Philosophical Investigation: Basis and Vehicle of Ethics

Selecting from the many possible antecedents, we’ll follow the lead of Arthur Schopenhauer in Preisschrift über die Grundlage der Moral based on the ethics of ancient India. In particular, please bear in mind Schopenhauer’s first ethical principle: “Neminem laede; imo omnes, quantum potes, juva,” or “Do not harm anyone, but help all whenever you can.” Thus, our Metaethical position is that by examining the facts we will present (and possibly by confirming or refuting those facts personally using tools available to many gamers, and which we will personally supply to a few philosophers willing take an active role as philosophical investigators) any interested philosopher will be able to define a right course of action by reference either to a preferred personal moral code or to the moral code of the culture or religion that philosopher claims membership in. Reference to the chosen code of behavioral rules provides a standard or norm against which to judge the facts in hand and move on to applied ethics. In our following arguments, we presuppose it is possible to persuade other philosophers to agree with us that, having been informed of the situation we’ll describe and convinced that our description is valid, it is important to take personal responsibility and act to rectify the problem.

The following question was analyzed in some detail by one political pundit, whose analysis was our blog posting for Monday, May 30, 2005. (http://hypatiatheon.blogspot.com/2005/05/lets-be-philosophical-about-this.html)

The term “cyber-hypocrisy” had other connotations for me, though. We’ve got a blog that started from a sense of moral outrage at the way a game website’s policy of covert cybering among players seems an established perk of the site’s moderators and owner, so that they strenuously resist changing it, or in fact even openly discussing more wholesome ways of handling the inevitable sexual side of role play. Secretiveness seems to us, who are anything but innocent of salacious cybering, a likely cloak for exploitation. The optimum treatment would probably be PG rated love talk (I’m writing several purple-prose examples on our site. LOL.) with double entendres revealing a risque interpretation to the less innocent while the inexperienced would read it in a harmless way. What’s your take on this issue?

The pundit’s detailed analysis during which he emphasizes his personal opinion about an American moral crises, “I believe (FIRMLY) that the number one problem in the United States is not Iraq, or the economy, or Bush, or the democrats, or the debt/deficit/delicatessen…the number one problem is the sexual molestation and exploitation - RAMPANT exploitation and molestation - of children. It’s huge. It’s almost totally covert and underground, considering the numbers. And the implications for adulthood and the severe emotional, mental and physical damage is horrifying,” concludes: “And limping awkwardly back to your original question about my thoughts on this issue, well this pretty much sums it up: Let people be free / those that do harm must pay.”

Leaving this question in Applied Ethics: “Given the number one, or at least very significant, problem of sexual molestation and exploitation of children together with a stance of freedom with responsibility, then what’s our duty in cyberspace?” Of course, I’m not exactly hiding a personal focus on seeking philosophical investigators to inspect AmiaWorld behind my back here. (http://pearllong.blogspot.com/2005/05/another-creative-attempt-to-solve-this_24.html).

Well, obviously, I could, and in fact have, go on for pages about this concern of ours, perhaps it is merely our obsession, more likely there are legitimate improvements that could be made in Amia World’s policy about sexual relations between player/characters during role play. Now, to stand in briefly as a devil’s advocate, we have learned that there exist a whole class of “social servers” within which are “adult” social servers (Doesn’t a name like “Kinky Kingdom” say it all?) where players are “supposed” to go to scratch those itches, so the management of Amia World, having been well aware of that fact long before we learned of it, can merely say, “Well, if you want to role play sexual relations, go to a social server. In Amia characters don’t do sex.” Unfortunately, the last time we were able to look before being banned, this claim is belied by an openly posted rule, “Those who feel the need, keep your cybering to tells.” That rule is read by all new players who takes the time to read the site rules when they first arrive in the Entryway, through which every player must pass join the role play. If some kind NWN player with a set of CD keys would go to the Entryway and take a screen shot proving that Amia’s policy has been changed, we could refocus our concern and move on, being content that Amia has grown, so it’s time for us to do so, too. Meanwhile, we can but seek assistance shining light into the darkness until the very act of observation causes change, as is we believe simultaneously the basis and vehicle of ethics.

To answer Marcel Duchamp’s T.V. Killer: http://www.ne.jp/asahi/sweet/song/enlightenment_and_the_harm_principle.htm ← This links to a copy of the original from which you can click one more link and view or even respond to the original on a forum where I’m not welcome to post, and; therefore, I don’t, even though these copies should be proof enough that I could if I was the sort to sneak around and do so under pseudonyms rather than simply copying the whole topic to my blog or linking to it here.

Here’s what Kill Your T.V. had to say a couple of days ago:
[i]One of the major tenants of the enlightenment is the Harm Principle. According to it, unless there is direct physical harm directly from a person’s actions it is an alright action legally. This doesn’t go into ethics, but your question seems to me more about the law. It is the individual’s responsibility to protect themselves. And if the person is not mature enough to be able to this, it is their parents responsibility to keep an eye over them. Which brings up the issue of parental protection vs. over protection.


“Look at yourselves. Some of you teenagers, students. How do you think I feel and I belong to a generation ahead of you - how do you think I feel to have to tell you, ‘We, my generation, sat around like a knot on a wall while the whole world was fighting for its hum an rights - and you’ve got to be born into a society where you still have that same fight.’ What did we do, who preceded you ? I’ll tell you what we did. Nothing. And don’t you make the same mistake we made…”
-Malcolm X[/i]
Note that Kill Your T.V. merely brings up several issues without actually discussing them, which is quite interesting in relation to her signature pointing out the feelings of a do-nothing generation highlighted by a quote from Malcolm X about inheriting the unfinished fight for human rights from elders who were mostly talk with little effective action. In sterling contrast, Kill Your T.V. fails to even proffer effective talk.

Let’s analyze this non argument point by point:

  1. The Harm Principle is a major tenant of the enlightenment. I am unable to find any mention under the European Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Enlightenment); however, from Wikipedia I found:
    The harm principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle) is attributed to John Stuart Mill’s most famous work, On Liberty. Mill defines the harm principle in chapter 1 as follows: “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right… The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
    Which seems sufficient for this analysis. Contrary to Kill Your T.V.'s next claim:

  2. The Harm Principle determines that actions which don’t directly cause physical harm are legal. Mill defines an Ethical principle about how power can be “rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community … to prevent harm to others.” Thus negating Kill Your T.V.'s following assertion:

  3. Hypatia Theon’s question is more about law than ethics: If this discussion were about whether the scope of law is limited by the harm principle, there are numerous counter examples; however, both Mill’s definition and Hypatia Theon’s thesis are primarily focused on ethical considerations, so although mention of the law is not a red herring here since determining precisely the local nature of the force of law in the relevant community (Plano, Texas, U.S.A.) and how it might be applied as a useful tool to leverage change of a bad policy regarding cyber sex on AmiaWorld.net is a very relevant topic for discussion (Entirely eschewed by Kill Your T.V.) it none-the-less remains true that the overall topic is primarily applied ethics within which the law is potentially one part of the particular instance of application of ethics.

  4. It is the individual’s responsibility to protect themselves. Hypatia Theon agrees as Mill certainly would, too. Naturally, this includes protecting ourselves, and by extension our family, from sexual predators.

  5. It’s the responsibility of parents to keep an eye on their kids. Of course it is, and that’s what this (in the wide sense of not only these posts but our blogs, too) is all about. To be precise: Does our responsibility to protect our children from sexual exploitation extend to a right to open discussion on the forums of game sites of the management’s policies regarding cyber sex?

  6. Which brings up the issue of parental protection vs. over protection. Which is, to be sure, exactly where we might go astray as parents, so discussion seems in order, nicht wahr?

interesting posts…

"4) It is the individual’s responsibility to protect themselves. Hypatia Theon agrees as Mill certainly would, too. Naturally, this includes protecting ourselves, and by extension our family, from sexual predators. yes, and when the self in question is a child, I can see the quandry…

  1. It’s the responsibility of parents to keep an eye on their kids. Of course it is, and that’s what this (in the wide sense of not only these posts but our blogs, too) is all about. To be precise: Does our responsibility to protect our children from sexual exploitation extend to a right to open discussion on the forums of game sites of the management’s policies regarding cyber sex? a discussion of policies is not the same as having cyber sex… think of it as sex ed in class versus your honeymoon… one is clinical the other “practical”

  2. Which brings up the issue of parental protection vs. over protection. Which is, to be sure, exactly where we might go astray as parents, so discussion seems in order, nicht wahr? in order, but use your own judgment

-Imp

Actually, Imp, if you’d be so kind as to click this link http://www.ne.jp/asahi/sweet/song/lightdarkgonewrong.htm you’ll find evidence that severely challanges your distinction. :laughing:

Maintaining these dualities has always been a wee bit of a problem for us. :sunglasses:

I still see no problem…

characters interacting in a story/sexual fantasy/role playing game, or what have you is not a clinical discussion of sexual practice…
when the line from clinical to other is crossed, the clinical ends. if one needs to censor the other, so be it…

-Imp

I’d be silly to disagree with one who claims to see no problem. :laughing:

Do you find any problem with my claims that just as there is no sure proof of sexuality in cyberspace neither is there any certainty with regards to consciousness. :astonished:

If you’ve followed any of the lines here: http://hypatiatheon.blogspot.com then you’ll know in terms of the Turing Test’s origin in the party imitation game, Philisophical zombies, and Emergence versus Supervenience just how intractable this problem is. :sunglasses:

I think turing was correct… if it can give the expected responses at each instance, it could be considered “intelligent”… one couldn’t tell the difference anyway…

-Imp

If you don’t know, doesn’t that imply that you are uncertain as to whether you are actually conscious yourself, or, for just one possible example, having a lucid dream? :laughing:

So then the default assumption is that you are an Ai that is pretending to be a woman who is unable to prevent convincing evidence that she is neither a man nor an expert system? :sunglasses:

no, the implication is not there…

knowledge itself is problematic if not impossible…

but consciousness could be anything it wants to be…

the default assumption is that the conversation is with another human…

but that’s the assumption… the actuality is that “I” press keys that turn off and on a myriad of electrical switches in combinations that produce effects which “I” interpret as meaning something… does it have meaning outside of “I”? it cannot be known… then again, “I” could be nothing but a brain in a vat…

-Imp

http://hypatiatheon.blogspot.com/2005/06/reductio-ad-absurdum.html

LOL!!! Exactly!!!

-Imp

I’ve only just found this thread and it is highly entertaining. I’m considering putting that image on Symposia…