I recently stumbled upon this marvelous piece. I title the quote “making an excuse“:
Saying that you’re forced to do something when you really aren’t is a failure to take responsibility for your actions. I generally don’t think users of proprietary software are primarily to blame for the challenges of software freedom — nearly all the blame lies with those who write, market, and distribute proprietary software. However, I think that software users should be clear about why they are using the software. It’s quite rare for someone to be compelled under threat of economic (or other) harm to use proprietary software. Therefore, only rarely is it justifiable to say you have to use proprietary software. In most cases, saying so is just making an excuse.
I’ll translate this for you to Catholicism. You can definitely adapt this to most religions (for some, add death penalties like stoning here and there):
Saying that you’re forced by your nature to masturbate when you really aren’t is a failure to take responsibility for your actions. The church generally doesn’t think masturbaters are primarily to blame for the challenges of sexuality — nearly all the blame lies with pornography. However, I think that people who masturbate should be clear about why they have sex with themselves: It’s quite rare for someone to be compelled under the desire of sexual pleasure. Therefore, only rarely is it justifiable to say you have to masturbate. In most cases, saying so is just making an excuse.
The translation
There you go.
The best part of Bradley’s post, is that it is actually IMPOSSIBLE for him to do what he does for a living, without proprietary software. :)
@The ‘bob’ who’s comment I didn’t accept: I don’t know how you’ll do it, but rephrase your comment without insults (especially insults directed at individuals, like yours was). You’re a guest on my infrastructure; I decide and insults aren’t accepted here.
@dobey: He did use the word ‘rarely’. So I guess sometimes it’s justifiable? :) I wonder who’ll have the moral authority to decide when it is and when it isn’t justifiable..
I guess for me, that’ll be me. And for you, that’ll be you.
A philosopher once said “We are left alone, without excuse”; From the moment men is thrown into this world, he is responsible for everything he does; Condemned to be free.
This responsibility also makes me the one to morally justify my use of proprietary software, or masturbation. And nobody else. That at least sounds a bit like being somewhat free: I like being free to define morality myself, to be responsible and accountable for my justifications. Good that we had philosophers to relate to a few decades ago, instead of prophets and priests.
philip, could you make it a bit more clear that the second quote isn’t by Bradley? It looks pretty confusing.
I don’t get your point either but that’s another topic…
@Johannes: Sure, I added “The translation”. Does that help? There’s no point unless you want there to be a point, but that’s another topic ;-)
It seems the point is that Philip thinks the wrongness of using proprietary software is equivalent to the wrongness of masturbation.
Of course, essentially the same translation could be made about things that are _really_ wrong that people make the “I had to” excuses for such as drunk driving or invading Iraq
@pvanhoof While Existentialism does depend in some way on Moral relativism Mr. Kuhn is making the standard Existentialist claim that we should all be responsible for our actions without resorting to blame some externality for them, be it in the field of software or masturbation.
Comparing the usage of proprietary software to a natural impulse like masturbation is IMHO a fallacy, but ignoring that I don’t see how throwing Sartre at him makes any sense, since if anything he’s being a more hardliner Existentialist than you are.
@john: Right(ish), but I don’t think the non-wrongness of using proprietary software is equivalent to the is-wrongness of drunk driving (or invading Iraq). I just think the non-wrongness of using proprietary software is relatively equivalent to the non-wrongness of masturbation (they are in the same league, in that they aren’t wrong at all). And (although not in the article, but in comments I mentioned that) I nowadays follow the philosophy of the philosopher I quoted in an earlier comment to define most of my own morality.
The other point is that Bradley’s quote might have been speeched in a Catholic church by a men wearing clerical clothing, and you wouldn’t have noticed: it’s preaching a morality by a group of people who in my opinion don’t always know a lot about philosophy of ethics unless it’s about their own ethic. Which is exactly what religion also does.
@Xan: But then again, I’m not trying to be a hardline existentialist. And yes, that we ourselves are all responsible for our actions is what I too wrote in an earlier comment; it goes both ways (we’re responsible for our own moral justifications, and the claim that using proprietary software isn’t wrongdoing, is perfectly justifiable for me).
@pvanhoof then quoting Sartre is a bit odd and only reinforces his point, not yours. He (Sartre) spent a good part of his life trying to make people take responsibility for their actions and encouraging them to follow strict moral rules. Your “Who are you to tell me what to do anyway?” reply would be frowned upon by him.
@Xan: Following moral rules doesn’t mean having to accept them from just anybody. I’m not saying “Who are you to tell me what to do anyway?” to everybody, just (rightfully) to most people.
@pvanhoof Who is doing that? He even says “In summary, I want to be clear that I don’t judge people who use proprietary software.”. He’s just asking people to be honest about their actions and motives, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
@Xan: Yes, and I’m not criticizing that (I’m not criticizing much, to be honest).
The interesting thing is that I can imagine the first paragraph being quite controversial while the second paragraph is common knowledge.
So our world is more enlightened and honest about sexuality than it is about software. Weird, isn’t it?
@Benjamin Otte: To be honest, I don’t think that’s very weird …
But good that it made you think about it :) (ultimately, that’s the only point)
Now, how about a “translation” to warfare?
“Ra-ta-ta-ta-ta”
“Bang bang boom”
“Ra-ta-ta-ta-ta”
“Boom”
– Translation to warfare
The Catholic Church obviously opposes masturbation and all other forms of sexual activity that can not result in producing a child, because the Church has believed for the past 2,000 years or so that sexual pleasure is a gift of God and it’s basically insulting God to enjoy that pleasure outside of the context of ‘true love’ and ‘selflessness’ and ‘procreation.’ Within the context of the Catholic Church believing it to be a sin to enjoy sexual pleasure outside of how they feel God means it to be enjoyed, their policies on masturbation make logical sense whether or not you believe in the principle guiding them.
Understand that principle/belief is over 2,000 years old, coming from a time when people did not live nearly as long lives as we do today and when many health conditions that are minor today were a death sentence. Having large families was important to keep communities together and enabled their survival, especially during the Dark Ages when there was no government and the Church was left to keep society in order.
You’ve basically ridiculed the Church with an obviously out-of-date policy sans the necessary historical context to inform it – far from a formidable intellectual feat. What’s really amusing here is your use of THAT anachronism to ridicule a policy that actually makes very good sense and is actually the exact opposite – quite radically progressive given the historical context around it.
Using backwards to criticize forwards! Very interesting!
So, what you’re saying is that using free software is to using proprietary software what sex is to masturbation ;-?
@Eetu Huisman: That _is_ actually a good observation, yes :)
Note that the Dark Ages, when according to you those principles applied, was not 2,000 years ago (I disagree with your list, and if you’d visit a few culture places in Europe or learn some history you’d understand that your view is quite misinformed – “no law”: nonsense, “no government”: nonsense, “Church had to keep the social order”: mostly nonsense. But anyway). Not even their Bible was written 2,000 years ago, but rather written in separate chunks, incorrectly recombined, politically rewritten, incorrectly translated, rewritten and incorrectly translated again and adapted over the course of 2,000 years. (but that’s not the point here, so anyway)
> What’s really amusing here is your use of THAT anachronism to ridicule a policy that
> actually makes very good sense and is actually the exact opposite – quite radically
> progressive given the historical context around it.
Whether or not that policy does make very good sense is yet to be proven. You saying it, doesn’t make it a fact. Radical progressiveness also doesn’t mean that it necessarily makes very good sense. That’s rather a sign to be *very* alarmed, instead.
> Using backwards to criticize forwards! Very interesting!
Indeed, that’s the point. But using backward to criticize forward requires a sense of humor that very few people seem to grasp. Perhaps watch the Holy Grail by Monty Python a few times?
Who in the end knows for sure that FSF’s “forwards! policies” are pushing us forward, and not backward? Apparently you think that? Many people think many things, having many nuances. Which of them will be the best one? And will it be the best one that pushes us forward, anyway? Looking at religion, I’m not so sure.
I for one don’t think FSF’s extremist nuances are even good ones. Far from it. And I sure hope their extremism wont push us forward. That would be an extremist future that ain’t very nice for dissidents. We’ve seen the morality that the FSF creates among many of its fans: zealot madness and extremist nutcases with fascistic ideas on how to punish those who criticize their oh so great God (but go on ignoring all that).
No, the Dark Ages was not 2,000 years ago nor did I ever say or imply they were. I only meant to imply (as I thought was clear) that the Church was well-established and a force at the time.
I’m trying to spin your claim that I haven’t taken any history into anything but an insult but I am falling short unless you meant to make a joke of me. I suppose pointing out that wikipedia’s article on the Dark Ages supports my claims (which were based on two years’ secondary-level education on European and world history), especially in the “modern academic use” section, but we all know that wikipedia lies, right?
Even *if* my points on the Church and the Dark Ages were wrong, it would be hard to argue that for many of the years leading up to modern times human civilization as a whole was far more agrarian and farming yields sans genetic engineering and pesticides were far more modest, thus there was more of a need for families to have more children in order to aid production on the farms. The point here is not to argue about how backwards my knowledge of European and world history is, the point is the Catholic Church’s policy you’ve chosen to paint as nonsensical is a contemporary anachronism that within its historical context absolutely made more sense.
“Radical progressiveness also doesn’t mean that it necessarily makes very good sense.”
No, it doesn’t, but it does mean moving forward, not backward, which was kind of my main point. The FSF are pushing boundaries and convincing people think more deeply about where their software comes from, the same way that today’s slow food movement is convincing folks to consider where their food comes from. How is comparing a progressive social movement to a religion a useful exercise?
I won’t reply again, you seem to just want to argue and make jabs at people rather than have a proper discussion.
* Moderator changed URL of Máirín Duffy to her normal homepage.
Impressive how far off-topic you’re willing to go. I indeed maintain that “no-government”, “no-law” and “no-social cohesion without the Church” during the Dark-Ages is all complete nonsense. Sorry, but it’s true. Whatever new list about agrarian farmers sans genetic engineering and pesticides you make in your reply — I just don’t see the relevance, sorry. I still think masturbation is morally fine and has always been morally fine if that’s what you’re trying to get at — Maybe the moral misguiding of the Church during the Dark-Ages was my whole point? Ever considered that? *shrug* I guess not.
I’ll also change your URL to your normal homepage (the one you used first, instead of that “get.fedoraproject.org redesign post-mortem”): my blog is’t a place to advertise your Fedora products nor specific blog articles. Thank you.
However, I don’t see the FSF as a progressive social movement. Rather, a group with extremist ideas and without any form of pragmatism. Luckily is it increasingly reducing itself to irrelevance (due to aforementioned extremism and lack of any pragmatism).
> No, it doesn’t, but it does mean moving forward, not backward, which was kind
> of my main point.
And “kind of my main point” is that you don’t know whether it moves us forward, instead of backward, while creating the impression that we’re moving forward. That people in general are too optimistic about “we can’t be anything but moving forward”. But you have to read an comprehend that of course, instead of being selectively blind.
In my perspective is the FSF only going backward at this moment. At a high velocity.
As for making jabs at people, you’re pretty good at it too I must say: it was you who wrote “far from a formidable intellectual feat”, you who endlessly off-topic ranted about religion during the Dark-Ages (again, I don’t see the relevance, but oh well), etc. And all that was before any of my replies to you. So yeah, since you wont reply, bye bye miss hypocrite Máirín Duffy.
False analogy alert. Masturbation has nothing to do with morality (the subset of preferable behavior enforceable / prohibit-able using physical force, which is what folks want to do when they utter “That is IMMORAL!”).
Máirín Duffy Says: “… thus there was more of a need for families to have more children in order to aid production on the farms. The point here is […] the Catholic Church’s policy […] within its historical context absolutely made more sense.”
This is a wonderful example how a dogmatic belief system makes its beliefers accept any irrational rationalization as long as it helps “explaining” actions by other beliefers.
Anybody capable of critical thinking, however, will just find it ridiculus. As if masturbation limits a man’s or a women’s ability to have children in any relevant way!
This just shows apologists will come up with any rationalization of their personal beliefs — not matter how irrational or unsound these are. This holds both for Christian and ‘Free’ Software apologists.
Your comparision was spot on.
@Rudd-O: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality (hey, Máirín also used Wikipedia as a credible source, heh)
@Claus, indeed
> This is a wonderful example how a dogmatic belief system makes its beliefers
> accept any irrational rationalization as long as it helps “explaining” actions by
> other beliefers.
> […]
> This just shows apologists will come up with any rationalization of their personal
> beliefs — not matter how irrational or unsound these are. This holds both for
> Christian and ‘Free’ Software apologists.
I guess I had that embodied with my “Impressive how far offtopic you’re willing to go”, but your reply explains it even better, yes.
Thanks!