To me, on a philosophical level, it isn't the horrible beast or freakish creature (external) that is the awful monster necessarily, but our human sense of self-entitlement, having run amok (internal). That is the scariest thing. It's this irrational notion that we DESERVE the things that we want and that depriving other people of these things, taking it from them (forcibly) is somehow both fine and good because in our screwed up minds we think that makes us get closer toward having them or have the things that we desire that allows some of the sickest depths of human bad behavior to occur, methinks.
If you listen to the kinds of excuses murderers (and to an extent, also rapists) make in jail about why they did what they did, you may spot it.
You HAVE NO F*CKING RIGHT TO PUT SOMEBODY ON THE STREET, who is a bystander, THEIR LIFE INTO YOUR OWN HANDS.
Claiming ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it and don't think court's will swallow down what is simply at it's best an immaturity.
The same can be said about stealing their hard earned possessions. Food, clothes, medicine, cars, etc.
Yet, there is a strange exception in the realm of intangibles. One might attempt to argue that if one is stealing an idea for the right reasons (to promote spread of it even amongst those who would otherwise not be able to afford access to information that either a.) it can be established would generally improve their quality of life, or b.) reduce certain societal or social inequities) that there may be some merit. <-
piracy and why it will likely never, ever truly go away despite the best attempts of law enforcement and squandered resources of governments that have been appropriated toward said quasi-property defense).
See, to me morality is not so clear cut nor simpleminded in all cases as some would ideally have it be.
Let me present to you another case:
Some people argue that it is bad for doctors and researchers to make money from their inventions or discoveries and that the only reason spurring them to do what they do should be contributing towards the common good. This is in full ignorance of the fact that said experts are human beings, as human beings we contribute as (albeit very small) players in a much larger economy, and that it costs money to live and buy food to eat. Also, since it is a business, one must be able to recoup the costs involved in research and developing a new piece of technology or technical advance. These may be financial, or in terms of man hours that have been translated into a certain generally agreed upon amongst educated circles amount of finances... one would be led to conclude.
This somewhat ignorant notion that people should be doing things only for love of the thing is the same fetid tripe you shove at an artist, trying to guilt them out of wanting a living wage, or an intern, trying to eke out secrets of his or her plied trade as they establish themselves as a gear within his or her chosen industry. Oh but it should just be for joy of getting the PRIVILEGE of being allowed to do said thing, go people... who have conveniently forgot that this is how these people, they make a living this way, and it is also their livelihood. Would you argue they should do their job for free, for you, the bloated and spoiled consumer, but also that they should not issue any complaints about it, and that since this works just fine for you that you don't see any reason to have want to listen to the wants of the craftspeople?
I notice a vacillation in this pattern, what started out an argument in favor of piracy (in so much as it relates to promoting the general spreading of information and works over legal and financial barriers, in a (hopefully) beneficial way), risks sounding preachy in favor of such measures against said spreading as DRM (something I personally find to be an abomination in that it restricts the owner/user in how they may use or copy said copy of media they purchased, rented, borrowed or are viewing,
"for their own 'good'." <- and thus removing room for the person to explore his or her own right and wrong, journey of personal development, etc.).
It is not a hypocrisy in so much as it is a reflection upon the complexity though, perhaps?
Another pattern in this analysis is that what had started out arguing against over-reaching sense of self-entitlement enacted by selfish people (narcissists) in a twisted mirror way parallels the whinging of creators not to have them be expected to provide their goods and services for free and for no profit.
The difference being that being paid for rendering goods and services in a job is not the same thing as murdering a person... usually.
Wow... that got all kinds of dark and f*cked up.
Did I mention I've never taken any real philosophy classes except one in humanism once as an elective because of how it tied into psychology?
Let's avert that mental circle jerk just for a moment though and give some thought to the core bits:
What makes a bad thing wrong and a good thing good?
Who is framing it,... who stands to benefit and who will be harmed? <- I like to think these things when constructing worlds and mythos' (mythoses? Mythosi? Good god the grammar on that ones conjugation feels sort of weird) in my works of fiction and theoretical, hypothetical arguments.
Obviously, either it is a control thing or there are some control things going on. In unraveling that one may come to the deeper level of... either apathy and just wanting to mind ones own business, or mind f*ck-upedness.
Also, since it rapidly approaches 2AM, I can't help but feel that halfway through this I may just be splatting a bunch of pseudo-deep nonsense onto a page. I will agree it is a type of work avoidance to be doing this sort of thing instead of homework but that was not the point of the analysis.
It's like, how would I explain this?
I certainly don't feel *entitled* to a girlfriend but having someone to go out to things with is theoretically a good thing, and a "nice stuff to have going on in ones life"... whereas in practice it often becomes an exercise in how much neurotic drama and/or abuse + neglect can you withstand receiving from a stranger before you can't take it anymore and either run or walk away from it. That or a case study in observing abnormal psychology in action (oftentime ;-P). So despite continually reaching out and drawing back a bloody stump, one continues every so often to try again in the vain hopes that this time one's luck might be the littlest odd bit different. -? Is it not better to set yourself up for bleak punishment than to live completely isolated from everyone eklse around you in unbroken perpetuity? That may be something to chew on.