Kants deontology and Cyberethics Copyright issue examined within the bounds of morality is an extremely difficult thing, especially when it concerns the concepts of right and wrong. Copyright and intellectual property is often explored in relation to morality and choice between right and wrong. Lets try to answer the question whether Music City should not be held liable for the copyright infringement of Morpheus users. So, what is right and what is wrong? What ethically correct actions are? Can we copy and reproduce information that belongs to somebody else? These questions are quite delicate because they concern various ethical aspects. In order to answer this question, the first thing that we should do is to understand ethics and ethically correct decisions. Louis Pojman speaks about the main concepts of Kantian Deontological System. Deontology is a special sphere of ethics that examines the issues of obligation, moral imperatives and other duties. So, what makes a right act right? In case teleologists answer that nonmoral outcome (Pojman 2005) makes the action ethically correct (for example, utility or happiness), deontological position in contrary claims that the features of act or rule determines rightness (Pojman 2005) of the action.
To make it simple, the action can be considered right or wrong regardless of the consequences (Pojman 2005).
Kants deontology is based on reason. As it is written by Louis Pojman, the morality is important, however, it is binding regardless of feelings (Pojman 2005).
The Essay on Affirmative Action 29
Affirmative Action Color of skin in not relevant in public affairs. Nelson Mandela. In recent times, virtually every great political leader has recognized the truth of affirmative action. But, what is affirmative action one might ask? According to Merriam-Webster s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition: an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority ...
It is enough to use reason in order to define a universal absolute moral law. However, there is a problem: one can do good actions that can be accompanied with bad consequences. Louis Pojman proposes to interpret Kants position by the following words: the reason and will is important. The intention is necessary for moral goodness.
At the same time, we have to remember that brave but captured soldier still honorable regardless of success of endeavor (Pojman 2005).
Further, good actions can be interpreted as obligations and duties. Duty, in its turn, can be understood as command or direct order to do something. Louis Pojman dwells on several maxims related to the problems of choice between right and wrong. For example, one can give false promises in order to borrow money. His reason defined the goal as right action, so all means are invited to achieve the goal.
Louis Pojman refutes the principle and claims that such supposition if false and self-defeating because only the opposite maxim works: to make promise (Pojman 2005).
According to Kants deontology, the man is a lawmaker and an arbiter of his own moral actions. He considers the behavior moral in case it is not stipulated by any reasons able to influence it. Freedom of will is understood as independence from conditions. When a man is forced to make actions according to somebody elses will, he cannot be considered free. In case the man acts moved by some interest (wealth, power, etc) of senses, he is also not free.
Now lets try to examine position of the Music City that they should not be held liable for the copyright infringement of Morpheus users. The Music City and Morpheus is a file swapping service that allows users downloading files. Recently the company that developed peer-to-peer software was accused of illegal copying of files (films, music, software, etc).
The company claims that they didnt violate the copyright law and, therefore, they cannot be liable for the actions of their users. First of all, Morpheus is a special kind of software that allows users to download files from each other. It means that Morpheus, in contrast to ill-famous Napster, has no centralized server where the files are kept.
Therefore, the company has no possibility to stop service, as the users are free to use software however and whenever they like. Morpheus claims that they cannot be legally and morally responsible for the actions of internet users. It seems that the company created the program for right purposes. They wanted to help internet users to get access to new information, new music, films and software. However, those who download files rarely purchase them. Why do they need to spend money for something they can get for free? Besides, the problem of software piracy is also important. Software developers do not receive money they could get for sold copies of software, and incur material losses.
The Essay on File Sharing Music Riaa Album
Author? s Note: This was originally an informative speech and was some portions were edited for time purposes, so some modifications may be required. If you? re using this as a speech, it will be around eight minutes long. Word Count: 1, 054 Introduction Most people have an idea of what file sharing is, but they? re not exactly sure why it? s such a big deal. Some of them may even be aware of the ...
As a consequence of this, they are not able to spend more money for developing new products and new software appears at the market not so often. The consequences of software piracy are considerable. Morpheus also causes losses to musical companies, such as Metro Golden Meyers and others. Sales of musical hits decrease, the producers receive less money, and the musicians feel themselves thieved. MPA, the association of film producers also considers that such peer-to-peer programs ruin their business. According to the company, Morpheus was primarily created for educational purposes and had no commercial base. Peer-to-peer software is free to download and free to use.
The users are warned that the files they get are served only for information and examination. After the users download and use files, in case they like programs or films, they are invited to purchase them. What is even more, Morpheuss policy explains that the user can play the file at his own computer but he is not allowed copying it. Yet, all these arguments are weak from the ethical position. Music Citys position contradicts to the understanding of Kants deontological system. Although Kant claimed that the man is responsible for his actions and reason is the most important for determining the rightness or wrongness of the action, Music City is wrong. The consequences of their right action made for rightful purposes badly influence copyright issues. Good will here is not sufficient condition for moral goodness of Music City.
Bibliography: Pojman, L. (2005).
Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Wadsworth Publishing; 5 edition.
