Justice on Intellectual Property 04/13/12

        I have once read Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? by Micheal Sandel and recently finished reading the book again. When I first read the book by Sandel, to be honest, I was only interested in learning about his philosophy and teachings on what he thinks it is justice. It was a very interesting book but rather than my expectations only my questions grew further. However, just like what he said during his lecture at Harvard University, can be seen in YouTube, the risk of learning and talking about philosophy of justice is that there is no right answer and we come to a dilemma of questioning what we already know or what we think that we already know. I, too, had this experience while reading his book, watching his lectures and trying to answer his hypothetical situations. Even though I had my own thoughts about what is right and just, I soon began to realize that my thoughts can be uncertain. On the other hand, some of my uncertainties became clear when I applied those logic to my study of intellectual property. By writing this post, I seek to share my opinions with my viewers, listen to other point of views, be enlightened, clear my thoughts on the right of intellectual property, and talk about different views of justice. 

One of his lecture can be seen @
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY&feature=relmfu

        During his book, talking about Utilitarian views, Sandel made a hypothetical situation of is it just or right to kill one person to save five people. According to Sandnel, Utilitarians believe "it is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong," quoted from Jeremy Bentham who is the father of Utilitarianism. I easily answered the question as it is morally wrong to kill one person to save five people. But, when the number of people I can save grew to about thousands of people, I had the uncertainty of still keeping my answer. On the other hand, when I read that passage again and reflected with my study of intellectual property rights, it became clear that it is wrong to kill a person but given the circumstances is okay to kill a innocent person for the greater number people. However, I also realized that the question is wrong to ask to reflect what utilitarians believe or should I say that Utilitarianism is wrong. My reason is that the hypothetical question was a situation in which I had no choice but to kill someone, but in a situation where I am in a boat with three other people lost in the middle of an ocean and one is almost dying, I believe it is wrong to kill that one person for me and the others. I believe so, because I have the choice to choose to kill or not instead of not having the choice of not killing anyone.

        It is quite similar, in my point of view, with the question of intellectual property rights. In the views of Utilitarianism, the rights can and should be violated and sacrificed or in a sense not a right because not having the right can provide greater good for greater number of people. For example, in the view of an Utilitarian songs should be given freely because if it's free more utility can be given to more number of people. But then if we think about the artist, the songwriter, the producer, how would they get paid for their work? That is why I believe the idea of right or wrong can be decided by the greater number of pleasure for the greater number of people is wrong due to some unalienable rights.

        More on other views about justice will be posted.