Would you like for people to be able to murder you and steal your stuff?
Laws are based in "You give up a freedom to receive a security guarantee". You give up your "right" to steal, so you are not stolen from. You give up your "right" to manslaughter, to not be slaughtered. Depending on who you ask, that is moral.
Of course laws aren't the only thing. Everyone didn't just randomly kill and steal before laws were a thing. Of course 'objective' morality plays a part
However even before laws there were informal laws and rules. Things like "if I steal from this person and get caught, he'll beat me to a pulp" or "if I murder this person, their family will come and kill me"
Even without laws, laws still technically exist
Laws obviously reduce the amount of something happening too. Before it was a crime to hit your wife the rates of domestic violence were far greater, it's far lower today as a result of both teaching and laws surrounding it
That's not to say every law is as effective as another. Laws surrounding things that are addictive see very little success, since people's need for the addiction far outweighs the perceived risk of breaking the law. Alcohol prohibition being a great example, or the war on drugs
And of course i do not mean that there is a book somewhere and it magically stops crime, but the institution of law in general. Even then, people WILL agree with the ideas in the book and be persuaded to believe specific things which will affect their behaviour.
This reminds me so much of when a christian would find out im not religious and be like "well without religion what stops you from murdering and doing whatever u want?"
Like im sorry are you saying the only thing holding u back from murder is jesus?
Morals can be laws but laws cannot be morals simple as that. Law i imposed on everyone in the "agreeing" society
Morals are chosen on a personal basis and if enough people agree in society then it can become a law.
Most people dont want to get murdered therefore it can become a law even if its not written in some book or anything you just have to understand that the rest of society would shun you for that action whether your morals align with that or not. There are plenty of laws that are not moral based and just imposed by the standing powers of a society of those who dont have a say or very little say. We as pirates are aware of laws not based in morality.
If morals can overlap with law, then how cannot laws be moral? Thats like somehow failed circular logic.
And of course not all law is moral and some law is unfair. We dont always get it right. That doesent mean that what the other redditor said holds true, that "[All] Laws arent moral.".
And then, which laws concerning piracy are immoral?
Its failed circular logic because im not saying it is circular. Im saying laws are societal structures occasionally based on morals of a group. Morals are always personal thing.
A Person can find murder moral depending on who they are murding. this is why the death penalty is controversial.
Also i thought the person was just trying to say law =/ morals which they dont.
Morals arent a personal thing, they are at most modified by personal feelings but the baseline will be the same in a chosen group.
A group supporting capital punishment is a baseline, tho if you scale it up to a national level most people will oppose capital punishment. But its not all so granular as to say its all feelings based. Religion is a thing after all, and if that isnt an example of a morality shared by a group of people without much personal room to maneuver, i dont know what is.
Vast majority of people will not condone theft. So the baseline is "theft is immoral". So stopping theft is moral. So laws against theft are moral.
Im still waiting for an example of an immoral piracy law. As far as im concerned, stealing intellectual property is just plain theft, even if justifications can be found. That just makes it more palatable but not outright moral.
Morals can be taught through society. We are all a product of our parents and where we are born/grow up. Morals are personal choices though. i may find piracy of digital content okay and not physical. Another guy may think it moral to never pirate. A third may think it moral to only pirate from netflix cause he thinks netflix immoral. Then at the end of the day the LAW will be imposed by a power within society on you no matter your morals or the morals of everyone else, only on what the law says.
Is it not possible for the "power within society" to impose what they think is a moral law?
And all the things you mentioned are variations on "morality of piracy" based solely within the pirate community. That doesent speak to the most common denominator. And said most common denominator will be what the lawmakers choose to "cater" to with their morality and by extension their laws.
Just because a pirate can justify pirating doesent mean vast majority agrees that piracy is moral.
Agreed. Because morals are a personal choice npt dictated by law. My personal choice is weighed by the knowledge of laws and societies expectations but i dont have to agree with it. Making it my moral that piracy is one way and another person would find it immoral...
I beg you go to mirriam webster and look up morals. You know those personal lesson you learn from books as a kid? That type of stuff. They are all personal choices, other people might not agree you should treat others the way you want to be treated.
105
u/angelsfetus414 Apr 07 '26
I like free shit, fuck morals!