How Far is "Too Far?"

[Tubular Monkey]

[youtube]8h16WBTtgR0[/youtube]

 

[Cwckifan]

Heh, what about the death penalty? Or what about imprisonment in general? Or what's the status of children and serious legal punishment? How do you define a child? Is it purely an age thing, or what about someone who's 20 years old, but still retarded in the head?

The death penalty is also unethical (unless it's requested, of course), and imprisonment is a perfectly acceptable means of punishing people who can't live their lives without acting on others in a way that causes them harm (the punishment fits the crime, I'd argue). Moreover, regardless of children, the mentally incapacitated, and all others, the point still stands--it's unethical to act on others in a way that suppresses their will, and causes them harm. Of course, it's perfectly fine to use conditional systems (by which we mutually exchange our money, time, emotion, and other resources) in order to maintain a functioning system of give and take. Accordingly, that's why it's not unethical to provide child with food, shelter, and care, provided they agree to behave, go to school, and obey their parents

Ethics as far as legal punishments go is tricky. We do our best to come up with simple systems, but we consistently fail. I think the best we can do is come up with a system that the majority of people can theorize about when they're in the act. Y'know, if you're on the street, you can say to yourself "if I do this, it'll be 6-10 years... maybe I don't want to do this?"

I don't know, that's a good enough system for me.

Eh, some people really aren't fazed by punishment or morality, so such systems are useless in that case. Really I think a perfect system of legal ethics could be described in a few steps (for convenience):

1) All living beings are united in their status as creatures which have a need to minimize the threat of death, and harm of personal expense (life's only certainties, after all), and a desire to do so in a way that they find pleasing. Since we are all equal in this regard, there is no ethical basis by which we can suppress the wills (and abilities) of others to minimize their threats of death and cope with their expenses in a way that they'd like to (provided they are not acting on you in a way that causes an immediate threat of death, or personal expense)

2) Moreover, we (all beings with a will) are united in our status as autonomous factors which posses a uniquely personal set of threats of death and personal expenses, and means by which we'd like to minimize them. As such, nobody is ethically obligated to act on anyone else, or share resources which are used for minimizing personal threats of death, or expenses

3) Accordingly, when one (or many) act(s) on others, they must do so an a way that does not inhibit their ability to minimize their threats of death and personal expense in a way that pleases them. To this effect, one must not act on another in a way that causes damage to, or loss of, physical health, emotional health, money, property, employment, or reputation (things we all need to cope with such difficulties, I'd say)

4) As such, all beings have a right to defend themselves when they are being acted on in a way that causes loss of/ damage to the aforesaid resources, or suppresses their ability to engage in their preferred means of coping with whatever one's personal threats of death and expense are. Nevertheless, so as to ensure that the punishment fits the crime, one's means of defense should not cause any (direct or indirect) loss of ability to minimize the threat of death and harmful expense to the perpetrator, which the defender felt the perpetrator would not cause to them.

5) Furthermore, if one's (non-defensive) actions leads to a loss of any of the aforesaid physical health, emotional health, money, property, or reputation, then the harmed party is entitled to compensation which covers the exact extent of the harm caused, as well as any collateral damage. Accordingly, the harming party is obligated to provide this compensation in a timely manner, or they are liable to be subject to punishment by the relevant authorities

6) It should be noted, however, that since it is effectively impossible to appropriately compensate unintentional emotional harm resulting from actions not specifically directed towards one (or many), impersonal actions which cause harm will only need to be compensated if they result in damage to, or loss of, physical health, money, property, or employment

It is a bit lengthy, but philosophy really does teach you to be airtight in your arguments (especially ethical ones!)

 

[DangDirtyTrolls]

Accordingly, that's why it's not unethical to provide child with food, shelter, and care, provided they agree to behave, go to school, and obey their parents

Pretty sure it's unethical to starve a child just because they didn't behave

 

[Cwckifan]

Accordingly, that's why it's not unethical to provide child with food, shelter, and care, provided they agree to behave, go to school, and obey their parents

Pretty sure it's unethical to starve a child just because they didn't behave

Provided the parent has agreed to provide a service of protecting the child from threats to their life and personal expense (which all parents do, provided they don't give their kids up), starvation is indeed extremely unethical. Nevertheless, a parent reserves the right to withhold any resource which not necessary for preventing death or personal expense, if the child doesn't hold up their end of the bargain. Really, ever heard of being sent to bed w/out dinner? That's how discipline works

 

[DangDirtyTrolls]

Really, ever heard of being sent to bed w/out dinner? That's how discipline works

Yes but it's a terrible idea for a punishment. Children need food to grow and so starving them denies them needed nutrition. Children don't have the foresight to know this but adults should really know better. Take away their toys or something else inconsequential they enjoy but don't deny them basics like food. I'd argue it's unethical to do so at any time.

 

[Cwckifan]

Really, ever heard of being sent to bed w/out dinner? That's how discipline works

Yes but it's a terrible idea for a punishment. Children need food to grow and so starving them denies them needed nutrition. Children don't have the foresight to know this but adults should really know better. Take away their toys or something else inconsequential they enjoy but don't deny them basics like food. I'd argue it's unethical to do so at any time.

When done to an extent that seriously comprises their health or survival, absolutely. Altogether though, a missed meal every now and again won't cause serious damage, any more than denying playtime occasionally will induce clinical depression, I'd wager

 

[DangDirtyTrolls]

When done to an extent that seriously comprises their health or survival, absolutely. Altogether though, a missed meal every now and again won't cause serious damage, any more than denying playtime occasionally will induce clinical depression, I'd wager

One is still far more inconsequential than the other. I don't know why you'd deprive your child food when you could just take something away they enjoy.

 

[cypocryphy]

I'll say it again...a troll should have made Chris get a mohawk.

 

[Cwckifan]

When done to an extent that seriously comprises their health or survival, absolutely. Altogether though, a missed meal every now and again won't cause serious damage, any more than denying playtime occasionally will induce clinical depression, I'd wager

One is still far more inconsequential than the other. I don't know why you'd deprive your child food when you could just take something away they enjoy.

Because the effect is basically the same; the child suffers nothing more than a mild inconvenience, and the rules of the exchange are upheld. Really, suppose the child doesn't care for anything as much as they do a favorite meal? Discipline is useless if It's not effective, and cruelty if excessive, and since a missed meal every now-and-again is hardly excessive (provided it doesn't threaten life, limb, or property), what's the problem?

 

[Tubular Monkey]

As questionable as some of the behavior or certain trolls was in the early days, I think it could have turned out much worse. Back when Chris was a fresh faced 25 year old, a sexy girl who was totally not a guy could have told him that she enjoyed putting wings on her car and driving off cliffs. Chris would have taped cardboard wings to SON-CHU, and plunged off a ravine. Picture Chitty Chitty Bang Bang with a gruesome ending. Hilarious only because it didn't happen.

 

[DangDirtyTrolls]

Because the effect is basically the same; the child suffers nothing more than a mild inconvenience, and the rules of the exchange are upheld. Really, suppose the child doesn't care for anything as much as they do a favorite meal? Discipline is useless if It's not effective, and cruelty if excessive, and since a missed meal every now-and-again is hardly excessive (provided it doesn't threaten life, limb, or property), what's the problem?

Because there's still no good reason to. You've just equated the two in terms of lesson learnt so when one does even minor physical harm and the other does not, why would you ever choose to deprive your child of food?

Going hungry is not a nice feeling either whether an adult or a child, whereas going without a toy is unpleasant for a child but adults know it will do them no harm. What possible reason could you have to choose depriving food over a toy if you think the end result is the same? Maybe they really like their favourite food; simply don't cook their favourite food then, don't simply cook them nothing at all! That's bordering on Barb logic

 

[FreeBitch]

Off topic, but in the same vein;

Why does the inner circle not disclose everything with us? Why can't we see ALL the letters and hear ALL the calls. Why there is a question of "too far" if this arbitrary point has already been supposedly reached?

run C:/documents/postmodernism/dirtyfrenchmen/camus/absurdism.bat

 

[teheviltwin]

When done to an extent that seriously comprises their health or survival, absolutely. Altogether though, a missed meal every now and again won't cause serious damage, any more than denying playtime occasionally will induce clinical depression, I'd wager

One is still far more inconsequential than the other. I don't know why you'd deprive your child food when you could just take something away they enjoy.

Depends. Are they trying to control what they eat (i.e. chicken nuggets or I tantrum)? Then parents should say "you eat what you are given or nothing."

 

[Marvin]

Basically what I was saying was that there isn't a universal system of ethics.

 

[teheviltwin]

Off topic, but in the same vein;

Why does the inner circle not disclose everything with us? Why can't we see ALL the letters and hear ALL the calls. Why there is a question of "too far" if this arbitrary point has already been supposedly reached?

run C:/documents/postmodernism/dirtyfrenchmen/camus/absurdism.bat

Because too many A-Logs.

If the inner circle had just dumped everything over the years there would have been serious issues that would have ended the funnies a long time ago. You might just want to read stuff but for every observer there is an epic ween kid. There was also the case of maintaining sagas. If everything was dropped straight away then Chris would stop communication with said individual.

And then there is the fact that there are quite a few inner circle members who have used many floating aliases. So some of the stuff just gets forgotten/overlooked on different pcs.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

Long post that assumes that there is one objectively correct system of ethics

There is no one objectively correct system of ethics.

That's basically why the concept of ethics is such a highly debatable study - you'll never reach a point at which you can say "well, we finally answered all the tough questions. Everyone is happy with the conclusion we got."

 

[Holdek]

Heh, what about the death penalty? Or what about imprisonment in general? Or what's the status of children and serious legal punishment? How do you define a child? Is it purely an age thing, or what about someone who's 20 years old, but still retarded in the head?

The death penalty is also unethical (unless it's requested, of course), and imprisonment is a perfectly acceptable means of punishing people who can't live their lives without acting on others in a way that causes them harm (the punishment fits the crime, I'd argue). Moreover, regardless of children, the mentally incapacitated, and all others, the point still stands--it's unethical to act on others in a way that suppresses their will, and causes them harm. Of course, it's perfectly fine to use conditional systems (by which we mutually exchange our money, time, emotion, and other resources) in order to maintain a functioning system of give and take. Accordingly, that's why it's not unethical to provide child with food, shelter, and care, provided they agree to behave, go to school, and obey their parents

Ethics as far as legal punishments go is tricky. We do our best to come up with simple systems, but we consistently fail. I think the best we can do is come up with a system that the majority of people can theorize about when they're in the act. Y'know, if you're on the street, you can say to yourself "if I do this, it'll be 6-10 years... maybe I don't want to do this?"

I don't know, that's a good enough system for me.

Eh, some people really aren't fazed by punishment or morality, so such systems are useless in that case. Really I think a perfect system of legal ethics could be described in a few steps (for convenience):

1) All living beings are united in their status as creatures which have a need to minimize the threat of death, and harm of personal expense (life's only certainties, after all), and a desire to do so in a way that they find pleasing. Since we are all equal in this regard, there is no ethical basis by which we can suppress the wills (and abilities) of others to minimize their threats of death and cope with their expenses in a way that they'd like to (provided they are not acting on you in a way that causes an immediate threat of death, or personal expense)

2) Moreover, we (all beings with a will) are united in our status as autonomous factors which posses a uniquely personal set of threats of death and personal expenses, and means by which we'd like to minimize them. As such, nobody is ethically obligated to act on anyone else, or share resources which are used for minimizing personal threats of death, or expenses

3) Accordingly, when one (or many) act(s) on others, they must do so an a way that does not inhibit their ability to minimize their threats of death and personal expense in a way that pleases them. To this effect, one must not act on another in a way that causes damage to, or loss of, physical health, emotional health, money, property, employment, or reputation (things we all need to cope with such difficulties, I'd say)

4) As such, all beings have a right to defend themselves when they are being acted on in a way that causes loss of/ damage to the aforesaid resources, or suppresses their ability to engage in their preferred means of coping with whatever one's personal threats of death and expense are. Nevertheless, so as to ensure that the punishment fits the crime, one's means of defense should not cause any (direct or indirect) loss of ability to minimize the threat of death and harmful expense to the perpetrator, which the defender felt the perpetrator would not cause to them.

5) Furthermore, if one's (non-defensive) actions leads to a loss of any of the aforesaid physical health, emotional health, money, property, or reputation, then the harmed party is entitled to compensation which covers the exact extent of the harm caused, as well as any collateral damage. Accordingly, the harming party is obligated to provide this compensation in a timely manner, or they are liable to be subject to punishment by the relevant authorities

6) It should be noted, however, that since it is effectively impossible to appropriately compensate unintentional emotional harm resulting from actions not specifically directed towards one (or many), impersonal actions which cause harm will only need to be compensated if they result in damage to, or loss of, physical health, money, property, or employment

It is a bit lengthy, but philosophy really does teach you to be airtight in your arguments (especially ethical ones!)

Not really, because there is no objective standard of ethics.

Sure, I can follow your stream of logic, but I can also nullify any of it with a different opinion.

Addendum: Looks like ABL beat me to it.

Long post that assumes that there is one objectively correct system of ethics

There is no one objectively correct system of ethics.

That's basically why the concept of ethics is such a highly debatable study - you'll never reach a point at which you can say "well, we finally answered all the tough questions. Everyone is happy with the conclusion we got."

Unless you're a Randroid. Being curious about Objectivism (sic) I watched an intro seminar online and it made perfect sense at first. Then I realized, Wait. Every point in that system being true is predicated on either the previous point being true or taking at least one point as gospel, simply because. Then I remembered he said Objectivism (sic) is a "closed system" not open to interpretation or alteration and I realized, Holy shit, that's what a fundamentalist religion is.

Off topic, but in the same vein;

Why does the inner circle not disclose everything with us? Why can't we see ALL the letters and hear ALL the calls. Why there is a question of "too far" if this arbitrary point has already been supposedly reached?

That's not the only reason...Marvin has said before the primary reason is hurting people involved, which I assume to mean accidentally doxing a troll.

 

[Cwckifan]

Holodek, there is absolutely nothing in my view of ethics that is based on opinion, and that's the beauty of it. Really, is there anything in there that is not based on solid, objective fact? Ethics basically just means treating others the right way, and since we can all agree that the right way is a way which doesn't cause harm, everything else just flows logically from there
. Really, have differing opinions if you want, but the beauty of fundamentals is that their strength isn't reliant upon them

Long post that assumes that there is one objectively correct system of ethics

There is no one objectively correct system of ethics.

That's basically why the concept of ethics is such a highly debatable study - you'll never reach a point at which you can say "well, we finally answered all the tough questions. Everyone is happy with the conclusion we got."

Ethics really isn't about feeling, but about doing. You're talking about morality, which--given its flexibility--will likely never be fully agreed upon. Ethics however, being about treating others in a way that doesn't cause harm, is entirely based on action, and has nothing to do with feeling. Really, it is quite possible for an action to be considered immoral (cannibalism, for instance), but still be ethical if nobody is hurt (the eaten party committed suicide, had no family, and had no opinions on how the corpse should be dealt with).

 

[Marvin]

Holodek, there is absolutely nothing in my view of ethics that is based on opinion, and that's the beauty of it. Really, is there anything in there that is not based on solid, objective fact? Ethics basically just means treating others the right way, and since we can all agree that the right way is a way which doesn't cause harm, everything else just flows logically from there
. Really, have differing opinions if you want, but the beauty of fundamentals is that their strength isn't reliant upon them

Actually... no, ethics is very different from just not causing harm. It's almost entirely equivalent to a system of moral values.

And even assuming ethics is not causing harm, imprisonment causes harm. The way you justify imprisonment is that, while it causes harm, it's still necessary for the greater good. The greater good is extremely debatable.

 

[Sweet and Savoury]

I just scoff at those who think that Chris will change his lifestyle under his own will.

It will take some outside influence to make OPL change anything not related to vidya.

As for harming Chris, I just meant harm in the sense it will cause him to be uncomfortable rather then taking him outback and bringing out the beatstick.

Causing Chris to get a job rather then reply on his tugboat is causing him harm but is it justified if in the end he learns something and his life improves?