Wow. It's not every day that I run into political philosophy. This may make you shift in your seat.
At the library today I checked up on my overdue books. Of course, I have overdue fines, which I don't want to pay. Paying means less money towards things which are necessary and things which are good (I'd like to believe).
I didn't mind the lesser fees, but what I did mind was the unknown fee for a book borrowed by interlibrary loan. It's one of those rare books which seem to be very wise. I would rather keep that book.
And so my desire to keep this book brought me to think, "Perhaps if the fee is the same as the book itself, I will choose to not return it and pay the fine for it." This seems to be fair.
But then again, the book does not belong to me. It belongs to the public. I've agreed to borrow books from libraries, not buy them after trying them. Fines are customary and their purpose is to penalize our negligence that we would return what is not ours.
But I don't understand the basis for these opinions.
Is it morally wrong to pay the 'lost fine' to keep a book which does not belong to me and which is not lost? Is my consumer paradigm just in this situation?
I think for my own good I will keep in mind that desire for the book should not lead my thinking. I will return the book so that I will not have a conflict of interest within me. In that way I will be able to preserve my reasoning.
What is common property? Or what are the laws on common property in the United States? What is private property? etc. Are they good?
It now occurs to me that the same thing has occurred to me at Blockbuster, which is a private property situation rather than a common property situation. In that case I paid the full price of the DVD.
At the library today I checked up on my overdue books. Of course, I have overdue fines, which I don't want to pay. Paying means less money towards things which are necessary and things which are good (I'd like to believe).
I didn't mind the lesser fees, but what I did mind was the unknown fee for a book borrowed by interlibrary loan. It's one of those rare books which seem to be very wise. I would rather keep that book.
And so my desire to keep this book brought me to think, "Perhaps if the fee is the same as the book itself, I will choose to not return it and pay the fine for it." This seems to be fair.
But then again, the book does not belong to me. It belongs to the public. I've agreed to borrow books from libraries, not buy them after trying them. Fines are customary and their purpose is to penalize our negligence that we would return what is not ours.
But I don't understand the basis for these opinions.
Is it morally wrong to pay the 'lost fine' to keep a book which does not belong to me and which is not lost? Is my consumer paradigm just in this situation?
I think for my own good I will keep in mind that desire for the book should not lead my thinking. I will return the book so that I will not have a conflict of interest within me. In that way I will be able to preserve my reasoning.
What is common property? Or what are the laws on common property in the United States? What is private property? etc. Are they good?
It now occurs to me that the same thing has occurred to me at Blockbuster, which is a private property situation rather than a common property situation. In that case I paid the full price of the DVD.
