is the most important thing.

Please, what was the reason for the thread? I think a discussion will always have an element of "me, my, I".