Sure, I'm certainly not advocating that it's OK to rob or kill someone as long as you don't feel bad about it. And if something is clearly illegal it should be avoided.
I was talking exclusively about the grey areas, and in those cases I think that examining one's conscience is more useful than obsessing over legal technicalities. An approach which, in my experience, usually indicates that the obssessor knows something is wrong, but is trying to justify it anyway.
I didn't think you were suggesting that, but as this topic has come up again I felt it would be prudent to note the technical aspect for those not fully versed in the precepts.
but I did see a video (possibly here on DW) in the past few days about this, saying a copy is not theft as with theft it is something taken not able to be used again, whereas a copy does not remove the original item.
this is fair enough, but what about identity theft? someone is only copied so making use of the money of the original wouldn't really be theft as it would be them (ver2) using it? or how about two people wanting to have a fling she is married, so if he steals her husbands identity, would that now not be an affair, and thus sexual misconduct?
at the end of the day an identity is only intellectual property so carries no substance, just the same way all intelectual property can not be stolen...
and if anyone can not guess yes I am being facetious.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill