Downloading Music for Free from Internet - Assignment Example

Running head: DOWNLOADING MUSIC FOR FREE FROM INTERNET Downloading Music For Free From Internet Insert Insert Insert name January 24, 2011 Analysis downloading music for free from Internet by using the three ethical theories, Kantianism, Utilitarianism and Social Contract Numerous questions continue to be asked as to whether it is right or wrong to download free music from the internet (Gilbertson and Lehman, 2008). This continues to be a hot debate that continues to define and characterize how the larger society and individuals manifest their ability to make ethical decisions. In the center of this debate is that, some people are convinced that downloading free music from the internet is right and they cite numerous reasons to justify their position. However, another group has come out to contradict this position, claiming that the whole process of downloading free music from the internet is both unethical and illegal, while at the same time, it largely demoralizes the creator and songwriters, thereby negatively impacting the music industry (Gilbertson and Lehman, 2008). Nevertheless, the whole process can be viewed within the perspectives of ethical school of thoughts such as Kantianism, Utilitarism, and Social Contract. In general, the whole process of downloading free music from the internet should be perceived as wrong due to its negative consequences to the music industry where it has potential to result into the writer stopping to write music or even the musicians being unable to make more music. Kantian ethics Kantian ethics are heavily associated with Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) who, apart from establishing deontological ethics, is also associated with immense work in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and even aesthetics (McCormick 2005). Quinn (2006, p. 429) looks at Kant’s theory of ethics and concludes that it intends to allow people to view and treat other people as the “ends in themselves, rather than simply as a means to an end.” Kant’s ethical theory has become influential in explaining the moral and ethical world. Numerous works by Kant are established in the ‘The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals’ where Kant work dwelt on “search for and establishment of the supreme principle of morality” (McCormick 2005, p.1). Another wok in the book titled ‘In the Critique of Practical Reason’ also explores the issue of moral and ethics in society (McCormick 2005). The first aspect in Kant’s ethics is the good will, which according to Kant, constitutes acting according to a conception law. Kant observes that, “when we act, whether or not we achieve what we intend with our actions is often beyond our control, so the morality of our actions does not depend upon their outcome and what we can only control is the will behind the action, that is, we can act according to one law rather than another” (McCormick 2005, p.1). The observation and expression of Kant is that an action can be regarded to be moral or not when assessed within the precepts of motivation behind it (McCormick 2005). According to Kant’s understanding, there only exists one thing that is good and has no qualification, and that is goodwill or motive. To Kant, motive constitutes the most important element in determining what is ethical and an action can only pass to be moral when carried out as a result of ‘sense of duty’ (Vlach, 2004). Moral action in this sense is one that is neither based on feelings or pity nor based on the possibility of reward but largely one that is based and is motivated by “this is what I ought to do” (Vlach 2004, p.1). The assumption Kant make postulates that an act can results into negative consequences even when it is acted on moral grounds. Kant’s ethical moral expression can be viewed to promote idea that people need to do what is right guided by conviction that doing it is actually the right thing. On the other hand, people need to avoid doing the wrong things since it is wrong continuing to act on such things. Kant’s ethics, which are deontological in nature, advises that people have a duty to act accordingly with little focus being paid to the good or bad consequences such actions may produce. Utilitarianism ethics According to Quinn (2006, p. 95) Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of an action; that is, it constitutes an ethical theory that postulates that, production of happiness and reduction of unhappiness should be the standard upon which actions are judged and by which the rules of morality, laws, public policies, and social institutions need to be evaluated (West 2004). According to utilitarianism ethics, “an action is not right or wrong simply because it is a case of telling the truth or lying; and the moral rule against lying is not in itself correct; lying is wrong because, in general, it has bad consequences and the moral rule against lying can be subjected to empirical study to justify some cases of lying, such as to a void a disastrous consequence in saving someone’s life” (West 2004, p.1). According to this theory that was pursued by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, when people are confronted with questions requiring them to state moral duty in doing particular actions, normally, such people point to the good that is likely to be derived from their actions or the harm it will prevent (Andre and Velasquez, n.d). It can be regarded that the position of utilitarianism posit as “so long as a course of action produces maximum benefits for everyone, utilitarianism does not care whether the benefits are produced by lies, manipulation, or coercion” (Andre and Velasquez n.d, p.1). In other words, in doing something, an individual needs to weigh the benefits and harm of the action and if the benefits outweighs the harms while at the same time, bring benefits to many then such actions should be pursued disregarding the means such actions are pursued (Andre and Velasquez n.d). Therefore, in the perspective of utilitarianism ethics people need to ask themselves “What effect will my doing this act in this situation have on the general balance of good over evil and if lying or stealing would produce the best consequences in a particular situation, we ought to lie” (Andre and Velasquez n.d, p.1). Social Contract ethics Social contract ethics postulate that individuals need to consider the interests of their communities first when making an ethical decision (Long 2007). According to Quinn (2006, p.95), social contract theory assumes that “morality consists in the set of rule, governing how people are to treat one another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others follow those rules.” The customs and values of the community function as underpinnings of the specific community’s laws and as community members’ individuals have no option but to submit and respect laws prescribed and enacted by the community (Long 2007). Individuals in this process have to give up their personal liberty, instead, be compensated by civil liberty. Borrowing from social contract theory, the postulation of social contract ethics is that individuals by being members of a community have to agree to the standards governing the morality larger than their own and community’s authority and power is absolute and cannot be challenged or superseded (Long 2007). In general, social contract thinkers believe in helping others and working for the common good. Social contract ethics in actual sense provide a good explanation of why we need to have a rule prohibiting stealing and a good explanation of why people in general ought to follow that rule. Social contract ethics assumes egoistic perspective where the individual has to assess the consequences that he or she will bore in case what he or she does violates the set norms and standards governing particular forms of action. Is downloading music free from internet ethical? The three ethical schools can be analyzed to assess whether downloading music freely from internet is unethical. First, according to Kantian ethics, people act based on goodwill, that is motives. ‘Why should I download music for free from internet?’ The motive from this can be regarded to be wrong and ill intended since it is based on the need not to follow the right procedure, that is, of depriving the author his or her rightful entitlement. Therefore, the whole process can be seen to have bad motive of evading the right means, as a result it is regarded as unethical. On the other hand, utilitarianism ethics postulate that assessment of the benefits and harm to the wider society should form the basis of decision for any action. From this perspective, it can be deduced that downloading music is an individual decision and benefit and extend does not benefit the larger society. On the other hand, the music gets large share of harm as a result of downloading it free, as it affects the industry. Therefore, when the harm is greater to the music industry and the authors, compared to benefit of one individual downloading, then it can be passed that, continued download of music is unethical. Lastly, social contract ethics express that individuals need to respect laws, norms, and values that have been established by the larger society with regard to particular actions. The larger has laws guiding and banning unlawful download of internet materials, which is regarded as infringement, and when an individual violates this laws, then he or she is acting in unethically. Conclusion From the above discussion, it becomes clear that it is immoral to steal something that belongs to somebody else which in this case if free downloading of music. Downloading free music from the internet without the legal permission of the author can be considered an act of theft. The general expression in this paper has drawn very lean difference between what can be owned, what should be free to everyone in intellectual property, and the difference is very small to generalize any conclusion. Therefore, there is need for clarification specifically for the words ‘own’ and words like ‘belongs to you’ before genuine general ethical principles can be enacted and applied. However, what can be suggested is that there is need for just system of protecting copyrighted materials, which in turn is able to promote ‘fair use’ of the materials. In coming up with this system of protecting copyrighted material, the following factors should be considered: the purpose of the use. In this case, the music materials being downloaded; the type of work under copyright, for example, is it out of print, is it published or unpublished, or is the material used strictly factual material; what proportion of the work is used; and whether the use will negatively affect the market value of the original work (Edger 2002). References Andre, C. and Velasquez, M., N.d. Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics. Santa Clara University. [Online]. Available from: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v2n1/calculating.html [Accessed 24 January 2011]. Edgar, S. L., 2002. Morality and machines: perspectives on computer ethics. MA, Jones & Bartlett Learning. [Online]. Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=CWLyryduwMYC&pg=PT165&dq=kantian+ethics+and+free+downloading+of+music&hl=en&ei=AJo9TZuhKMiq8APL0o2bCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 24 January 2011]. Gilbertson, C. B. and Lehman, M. W., 2008. Fundamentals of Accounting: Course. OH, Cengage Learning. [Online]. Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=5EhEqN_QPV0C&pg=PA616&dq=Downloading+music+for+free+from+Internet:+IS+IT+ETHICAL&hl=en&ei=8Ck9TevwBoP5sgan-IX0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Downloading%20music%20for%20free%20from%20Internet%3A%20IS%20IT%20ETHICAL&f=false [Accessed 24 January 2011]. Long, D. H., 2007. Doing the Right Thing: A Real Estate Practitioners Guide to Ethical Decision Making. OH, Cengage Learning. [Online]. Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=tk6gBUByOnsC&pg=PA32&dq=Social+Contract+ethics&hl=en&ei=d9A9TdnrOMil8QO1zZDmCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Social%20Contract%20ethics&f=false [Accessed 24 January 2011]. McCormick, M., 2005. Immanuel Kant: Metaphysics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource. [Online]. Available from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/#H8 [Accessed 24 January 2011]. Quinn, M. J., 2006. Ethics for the information age. Edition 2. Massachusetts: Pearson/Addison-Wesley. Vlach, M., 2004. Kantian Ethics. Theological Studies.org. [Online]. Available from: http://www.theologicalstudies.org/articles/article/1527417/17142.htm [Accessed 24 January 2011]. West, H. R., 2004. An introduction to Mills utilitarian ethics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. [Online]. Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=NxI-wFvpP0cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=utilitarianism+ethics&hl=en&ei=H789Tb3KCcao8QPHz_2lCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=utilitarianism%20ethics&f=false [Accessed 24 January 2011]. Read More