7gen Bloc

How does the first topic of small wrongs relate to the second topic of public vs. proprietary?

Here is the problem with your kids' argument. Everything was built on public information somewhere in it. This might sound silly but at the most basic level the alphabet and words are public information and every written thing is an assembled content of this public information. So that argument means that nothing should be proprietary.

Also, "public" is not the same as "free". For example, books are publicly accessible at libraries and stores but you have to pay for them otherwise. And even the public library access is not really free. The price is paid for by taxes and donations.

So the solution was to give each other a hug in the morning? I'm not really sure how old the kids are but it seems like this is hardly a good way to solve the moral question first posed.

School might be able to take a break, but morality cannot and should not. The weird thing is that the whole newsletter was full of ethical and moral issues... hormones in cows, chemicals and babies, environmental activism, so on. When it comes to inanimate objects and how they relate to humans, the article seems to have that down, when it comes to relating to one another there is nothing here.

Even the argument, as dragon mentioned, goes from white lies to databases.... connect the dots. What exactly is so inspiring, the ability to change milk or detergent products, or the ability to change hearts and minds... even the ones that are closer to us?

I disagree with the stealing of a pencil, or any object - even a heart. It all revolves around responsible behavior and how it affects others. There is a trickle down effect to it all.

It may seem small and insignificant in the "big picture", but...folks, it is stealing.

There us one "white lie" I agree with: When people are planning a surprise party for someone and they really want to maintain the surprise factor - and similar pleasant, fun events/acts of surprise. Otherwise taking what is not yours, and not asking permission or paying for it, is stealing.
Another example: "Oh, using the postage machine once or twice won't hurt". Well, that's why companies have budgets - everything is thought-out and planned according to the companies needs and policies.

You have rules in your own home, right?? You expect family members, relatives, visitors and friends to respect your wishes, right? So it goes in the work place or any other situation/environment you may be involved within.

Yes, it is SO easy to rationalize our actions, "It's just a pencil, it's just an apple, it's just a lap-top - I have to work at home anyway and the company really should have supplied one for me anyhow", "it's just a joy ride and I just need to get to the other side of town in 10 minutes, they won't miss their car,...", and it goes on and on and on.

The line is there, it was drawn long ago - stealing is wrong.

Polluting our environment is wrong.

Wow, the headline of this article made me think you were going to go somewhere with it. I would suggest telling your kids that someone who has integrity in small things has integrity in big things; someone who does not have integrity in small things is less likely to have it in big things. It's not all about the obvious effect of our actions in life, it is a lot about the process too. When you turn around to return a pen you realize you took or go back to a cashier who gave you too much change, you are grooming your own character for bigger issues. Then, when bigger scenarios arise, you act naturally out of integrity you have been fostering in yourself instead of having to assess it a moral decision. Frankly, I think this is why you (the writer) have conscience about the database matter. You have conscience about the small things, so it's a no brainer when a similar principle applies to something larger. I think your kids (and your wife, it sounds) see honesty as something you put on when you think it matters. If honesty is something you want as a character trait, you build it in every instance. If you try to put in on just when (you think) it matters, you will realize there was a time it mattered and you didn't recognize it. Unfortunately, that easily leads to justifying the dishonesty - lowering your previous bar - (rather than admit your process is flawed) which leads to more exceptions to your rule and frankly, a character lacking integrity. Try returning excess change to cashier. The surprise, the thanks, the incredulity that you would be so honest speaks volumes. People value that in others. When I went back to a cashier who overlooked a $50 coat in the pile of things I had purchased, she look me in the eye and asked me why I would come back and told me it restored her faith in humanity. There's something to that. Teach your kids to return the pen as a matter of personal discipline and you won't have to teach them that a database that some company invested in is proprietary.

"I argued that the employer paid for the value that was added to the public information when it was assembled into a more valuable database. Therefore, the information that resided in the database was now proprietary."

I work for an industrial and commercial appraisal firm, so I know the importance of placing value on intangible assets. It's a hard concept for a layperson to understand...placing a price on a name, goodwill, or a database that means profit to a business. When you've paid the money, you own it. And because you own it, you don't have to share it. Also true, that consultant can compile a similar database for a different client from the same original public records. And the clients have the right to sell those names in the database to someone else willing to buy it.

I disagree with your kids...you aren't narrow-minded and disconnected from reality.

It takes extra strength to maintain integrity in our everyday life. I work very hard to help my children and grandchildren see that honesty is necessary to have your best life. Honesty and kindness can co-exist, and they are the basis of integrity and fidelity. The Golden Rule is one of the oldest guidelines for a positive life. I am in full agreement with the post from Susan Brill.Further, I believe we must live in strength,and not allow ourselves to wallow in weakness.If that makes you unpopular somewhere, so be it. If you adhere to kindness and honesty,if you persevere in your values, you can make a difference.

On the subject of making free information in a proprietary database likewise free...to me, it's not really a question of right or wrong. Since you created the database, technically, it's yours to make people pay for that proprietary format.

However, just because you can doesn't necessarily mean that's ideal. Unless there are very good reasons for making someone pay for something, I think it's better to give it away for free. Sure, we need to make our livelihoods, and in those cases paying for something is necessary. But when you can give information away for free--a resource almost as valuable as food, air or water--I think you should.

Whether you are narrow minded or not, I don't know enough to say. As for whether you are disconnected from reality, however, I can comment in this case (but only in this case) with a relatively certain yes. Here's why:

1) You think that you believe that if something is 'wrong' it can't be rationalized without the person doing the rationalization having a problem. I submit to you that there are many instances where doing one 'wrong' thing precludes another 'wronger' thing from being done. The simplest example is telling a mother that her new-born child is very cute, when in fact you find the baby rather ugly. Nobody would argue the wrongness of lying, but telling a mother that her baby looks like a sewer rat with a bad case of mange is so wrong that lying becomes the right thing to do. Is it rationalization of the wrong? Certainly. But it's what we do in reality to maintain harmony, and it's the right thing to do.

2) You skipped from "Right vs Wrong" to "Proprietary vs Public," which aren't the same argument at all. To reconnect yourself to reality, you need to reconstruct that argument to match your original argument (although I do believe that you are correct about the new database being proprietary: The information may not be, but the created format certainly is). My suggestion would be to make the argument about whether it's ok to profit from the data gained by having appropriated the database illegally (once you've settled the question of whether it's proprietary or not, of course) since because the information is public the fact that you got the data illegally would not be discovered, or whether the proper thing to do would be to disclose your stealing of the database to the company that created it and hope for a mutually beneficial arrangement by which both you and the company would profit, and by which you don't garner huge fines or jail time.

- Zohar S.E.

I agree with those that think integrity in life begins with the small things. I used to be one of those people that lied - a lot. Mostly it was to avoid trouble or not hurt someone's feelings.

Then I met my hubby and found him to be the most honest person I'd ever encountered. And it changed me. I began to be honest towards the people I had lied to the most, my family. I told them how I felt even if it wasn't what they wanted to hear. Of course there was a lot of turmoil at first, but our relationships are more open and less stressed than before.

One thing that bothers me still is that even though I'm open with them, I see them telling white lies to each other. One of my siblings received a gift from the other and lost it. Then proceeded to search high and low to buy an identical item. My parents encouraged it. A new item was eventually found and the other sibling never knew the difference. Is that right? It sure didn't teach the sibling that lost the item any responsibility and just instills the idea that white lies are good.

And so as I see in my own life and the article, honesty cannot be forced. It must be taught from parents or brought about by role models. And when parents disagree about honesty (as in the case of the article) then children aren't sure what is right. Seems like the author needs to stand up for his ethics to his children even if his wife isn't on board.

If you accept or justify unacceptable behavior, it becomes acceptable. If you allow people's "little lies" they will continue to lie. Why? I dunno.
I find lies and dishonesty are too much drama for me. I keep a safe distance from people/relatives that don't reciprocate.
What else can you do?
As far as the discussion with the fam...... Why did your discussion turn to needing apologies & hugs in the morning? I'm sorry it didn't go the other way where all parties walked away with a new perspective. I used to get hostile too when someone refused to open their mind enough to just listen.
I have an example as well.
I was tending bar with another bartender and we had 1 waitress. Per the owner - Serve the waitress first - no matter how packed the bar got. ( the waitress was not required to tip her bartenders at the end of the shift) But, OK.
After a very busy Saturday, we finished our tally. I asked the owner "how much we did". She only gave me the totals for the bar. I asked how much the waitress did. She told me and after some quick figuring, I told the other bartender what the grand total was and that we served $xxxx.xx. The owner almost lost it!
If we serve the waitress........ she just wouldn't get it! There was no incentive to serve her 1st if she wasn't going to tip us accordingly. That in fact, serving her 1st guaranteed us less tips. What does it matter who we hand the beers to? If I hand them to her, I definitely will not be tipped.
Say she orders 12 beers - no tip, the next person orders 12 beers - I can count on at least a $3 tip. Over the course of an evening it adds up.
My argument is I'm putting the drinks over the bar no matter who orders them. She is earning OUR tips!

That was a rough week at work! The boss was livid and everybody thought i just wanted a cut of her tips.
Not true!
I was just stating the obvious I thought. In my attempt to make them see, I just got them mad.

The moral of the story is you need to know the people you're (me too) going to force your honesty on. Many just can't handle the truth.

The topic of ethics could be argued again and again, but I think you should be commended for having that discussion with your kids and giving them some real life experience with it. So often parents want only to be friends with their kids and they don’t offer them ways to learn how to challenge others ideas in a safe and loving environment. In the end you didn’t agree, but you still supported and loved them the next day. That gave them a better lesson than anything; showing that you can disagree with someone, but still love and treat them with respect. I think we need more lessons like that in our children’s lives; and I believe the ethics part will come around when they get older and have a better understanding of the world.

Adding to my first comment, your kids are correct that there is an evolving ethos connected to today's technologies. There is a growing and thriving economy on "free" and "open" standards. However, these products exist with explicit licenses. It is not a default worldview imposed on everyone and without a license making the rules known at the outset. Some of the most popular licenses include the Creative Commons Licenses, and the GNU General Public Licenses (GPL).

The following pages describe different licenses for different levels of copyrights:
http://creativecommons.org/about/license/
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/

The following pages also clarify that the word "free" is meant in relation to freedom not price, something that is commonly misinterpreted. Charging money is actually encouraged.

Selling Free Software
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

The Free Software Definition
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The following definition also clarifies that most of the "free" technologies today are not "public domain" but actually copyrighted. This is not the same as "publicly available". It also explains that actually things in the public domain can legitimately be modified and distributed as proprietary unless it is "copylefted" instead of "public domain".

Public Domain Software
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PublicDomainSoftware

What is Copyleft?
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html

I think your children are probably looking at it from the perspective of an intuitive view of ethics called consequentialism. This is a popular view for obvious reasons. What is right or wrong, it seems, depends on the consequences of your actions. If telling a white lie has better consequences overall than not telling a white lie, then it seems that the right thing to do is to tell the white lie.

This is where Kant's moral theory runs into trouble. He takes a similar perspective to you in that he says if lying is wrong, then if you lie, you have done wrong irrespective of the circumstances or consequences. But that doesn't seem right. For example, consider the case where a murderer is chasing someone and the person being chased runs by you and you see him duck into a building. The murder comes to you and asks which way the person being chased went so that the murderer could murder that person. It seems clear that you should lie in this case, but Kant would say you shouldn't lie.

So, if it's true that you shouldn't refrain from lying all the time, then when should you refrain from lying? There are a number of plausible views including consequentialism, intuitionism, and contractualism. Each have their own problems, but if you take your ethics seriously you should definitely explore them. Knowing more about what ethical theory seems consistent with your views will challenge your beliefs and change your life.

By the way, I think Rawl's (Theory of Justice) would say that the decision on profiting from the database is just if profiting from it also makes the worst off, better off.

That's a very interesting dilemma. I think there are some people who believe that wrong is wrong, and there are others who believe that wrong is a moving target, especially values.

A person I know once wanted to place their name as co-author on an article that another wrote, simply because he attended the university where the author would be able to submit the article for publication with the attendees help. They both thought that was fine. I thought it was wrong. To me, the attendee was being an opportunist, and the true author - although benefiting by having someone else who attended the institution submit the article - shouldn't have been so willing to allow the co-author credit when no real work had been done.

One more thing is this. I think honesty is absolutely crucial to the effective running of a business. If you have a group of people who are absolutely honest, then you have a well oiled machine that can expand. But when you don't have honesty, then you have a major problem that will prevent growth. I would think a key would be creating an environment where people can be honest.