Victim of Quiauh's insanity.
Blackberrys rock :)
The fact remains that you're choosing to get a plan, or have a phone in the first place. Not like a moral law about stealing - everybody owns something and has an inherent interest in keeping their own belongings. A moral law where stealing is good would be bad for everybody because it puts this interest in danger. Thieves aren't providing a chargeable service by not robbing you, mobile phone contractors are. What should keep them in line is competition, which is why monopolies always have bullshit service (see public transport systems, where I live anyway). Which is really getting outside the sphere of ethics and into economical structure. But who doesn't love a story about a few million Russian tanks that could only be loaded by left-handed midgets?
prepaid phones are not as good :/ The rate plans are limited and lack several good features.
But you're not required to sign a contract (you could always get a prepaid phone), therefore it doesn't violate natural law.
I am not convinced that ethics are crafted for mutual benefit. Cell phon e carrier companies rip everyone off with their stupid one-year contracts. Nobody calls them unethical, and what they do benefits only themselves.
Hurin, I think the problem with that kind of example is that stealing has a victim, so it can't be a mutually beneficial act. We'd only really 'create' morals if they were something that we can see benefiting us as a whole.
Though I think the logical conclusion of stealing being a moral act, that everyone does, is the communist utopia :P.
And sometimes, its bad humans have the ability to understand the knowledge of their own existance. :(
myrddin, ffs go read some Durkheim.
The mind could be giving us a perpetual illusion of its existence, when it actually doesn't exist. Maybe we are all just disjoint parts of a collective electromagnetic field.
Ethics are just another popularity contest. Our upbringing trains our minds in ways to identify certain actions as ethical and certain as not. Upbringing is recursive, since our upbringing is a function of our parents', friends', surrounding peoples' upbringing. If most people on the earth over history thought that stealing is good, stealing would be ethical.
Ethics and morals also vary from culture to culture and are also a product of religious rules that some guy(s) came up with 2000 or more years ago.
That's the funny thing Myrddin, you will never know the answer.
It may be that it's impossible to know.
If you knew you would have to have a mind and somehow leave it, how can you be outside of your mind to know?
But the real fuck up!
I can't be bothered looking it up to show that it's not just crackpot bullshit, but do it yourself, it's a mind fuck.
Given current computing trends it appears likely that we're just a simulation.
It's mathamatically probable that the world we live in is a simulation of the past run by humans in the future.
The chances of us being the real world are 1 in the billions.
I was referring to me and the other voice that talks in my mind...
It's a weird thought though, I used to wonder about it all the time when I was a kid. Whether everyone else actually exists as an entity, or are just like characters (npcs to put it in logpage context!) in my experience :P
You do.
You can't say that I do.
The only thing you can say exists with any degree of certainty is your mind.
We do. I think. Therefore I am? Yes, we do.
So if neither subjective or objective thought exists, what does?
That is true Vermond! Isn't thinking fun?:D
The pointless arguments gives me headaches :( I can't bother reading it. Looking forward to summer and no university, just a job that requires no thinking, and spending time with family and friends.
Your argument that objectivity does not exist involves a paradox as you yourself would be subjective thus rendering it faulty.
Or if you want to be really blunt.
As far as you know morality exists only in human minds which only exist within your mind.
Nothing with a mind can ever escape their mind to be objective.
Objectivity does not exist.
Even if your relationship wasn't part of the decision other subjective factors would be.
Theoretically sure, but find me an omniscient observer.
If one exists it is not human.
Morality is a human construct that as far as we know exists only in human minds.
'Ideal observer' theory assumes various kinds of observers eg. omniscient, best-informed who can make an unbiased decision. I think at least in the simplest cases consequences from somebody who is ACTUALLY thinking universally (eg. if I have to choose between my best friend and somebody I hate on who is to be killed, my relationship is not part of the decision). And if there's an assumed inherent equal value in say human life, then it becomes just a numbers game.
This is all theoretical and not necessarily practically viable, but that's ethics.
That's doing what YOU THINK is logically best for a situation.
It's pure self interest and is entirely base upon your perception of what would be either a positive or negative outcome for any given situation.
It's not objective, it's subjective.
Attempting to determine the best possible outcome may seem like objectivity but it's just as subjective as any other choice we make.
It's an illusion.
You cannot have an objective perception. You will never have one as long as you live.
It's not possible.
Every choice you ever make is made using your built up knowledge, experience, emotional state, state of consciousness and physical situation.
If any choice is made using any given perception it is subjective.
For something to make an objectice decision it cannot have a mind.
Also we should probably take this to mails or tells to save spamming this log with a debate on morals which is more than likely to go on for eternity.
Consequentialist ethical theory is based purely upon objective perception of the situation to determine appropriate moral action.
Make the case for morals being objective then.
Interesting observation Hirgail. Too bad it's completely wrong.
Ok, it depends on what kinda person you are then?!
Each to their own.
Morals and objectivity are mutally exclusive. All moral positions are entirely subjective.
If you look at the situation objectively, it all comes down to your moral values. If you have no morals then kill his friends/guildmates at will but if you do then wait for the fish to come out the water, or in this case his GH, or playing with armies.
Ok!!! Good to KNOW!!!
And I wasn't talking to you!
I didn't talk about burgul i talked about quiah
Who says he's trying to be honourable? He's trying to get revenge.
Well a guild provides shelter from attacks. And if this quiah guy is so honorable or whatever he would leave the guild to save his newbie friends. But he havnt, so that proves he isnt honorable jackshit and dosnt care one bit about his guildmates, he just cares about himself.
I remember back in the day, I did something almost similar with an assassin alt, Delrin.. pk'd a bunch of Beornings because I disliked Skyman and his brother and the way they kept attacking me (who was Beornings at that time). Personally, now that a while has passed and I've (at least I'd like to think I have!) matured some, I find what I did pretty shitty, and I'd take it back if I could. There's nothing honorable in killing people because who they are friends with (even though I can understand the reasons), and I won't be doing that ever again.
Hmm.. yeah. The whole concept of 'leave the guild's newbies alone!' is rather weird. I'm fully against whacking noobs around, but getting an armoury and a safezone and a good shop and all that jazz has a flip side: you're part of a larger deal. And if that deal is sour already, it's your responsibility to un-noob yourself pronto or face the consequences. Sympathy to anyone from NIA that gets diddled, I suppose, but they made the conscious decision to send that app in. I personally wouldn't join a guild with people like Quiauh in it, just 'cause of the added headaches it'd bring.
Hey Alcavant, join the rest of us in the real world and get out of your morality bubble.
Burgul has a goal - Damage Quiauh.
That goal can be much better accomplished by hurting his friends.
You can make all the moral judgements you like, they're meaningless.
Morals are transient inventions.
Only results matter.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?
So, the friend of my enemy is my enemy?
Or not. By joining a guild, you affiliate yourself with it and are partially responsible for your guildmates' actions. NiA is giving Quiauh a home and therefore it is protecting him. I don't see why they want him in the guild anyways since he's basically shattered their already horrible guild image. Being on 15 hours a day without a GH leaves you that much more vulnerable to get killed.
I find it rather appalling that you have to displace your anger toward one certain person onto his guildmates. If you have a grudge against one person, don't take it out on his guildmates. Chances are they don't know what's going on, nor do they have any business with it. If you have stuff against Quiauh, keep it between you two and leave Roslyn, Lamir, and all of the other members of Nar-i-Anor alone. They've done nothing to you or to provoke you.