Yes, I know what sense of the word character you meant, and I was being facetious.

My point is that despite the lack of role-playing, a MUD still has ambiance. To be within the confines of this ambiance is what I consider IC, since it is extremely heavily related to the actual definition of IC. To be outside this ambiance is obviously what I consider OOC. The only real difference is that I'm talking about game-wide ambiance, and not a character role.

Anyways, regardless of my use of terms, the concepts I'm trying to describe exist and I can't imagine you have no clue what I'm talking about, so let's get back to the actual topic.

I don't think your definition is "heavily related" to the actual definition of IC at all. If I understand you correctly, you're defining it as an issue of being in accordance with a game's culture, not anything to do with characters. (And there's no sense being facetious about definitions if we want this discussion to be productive, so bear with me a bit…)

The notion of a "game culture" is pretty fuzzy to me. So, I am uneasy to go on with such a murky definition – IC vs. OOC normally has the rather clear criterion of separating actions depending on whether or not they are in accordance with the character's mental state – but let's press on.

Given this understanding of actions being in accordance with a game's culture, it seems absolutely trivial that actions can be abusive even if they fit within a game's culture. The game culture might be an abusive one, or might at the least tolerate such abuse. Just because the abuse is accepted doesn't make it no longer abuse. But granted, somebody sticking around in such a culture, considering actions abusive, despite knowing that abuse is tolerated, is of questionable rationality.

Furthermore it seems just as trivial for different game cultures to have different notions of what is abusive.

Therefore, I still don't understand why you claim that using game commands like player killing cannot be construed as abusive.

You said previously that in an "out of game culture" context, it is impossible for "in-game culture" actions to be abusive. I don't understand how that is true. It can be quite simply true, as alluded to above in the case of game cultures that put up with abusive behavior.

If you weren't incorrectly assuming that the definition of abuse is a universal one, you would see more clearly what I'm trying to say.

You've made it abundantly clear that you think repeated PKing of a player simply because the killer dislikes him/her is (in your opinion) abusive. There are a lot of people who disagree with that opinion. This does not make you right and everyone else just "accepting of abusive behavior". That's a passive-aggressive way of telling people who disagree with you that they're wrong, and that's just not the case.

It's not just repeated killing; it's more than that and I think you know that. But no, I'm not afraid to tell people that I think they can be wrong about not being abusive. The grade school bully might not think he's being abusive. Are you going to tell me he's not, simply because he and other bullies think they're not? I do not believe the definition of abuse is universal (obviously it is not, because the bully has a different one) but does that mean one should sit by and not condemn it? That's like saying that even though I think an action is fundamentally morally wrong, I should cheerfully accept that you do it simply because you think it isn't wrong. Moral subjectivist fallacy at its best, really. But that's another debate…

Anyhow, the point wasn't that one behavior in particular "is" or "is not" abusive; the point was to establish whether or not it is possible for "in-game" commands to end up leading to abusive behavior, which you have said is impossible. I don't think that is true, for the reasons given so far.

I'm assuming you're talking about motive here, but since it's impossible for anyone but the killer to truly know the motive, it's really a moot point. Whether it's being done because the killer hates the victim IRL, doesn't like their character's name, the victim looked at them funny, or simply because making people miserable is entertaining to them - it's all irrelevant. The actions themselves are the only measurable determinant for abuse; not the motive.



That depends entirely on what behavior you're talking about. Do I think it's abusive if the bully is teasing a kid about being short? No. Might someone else think it's abusive? Yes. Are either of us wrong? No.



Yes, that's exactly what it means. It's called tolerance, and the lack of it is what causes wars, violence, hatred, etc. Now obviously tolerance has its limits, just like anything. I'm not saying if you see a woman being mugged in a parking lot that you should say "oh well… he must find that entertaining" and walk away. There are certain things in life that are as easy as right and wrong; however, there are even more things that aren't, and depend solely on opinion and point-of-view. Religion, politics, sexuality, blah blah blah. Nobody's saying that you have to agree with them - just that you have to be tolerant of them. I agree that this is definitely getting off-topic, though, so suffice it to say that I think this particular situation is one where we're dealing with opinions.

Surely there is more to it than that. IRL we determine some actions to be abusive and others not, and yet it is not as if we have a scrying glass into the perpetrator's mind.


Woah now, I suppose it's my fault for knowing that you are not aware of the rest of my thoughts and yet entering this debate anyhow, but surely you could do me just a little credit and assume that I don't mean something as simple as what you're replying to? :wink: As you say, tolerance has its limits, and it is precisely those limits that I am referring to. I chose my words carefully; the word "fundamentally" was key. It is meant to suggest that tolerance should end where the fundamentally wrong begins.


There is a lot of very interesting literature on the topic that you might like to read at one point or another. There are a great deal of people who have devoted their lives to the study of this issue who I believe would take objection to the idea that this is all just a matter of opinion in the end of the day. Maybe you'll end up disagreeing with them, but it would be interesting to see a constructed argument against their positions. Well, I don't think it's actually going to happen, certainly not on this forum, but I don't think this all is quite so simple.

Motive is only used to determine the extent of punishment, not whether or not something is abusive. For example, see the differences between 1st/2nd/3rd degree murder and 1st/2nd degree manslaughter. All of these charges are for the same "abuse" (killing another human being), and for the most part, only differ in motive. That said, determining motive IRL is one of the most controversial aspects of law, and to this day, is responsible for countless courtroom errors.



You'd have a hard time convincing most anyone that some kid on a MUD PKing willy-nilly just to make people miserable is on the "fundamentally morally wrong" side of the line.



Considering the fact that there have been many studies which have shown that morality itself is not an innate human concept, I'd have to say that any person who has dedicated their life to figuring out what is morally right and wrong is definitely a prime example of "epic blunder".

That's not true at all. As a good example, actually, since you listed murder vs. manslaughter, is that manslaughter isn't abusive or sociopathic behavior. If you kill somebody in a car accident, as long as it truly was an accident, you did not act abusively. But if you intended to kill somebody, be it 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree, the situation is quite different all of a sudden.


The magnitude of the consequences of an act do not change its moral character, although they change how far along one line an act might lie. A petty theft is still a theft.


You should look up studies on the "moral instinct" – might find them interesting.

And yeah, right, every philosopher who has studied ethics has committed an "epic blunder" …

You should do a little more research on what constitutes manslaughter.



I wasn't referring to the consequences.



I know I'm going to regret going off on this tangent, but what exactly do you think is accomplished by studying morality? If morality is truly innate and universal, as some people believe, then studying it does no good, as we all already know everything about it. If, however, morality is simply a cultural construct, then again - what good does studying it do, since one man's morality can be completely different than another's? In both cases it's a rather fruitless endeavor, so yeah… I definitely think it qualifies as an epic blunder to devote one's life to such a useless cause.

Feel free to write this off as nothing but a few general comments from someone who stumbled on the current (10th) page of this thread and thought "wtf":

1. Innate does not equal or imply total understanding of a subject. Where did you ever come to such a bizarre conclusion? You're born with the ability to see, but I doubt you are born with an understanding of how the human eye functions. It's somewhat silly to equate the concept of innate knowledge with 'we already know everything about it'. And no, "universal" doesn't equal or imply total understanding either. Don't take my word for it though, feel free to consult a dictionary or thesaurus. :wink:

2. The two cases you are giving are both extremes, suggesting no middle ground at all. Rather than advancing your argument, by appealing to extremes in this fashion you are actually undermining it. It's a logical fallacy to make your case with extremes, and it has a name: excluded middle. It's typically the tactic of those with control issues, because it enables them to polarize an argument and make it much more black and white than it really is. I don't know your particular reasons and I'm not attempting to label you personally, but you should be cognizant of the fact that some people will perceive you as ignorant (or, far worse, a narcissist) if you put forth your arguments this way. As I said, I don't know you, so I'll reserve any such judgments. :thinking:

I know the definitions of "innate" and "universal", thanks. There's no such thing as "partial" morality, however.



That's quite the psycho-analyzation, however, there is no "middle ground". Morality is either innate and universal, or it is not. It's not some gene that skips every 3rd generation ;)

I believe your posting suggests otherwise, unfortunately.



What exactly are you quoting? I never suggested any such thing. It's bizarre to quote things that were never said in the first place.



I wasn't actually trying to psycho-analyze anyone. I was suggesting that your method of argument was flawed and that you were going to make yourself look bad by pursuing it. I thought I went to considerable length to establish this. Oh well, you know what they say about the best laid plans.

Also, why do you continue to suggest the absence of a middle ground? It's just plain silly. If you want clarification, you could just ask. That said, the middle ground I suggested was hinting at something between "innate and universal" and "we already know everything about it." For example, morality could be innate and universal but still not something that we know everything about. That was the basis for my example about being able to see versus knowing how it works.

I don't mean this to sound harsh, but please don't twist my words for the sake of furthering your argument. Quoting what I never said and putting words in my mouth won't make you look right, but it will make you look ignorant.

Your interpretation of my post may suggest otherwise, but I can't force you to interpret the post how it's meant to be read.



The " delimiter is not always used to quote previous comments. A lot of the time they're used to separate concepts, words, etc. from the surrounding text for emphasis or to show alternate meaning, disagreement, implication, or a slew of other things. Please don't pick apart my posts like this; it's rather pointless and unproductive to do so!



I made the comment that there is no "partial" morality to answer this point already. Innate, universal morality is not something that only some people can have. It's also not a concept that people can only understand partially. Feel free to provide an example which attempts to prove this untrue, though. Simply disagreeing with me is fine; after all, what we're talking about is not concrete science one way or the other. Don't, however, continue insulting me for no reason.

How about enlightening me, instead of making pithy unverifiable comments? :smile:


What were you referring to then? You were talking about somebody enjoying making people miserable on a MUD and suggesting that it isn't a bad thing to do. Presumably, you meant to imply by adding the context of MUDs that it is insignificant because it takes place in online games.


Not at all! For starters, I didn't say it was "innate" – and even if it was, something being innate doesn't mean we completely understand it. As for universality, the laws of physics may be universal, but that doesn't mean we already know everything about them.


It is nonetheless extremely interesting to see what it is that leads people to have such different beliefs.


It is unfortunate that you so casually toss aside so many years, if not centuries, of thought on this matter, especially when you do not seem to have taken the time to even look at it yourself.


Drrck, you were replying to him bringing up a supposed existence of "partial" morality, which he did not allude to. I'm unsure how one can interpret your post to determine where this "partial" morality comes from. Granted, you weren't necessarily citing him, but it's still unclear where it comes from.

It is all the more interesting that you put aside the existence of partial morality on the one hand, and strongly advocate for moral relativism on the other.

Incidentally, morality can in principle be absolute yet not innate, or innate yet not absolute. It is incorrect to equate the two concepts. And even if they are equated, it does not suggest that we completely understand the concept, as GatewaySysop pointed out with eyesight.

You made the claim that manslaughter isn't abusive (I'm assuming) because you think it only applies to accidental killings. Crimes of passion, whereby someone is killed "in the heat of the moment" fall under 1st degree manslaughter, as do a swath of other situations that aren't accidental and that I don't think anyone could classify as non-abusive.



I've been purposely avoiding nit-picking thus far, but it seems like I probably should. We've been throwing around phrases like "making people miserable" a lot, and making quite a few assumptions based on these phrases that are, frankly, incorrect. I've never known anyone who enjoyed literally making people miserable. Not only that, but I think it's also a far cry to say that being picked on or harassed on a MUD would even come close to making one miserable. So, when I suggest that "it isn't a bad thing to do", I think it's only fair to make these things clear first.

That said, I was referring to the attitude/behavior, not the consequences. My opinion would be the same for a real life situation where some kid keeps stomping on some other kid's sand castles. It's obviously harassing behavior, and I have no doubt that there are kids who find it entertaining to do it, but I don't consider it abusive and definitely not "fundamentally morally wrong".



I'm talking about the concept of a universal morality - as in all humans thinking X, Y, and Z are right and A, B, and C are wrong. If this knowledge is built-in and truly universal, then it is the same within every human being and therefor there are no discrepancies between cultures, religions, regions, races, etc. There is nothing to understand or not understand, and certainly nothing to "partially" understand.



You're confused about what I mean when I say "partial morality". I was speaking of Gatewaysysop's posit that there could be some "middle ground" between the existence of universal morality and non-universal morality. Moral relativism is a completely different concept that only exists if morality is non-universal.



I'm assuming by "absolute" you're referring to the same concept as I do when I say "universal", in that morality is the same for everyone. If this is the case, then I have to disagree here, as there is no feasible way for it to be absolute without being innate. If it is not innate, then by definition, it must be learned, and there has never been anything taught or learned in the history of the world that was absolute. Even mathematics, physics, and other sciences are not, have not, and most likely will never be absolute.

Well, you assumed too quickly. Of course an accident cannot really be considered abusive, but I was talking about more than just that. The kind of behavior we've been talking about is very deliberate and planned. There is very clear intent involved. A crime of passion is (by definition) not planned; it is arguably deliberate in some sense of the term. It is intended only in a loose sense of the term; certainly not in the same sense as murder. In any case, no, I wasn't reducing manslaughter to accidents: I was speaking to why the distinction between manslaughter and murder exists in the first place.



Because you have known none, you believe that I lie when I say I do?


Why would it be any different than anywhere else? Perhaps you don't find it distressing. Are you prepared to say that is true of everybody? It's good that you have a thicker skin than some, but you shouldn't generalize to all.



I think you are getting held up on the word "fundamentally". It doesn't mean that it is wrong in some grand sense of the term, on par with genocide and so forth. It means something simple (yet complex in its own ways): it means that it is wrong without redeeming factors. How will you defend the kid who continually stomps on other kids' sand castles? You might argue that the action is of little consequence (there's that word again) and therefore people shouldn't really worry about it. But that doesn't change the fact that it is at its core (i.e. fundamentally) a mean (wrong) thing to do.




That's a rather simple way of looking at universal morality, and is fairly obviously wrong (simple empirical evidence shows this). So arguably you should think that it isn't what was meant here.

It's quite obvious that moral practices differ across cultures, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't some actions that are simply wrong, no matter what. If a culture tolerates the stoning of women, does that somehow make it ok?




No, see above for why I don't follow this relatively simplistic view of absolute morality.


I believe that you are mistaking the endeavor with the goal being sought. Mathematics are absolute, but clearly our understanding of them is imperfect. Similarly, the physics of the universe are presumably absolute, but we don't understand them. Our lack of understanding does not make something less absolute.

If you are familiar with the distinction, it is classic matter of opinion versus fact. It is a matter of fact whether or not the world is round: either it absolutely is, or it absolutely is not. Just because people did not understand that some centuries ago does not make the question somehow less a matter of fact.

Some centuries ago it was fact that the earth was flat. Some centuries before that that everything was made of the actual '5' elements. It was a fact that you could drill a hole in someones head to release the bad spirits.

While we grow, and learn our understanding does indeed change. Though, as science is careful to keep ever present, is that something is not exactly a fact, it is either upheld in each test or it is not. That is why the scientific method works as well as it does. As our experience, or ability increases certain things that may have been true for X time, could suddenly not be due to new perspective, or technology. Something is only true until it is untrue. There is no solid that a human can point to without also having to claim that they are omniscient. Argue whatever you wish, there is a very very good reason that modern science is built around that principle.

-Syn

The distinction exists because even though they are all crimes (read: abuse), the punishments for them vary based on differing degrees of intent/motive/whatever you want to call it.



I would argue that your opinion on what constitutes "misery" is very skewed if you think that you do.



The difference between finding it distressing and it making me miserable is about as drastic as night and day.




I know exactly what you mean by "fundamentally". What if the kid has a psychological issue and doesn't recognize that he's bothering the other kid? What if he grew up in a culture where stomping on sandcastles was acceptable behavior? What if he and the other kid were stomping on someone else's sandcastles moments before? What if the other kid just got done stomping on his sandcastle? There are practically an infinite number of "what if's" that would all constitute non-abuse, and only one that constitutes abuse.



There's no "other way" of looking at universal morality. It simply exists or it does not. If it only existed sometimes or in some people, it wouldn't be universal. I don't see how you can possibly argue that, but feel free to relay your empirical evidence.



To that culture, yes; it does make it OK. That's moral relativism (and proof that morality is not universal, but I digress…).



No, I think you are confusing what I'm talking about. I'm referring to the knowledge that is taught/learned, not the fundamental concepts of mathematics and physics. Whether or not these fundamental concepts are absolute can never be known for certain. It's assumed that they are absolute, but can't be proven. However, the knowledge that you or I have obtained about them is definitely not absolute, as is evidenced by the fact that it changes over time as we discover new things, previous errors, etc.

So we're to infer that you were instead adding emphasis to, showing alternate meaning for, implications of, or disagreeing with something that was never even suggested, let alone stated, rather than simply attempting to put words in someone else's mouth? Okay then. Thanks for clearing that up. :wink:



Nobody is insulting you, but you are trying to shift the discussion from your flawed argument to a discussion about morality itself and this issue of 'partial morality' which nobody but you has actually brought up. Sorry, but I'm not playing that game with you. My points were regarding how you constructed your argument, and I gave plenty of explanation already for them. If you want to shift the argument to morality itself and play the straw man game, that's your call, but I will not join you in your logical fallacy. :thinking:

I am afraid that you missed the point. Those are not facts at all, but merely beliefs. There is a difference between the truth and our understanding of the truth. Our lack of understanding does not render the fact less true. This has nothing to do with a good or bad scientific method, except insofar as a good method will be more conducive to getting closer to discovering the truth.


I find it surprising indeed that you say such a thing. Is it truly so absolutely unbelievable to you that I have encountered such people in the past?


That was not the point, and I believe you knew it.


Then in this case, the action has changed, because its intent has changed. I have said all along, after all, that intent and motive matter crucially. I believe you are over simplifying the issue.


It would appear that you misunderstood my point. I urge you to read it again, but in the meantime know that the "other way" has to do with what exactly it means for morality to be universal. Obviously either it is or is not; the question is what it means in the first place.


As I suspected from the previous quote, you must have misunderstood my point if you ask me for empirical evidence of the claim that some people have different views of morality, because you have been giving such evidence yourself all along.


I did not ask you what the culture thought. That is not the point. You are repeating an assumption by stating that they think it's ok.


This is utterly obvious, isn't it? I'm not sure why we're talking about this. Morality can be innate in a flawed sense, and yet be universal otherwise. These aren't mutually exclusive.