Re: [Fsuk-manchester] the non-free neighbour asking for help dilemma

[Noah Slater]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:39:33AM +0200, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > Dave Crossland wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think it's morally acceptable to run proprietory software
> >>
> >> I'm sorry to hear that, perhaps you can explain why?
> >
> > Because I don't think there is anything morally wrong with running
> > proprietory software.
>
> This is the fallacy of circular definiton.

No, it's a statement of opinion.

> > I personally would always choose to use free, open
> > source and proprietory software in descending order of preference, provided
> > that they accomplish the same task in a similar way (which is entirely
> > subjective).
>
> This is the fallacy of another issue; that you value convenience over
> freedom is another issue to proprietary software being wrong to
> distribute and use.

No, these are one and the same.

The ideas of "wrong" and "right" come from one's personal value system.

If Paul values personal convenience over social and technological freedom then
running non-free software is the "right" thing in this instance.

Issues of ethics can never be reduced to logical fallacies and it is absurd to
suggest that they can be.

I mentioned this in my last email, and I will mention it again, but your
approach to this seems to be one of moral absolutism, being the view point that
ethics are isolated from context or situation, that ethics are somehow absolute.

This is a wrong headed.

> > I don't think *using* proprietory software when there is a job
> > to be done and no acceptable alternative (which is the case for some
> > applications) is morally wrong.
>
> This is the fallacy of repeating the premise.

No, it's a personal opinion.

I'm sorry for repeating this, but I feel that it is important.

It's important to realise and accept that everyone's value system is different
and that ethical judgements rest entirely upon the perspective of a value 
system.

I am a strong supporter and contributer to Free Software and I share many of the
same values as the FSF, GNU and many of the other Free Software organisations.

I suspect that Paul is also and shares many of the same values.

It's important to realise that our value systems all have differences though.

When you say "don't do this because it is wrong" you are making an unreasoned
statement that carries no real meaning.

When you say "if you value X then perhaps you can agree that this is important"
you are making a reasoned statement about the world that may hold some truth
with the person you are talking to. It may not.

If Paul replies "I value Y over X" who are you to tell him he ought not to?

I agree with many of the things you say Dave, so please don't take this the
wrong way, it's just upsetting for me to see you arguing your point from a
perspective of moral absolutism because I feel that it adds no value and is in
many ways damaging to the very cause that you're trying to support.

-- 
Noah Slater - Bytesexual <http://bytesexual.org/>