Thread: Question about Laptop connecting to a Desktop

Originally Posted by Mario F.

The spirit of the law is deeply ingrained on a society's moral and ethical values. So it's not ridiculous. Laws may change, but they do not derail from the society's values.

Monitoring workers without their knowledge has two major problems. One is ethical, the other functional.

The ethical problem is that it is the closest you get to repression. It's no different a mechanism than that used by many dictatorships in the past and in the present. No free society will lightly accept this.

The functional problem is that it is designed to punish, not to avoid the problem. If instead the workers know they are being monitored, you avoid the problem. In fact you are even more effective because a worker still caught using the company resources for their own personal benefit is knowingly breaking the rules. As I see it, this gives the company more arguments.

'Spirit of the law' - Ok, once we can define more clearly abstract ideas, then perhaps I will bother with a proper response.

Originally Posted by Elysia

Disregarding ethics is like smashing yourself with a hammer. How much do you know about ethics? They exist everywhere and is a fine line between order and disorder. Some of the ethics is even made into laws. So ethics has a higher purpose than laws, really. I wouldn't call it laughable, because the law came from the ethics.

I don't disregard ethics, I was being rather sarcastic in some posts, but more in a point to prove that implicitly quoting the law which is always in change by hypocrites is hardly the way to go about proving your point.

How much do I know about ethics? Well I do know the basis for 'ethics' in western civilization has had it's root in Christianity, but is slowly drifting from that. And that 'ethics' according to sharia law is vastly different. Going deeper into that, perhaps I can, but what's the point, this is hardly the place

Ethics does not root in any religion. It roots from what we think is right and wrong (as in our species, humans).

Originally Posted by Elysia

Ethics does not root in any religion. It roots from what we think is right and wrong (as in our species, humans).

'what we think is right or wrong' - ha, that varies from person to person, from country to country and institution to institution.

Tribes in africa have different rights and wrongs, sharia law has different rights and wrongs, western civilization has rights and wrongs and etc. The ethics you refer to are based in Christianity as the roman empire was taken over and christian influence spread across europe, and the pilgrims took it across to america.

It's proof, when you look and see that 'ethics' vary halfway across the world in the middle east, where Christian influence was resisted.

Case closed.

That is why ethics is such a difficult matter - because everyone has different opinions. And that is also why it's ethics and not laws.
And I do not base it on Christianity. A lot of people, in different countries, not limited to Christianity, believes that spying is not a very nice thing. It's against most of our natures.

Originally Posted by Elysia

That is why ethics is such a difficult matter - because everyone has different opinions. And that is also why it's ethics and not laws.
And I do not base it on Christianity. A lot of people, in different countries, not limited to Christianity, believes that spying is not a very nice thing. It's against most of our natures.

True, I don't disagree that people find it so, but I don't agree to spying outright. I only stated a few cases where I thought spying was justified. But you just rattled off the electronics act to me as your basis, so I dismissed it with proof by hypocrisy, and a proof of an ever changing basis which is contradictory in itself.

No, I rattled ethics and laws. Most think it's bad to spy on someone. And therefore there are laws against that, too.

'Spirit of the law' - Ok, once we can define more clearly abstract ideas, then perhaps I will bother with a proper response.

The "spirit of the law" is the intention of the law, as opposed to the literal interpretation of its text (the "letter of the law"). So what Mario F. meant is that the intentions by which laws are framed are (generally) the direct result of "a society's moral and ethical values".

That said, I think that it is clear that both a society's moral and ethical values and its laws change over time. In fact, Mario F.'s assertion makes sense if laws change in response to shifts in moral and ethical values.

EDIT:

How old is the brother in question? This whole argument seems kind of ridiculous. Kids need to be supervised. This isn't the same as "spying."

Frankly, I am satisfied by JFonseka's statement that "I will inform my brother if I plan to monitor him", regardless of the brother's age. It makes pragmatic sense anyway ("Big Brother is watching you, so you better behave" or "Santa Claus is coming to town!").

Originally Posted by brewbuck

How old is the brother in question? This whole argument seems kind of ridiculous. Kids need to be supervised. This isn't the same as "spying."

But then again, when you do supervise them, they usually know that you are doing it, don't they? Then it isn't spying. It's supervising as you say.

Originally Posted by laserlight

The "spirit of the law" is the intention of the law, as opposed to the literal interpretation of its text (the "letter of the law"). So what Mario F. meant is that the intentions by which laws are framed are (generally) the direct result of "a society's moral and ethical values".

The spirit of the law is then greatly diminshed when those who institute it, abuse it, and worse, continue to do so, if it was abused, then they must apologize and no longer continue breaking it, we all make mistakes. But I don't see that. Then the people, propogate the 'spirit of the law' in the spirit of hypocrisy. I'm not blaming you or anything, it's just that I find it hard to accept any code of ethics which is always in change or subject to change based on what 'authorities' say.

That said, I think that it is clear that both a society's moral and ethical values and its laws change over time. In fact, Mario F.'s assertion makes sense if laws change in response to shifts in moral and ethical values.

Yes, seeing history, it's obvious, the paradigm shifts that have taken place, then what can be concluded is that ethics is not definite?

EDIT:

Frankly, I am satisfied by JFonseka's statement that "I will inform my brother if I plan to monitor him", regardless of the brother's age. It makes pragmatic sense anyway ("Big Brother is watching you, so you better behave" or "Santa Claus is coming to town!").

These theories don't apply to the home, when parents are meant to keep an eye on children or in the case of older brothers and sister watching over their siblings. They simply don't, because these theories are mainly generalizations and family issues are specific cases.

So using this train of thought, the parents should be informing their children if they are going to 'monitor them'. Which they can if they want to at their discretion, it's not the workplace, children are bound by the laws of their parents, which I'm pretty sure in this case of 'spying' such a thing wouldn't hold in the court of law. Unless the child in question is some 20 year old man.

Parents don't 'monitor' their children just for fun or to 'break the law' but out of concern of activities, and such actions should always be taken.

Originally Posted by JFonseka

it's just that I find it hard to accept any code of ethics which is always in change or subject to change based on what 'authorities' say.

The values didn't change. They were instead disrespected by those in power in order to serve their own interests. Blame the usual suspects.

Don't dismiss the most important asset of your society. That which defines you culturally and as a human being.

In the end, laws that disrespect those principles are short-lived. And you have to thank the values you are so quick to dismiss.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

The values didn't change. They were instead disrespected by those in power in order to serve their own interests. Blame the usual suspects.

Don't dismiss the most important asset of your society. That which defines you culturally and as a human being.

In the end, laws that disrespect those principles are short-lived. And you have to thank the values you are so quick to dismiss.

You missed the point. The very authorities that made the laws say it's wrong to break it, and hence lets the public think that way, so you are saying it because the law says it, there is nothing else to it. If you were raised to believe that it was ok, that's what you would do, rest assured.

This isn't 'my inner conscience waking up'

Whatever now, I'm sick of this thread