Music Options

[Raijinili]

It's time to have a discussion about something that doesn't matter at all: Music.
There are three sides in the debate:
Pro-freedom, who say generally that the RIAA should be illegal (usually in all circumstances)
Pro-musician, who say generally that the RIAA should be legal (usually in all circumstances)
Everyone else, who usually either don't know what the law should be or don't care.

Now, as for the types of ethics:
They all come from "isms" or systems of belief. They make a statement about what's important in making an ethical decision.
My personal philosophy is Utilitarian or "best consequences" ethics.
Others prefer "Christian" ethics (i.e. "right and wrong is spelled out in the bible.")
There are many others, far too many to list. Each of them has a different statement about what's important.
Individualism holds that the individual is what's important. Ethical decisions are those that benefit yourself.
Collectivism holds that the group is what's important. Ethical decisions are those that benefit the group.
Etc...

So the pro-musicians use mainly Christian ethics, choosing to interpret a musician as "human life." Per the bible, stealing is a sin.
The pro-choicers use utilitarian ethics - that is, they feel "best consequences" for society are aligned with the listener's choice.

I think the Interblags are guilty of selectively using ethics. That is - they use utilitarian ethics when the outcome agrees with their position, and they use Christian ethics when it doesn't. For example, utilitarian ethics holds that we shouldn't care for part-time programmers because they produce less resources than full-time programmers. But this is not what Interblags believe because it's inconvenient.

[Yuka]

There are musicians who don't care about money much; how does that fit into this?

[Irysa]

I hope you get banned for this.

This post has been edited by Irysa: Aug 26 2008, 02:07 AM