this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
931 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
59207 readers
3102 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I see what you're getting at, but I think 'moral high ground' might not be the phrase you're looking for.
Laws and morals are explicitly different. That's why juries exist, so that a law may be put against the morals of a situation and the morals may prevail if need be.
Breaking the law isn't necessarily immoral. It's just illegal. So it isn't like someone breaking the law is seeking to take the moral high ground in the first place, nor does that mean that someone who only ever follows the law always has the moral high ground. Lawful-evil does exist.
I mean, what kind of immoral bastard would let their donkey sit in a bathtub anyway?? https://americanbathfactory.com/blogs/news/crazy-bathtub-laws
Your argument falls though when you start personally benefiting from you pirated media. If you don't want to support companies don't watch or use there products and don't give them your money
My argument was that you can't claim the moral high ground based on legality alone. I understand that nuance exists in the context, but moral high ground does not come from whether or not it's legal.