Will it be okay to torrent a digital game you've purchased after the servers get shut down?

[SSJGohan3972]

impertinence said:

SSJGohan3972 said:

impertinence said:

Where is the justification for punishing murder if the moral merit of the act is merly subjective? Keep in mind that we are talking about murder, not homocide.

Two things

 

1) You assume a justification for punishing murder, that is a human construct (animals don't get together and try to punsh the alpha male that decided to kill off another for instance)

2) The definition of murder as opposed to homocide is also subjective, this is one set of definitions I found:

mur·der

 [ múrdər ]

1. crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law
2. something difficult or unpleasant: something that is very difficult or unpleasant and involves great effort or hardship
3. kill somebody illegally: to kill another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law

I can see lots of wiggle room there unfortunately

Just stick with the common definition of murder: Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human.

As you can see, this definition excludes animals.

Obviously punishment is a human construct, but have we here reached the conclusion that you feel punishment is inherently injustifiable in all cases as there is no way to determine the moral value of an action?

My position is that that are things that are wrong, and things that are right, and it does not depend on the eye of the beholder. In my view, there are certain laws of morality just like there are other laws of nature. True, these laws are not as easily observed such as gravity or friction, but they are still there. I know many people will balk at a definition like that, but without it there is no justification for anything.

Again that definition is subjective, it ties it back into a legal issue ('unlawful killing') I think there are several cases of killing another human being that are murder but protected under law (and vice versa)

Also I did not say punishment is inherently unjustifiable, that is you taking my words and twisting them. As I see it punishment is based on what society deems wrong which makes perfect moral sense to me but others might disagree.

Once again I am not trying to change your opinion I simply disagree with it, all things - including truth and morality I believe are to use your phrase in 'the eye of the beholder' at some level.

Also I disagree that morals being subjective would equate to no justification for anything but I respect that you have the right to believe that if you want.

 

The more I think about it the more I realize I'm fine with rules that are arbitrary at some level which is something I would not have inherently though of myself, its interesting and kind of fun to spark thinking at a bit of a higher level like this - thank you for the interesting discussion and I hope I didn't offend you with my words and/or different opinion.