Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!bu-cs!dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!mjm
From: mjm@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Michael McClemen)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Comm. Morality (summary)
Summary: morality vs. legalism
Keywords: ethics, society
Message-ID: <13237@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Date: 26 Apr 89 21:16:52 GMT
References: <754@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> <3687@ficc.uu.net> <985@quintus.UUCP> <10212@megaron.arizona.edu> <990@quintus.UUCP> <825@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>
Sender: news@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU
Reply-To: mjm@dartmouth.edu (Michael McClemen)
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 15


After reading Prof. Foessmeier's summary of the discussion on Prof. Frank's
"New Communications Morality" I came to the blinding conclusion that I (and
most of the other people who replied) had missed an essential point and an
essential word.  That word was "morality".  Most of the postings seemed to
assume that the subject was "law".  Is it a peculiarly American state of mind
that we cannot discuss such a subject in terms of voluntary restraint?  That,
for instance, complaints about commercial television cannot be talked about
in terms of trying to persuade broadcasting stations to change their standards?
That discussions of software copyrights cannot be talked about in terms of
trying to persuade people that sharing algorithms might sometimes be profitable?
Does it have to do with the litigiousness of our society?  Do most of us assume
that no one will conform to any moral standard unless it is legislated?

-- Michael McClennen