Ethics Final

digital piracy

argument(s) that digital piracy is no different than other morally and legally acceptable ways of acquiring digital media

There is no monetary exchange in file-sharing(which distinguishes it from theft in the in the usual sense). So file-sharing is more like the exchange that gets on in a pubic library than traditional theft.

argument that file-sharing ought to be legal or encouraged by bands, the music industry, the film industry, etc.

File-sharing does not violate the rights creators have to their intellectual work(which is what Locke would say) because they are not rare and do not rival in consumption.

victimless crime

Uszaki’s argument that online piracy is a victimless crime

Why does Uszaki rejects that Locke’s view of property should be extended to include intellectual goods?

Meissner’s two ethical implications of file-sharing.

Substitution effect – people pirate media rather than buy it. So piracy costs the entertainment industry huge amounts of money due to missed sales.

Sampling effect – people pirate media to try it out or to get to know the artist. Then, if they like it, they’ll buy an official copy of the media they sampled, or even more likely, buy other work by the artist. So, piracy might even increase media sales.

two alternative methods of distribution for film that Meissner suggests as well as their ethical implications (advantages and disadvantages)

one-stop-shop- Provide a place on the internet where one can find any movie they want with as little effort as possible. Then either purchase those films individually or pay a subscription fee to the service with unlimited access.

advantages:(being legal, fast, reliable, easy to use and offering metadata, helps decrease substitution effect by offering a legal alternative to file-sharing )

disadvantages: monopoly

business model(sell related things)- when copies are free, you need to sell things that cannot be copied

advantages:(

disadvantages:(

What does Meissner say about the responsibility on the film industry regarding file-sharing?

Dunn’s Asymmetry Thesis

Such virtual actions are always wrong

Dunn’s Symmetry Thesis

Such virtual actions are always wrong

“The Third Option”

Some such virtual actions are wrong and

some are not

What view does Dunn seem to accept?

The Third Option

What view does Dunn argue against?

The Asymmetry Thesis

Versions of Dunn’s Virtual arguments and how Dunn objects to them

Virtual Argument 1

The actions are not wrong because the theft/betrayal/etc. took place in an online environment, and actions done online are not capable of being wrong.

Virtual Argument 2

The virtual theft is not wrong because it involved the theft of virtual property, not real property. If nothing real was stolen then there was no theft, and so no morally wrong action. The virtual betrayal is not wrong because it did not betray a real person, but rather an avatar, a virtual person

Virtual Argument 3

Virtual actions in virtual worlds are not wrong because these “actions” are like the “actions” one takes within one’s dreams [they have no negative effects, and thus, are not immoral]. Just as there is no dream immorality, there is no virtual world

immorality either.

Versions of Dunn’s Game arguments and how Dunn objects to them

Game Argument 1

Theft or betrayal in a virtual world is not morally wrong because virtual worlds are associated with

games and actions within games aren’t right or wrong.

Game Argument 2

If an action within a virtual world is in accordance with the rules of the that world, then the action is

morally acceptable. Thus, if virtual theft or virtual

betrayal is in accordance with the rules of the world,

then the virtual theft or virtual betrayal is not morally

wrong.

Versions of Dunn’s Play arguments and how Dunn objects to them

two arguments Dunn gives that directly argue against The Asymmetry Thesis

Argument from Moral Development- performing heinous actions via my avatar in a virtual world makes me more likely to do these actions in real life. And, since the latter is wrong, so is the former.

Argument from Psychological- Since players identify with their avatars, harm done to these avatars can cause psychological harm to real people. Since causing psychological harm to read people is wrong, then the virtual actions that cause this harm are wrong.

Dunn thinks that some virtual actions are wrong but some are not wrong. Be able to explain how he accounts for this

Dunn thinks combining the features from the above failed arguments will lead to an answer:

1) Because the actions are virtual, the harms they cause tend to be less than the harms caused by real actions.

2) Because many players give consent to engage in games where harmful actions may be done to them, some of the harm caused is not morally wrong.

3) Because play itself can be a good, there are positive consequences of actions that sustain play but nevertheless cause harm.

What are Dunn’s conditions of how to tell if a virtual action is immoral?

1) occur in worlds where players strongly identify with their avatars and so the virtual nature of the world doesn’t lessen the harm done to them,

2) there is little or no consent given to be given to being harmed, perhaps because are ignorant about possible harms that could be done to them in the virtual world, and

3) the harm does not contribute to play; they are gratuitous harms.

Implications of a narrow and broad definition of s*x

-may exclude homosexual sex(no value claim, they would be performing sexual acts”

-may include many things as sex(ex: kissing)

The Liberal Master’s Argument.

1. We ought to be able to do whatever we want

unless we cause harm to someone else by doing it.

2. Fully consensual sexual activity between adults

causes no harm to anyone else.

3. Therefore, people ought to be able to engage in

consensual sexual activity according to their

personal preferences and without outside

restrictions

Russell’s code of sexual ethics and which moral theory he lines up with as well as any objections that could be raised against him.

Russell’s Code

 Women should not have children before they are twenty years old.

 Young unmarried people (ages 20-30) should be

allowed and even encouraged to have multiple sexual partners out of affection (this rules out prostitutes), as preparation for choosing a successful marriage partner, as long as children are avoided.

 Divorce should be easily available without blame to either party, and should not be viewed as disgraceful. If it’s a childless marriage, one person can end the marriage. If there is a child, both people must agree to the divorce. A year’s notice should be required. Divorce should be allowed in extenuating circumstances: insanity, desertion, cruelty, etc.

 Money and economic concerns should be taken

entirely out of sexual relationships.

Mappes’ code of sexual ethics and which moral theory he lines up with as well as any objections that could be raised against him.

Always give: voluntary, informed, consent

objections: prostitution would be permissible, incest,

possible harms that some claim will arise if we treat sex too casually

How does Callahan argue that sexual freedom is harmful to women? How does she argue that a more conservative take on sex works well for women in every stage of their lives?

-she claims that there are “biological pressures for different male and female sexual functioning” and that women “possess a sexuality which is more complex, more intense, more extended in time, involving higher investment, risks, and psychological involvement.”

-she also says that “monogamy, self-control, and emotionally bonded and committed sex works well for women in every stage of their lives.”

-women expect protection from rape and seduction

Scruton’s view on casual sex and the three arguments he gives to defend his view

The Argument from Happiness:

Erotic love is (a) a way of unifying one’s

personality and one’s body and (b) a way of

finding union with another human being. He

claims that something close to traditional sexual

morality better serves these purposes than does

a casual attitude towards sexual encounters.

The Argument from Jealousy:

When you love someone, you are more easily

prone to jealousy, which is a highly destructive

force. Therefore, if one is going to engage in

erotic love, one should practice fidelity to

minimize the threat of becoming jealous. Any

benefits there are to unfaithful sex are

outweighed by this threat of jealousy.

The Argument from Psychosocial Development:

To grow into a healthy, high-functioning adult,

one should have a sense of the purity of one’s

own body and of their sexual self. To share this

with another person strengthens the bond

between them. Hence, it should not be handed

out haphazardly.

supreme court’s definition of pornography

a) the average person, applying contemporary

community standards, would find as a whole to

appeal to the prurient interest (having or encouraging

an excessive interest in sexual matters)

b) depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way,

sexual conduct specifically defined by an applicable

state law; and,

c) taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic,

political, or scientific value.

potential benefits and harms to porn users as well as those who make it (on an individual level as well as a societal level)

difference between a primary harm and a secondary harm.

Three types of pornographic material discussed in The Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography. What conclusions do they draw regarding the effects of viewing these three types of pornographic material?

MacKinnon’s argument that pornography is violence towards women. Does her argument apply to all porn? If so, why? If not, what kinds of porn does it not apply to?

How McElroy argues in favor of pornography from a feminist perspective