Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

Click here to return to the 'Ugh. Enough!' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Ugh. Enough!
Authored by: tedw on Oct 18, '09 10:17:13AM
On the contrary, your comments suggest you have implicitly accepted the interpretation that using the $29 disk with Tiger is against the license and therefore "wrong", and based on that viewpoint, decided that a moral issue is attached to the discussion. By failing to recognize that the alternative interpretation where a person installing over Tiger in the honest belief that they are allowed to do so does not encounter in a morality choice, it may be you who has failed to follow my argument. Almost nobody in this thread is arguing along the lines of the validity and enforceability of EULAs and those that have installed over Tiger seem sincere in their belief that section C does not apply so the morality issue shouldn't even be a part of the discussion. Had they believed it isn't allowed but done so anyway, then yes, moral reasoning would have been involved but only a couple of comments fall into that category.
The argument that any behavior is ok so long as the person sincerely believed it was ok at the time they did it is (most likely) Stage 3 moral reasoning, in this case casting the person in the role of an 'innocent victim': someone who didn't know it was wrong and is therefore absolved of all responsibility. Unfortunately, that innocence is suspect to begin with (given the number of discussions on this topic floating around the internet) and was certainly tossed out the window by the third or fourth post on this thread. Anyone who has read this far is obliged to take this as a moral issue - even those few who honestly and in all innocence installed 10.6, since they now have to make a moral choice about whether to revert back to Tiger. Further, the claim that I am implicitly making value judgments also seems to be Stage 3 reasoning: you're reducing a primarily philosophical argument to a mere conflict between 'viewpoints', which allows you to equivocate on the moral issue.

moral reasoning is not how you answer a moral question, but how you approach it, including how you decide whether it's a moral question in the first place.

At the heart of the discussion lies the inability of the two sides to agree on what the license agreement allows.
Not quite. One side is arguing about what the SLA allows, the other side is arguing about what the SLA intends. Letter vs. Spirit of the document, with variations. That's a stage difference.
Further undermining the possibility of having a polite debate is that the "No" side seems predisposed to think that anybody taking the "Yes" side is doing so disingenuously, and immediately casting aspersions on their morality. The blindness to the opposing view or refusal to acknowledge the possible existence of an alternate opinion is reminiscent of trying to argue with religious fundamentalists (of any faith), so I agree with you in so far as productive debate being unlikely but disagree that differing levels of Kohlberg style moral functioning is to blame.
Granted that there are people who make that kind of judgement (that's Stage 4 reasoning: a belief that authoritative rules should be followed conscientiously for the good of everyone, and a consequent anger when they aren't). Granted also that there are those on the 'yes' side who seem to have no conception of the value of authoritative rules (which is pure Stage 2 reasoning). Kohlberg is a descriptive typology, not an ascriptive one, so it's not 'to blame' for anything. if you want to disagree about the description, we can discuss that, of course...

[ Reply to This | # ]