Brother None said:
Uhm...you do realise no one goes against it because you presuppose absolute moral authority to what most of us would consider an outdated philosophical system, right?
I do not think it is outdated, sincerely - I actually believe the more we turn away from moral absolutes built around people instead of abstract considerations we are one step closer of making Kali dance our colective asses into oblivion. Not that i think there is something wrong about Her doing what every once and then must be done, but 'what must be done' must always be tempered by compassion and thought.
Sorry for the colorful simbolism.
Brother None said:
Now I'm no relativists - perish the thought - but there is something that is way too reactionary for me to adopting a moral philosophy that can not accept the state of the world either as it is or as it can realistically be foreseen to become. It is true you can adopt such a system for personal values and even preach it, but I fail to see that why in a case where the morality isn't applicable at all, you can not simply either minimize damage (in which piracy really isn't the obvious answer) or adopt the morality of the majority.
Because the majority is always going to adopt the morality that offers an easier way to excuse themselves out of the more complicated situations - And that goes both for the Pirates as for the Developers or the Customers. I am not a religious guy (not even a little bit since my hobbies and intellectual interests tend to the side of 'Heretical') but i can see how that ongoing fashion of being able to confess or buy your way out of sin turned a given moral system into a bad joke, a 'tradition' that lost all meaning and soul.
The Law is not there to take the place of morals but to run along with them - A society that has gone the side of law (if it is not a crime it is good, if it is a crime it is bad) has simplified things to the point of what-the-fuck. One deals with social order, the other with people not being jerks and actually caring for something other than not ending in jail or having to pay a fine.
And as i said i do not think the state of the world is a static monster ruling fates and thoughts. It is a passing state, slave to time, change, and entropy as everything else. A moral system that does not accept the state of the world is one that has the potential to better people and, thus, the world - One that does is one with no more function than people feeling good while still being the same jerks they always were. When the world and morality are at odds people has to choose, to think, and to see for themselves the state of the world, and that is the reason for morality's existence - to make people trascend their own bestial nature. If not it is there just to excuse the way the world is, instead of bettering it.
Brother None said:
Sounds like a case of simply minimizing damage to me.
Well... there is a point when minimizing damage just doesn't cut it anymore. A society is a fragile, stupidly complex system that already has enought trouble trying to balance all the constant internal turmoil, will to change, and need to stay somewhat constant without coming crashing down - Just like people is. And, just like with people, there comes a point were you must stop trying to patch the holes and consider a lifestyle change if pushing up daisies doesn't seem to be particularly tempting.
Ummm... I just lost the way around here. What was i trying to say?
In any case, minimizing damage does not threat the problem - nor the true cause, of wich that problem is just a symptom. The modern world is full of signs of what we could call 'moral corruption', the consideration of people as... well... things - Simplifications that are dangerous in and out of themselves. Yes, there are pirates who see developers as some kind of thing without conditions, reasons, or motives - And there are developers who see pirates on that same light, as no more than a bunch of revenue impairing variables. Piracy is a topic in itself, but also a symptom of society at large. When you are considering that negating access to something for... what was the number that Titan's Quest guy gave? Ten thousand people as to gain one sale? Then you are just too focused on the mathematics. It matters not if the numbers was real or just something he pulled out of his ass - The sole consideration of 'let's give the finger to all those guys so we can pull some fifty extra bucks' as acceptable is sick.
Vault Dweller said:
Idealism that doesn't take human nature into consideration, idealism that's based on fantasies and dreams rather than on understanding and analysises is a very, very dangerous thing. "Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood" was quickly transformed into the famous Reign of Terror that took 40,000 lives.
"Among people who were condemned by the revolutionary tribunals, about 8 percent were aristocrats, 6 percent clergy, 14 percent middle class, and 70 percent were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion, rebellion, and other purported crimes."
70% were people whom the revolution was supposed to liberate. It would ironic if it wasn't so tragic. In some cities guillotines were working without breaks, chopping heads off 24 hours a day.
Now, the Russians weren't so lucky. Their idealism and flirting with Marx cost them much more.
"According to the declassified Soviet archives, during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,367 victims, of whom 681,692 were shot - an average of 1,000 executions a day."
That's only in 2 years.
That's why i insist so much on absolute, clear-cut binary morals that have 'humanity' as the... ummm... main pillar? Something like that. Back in the day, before trying to go and grow up just the minimun necesary to stop being a jerk, i was more on the camp of 'we need to change the world no matter who gets fucked down the ass and sent into a labor camp in the meantime' and all the kill or be killed, nietszche wannabe chest beating - I even made some posts around here from that mindset. And then a day noticed it was, well, the same thing the other side was saying, and then everyone else. And since from each one's point of view everyone but him is quite not-really-needed something is not working - The things just spiral out of control and you get a blood bath.
Both groups you mention had NOT humanity as a center, since both considered a part of humanity was up for extermination or was just... what's the word? Well, not-really-needed for the greater good. Once you put some people as 'not really necesary' is just a matter of time before more and more people is labeled such - And once you already go for 'those guys aren't just not really necesary, but we would all be better without them stealing air' it's also a matter of time before someone goes and decides such group who is also not-really-needed would be better in the receiving side of a firing squad.
I do not talk about a land of rainbows and lollypops - but without a good and solid moral foundation those things are just going to happen once and again. At least as i see it once you (simbolic you, not you as in VD) make one consession to that kind of thought (homeless are not really necesary, fuck those who can't pay private medical care, those jews are really a plague, let those dirty inmigrants starve - and of that last one i am partly guilty, too) you are just... ummm... creating the posibility of it going out of control, and we all know how much does chaos theory likes to fuck with 'hey, it is just a small chance.'
Isn't that taking human nature into consideration? I know most people will become savages as soon as given the chance, so better to create a context where that chance is kept in check by strong moral values.
And now that i think of it that sounds a little bit nazi. (trauma)
Vault Dweller said:
I wouldn't describe capitalism like that. Let's take Obsidian for example. It's a growing company that's doing better and better. Neither "screw the next guy" nor "everyone for himself" nor "go after the money" apply to them. Sure they try to make games that sell, but that's not the main driving focus.
Vault Dweller said:
Well, I'm working for one of the biggest assholes you've ever seen. Do you know what the difference between him and me is? He managed to build this entire company from scratch and give well paying jobs to 500+ people and I didn't. So, while the guy's an asshole he deserves every bit of what he got because a) he built it all himself and b) he (and guys like him) keeps a lot of people employed, well paid, medically ensured, and generally well taken care of.
Well... my experience with capitalism is more on the line of assholes that build some company, then employ people by salaries under the lawful minimun and keep them in loopholes of the law so they do not need to invest in medical or retirement funds, or even "dismissal" payments. Or assholes who turn books into a luxury, cut out a good deal of the population from knowledge and culture, and then cry 'foul play' when some idiot like me decides to go around, scan a couple of books, and upload them to some friend's FTP so other people can read them without having to sell their asses in some dark alley. Or assholes who go around turning private every good public hospital (you know, the ones paid by means of taxes, not charity) so that passable or good medical care is just within reach of a certain group of the population.
That's what i meant when i talked about people putting the "Gain" before "Humanity" - As far as i am concerned you can gain as much as you want as long no one is getting screwed. Some basic things are a given not just because they benefit the one receiving it (a good job, a basic level of medical care) but because they benefit humanity as a whole (culture, knowledge). Many times the gain go beyond "A honest, comfortable living" to outright greed, and people then get screwed no matter what.
But then i noticed it is possible a system like 'capitalism' is a just a neutral ideal entity and maybe i am just mixing the ideology, system, or whatever it is with the "bad apples" that use the loopholes and half-understood principles as an excuse for their behaviour (maybe because it is those who make it to the news?)... So yes, maybe i am very well mistaken. I will leave the topic of capitalism alone until i can order my toughts on the matter instead of making generalizations.
Xi said:
Well, we will have to agree to disagree about our interpretations. I will cede to humility if it can be shown, but so far I have not been swayed by what you've said. As for the name calling, well this is the codex, but my apologies.
Maybe you will agree with me when I say that piracy is proof that consequentialists, dabbling in a little bit of relativism, far out weigh people seeking for a higher moral ground. In the most simplistic way to understand a pirate, within the concept of Occam's Razor, piracy exists because consequence for piracy does not.(Or at least perceived consequence.) Even if you are seeking to apply a moral principle for your actions, I have a hard time adapting the deontological point of view to pro-piracy, as you've been doing. Maybe you aren't wrong to apply this philosophy, and maybe I am wrong from my own application of it, but it's a matter of progressive thinking, and one of us is doing worse than the other. I guess that's the beauty of it though.
Yes, i think the consequentialists, dabbling in a little bit of relativism, far outweight the people seeking for a moral higher ground. But that's so for both sides in any topic of human thought or culture - Be it piracy, politics, or whatever. For anything there are individuals with a true idea or conviction and then a much larger group who just jumps in the bandwagon because it gives them an excuse to indulge in experiences and actions others, and themselves even, would find unaceptable without such an excuse - or justifies not doing so.
But then that's the thing with philosophy and any other human endeavor - As long as there is people taking it seriously and discussing it to death is just a matter of time until someone comes and manages to discover the truth both sides were experiencing and only partially interpreting by means of context and experience, and the guys who actually tried their best are the ones that maybe get a chance of doing something about it, a slight possibility that one of those many they constantly hammer with long discussions and big books gets interested and lends an ear, researchs by himself, study the topic, invest some thought, and manages to break through the current limits of experience and consideration.
Who knows? Maybe one day a wanderer of the wastes will find within the ruins of Cleve's bunker a handwritten (shaking lines, homebrew ink, bad illuminations) chronicle of the Codex, bound in dirty, stained brahmin's leather, and then all those discussions on moral philosophy, the end of western civilization, the dumbing down of popular culture, and C&C will turn into the gospel of a new golden age. We would all be, like, great sages of ages past or something.
(yes, crappy over-the-top example is both crappy and over-the-top but it works)
Skyway said:
meanwhile it seems Mass Effect not only got the DRM problem but it also seems that the port to PC was made by lamers. in other words - quite a number of people on Bioware forums crying that Mass Effect won't let them save the game making them play it good ol' checkpoint way.
There are also a great deal of trouble with crashes, the game not liking your sound drivers, black screens of evilness, and what have you... Actually i'm starting to think the pirates are just fanatical followers of Masoch in this one case.
@ All:
This went WAY off topic :S