Is this legal or ethical to save money?

[james.hendrickson]

Guys - I'm locking this thread. For some reason its managed to become inflammatory.

[Scallywag]

That's it, I am done with this group and all the constant racism. Y'all have fun being racists, I will go elsewhere to talk to people who aren't.

it's not like anyone here justified slavery! Racists, my dear Lord. Really?

[Scallywag]

Oh, come on, this is just silly. People know when they're doing something they shouldn't or something that's not in line with what they've agreed to. It's usually pretty clearly stated in the terms of service for whatever it is you want to steal. So you either choose to abide by their terms, or you decide it's important enough to get free stuff that you don't wanna. This whole line of thought with dissecting what the victim thinks is going nowhere good. If you need your victim to tell you no after they've already told you no in their terms of service, then that tells you something about your own moral code. That's all I can say.

Do you really think large businesses are that clueless?

[Petunia 100]

Sheesh ! Can't believe this is even being asked.
I suppose you may as well fill your pockets or purse with all the sugar and creamer packets at the restaurant too.

When in doubt, refer to the golden rule.

This pretty much sums up my point of view. Only, mine is a bit more selfish. I believe in positive/negative energy, "you reap what you sow", karma, laws of attraction, whatever you would like to call it. Trying to cheat Netflix out of their rightful membership fees may put you a few dollars ahead but you have just shot yourself in the foot. Good things will not flow to you, they will avoid you, because of the negative energy you have intentionally brought into your life. No thanks.

[HundredK]

That's it, I am done with this group and all the constant racism. Y'all have fun being racists, I will go elsewhere to talk to people who aren't.

[Scallywag]

Yes - can't we tone it down.

And pray how is this disrespectful?
The question is about morality and how it's relative. That is the point being made.

[james.hendrickson]

Also, for the record, it's disgusting that people in this group are bringing up issues as serious as the holocaust and slave ownership in this thread to try and reinforce their own position. Have a little respect.

Yes - can't we tone it down.

[HundredK]

Also, for the record, it's disgusting that people in this group are bringing up issues as serious as the holocaust and slave ownership in this thread to try and reinforce their own position. Have a little respect.

[TexasHusker]

and before we jump all on the nazis, dial back the years a bit to and review what the white man did to the indians in this country. We killed MILLIONS of them. Was that moral?

[TexasHusker]

In many countries around the world, men are allowed to marry women at 14, 12, and even 10 years old. If that society deems this as moral, is it so?

[HundredK]

And how do you *know* that a business is being "victimized" here?

Oh, come on, this is just silly. People know when they're doing something they shouldn't or something that's not in line with what they've agreed to. It's usually pretty clearly stated in the terms of service for whatever it is you want to steal. So you either choose to abide by their terms, or you decide it's important enough to get free stuff that you don't wanna. This whole line of thought with dissecting what the victim thinks is going nowhere good. If you need your victim to tell you no after they've already told you no in their terms of service, then that tells you something about your own moral code. That's all I can say.

[Scallywag]

Because morals shouldn't be based on how a victim responds.

And how do you *know* that a business is being "victimized" here?

From my perspective, morality has to do with my “code” of right and wrong (with the recognition that not all issues are perfectly binary). That is, it’s personal and whether or not there’s a material impact on the “victim” is not relevant to me.

Exactly, it's personal. As pointed out above, even colonizers, slave owners & Nazis had their own concept of "morality" and they, too, did not care whether there was a negative / devastating impact on a victim or victims or not.

Jim Crowe laws, segregation, institutionalizing of the disabled were all considered "normal" at some point of time. What's "normal", moral and ethical at some time is considered immoral and unethical at others.

The only moral code that I live by is the code of living & letting live. I don't steal cups of milk for my offspring after paying for a small cup of coffee but then again, I DO NOT HAVE TO. Who knows that I might not have made off with the entire milk jug if I was in her shoes?

Prostitution is illegal in many states. But if the "job" doesn't hurt anyone and helps the prostitute pay her bills, why judge her?

Morality and ethics are fine and dandy when you are able to afford basic needs and maybe some wants. Morality and ethics don't matter if your kids are starving or you are homeless with no knowledge of when and where your next meal will come from

I am unable to quote Steve, but let me say this - there's a lot ot difference between ripping your next door neighbor off her social security check, vs taking advantage of free trials of products of big corporations. Period. YMMV.

[TexasHusker]

That's just it. Morals are not absolute. The problem is individuals and groups insisting that they are (or should be). I have no problem with someone living their life according to their personal moral code. I have a tremendous problem when they try to impose their moral code on others.

Throughout human history, there have been wars. And in most wars, there has been a victor. And to that victor "goes the spoils." Often, the spoils mean rape, pillage, and plunder. At one time, that was a private soldier's primary pay. Think Red Army in their race to Berlin. So if an entire nation deems certain behaviors moral and ethical, is that OK?

[TexasHusker]

Texas, isn't this arguing from extremes a bit? I mean, we're talking about gaming Netflix free trials. Bringing in literally the worse, most criminal, government in recent human history just seems like its going to muddy the discussion.

If you want to argue that moral standards are absolute, why not just say it?

I was just curious as to the whole "morals are relative" argument. If it isn't a worthy discussion, let's drop it. I love to share and hear.

[disneysteve]

If you want to argue that moral standards are absolute, why not just say it?

That's just it. Morals are not absolute. The problem is individuals and groups insisting that they are (or should be). I have no problem with someone living their life according to their personal moral code. I have a tremendous problem when they try to impose their moral code on others.