Nor can I, of course.

However, I believe that my argument has one fundamental advantage over yours. The context of this dicussion places it firmly within a North American frame of reference. And here we do have commonly--though I grant, not universally--held sets of values as they involve concepts of ownership and property.

It bears noting that the potentially aggrieved party in this case is a creation of statute--a corporation is a legal person, but not a natural person.

I suggest that it follows that interference with that person's rights (again, a legal creation) can be understood only within the cultural context in which that person was created. You cannot speak meaningfully of a corporation's property rights in a cultural context where neither corporations nor property nor rights exist. But they do exist here, and further, they cannot be discounted merely because they are something less than universal.

In fact, I do not agree with your second premise. And I am ambivalent about the first. But the fact situation here places the issue squarely within a US cultural, ethical and legal milleu. Accordingly, I think that in this instance, the legal issue trumps any moral dilemma,

That is not to say that I would take the same position were the context different. But I think it is merely academic to consider issues such as these divorced from their contexts.

(Fine, call me a pragmatist. I may be plodding, but I'm happy!)

[This message has been edited by AC*SE (edited 06-14-2000).]

"...I can't prove I'm right about my basic premise. Can you?"

And therein lies the problem. Proofs are for Mathematics- and the rigors of science.

Philosophy asks questions... and produces discussions, sometmes intellectual, sometimes heated...

It does NOT provide answers! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Hmmm I think that I am the only Christian on here, since those reasonings were never mentioned. Being of faith, I am definitly starting with a different premise (one our founding fathers would agree with actually). I believe it was mentioned that one can believe that certain things are held to be right and wrong no matter what society may believe. I actually agree with that. Many people would call me "small minded" or not able to think for myself, but I disagree.

I believe there are certain truths in the world that were created or layed out by our Creator. I also believe that situational ethics is man's way of justifying "wrong" acts. If you steal food from a rich man that you believe got his riches immorally, then you believe you are less wrong than if you stole from a moral or just person? I do not agree. I believe your act in itself is wrong no matter what the other person did.

If you can justify your acts based on a scale of wrongness, then you are embracing anarchy. Since one person's judgement on wrongness is going to be based on his character and basic beliefs. I know my character is flawed since I would be willing to justify things that offer a personal gain to me over things that do not. But luckily for me I have my beliefs to guide me from doing wrong or "sinning".

Just another opinion in the topic.

Do the right thing - if you have to ask what it is then you've already taken the wrong path.


------------------
"Take it easy and have a nice day!"
:)