The App Store is a selling point for Apple. If they allowed Flash Apple would lose this as a reason for people to choose the iPhone over any other phone.
It does effect their bottom line, it doesn't really matter how much the store itself brings in.
I think that's what he meant by "very little regard for things that are unpopular or disliked".
You point out the polls that show other European countries also don't want Minarets around, but I'm not aware of them being illegal in any of those countries. Just because it's unpopular there doesn't mean it should be banned - he's just arguing against the direct democracy in your system.
Maybe, but that's an ethical judgment about the law. You can make an ethical judgment about anything, it doesn't tell you anything about what that thing (the law) is.
It's been fun, but I have to go back to Real Life.
I don't think of decisions as right or wrong, I think of them as having different costs and benefits - this part is important - including the physical feeling 'good' or 'bad' (vague terms to describe mental feelings). There doesn't have to be an ethical system in that, it could be something like an earlier traumatic experience making you feel 'bad', so you don't pick that choice.
With the Hitler thing, you're completely missing my point. I don't believe in ethics, so there is no such thing as Good and Bad.
Ethics is both. Law is neither. Ethics tells you what is good and what is bad, law tells you what actions are deemed unwanted by the State and what punishments they carry. It's the mixing of the two systems that makes this thread so "partially the same, but not quite" CONFUSING.
It's a lot of work to put the two together, when really there's no benefit. In fact, it only serves to empower people to think their morals should be law. If everyone realized they aren't the same thing, perhaps they'd try to convince people to live like them rather than force them with the heavy hand of the State.
It is because that is, by definition, exactly what the law is: A basic system of what you are and aren’t allowed to do.
The law is a system of what you aren't allowed to do, it does not tell you what you should do as morals do.
If you equate law and ethics, then you'll never know what you should do, which is the goal of ethics. You will only know what is evil, and never what is good. That's a pretty fundamental difference for the two to be the same.
...if the laws are thought of simply as ways to keep the system running and profits up, they are ripe for abuse by the people with power of the people underneath them.
Isn't that what this article is about? The laws are being abused by those with power. I'm not talking about what laws should be, but what they are.
I'll make sure not to run for any office in your district! Really, not believing in ethics isn't as bad as it sounds. Read my post a bit further down, http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1545446&cid=31101542 for the lazy. It's not as if having no ethics means good and bad are reversed because, well, that's still an ethical system.
People's ethics definitely play a role in the content of some laws, but that's a byproduct of laws being written by people who believe in/have ethics.
I think of law pragmatically. Think of corporate policies, few would say they're based on morality. No, they're based on what works best to keep the system running and profits up. That's what laws are, policies to keep the country running, the economy up, etc. When they don't work for those purposes they get changed.
I don't believe in ethics at all, so that question doesn't exactly matter to me. That's why I hate people talking about Law and Ethics as if they're the same thing.
Nobody really cares about ethics anyway. They make their decision with a cost/benefit analysis, even if they don't think they do. They weigh the typical benefits (money, security, etc) against the costs but one more thing is unknowingly factored in: personal feelings. This is where "ethics" comes in. If you think one decision is less ethical than another, you'll feel worse about choosing it. If you're leaning towards the position that doesn't seem to benefit you as much as another position, but it's ethically good and makes you feel better, that also needs to be accounted for.
This is how I believe everyone operates, which I think is the true aim of philosophy. Ethics are how they should operate.
Unless you're a politician, then ethics are how you get people to agree with policies that are bad for them. It makes them feel tingly inside.
Where does "a just and rational claim to my voluntary cooperation" come into a court system?
Congress is here to make laws. Courts are here to decide if a law was broken or not. Law enforcement is here to, well, make you follow the law (or the court's decision) whether you like it or not.
Notice that courts don't decide if justice is being carried out or not, they decide if the law is being carried out.
All that being said.. I agree with your overall point, except I blame Congress (mostly). Your first case doesn't hold up though, it's rational for you to comply voluntarily so you aren't forced to comply and end up with an even worse punishment. Realistically, what you do has no impact on your living in a fair society. It's just another case.
“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.” - Justice Holmes Jr
I completely agree with most of what you said (about perceptions, regardless of how they align with reality), but the parent seems to have a problem with the rules the Court operates within.
"Its principles are a sham; they have no practical significance."
I think my major problem is that everyone is quick to blame the courts for stupid verdicts, when really the fault lies with Congress. They're the people able to change the principles of the Judicial system, it is them all of these people should be griping about. Judges don't write all these stupid laws they enforce, but perhaps the SCOTUS should be a bit more proactive in ruling them unconstitutional. Sadly, they decided long ago to avoid doing so.
I keep seeing this around and I still have no idea how people believe it.
Since when is our legal system a moral authority?
It never has been.
It never (hopefully) will be.
A legal system is around to enforce laws. Not morals. Being a dick isn't illegal, sleeping with your wife's sister isn't illegal, being selfish isn't illegal, etc. Likewise, jaywalking is not immoral, giving people medicines for off-label purposes is not immoral, etc.
Law!=Morality
There's no alarm when I call 911, either.
The worst part about dialing 911 (From my experience at least) is the ~20min I've had to sit on hold. On an emergency line. Completely useless.
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Article I, Section 8
That power is in the hands of Congress. It doesn't seem like there's anything in the DMCA that isn't in line with "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exlusive right to their respective writings and discoveries", so what would you have the courts do?
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like to live in a country with lifelong appointed Judges throwing away legislation for any reason other than it's constitutionality. We get little enough say in legislation written by Congress, but it is better than none. Obviously the DMCA benefits some and causes harm to others, but the Court isn't there to make policy decisions.
"This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
"And the spacecraft components themselves would exert gravitational forces on the spheres. These forces could be minimised by making the spacecraft as symmetrical as possible and putting its heaviest components as far from the artificial solar system as possible.
"Such an experiment would be quite challenging to set up, but I don't think it is technologically impossible," says MOND expert Stacy McGaugh of the University of Maryland, US."
Slashdot Mirror
The App Store is a selling point for Apple. If they allowed Flash Apple would lose this as a reason for people to choose the iPhone over any other phone.
It does effect their bottom line, it doesn't really matter how much the store itself brings in.
I think that's what he meant by "very little regard for things that are unpopular or disliked".
You point out the polls that show other European countries also don't want Minarets around, but I'm not aware of them being illegal in any of those countries. Just because it's unpopular there doesn't mean it should be banned - he's just arguing against the direct democracy in your system.
You forgot a pretty significant cost: ink.
By fall 1921 the depression was over.
And 8 years later the Great Depression began.
Maybe, but that's an ethical judgment about the law. You can make an ethical judgment about anything, it doesn't tell you anything about what that thing (the law) is.
It's been fun, but I have to go back to Real Life.
Damn, I've been Godwin'd!
I don't think of decisions as right or wrong, I think of them as having different costs and benefits - this part is important - including the physical feeling 'good' or 'bad' (vague terms to describe mental feelings). There doesn't have to be an ethical system in that, it could be something like an earlier traumatic experience making you feel 'bad', so you don't pick that choice.
With the Hitler thing, you're completely missing my point. I don't believe in ethics, so there is no such thing as Good and Bad.
Ethics is both. Law is neither. Ethics tells you what is good and what is bad, law tells you what actions are deemed unwanted by the State and what punishments they carry. It's the mixing of the two systems that makes this thread so "partially the same, but not quite" CONFUSING.
It's a lot of work to put the two together, when really there's no benefit. In fact, it only serves to empower people to think their morals should be law. If everyone realized they aren't the same thing, perhaps they'd try to convince people to live like them rather than force them with the heavy hand of the State.
No matter what they base their decisions on, though, in so doing they create a system of ethics.
Are you saying making any decision requires an ethical system? That's pretty extreme.
It is because that is, by definition, exactly what the law is: A basic system of what you are and aren’t allowed to do.
The law is a system of what you aren't allowed to do, it does not tell you what you should do as morals do.
If you equate law and ethics, then you'll never know what you should do, which is the goal of ethics. You will only know what is evil, and never what is good. That's a pretty fundamental difference for the two to be the same.
...if the laws are thought of simply as ways to keep the system running and profits up, they are ripe for abuse by the people with power of the people underneath them.
Isn't that what this article is about? The laws are being abused by those with power. I'm not talking about what laws should be, but what they are.
I'll make sure not to run for any office in your district! Really, not believing in ethics isn't as bad as it sounds. Read my post a bit further down, http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1545446&cid=31101542 for the lazy. It's not as if having no ethics means good and bad are reversed because, well, that's still an ethical system.
People's ethics definitely play a role in the content of some laws, but that's a byproduct of laws being written by people who believe in/have ethics.
I think of law pragmatically. Think of corporate policies, few would say they're based on morality. No, they're based on what works best to keep the system running and profits up. That's what laws are, policies to keep the country running, the economy up, etc. When they don't work for those purposes they get changed.
I don't believe in ethics at all, so that question doesn't exactly matter to me. That's why I hate people talking about Law and Ethics as if they're the same thing.
Nobody really cares about ethics anyway. They make their decision with a cost/benefit analysis, even if they don't think they do. They weigh the typical benefits (money, security, etc) against the costs but one more thing is unknowingly factored in: personal feelings. This is where "ethics" comes in. If you think one decision is less ethical than another, you'll feel worse about choosing it. If you're leaning towards the position that doesn't seem to benefit you as much as another position, but it's ethically good and makes you feel better, that also needs to be accounted for.
This is how I believe everyone operates, which I think is the true aim of philosophy. Ethics are how they should operate.
Unless you're a politician, then ethics are how you get people to agree with policies that are bad for them. It makes them feel tingly inside.
Where does "a just and rational claim to my voluntary cooperation" come into a court system?
Congress is here to make laws. Courts are here to decide if a law was broken or not. Law enforcement is here to, well, make you follow the law (or the court's decision) whether you like it or not.
Notice that courts don't decide if justice is being carried out or not, they decide if the law is being carried out.
All that being said.. I agree with your overall point, except I blame Congress (mostly). Your first case doesn't hold up though, it's rational for you to comply voluntarily so you aren't forced to comply and end up with an even worse punishment. Realistically, what you do has no impact on your living in a fair society. It's just another case.
<nitpick> should trigger the voice of a nagging grandmother. My favorite post all morning.
One of the articles cited on the Adultery link said it's still illegal in 23 states. Wow.
And by "being a dick" I meant more along the lines of simply being a jerk. To everyone. No discrimination necessary.
“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.” - Justice Holmes Jr
I completely agree with most of what you said (about perceptions, regardless of how they align with reality), but the parent seems to have a problem with the rules the Court operates within.
"Its principles are a sham; they have no practical significance."
I think my major problem is that everyone is quick to blame the courts for stupid verdicts, when really the fault lies with Congress. They're the people able to change the principles of the Judicial system, it is them all of these people should be griping about. Judges don't write all these stupid laws they enforce, but perhaps the SCOTUS should be a bit more proactive in ruling them unconstitutional. Sadly, they decided long ago to avoid doing so.
I keep seeing this around and I still have no idea how people believe it. Since when is our legal system a moral authority? It never has been. It never (hopefully) will be. A legal system is around to enforce laws. Not morals. Being a dick isn't illegal, sleeping with your wife's sister isn't illegal, being selfish isn't illegal, etc. Likewise, jaywalking is not immoral, giving people medicines for off-label purposes is not immoral, etc. Law!=Morality
There's no alarm when I call 911, either. The worst part about dialing 911 (From my experience at least) is the ~20min I've had to sit on hold. On an emergency line. Completely useless.
That power is in the hands of Congress. It doesn't seem like there's anything in the DMCA that isn't in line with "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exlusive right to their respective writings and discoveries", so what would you have the courts do? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like to live in a country with lifelong appointed Judges throwing away legislation for any reason other than it's constitutionality. We get little enough say in legislation written by Congress, but it is better than none. Obviously the DMCA benefits some and causes harm to others, but the Court isn't there to make policy decisions.
"This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr
Just type the math into google - A*B, C/D, etc.
"And the spacecraft components themselves would exert gravitational forces on the spheres. These forces could be minimised by making the spacecraft as symmetrical as possible and putting its heaviest components as far from the artificial solar system as possible. "Such an experiment would be quite challenging to set up, but I don't think it is technologically impossible," says MOND expert Stacy McGaugh of the University of Maryland, US."
From the article.