Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
From: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: software ethics
Message-ID: <2360@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Apr-84 11:16:05 EST
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2360
Posted: Mon Apr 23 11:16:05 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Apr-84 00:48:22 EST
References: sri-arpa.12332
Lines: 22

   I have noticed that when someone says "immorality", more often than
not he or she actually means "sex."  Perhaps "so-and-so is immoral"
can usually be translated "so-and-so is getting more than I am."
   Now, if we lump together sex and larceny and call them both
"immorality" we're running the grave risk that once puberty arrives
and sex is discovered for the fine thing it is, all aversions to
"immoral" behavior of whatever species will evaporate (except, perhaps,
the common taboo against doing it too publicly).  I am therefore
inclined to blame at least part of the crime problem (including
software theft) on the casting out of baby with bathwater when our
Moral Leaders have not seen fit to distinguish between the two.
   Likewise, if you mislabel "etiquette" as "courtesy" or lump them
together under "manners" you invite the demise of both.  Someone who
has discovered that choosing the proper design of fork for disassembly
of lobsters is not likely to get discount admission into the hereafter
may toss out courtesy (the concern for the rights and feelings of
others) along with etiquette (the concern for the rights and feelings
of Emily Post).
   So in the course of imparting ethics to kids, maybe we should make
it clear what's really rotten and what's just Not Done.  We also, I
hope, could discourage the now-widespread notion that anything is OK
if you Don't Get Caught.