Copying Morality? Essay

parcel buc groundworkeering and illegal file shargons is becoming a bigger produce in modern sidereal day society, more than likely with the y out(a)h of society. any computers now come with burn-w atomic number 18 technologies in which the user can take a product and create copies of that softw ar. Originally, this process was created in order to provide methods of keep up a persons computer files, in exemplar of hardw ar crashing and system reboots. However, the situation has changed. People atomic number 18 now able to imitation any type of media file (DVDs, CDs, operation systems, etc) and give out these products, free of manoeuvre.Do you like that CD that your paladin bought the new(prenominal) day? Ask him to burn you a retroflex, thus you can retain it too. Did your up-to-the-minute version of Microsoft Windows crash on you and you dupet consent the convalescence discs? No chore. Get a friend to burn you a copy of their recovery discs. And whats the bes t thing to the highest degree these trans sack outions? You hold outt shed to pay for anything Broke college students rejoice In Bernard Gerts essay, Is it Moral to Make Copies of Software for my Friends? ,the ethics of this trend are discussed. What are the ethical guidelines when it comes to computers? Is it unexceptionable to copy bundle?Gerts conclusion is that it is non morally unobjectionable to copy package, no field of study who the software is for and heedless if it is free of charge. It is an illegal action, as there are equitys against such activity, and then it is unacceptable to partake in such action. Although alleviate attainable to effect while even-tempered illegal, this doesnt crocked that it is acceptable. A law can non be broken unspoiled because someone has the means of doing so. Gert graduation explains the ethics of rupture the law. He states that one cannot limit the subject matter of the law to a particular law one dislikes. He uses the example of smoking by minors to back up this line of credit. The law is that you must be 18 years old in order to buy cigarettes. However, minors cannot just go out and buy cigarettes and smoke because they dislike the law. Its still a law not liking the law isnt a justifiable reason to try and establish it. The barely time that it is acceptable to set off a law is in the situation in which the law is unjust. If a law is unjust and has a negative effect on society, then it should not be a law in the first place, thus making it acceptable if the law is to be broken because eventually, this exit cause the law to be overturned.However, current software copying laws are not unjust, and if they are to be considered unjust, there is no clear and reasoned reason of why they are unjust. Copying laws are not morally unacceptable, making it unacceptable to break these laws. Gerts compares this issue to hotfoot limits. Speed limits are the accepted law of whatever state they are set i n. These expedite limits are not hurting society and are morally acceptable within the community. Because of this, it is looked elaborate upon when a driver breaks the speed limit, becoming so unacceptable that legal action can take place.Speed limits are not suggestions, they are laws. These laws are in no violation of righteousness and therefore they must be followed. Gert also believes that it is not acceptable to break a law in the event that one ciphers that some other law would be better. If society allows violation of the current law collectible to the fact the society is in favor of other laws that are not passed, then it becomes acceptable for everyone to break every law. If everyone has this mentality, then law becomes obsolete. wherefore even exsert having any laws if everyone feels that they can break them because they dont agree with them?Gert believes that this mentality will terzetto into outlawry. As for software laws, Gert believes that because these laws a re not unjust and are not causing any harm, it is not morally acceptable for anyone to be breaking the law. He claims that he does not know enough just to the highest degree the current laws to admit that there may be other more suitable and better laws that for this issue. However, that does not mean that software copying shouldnt be illegal or have penalties. Gert states that illegitimately copying software cannot be described solely base on the morally relevant issues, as it brings in ones biases with regard to software.People may only see it as doing a favor for a friend when they copy software. How can an act with sizable intentions possibly be immoral? According to Gert, it doesnt matter of what the intentions were motives dont determine the religion of an action. In conclusion, for these reasons, Gert determines that copying software is not morally acceptable. II. Evaluation According to Gert, it doesnt matter of what the intentions were motives dont determine the the ology of an action. Here, I find myself agreeing with Gert. Just because you have life-threatening intentions, it doesnt mean that its acceptable to violate the law.Hitler had good intentions, didnt he? He wanted to cleanse his country and make his country better for the people he deemed valuable. Sure, he killed millions of people, unless the good intent was there, right? Wrong. His intentions do not justify anything that he did. A person could justify burning software by saying that he is doing it to help out his friend, but his good intentions mean nothing. He still did something that was against the law, and therefore it is wrong. The second and last thing that I agree with Gert nigh is that it normally should not be acceptable for a person to break the law.The only time it is permissible is when the law is an unjust one that brings more harm than good to society. In the Statess early years, did the settlers not eventually find King Georges rule to be unjust? Did we not find his laws and policies unbearable? Did we not oppose them and fight them? America was born by breaking the law And this is acceptable Why? Because it was against injustice. The only time a law can be broken is when it is unjust. We, as Americans, cannot argue with this. However, are piracy laws unjust? Gert certainly doesnt conjecture so. Im not sure if I agree with him.A impuissance that Gert has is that he admits that he does not know a lot nearly the piracy laws. He knows that there are laws making copying illegal, however, he does not explain them because he does not know enough slightly them to do so. It makes me wonder if you dont know everything about your subject, then why are making such an effort to persaude me to believe your mind? He loses credibility and this hurts him. If you are going to argue a viewpoint, I would prefer that the person p glide bying his case knows a lot about the subject matter. To be honest, I dont think Gert knows a lot about the situation.He rarely actually talks about the core subject copying software. Instead, he talks about the morality of breaking the law in general. He just happens to throw software piracy in there to add another example of the morality of breaking the law. This severely hurts his thesis and essay in general. Another weakness in this paper is the slippery slope argument that he makes about breaking laws in favor for other laws. He claims that this will lead to anarachy. If people dont want to obey the law because they think some other law would be better, how will this lead to anarchy?Couldnt it be possible that it will just lead to the alternate of laws? If there is such replacement, how will it lead to chaotic anarachy? He does not explain why such a process will lead to anarachy he just states that it will lead to it. Not only is his argument flawed, there is a flaw within the flaw. He cant even explain his wrong conclude. But then again, maybe that is the full-page point of illogical reasoni ng there is no logical reasoning A final weakness that I found a touch of times in Gerts essay is that he uses some faulty analogies.He compares software laws to speeding laws and alcoholism laws, among other breif examples. He uses these examples in his arguments about the morality of breaking the law. If one does not agree with the speed limits, he is not obligated to break them simply because he does not like them. If an 18 year old wants to drink when the legal drinking age is 21, he cannot do so just because he doesnt agree with the law. Thus, if a person wants to copy a CD for their friend and it is illegal, he cannot do so. I dont believe that piracy laws fall in the same field as speed limits and minor(ip) drinking.I think those problems impact society much more than a burned copy of Blue Oyster Cults outweart Fear the Reaper. These are just different situations and they shouldnt be compared on the same level. So it is morally acceptable to copy software for my friends? I personally believe so for a mate of reasons. I am guilty of illegally copying music and movies, and I see nothing wrong with anything that I have done. Im a criminal justice major and I understand the piracy laws. I still see nothing wrong with it. If burning a CD or a DVD is so morally wrong, then why do stores provide the means of doing so?Stores sell ignitible discs in which you can copy anything onto them. How can anyone be expected not to burn software or a CD? These discs arent illegal, but the act of copying is illegal. Yes, I understand that the original purpose of these rewritable CDs and DVDs were to be storage devices for personal work, but the times have changes as the technology has evolved. Do not provide the means of a crime if you do not want the crime to happen. Im positive that the chief(prenominal) reason why people burn software is because of the money involved. Downloading something is free.If I have a free option, then why should I bother buying somethin g? If I only like one song on a CD, why should I have to shell out 25 dollars to buy the whole thing? CDs only court companies ten cents to burn, and an surplus two dollars for the packaging. I understand that there are labor fees to be paid as well, but why does the media industry have to charge their consumers, their lifeblood, these ridiculous prices? My laptop crashed recently. Nowadays, laptops are being sold with the software already installed onto the hard drive. This has added a hidden cost to the overall cost of the laptop.along with this, no discs are provided. Youre paying for software that you have no legal copy for. When your laptop crashes, you no longer have the software. So when my laptop crashed, resulting in me buying a new hard drive, what did the expert support people tell me to do? They told me that I had to buy the operational system separately. It was an annoyance to do so, but it was an option. Do you know how much Windows scene goes for? Two hundred fi fty dollars. Well, there goes that option for this scant(p) college student. My solution to my problem?I found a friend with Vista and I got him to copy the software for me. If the legal copy did not cost so much, I would have purchased it. I think thats the foot problem of this issue. If companies didnt sell their software at such an preposterous price, more people would turn away from illegal means of obtaining verbalise software and actually acquire it legally. I see no problem with downloading software because of this key reason. Illegal copying and downloading of software, music, and movies is just something that isnt possible to monitor. There are millions of people all over the world doing this.How can officials possible prosecute these people? How can they possibly track them down? Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as email tracking and there is no such thing as download tracking. There is no such technology to know barely what illegal site someone has been on and downloaded something from. If you take my mp3 player, there is no way that you would be able to tell which songs I purchased and which ones I have illegally downloaded. It is the same situation if you took a look on my computer. Which files were obtained illegally? Youll never know.