A simple fact that we should all be able to personally attest to is that software, movie, and music piracy is out of control. Innovation and economic fairness are being suppressed as a byproduct of this behavior. With that being said, it's understandable that measures are being proposed to discourage intellectual property theft, and with the recent proposition of the Stop Online Piracy Act, individual freedom has been resurrected to the top of our everyday thought. Freedom of speech and personal liberty has been juxtaposed with the protection of intellectual and entrepreneurial property rights. My claim is that this is a far more complex and diverse issue than many people are recognizing and deserves a much deeper analysis. Without an adequate understanding of both sides of this issue, we are not equipped to make any rational, beneficial decisions about this type of legislation. With this post, my simple aim is to promote imaginative, productive thought into this debate.
We must understand that the complete liberation of personal behavior may not be valuable to the maximization of human well-being. It can quickly become invasive upon others' rights, and it can easily destroy the fabric of all objective fairness in any society. Sam Harris asks about this problem in The Moral Landscape: "Should I be able to film my neighbor through their bedroom window and upload this footage onto YouTube? Should I be free to publish a detailed recipe for synthesizing smallpox?" One could also ask if it's acceptable that "personal freedom" allows one to teach their children how to build and detonate nuclear weapons. And down the rabbit-hole we fall even to the depths of granting one the personal freedom to, by any means necessary, fulfill their personal desires even at the expense of another humans' rights and possibly, even to the peril of their own. We have to take into account the possibility that one person's unsubstantiated, misguided delusion could propel humanity into a "less happy" state of being. Therefore, we have to guard against it.
It's my belief that the actions of inhuman totalitarian regimes in the past century have propagated a fear that is eclipsing our judgement on this issue, and many are rushing to a conclusion that "absolute personal freedom" is perfectly conducive to overall human flourishing. In reality, there are no simple resolutions for this problem, but a line must be drawn. For this line to be revised or even removed entirely should be a scientific effort, not a political or philosophical one. As Harris' thesis states, we must make it a scientific, unbiased effort to promote the increased well-being and overall happiness for everyone. With innovative neuroimaging techniques, perhaps we can build a world in which theft, murder, and lying are eradicated. This is undeniably one of the most important matters of any society, therefore, with every fiber of my being, I urge you to research the far-reaching effects of this legislation. Perhaps we can look to science, as Harris believes, to discover the ways to maximize well-being and personal liberation for all.
