Re: Cryin'

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Erick Wagner writes ...

 ....
> 
> Should we start quoting all of the obscentities and mean spirited
> comments
> from those folks that seem to support piracy?


     Granted, there have, for years, been those who seek to wreck Apple
II archive sites and take away user access to old Apple II software.
Their attack, destroy, and rob tactics would, ideally, seem fit the
traditional definition of "pirate".

     Even so, why would you, 'out of the blue', want to start quoting
the mean spirited rants which accompanied attempts to ruin important
Apple II institutions? A new attack upon our institutions might be
justification. Otherwise, why bother?



> It's amazing how many
> people
> can't distinguish wrong from right.

     Some people do seem to have difficulty. Yet; you will often
discover that they are firmly convinced of the rightness of a position
which you can see is quite wrong.

     Several years ago an educational psychology theorist named Kolberg
came up with a convenient way to look at the problem. He identified
"Levels of Morality" which he showed accompany personal development. For
instance, at Level 3, an individual equates "good" with behaviors
approved and rewarded by adults in his/her community. At Level 4, an
individual equates "good" with written Law.

     Someone at Level 3 is unlikely to place written Law above approval
of surrounding adults as a guide to goodness. Meanwhile, someone at
Level 4 views Level 3 morality as stunted and lacking in perspective,
as, indeed, it is.

     But, when faced with any number of real world problems, Level 4
"law and order" morality often produces unsatisfactory, unhappy
decisions. The effect of the "Piracy Test" posted a few weeks ago is to
dramatize the inadequacy of simple Level 4 morality. (A Level 4 person
would be forced to shut down an archive site from which everyone,
including the owner of the single piece of archived software, clearly
benefited.)

     It turns out that, at each Level, one actually operates to some
extent at earlier Levels. Occasionally, with growth and experience, one
'gets a taste' of operating at the next Level. For example, a few mainly
Level 4 persons could not bring themselves to shut down the site in the
test. They were a bit confused about the rationale for their decision
but, nevertheless, made a Level 5 choice-- they operated on the basis of
Principle. In time, they will fully appreciate the advantages of
principled "morality" and become established at Level 5.

     Unfortunately, there are few clashes with more potential for name
calling and bitterness than those between persons at Level 4 and persons
at Level 5 or higher. Each side, remember, is convinced of the rightness
and goodness of its position. So, to some extent, "_Knowing_" right from
wrong merely fuels the flames.

  


> What ever happened to doing the
> right
> thing?
>

     This expresses an overly pessimistic outlook. Most people in most
cases will try to do the right thing as best they can.


 
> It would be nice if csa2 were a civil place to converse but because
> people
> can hide behind a computer as they post messages they feel free to use
> any language (no matter how inappropriate) to justify their position

     Csa2 does allow virtually unrestricted latitude for self
expression. Sometimes readers may be offended; but, the alternative, a
forum wherein ideas and statements unpleasing to some moderator are
suppressed, would be a dead, dull, boring place, not at all like Csa2.



Rubywand