Today's Question Category Archive: Religion/Ethics

Would you fish without a license?

Posted at 5:00 AM on July 14, 2011 by Eric Ringham (50 Comments)
Filed under: Culture, Environment/Energy, Politics/Government, Religion/Ethics

It's the height of fishing season, but there's no way to buy a license during the state shutdown. Though the DNR says no, some local authorities have said it's probably OK to fish now and get a license later. Today's Question: Would you fish without a license?

Comment on this post

Should we change place names that don't fit with modern values?

Posted at 5:00 AM on June 16, 2011 by Eric Ringham (42 Comments)
Filed under: Culture, Religion/Ethics

A Minneapolis history buff is campaigning to change the name of Lake Calhoun because its namesake, Vice President John Calhoun, was a proponent of slavery. Today's Question: Should we change place names that don't fit with modern values?

Comment on this post

Why are we so interested in predictions about the end of the world?

Posted at 5:00 AM on May 20, 2011 by Eric Ringham (49 Comments)
Filed under: Culture, Religion/Ethics

Predictions about the end of the world come and go. The one getting all the attention just now says the end will begin at 6 p.m. this Saturday. Today's Question: Why are we so interested in predictions about the end of the world?

Comment on this post

Is it time to allow Minnesotans to buy liquor on Sundays?

Posted at 5:00 AM on February 4, 2011 by Jon Gordon (70 Comments)
Filed under: Culture, Economy, Religion/Ethics

Several cash-strapped states, including Minnesota, are once again considering proposals to end their bans on store-based alcohol sales on Sundays as a way to generate revenue. Today's Question: Is it time to allow Minnesotans to buy liquor on Sundays?

Comment on this post

What's your approach to gift-giving at the holidays?

Posted at 5:00 AM on December 24, 2010 by Eric Ringham (8 Comments)
Filed under: Culture, Economy, Religion/Ethics

Some people try to shop according to their values at the holidays, purchasing gifts that are sustainable or charitable in some way. Today's Question: What's your approach to gift-giving at the holidays?

Comment on this post

Would you donate your body for use after death?

Posted at 6:00 AM on August 7, 2009 by Eric Ringham (32 Comments)
Filed under: Culture, Religion/Ethics

Starting this weekend, paying customers will once again be looking at preserved, posed corpses in a Twin Cities exhibit. Meanwhile, an Illinois woman has received the heart of a Minnesota soldier who died from wounds suffered in battle in Afghanistan. Whether for science, commercial use or to save the life of another person, agreeing to give up your earthly remains is likely to involve some soul-searching. Would you donate your body for use after death?

I don't think i would let my body be donated. I wouldn't really care what happens to my body, let my family decide. -Nathan, IN

Of course i would donate my body. It would be selfish and inhumane not to. -Alix Sophia, Minneapolis, MN

I've already arranged to have myself sent to the body farm in TN when my time comes. -Cat, Minneapolis, MN

Yes - I am pro-recycling so yes. -Casey Nordendale, St. Paul, MN

Comment on this post

Should employers be able to regulate your personal life?

Posted at 6:00 AM on July 14, 2009 by Eric Ringham (14 Comments)
Filed under: Culture, Religion/Ethics

The Pentagon is considering a recommendation that it ban tobacco use among all members of the military. Likewise, professional sports teams routinely prohibit athletes from skiing, riding motorcycles or playing pick-up basketball due to risk of injury. Should employers be able to regulate your personal life?

No. Unless it is detrimental to the job or poorly reflects values of the profession personal life is just that...personal. That's like asking if health care providers should bar obese people from working in the health care profession since it doesn't portray a healthy lifestyle. There needs to be a limit to personal interference. I may have my disdain for obesity, substance use,ignorance and rudeness but to each his own...I am no more superior than the next person. -Teri Gibbons, Rochester, MN

The fine line between work and personal life has been wearing away for some time. As work life and personal life start to blur employers are naturally going to try to regulate the behavior of their employees since they now represent their respective companies both in and out of the work place. I don't think it's right for employers to regulate the average blue collar worker. Regulating people outside of the workplace feels like an assault on individual rights. I can understand some regulation of military or professional sports because their physical condition directly relates to their job performance... but that's a slippery slope. -Jonathan Campbell, Hopkins, MN

I use to think America was founded and based on freedom? I guess pretty soon employers, along with government, will be able to regulate how many and when their employees can decide to have children. -Kimberly Johannsen, Shoreview, MN

I am a strong believer in positive reinforcement to a healthier lifestyle . So incentives towards that goal make sense to me. If that can be accomplished by companies through their health plans , it will reduce the overall cost of treatment after the onset of issues. We must work towards preemptive model with respect to health care . Companies in the US can push that forward . Outside of health I do not see anything wrong with a personal contract which precludes destructive behavior. -Tom Mallon, Minneapolis, MN

Not sure those examples are comparable. Pro athletes have professionally negotiated contracts that pay them handsomely. Army grunts have almost infinitely less leverage with their employer. This isn't a yes/no question. Would it be sane for employers to mandate a perfectly healthy lifestyle, including exercise (low impact - watch the joints!), no fat, no meat, no white wine, no breathing polluted air? Obviously not, but it does make sense to provide incentives for behavior that will enhance productivity - subsidized gym memberships, etc. We're working more than ever, we need to keep our private lives for ourselves. -Ben Gillies, St. Paul, MN

When in a college track program, I was not allowed to swim or ski. No hardship then. Employers are not allowed to ask personal questions at interview time, therefore they should not be able to dictate behavior after hiring. I gave my hours to each employer as negotiated for pay and benefits. They should never be able to then Change the Rules after agreeing to the hours and responsibilities. -John Reay, Minneapolis, MN

I find a military smoking ban absurd. I'd like to see how they plan to tell infantrymen in a prolonged fire fight that the no smoking light is on. -Jess

Two chief issues come to mind: (1) Timing. There's a difference between ad hoc changing regulations after the employee is hired vs. those written up-front into an initial hiring contract. The latter seems more reasonable, the former is borderline fascistic. (2) Purpose & Symmetry. Presumably, regulations serve the betterment of the company. In this era of run-it-to-the-ground and slash&burn management, off-shoring, and bailing out, the next consideration is the basic asymmetry of the problem: employers desire to dictate how employees must live, but apparently management is free to practice company-self-destructive behavior? -Paul Bramscher, Circle Pines, MN

I believe there are professions out there that have reasonable expectations on performance that overlap into personal life. I also believe there are professions that have little, if any, overlap and should not have "off-duty" life activities scrutinized by their employer. I believe this is something that requires healthy debate and an open mind on the part of both employers and employees. -Leanne Kunze, Waconia, MN

My answer is simple. As long as the employer bears a financial burden (whether it be in higher health insurance rates or workers compensation costs) for personal habits that affect your health, they should be able to issue some rules in regards to those personal habits while you work. People can't have it both ways, to have their lung cancer treatment paid for by the employer sponsored health insurance AND refuse to give up smoking while at work. -Kari Harding, Canby, MN

In the case of the military, the contract you enter essentially states that you are property of the military during the duration of your enlistment. As far as employment at will I don't believe that an employer should have the right to dictate your lifestyle. That could be a very slippery slope that would be very hard to back peddle from. That kind of control encroaches on the individual civil rights and liberties that are the corner stone of american citizenship. -Jesse Zeimet, Minneapolis, MN

No!! This sets a dangerous precedent and borders on violating one's right to privacy. -Sandra Henry, Bolingbrook, IL

Yes, if a reasonable person would think that the banned behavior could harm the company. Companies have a right to do what is in their best interest. If you own a football team and a player gets hurt and can't play, you loose money. So, you can say, "If you want to play for my team, you can't ski or ride a motorcycle." Jobs are voluntary. The government, on the other hand, should not be able to regulate my personal life. -Chris Erickson, Minneapolis, MN

No, but they do, always have, and always will. Even if laws may keep them from firing those employees they do not consider to be the kind of people they wish to employ, they can and will retaliate however they can, and reward those that do as they suggest. -Paul Lareau, Little Canada, MN

You can not include situations where there is an employment contract in this debate. Professional sports and military both have contracts and therefore the employer can regulate what ever they want within the bounds of the contract. For the military, smoking should have been banned long ago, who wants a soldier to be in battle and have a twitchy finger because they need a fix? Where the employment is at-will, employers should not be able to regulate your personal life, this includes blogs and other items as long as they are not disparaging to the employer. -Richard Garnett, Minneapolis, MN

Only if said banned behavior affects the job. -Dustin, Montgomery, MN

If you don't like what an employer is asking in exchange for employment...don't work for them! I have a choice which company I work for, I do NOT have a choice which government governs me. -Dennis Fisher, Dayton, MN

I think if it could potentially affect your job performance by a considerable amount, it is reasonable for your employer to ask. For example, if you were a model, your employer may not want you getting inappropriate tattoos or making drastic appearance changes as it could affect sales of product, the image a company is trying to sell, and so on. Let's keep in mind that people apply for a job of their own free will. If you do not like the demands or requirements of a job, then you can always look somewhere else. Although I do think there is a fine line between what is okay and not okay for an employer to ask of their employees. -Keli Holtmeyer, Maple Grove, MN

No! But they do. No explanations or discussions needed and they will continue to regulate personal lives until folks realize they have lost a lost of basic freedoms along with comfort zones. This regulation is subtle and not painful yet but it's coming. Period. -Bertie Williams

I am amazed at people's thinking; on the one hand people absolutely resent a government health plan, because it might be socialistic. On the other hand they allow the government to regulate their private actions...No smoking, no abortions, no gays in the military... I dont get it.. are these regulations not interfering with the social texture of this society??? -Regina Rippel, St. Paul, MN

Share your reply in the comments: Should employers be able to regulate your personal life?

Comment on this post

Is illegally sharing music immoral?

Posted at 6:00 AM on July 8, 2009 by Eric Ringham (38 Comments)
Filed under: Culture, Religion/Ethics

Jammie Thomas-Rasset of Brainerd has asked a judge to reduce the $1.9 million penalty she has been ordered to pay for illegally sharing music. What do you think: Is illegally sharing music immoral?

Yes, it is immoral because it is cheating the artist and the mechanisms that the artist depends upon to sell work. Would the people who illegally share the music be willing to work for no pay? Not likely. If artists cannot make a living from making their music - does it not seem to be the case that there will be fewer full time musicians? -Claire Thoen, St. Paul, MN

Illegally sharing music is not immoral, per se. But to the extent to which Jammie Thomas-Rasset did so, and continued to do so after a warning and previous suit, was a severe violation of intellectual property rights and an arrogant intrusion on musicians' ownership. She and others like her should, of course, not go to jail, and I even agree that she should pay only a portion of the penalty. But I also feel that "music hackers" who download and share on a large scale should suffer the consequences, and not get away with thumbing their noses at artists and the industry like Jammie did. -John Ervin, Minneapolis, MN

Illegally sharing music is immoral. That means I'm frequently immoral. But suing peoples faces off for doing things that feel free is equally immoral. I believe that we need to create subscription based streaming models that feel free but permit artists to monetize their work. We also need to look towards organizations like SoundExchange, BMI, ASCAP and SESAC to stay on top of how people are listening to music and collecting performance fees from the people that host that music. A performance royalty fee could be added to the purchase of those items most likely to be used in pirating (Itunes, Ipod, CDRs, Vinyl to MP3 converters). This fee is not to say that every single piece of media is used for such things, but more to say that this a new format that consumers are consuming music on. At one point (not sure if it's current) ASCAP received a small bit of money from CDR sales. Pretty smart. -Sean McPherson, St. Paul, MN

Immoral? No, not unless one defines morality as following the letter of the law. And pretty good argument can be made that certain laws themselves are immoral. If one defines morality as care and responsible treatment of one's fellow human beings, then it's a stretch to call music sharing as immoral. Illegal? Yes, at present. One might argue that a $1.9m judgment against an individual, particularly one without astonishing means, is immoral. It would relegate Ms. Thomas-Rasset to destitution for the rest of her life, unless she breaks more laws and goes on the lamb. One has to wonder how on earth that judgment fits the crime. -Mary Cody, Baxter, MN

Yes. Unless you have a compelling argument against a lawful regulation, it is wrong and immoral to violate it. Even then you should be prepared to be punished for your disobedience. As for commercial music, trying to exploit someone else's talent, I believe it is wrong, immoral, and foolish. Make that "stupid." -Gord Prickett, Aitkin, MN

As a music copyright attorney, it is clear that illegally sharing music has its consequences. But in a highly-evolving environment...laws, legislation, and morality will rarely keep pace with technology. Was the "free and shared" music broadcast via radio "immoral"? Was the technology of radio...immoral? Embracing technology -- and its significant impact on intellectual property -- is our current challenge. New Media necessarily means New Rules. As difficult as "free" and "illegal file sharing" may sound to us, the new simple truth is: "Before an audience will Pay Royalties...they must Pay Attention". We cannot play whack-a-mole with technology, be it radio...Napster...or the next next thing. We must be innovators...open to the nuanced negotiations of "licensing" intellectual property...as opposed to trying to snuff out brilliant technologies that should rightly be harnessed to broaden the knowledge base of arts and sciences. -Ron Sobel, St. Paul, MN

While I respect that artists and labels deserve to be paid for their work, the RIAA isn't going to save itself by sticking to archaic business practices nor suing individuals who download music. Considering the popularity of iTunes and today's prevalent marketing strategy of giving away your hit single via mp3, a court ruling like this doesn't send a warning message not to download music. It sends a message that the music industry still doesn't understand we're in a new environment that requires innovation and creativity to monetize. -Greg Swan, Chaska, MN

It's wrong so yes, It's not moral! -Maria

Well, the question itself it little tricky but answer must be YES as 'Illegal' = 'immoral'. Question is how do yo define 'illegal' sharing. -Syed Uddin, Bloomington, MN

Yes. Illegally sharing music is theft. There's no moral ground claimed by being "against the big bad record companies" however antiquated and regressive their methods. The purchase of downloaded music involves compensation for the artist's work. So who is Ms Thomas-Rasset or anyone else to decide that that artist is not worthy of market-set compensation? You wouldn't steal a bag of apples from the grocery store then hand them out on the street. It's the same for music and any other intellectual property. -Simon Wiltshire, Minnetonka, MN

This depends on how you define "immoral." It is and should be illegal because there are strict copyright laws in the USA. As a musician and composer myself I would be a little unhappy if someone were to tape / record or otherwise "take" my music and use it for something other than what it was intended for. In other words, from my perspective it IS immoral. -Lisa Ragsdale, Minneapolis, MN

If the industry could have tracked LP to cassette taping and sharing, a lot of us would have gotten in a lot of trouble. -Jenn B

Plain and simply, no. The only group of people this negatively effects are the big time record execs. Musicians profit mostly from merchandise, ticket sells, commercial use of their music/image, etc. The more people hear their music, the more popular and profitable the band/artist will become. Before there were CDs and MP3s we had cassette tapes. Was it illegal then to make a mix tape for a friend? Or yourself? If it was, it wasn't frowned upon. As a musician myself, I would be thrilled to hear my music was well received by others and others and so on. Hence why MySpace has become such a huge hit for musicians to promote themselves. FREE. -Michael Soricelli, Duluth, MN

Such activity as that has 3 strikes against it- it is illegal, immoral, AND unethical! -Tom, Anoka, MN

Well, it is stealing so by definition in my world, it's immoral, though I'm not sure that's the right word. Since there are sites where one can buy the music they want one song at a time, so it's not like there is no option but to steal. All of this said, I think the penalty imposed on the woman in Brainerd IS immoral. It's also ridiculous since she will never be able to pay the fine. Also, I believe that there's a question about whether she actually shared files or not. If not, it's a truly insane fine. -John Hetterick, Plymouth, MN

Illegal music sharing is certainly immoral. It is and should be illegal. Still, the financial penalty in this case is extreme at least. -James B., St. Paul, MN

no, i would say it is not immoral, for the recording industry has been overcharging people for too long, and forcing artists into unfair contracts. music already flows like water, in the internet, and nothing is going to change that. people who share music are helping to liberate the artists and force a change in the music industry to a greater emphasis on the artist, who is the person that matters, not the manager or the executive or the marketing department. sharing music IS marketing; it exposes the artist to more people than they would reach themselves. -Kori Touya, Northfield, MN

File sharing is no more immoral than making a mix tape for that special someone was back in the pre-Internet days. -Ryan, St Paul, MN

Yes. Today's technology makes it possible, with almost no effort, to share music on the net. The fact that it is so easy dims the perception of this as theft. Whether the record companies are rich and powerful or not is not the question here. The music was created by the composer and performer and financed by the record company. Legally and morally, they own the creation and have control over it's use and distribution. If one wishes to create music and give it away on the net as some bands have done, that is their choice. Copyright law exists to protect the people who create art. It is their only protection in most cases. -Steven Anderson, Merrifield, MN

Whether we agree with a law or not, breaking it to financially benefit cannot be categorized as moral. Breaking a law with the intention of proving the law immoral - civil disobedience - means getting caught and calling attention to how the law is unjust. Stealing songs - and let's face it, it's not sharing, it's allowing other people to steal - is not changing a system. It is profiting from it. I'm frustrated by the current copyright system. I think it is corrupt and does not serve the stated purpose to benefit new creative work. However, the answer is for everyone to demand a change in law, not just steal for convenience. -Steve Boland, St. Paul, MN

Downloading music illegally is the same as shoplifting did you run a billion dollar ponzi scheme no, but that doesn't mean you didn't steal it. -Jason, St. Paul, MN

Purchase of creative work protected by copyright, trademark, or patent gives the purchaser the legal write to read, view, or listen to that work at will in accord with the conditions of the sale. "Fair use" allows the purchaser to make an audio recording in one format and later copy it using another format for preservation or convenience. Selling that work, in any format, to another without compensating those who created the original work is stealing. Giving that work to others without cost, or making it available for others to take at will, is also stealing if doing so is prohibited by the terms of the work's sale. Stealing is immoral. -David Leitzman, Saint Joseph, MN

Immoral? Thats a pretty heavy word to use for sharing something as intangible and wonderful as music. -Dave, Minneapolis, MN

I do not think that illegally sharing music is immoral, but it is unethical. As the mother of a young woman who is trying to make a living as a musician, it concerns me that she isn't paid for her music. However, she tells me that she is anxious to have it heard by as many people as possible, so is not bothered when people share it. In the case in question, the penalty is so far from fitting the "crime" that it's as wrong as what Jammie Thomas-Rasset did in the first place, if not more so. It is appropriate for her to have to pay something, perhaps double or triple what she shared, but that's it. -Ginny Levi, Minneapolis, MN

Music file sharing is no different than checking out a CD at my local library. why aren't music executives up in arms about music checked out at libraries? -anonymous text message

What is legal is not necessarily moral. What is illegal is not necessarily immoral. There are three categories of law: civil, criminal, and torts. The law is not even logical. People do not necessarily agree about the morality or immorality of a given action, inaction, or thought. Church organizations do not agree about theological principles. Having said that, I will talk about two unrelated issues: the legal issue, and the moral issue. The musician created a musical work for sale to earn a living. She assisted others to steal. She also broke the law and got caught. She reaped the consequences. -Roger O'Daniel, Minneapolis, MN

Yes. The fundamental premise of American law is the ownership and defense of private property. This includes intellectual property. Taking the property of another without compensation is theft, pure and simple. People seem to be hung up on the "fine" the law levied against the woman at the heart of this story. The fine is excessive and probably unconstitutionally large, but the basic concept is correct - if she stole, she should be punished. Companies spend millions upon millions to create, market, and sell music. Those costs MUST be recouped. Illegal downloads prevent this. It's the same with shoplifting or any other theft. -Michael Corbin, Faribault, MN

Here is the question I always ask: If I take a recipe from a cookbook that I have purchased and post it on a culinary site, or if a newspaper takes a recipe from a cookbook and publishes it for distribution to all of its readers, including those who pick it up in a coffee shop and don't have to pay for it, is that any more or less "moral"? The author of that cookbook is essentially having his or her intellectual property distributed without remuneration. Tell me how that substantively differs from sharing music. The entire Thomas-Rasset case is fatuous. -Ryan McNaughton, St. Paul, MN

Strictly speaking, yes. On the other hand, relentlessly pursuing a housewife demanding millions in lost "potential" sales lacks its own position on the moral high ground. As an artist, I freely give away mp3s of my music, yet I still sell tracks online. Maybe I appeal to a more morally certain crowd, but I think it's because I trust people to make the right decision and don't judge them to be thieves before the fact. -Colin Mansfield, St. Paul, MN

I feel that this is the wrong question to be asking. Instead, we need to look at the morality of how we treat music in our culture; as a product to be capitalized upon rather than an ancient language as universal as smiles or tears. It's only in the past century that people have come to accept the idea that "recording = music". While the immutable medium is a great vehicle for exposure and archival, the true mettle of any musician is live, on stage, not canned in the studio. I would contend that it is in fact immoral to illegalize the sharing of music; it is just another form of performance, at no cost of promotion to the artist or label. -Phillip Knoll, Minneapolis, MN

No, music is meant to be shared. I don't see that much difference between playing a cd I bought at work so my coworkers can hear it and sending an mp3 file to an online buddy. I don't want to cheat artists out of making a living but the record companies have done a very poor job of adapting to technology. -Nicole Masika, Brooklyn Center, MN

Governments make many laws, the violation of which are not moral issues. Music file sharing, while illegal, is not immoral. An argument often used is that sharing music files harms the artist because it deprives the artist of income, but that is not true. ASCAP, BMI, and corporate copyright holders may be deprioved of income, but that begs the question of whether draconian enforcement of licensing benefits the artist. It does not, of course. If such enforcement did benefit the artist we would not see authors and performers self-producing and using the Internet for direct sales, thereby eliminating their corporate "Big Brothers." -Ken Kalish, Park Rapids, MN

In one way in do believe it is immoral. But this is if after listening to a particular artist I do not buy their music and I share this with all of my friends. But if upon listening I decide I like them and buy all of their cd's then I think that it is not an issue. But if I give music to my friends and they never buy any cd's by the artist that would be immoral. After I listen and say I do not like the music I delete it, I do not think of that as immoral. -Randy Peterson, Minneapolis, MN

In most cases, no. Music sharing is probably the best advertisement for the music industry. In fact, through videos posted by other users to youtube (most of them illegally), I have found more new music groups than I can even remember, and they've all made some money from it. I think people should pay for music, but only if they like it! (I pay for my music). On a side note, the amount of money the big labels take from their signed artists is more immoral than illegal music sharing. You want crime, it's the stuff that the big labels do quote "legally"...Music sharing pales in comparison to that. -Michael Stolp-Smith, Rochester, MN

Yes. But that's less important than the fact that it's illegal. -David Evan Thomas, Minneapolis, MN

No it's not immoral. What the RIAA is doing is immoral. For decades the music industry has ripped the consumer off . The music industry is always promoting records by replaying the same 1 or 2 hits off the record. So the consumer hears this, goes out buys the album and soon realizes most the album is shit . The music industry has never refunded the purchase price of a bad record that was purchased because of one good song the radio pushed. And the price of a CD is outrageous. Less than a $1 to make one. It's hardly gone down since it debuted. Now they cry when the consumer gets even through file sharing. Give me a break! -Vince Shane, Inver Grove Heights, MN

I was interviewed following the first trial of Thomas-Rassert, and I explained to the MPR reporter how artists should be able to make a living (i.e. from charging for live shows), but that online filesharing is much like the radio. After I heard myself on the radio, I stopped downloading music through LimeWire -- cold turkey. Something didn't feel right. I wouldn't call it "morality," but I was breaking (albeit outdated) intellectual property laws. Since then, I have discovered how many music CDs are available through the Hennepin County Library, so now I listen to music that is never distributed. My conscience is clear! -Adam Schenck, Richfield, MN

Share your reply in the comments: Is illegally sharing music immoral?

Comment on this post