So now you simply make general statements, does this mean you can't point out the faulty logic in my opinion or does this mean that you have realised that you can't? The only difference your "viewpoint" has from mine is where you draw the line - and don't try to say this is a "mis-quote", you've even said it again "necessary to define a point"... you don't even realize that your "viewpoint" IS your opinion? You actually believe that your "viewpoint" is fact, and anybody who does not agree with your "viewpoint", is basing their "viewpoint" on faulty reasoning? I say "draw a line", you say "define a point" - this is exactly the same I say "opinion", you say "viewpoint" as if it is different - look up opinion in the thesaurus, point of view will most certainly be under it. Based on your post, "if you want to claim your viewpoint is your opinion that's fine (and thus subjective), that's fine" - a viewpoint IS an opinion, and by default is and always will be subjective. Let me go back to your original post and try and make this as clear as possible for you, before I give up "debating" on a Neopets fan site: This is SUBJECTIVE, your point of view. My point of view, my OPINION is different. Are you really so egocentric that you believe that the logic behind my opinion is flawed, and yours is not? Your opinion again. This is the basis of your argument for why my logic is flawed. You treat this opinion of yours as if it is entirely correct and accurate and everybody who is logical should agree with it. Let me smash that belief right now; I don't need to ease my conscience whatsoever from ABing because I believe it is 100% justifiable based on the fact that I don't have the time to play this game for 10 hours a day, which is what is needed to compete with some of the players who have no job, responsibilities or anything. <-- This is my logic, when I present it, it justifies my belief and challenges yours. That fact does not give me the right to say that the logic you based your decision on was wrong, as neither of our opinion or right or wrong and whether or not the logic is flawed is relevant to and only to the person who formed the opinion. Everybody has their own opinions and presents their own reasoning - this isn't interesting? Maybe in Aiore's ideal world he will come in and post his opinion and present his reasoning, and everybody will go "ah, that is right"~? My reasoning is not flawed. It IS different. In the case of stealing from the individual, you are contributing 100% to their hurt and the impact will be immediate. In the case of stealing from the corporation, your action alone will have little or NO effect, and it's only because of the many other people doing similar things that the contribution MAY add up and effect people. IT IS DIFFERENT, in one case you are entirely responsible for the contribution and the result. In the other case, your contribution alone was minute and, in fact, the resulting evil would have happened whether or not you had contributed, because somebody else will have made that minor contribution had you not. This would not be the case of stealing from the individual, as you can not state that you know somebody would steal from them in the future, while you can say that about the corporation based on statistics and probability -- so there is a perfectly logical distinction between stealing from the individual and stealing from the corporation based on fact and not even opinion, and this is the valid logic which I use to construct my opinion. Can you still claim my logic is flawed? All you are doing is mixing facts with opinions at your whim and arranging it however you please to present an argument, it's very irritating although I guess at least you can develop your argument to a degree that, even though it has more holes than swiss cheese, it does make you more intelligent than the usual internet users who are not unlike brick walls.
I find scamming someone out of an item or NP's abit harsh, because who knows how long it took the person to make nps for the item etc. And when some people are young, and they get scammed, they are more affected by it and may get upset, and i also find stealing pixels, abit silly.
Am I the only one making generalizations? Please. According to you, it would be okay to shoplift because someone else would have shoplifted if you had not. Obviously, my argument is constructed from the viewpoint that stealing in general (whether that be from an individual or a corporation) cannot be morally correct. Would it be prudent for me to qualify my argument? I find it amusing that you are relegated to arguing semantics. You say that your opinion is different; I can see that without you pointing it out. However, opinions can be formed when a person does not have a full understanding of the big picture. If you want to convince me that your opinion can't be changed, who am I to argue? People have differing opinions over a multitude of different subjects; that's what makes discussion and debate (eventhislol) interesting. You don't have to de-construct my argument to tell me that you believe your view to be right. Just as you believe that stealing from a large corporation is morally correct, you'll find that I do not. I obviously believe in my viewpoint (and thus the logic behind it). As for the conscience, I think you'll find that it too, is based upon a person's morals. Let me "smash" that train of thought right now. Just because you can justify an act does not make it morally correct (see trolley problem). "All you are doing is mixing facts with opinions at your whim and arranging it however you please to present an argument." I, too, find you to have an intelligence above that of an average internet user (I find them to be more like sheep rather than a brick wall). Congratulations, would you like an e-cookie?
I love the argument that its not immoral because the internet is just pixels. It's like saying the internet isn't real, what constitutes reality? It certainly has psychic consequence! Its like people who say money is only paper, well yes, but people want it, the power is in its psychological value. Similarly the gains from cheating in Neopets has a psychological value, i fail to see the distinction.
The internet isn't real when you look at it from an objective standpoint. It isn't tangible.. unless you run up and touch the series of tubes. But even then you can't touch the internet itself. /tangent /digression While money is only paper, it's 'legal tender' which gives it its value in society. To say money is only paper is true, but the reason it is sought after is that it holds value - it isn't in the psychological value, it's in the value that it can be used for purchasing stuffs in a modern form to eliminate the need for bartering with chickens. /tangent /digression Of course it's immoral. But some people believe in the concept of e-morals. ie. what's said and done on the internet does not mean that's what they would actually say and do in real-life. Kind of like the whole e-penis philosophy - no matter what you have a penis of epic proportions on the internet. /tangent /digression
No, modern money, fiat currency (that is, money that does not have value because its value is pegged to a precious metal, like the old gold standard) has value simply because the government demands it in taxes. It has no "psychological value" beyond what any individual assigns to it.
Scamming is just wrong. Just because you can't work hard and do the stuff yourself you move to a lower level and steal someone elses work... that's just wrong. Maybe if scammer had some commen sence or even some kindness they wouldn't do it :/
Firstly, just because something is intangible doesn't mean it isn't real. How many things can you think of that you cant touch but are real to you? eg. luck, love, god, even more concrete things such as knowledge and language Secondly, money as a form of legal tender implies the person your giving it to values it in the same way you do. That is psychological value, the note in itself means nothing. eg. a grain of sand would be just as valuable if you knew someone who wanted it, even though there is a lot of it and should be valueless. Thirdly, studies into online behaviour shows that typically behaviour online is one of two things, an exaggerated expression of who they really are, or an experimentation into who they could/want to be. So online behaviours are more of a reflection of our real world more than you would think. It's not like were suddenly inhabited by aliens the minute we turn on the internet! Lastly, this is a great point! Fiat currency has its value not because of the "gold standard" (which is now a total fallacy), it gets its value because of the backing of governments who say you can use this to pay your taxes. The fact the government back it means we value it, it is of psychological value. You can do nothing with the paper itself. The value is in the psychic reality that i can exchange this for something real. I would argue this is a perfect explanation of why people spend so much time on the internet. The internet is detached from tangible reality, so why does it matter? Well it may start in the knowledge that i can exchange it for something psychically real, but i believe it becomes a reality in itself. Much in the same way the dollar bill has become a reality into itself. The accumulation of psychic investments of a society has disassociated its value so far from any fixed sense of real value. Exchange is an implicitly psychological process, it is the ultimate meeting of minds to find common ground. In even the simplest exchange there is a complex relationship between the individuals psyche, the collective societal consciousness and the psyche of the person your exchanging with. This trend away from the internet being a point of psychic exchange to becoming its own reality, is not that far away. There are only two major things holding it back. Which is what I'm currently writing my thesis on ! If you want to know what those two things are, feel free to private message me! How does this relate to morality? Well, at the moment we get to choose what we exchange back into reality, so those immoral aspects we would choose to leave as part of our e-morals, while all our positive endeavors we attribute to what a wonderful person we are! eg. if your a moderator here i'm sure there's things you have done on the internet that your not proud of, but i'm sure you would adamantly deny this represents who you are in reality. On the other hand, as a moderator you foster a community, i'm sure you would consider that a reflection of who you are! 99% of the criminals in our prisons believe themselves to be innocent. Morality is subjective and largely of our own construction. The closest thing we will ever have to morality is the roar of the mob, society sets the ultimate benchmark of what is moral and what isn't. This includes religions.
I think that neither an autobuyer nor scamming would be justifiable by themselves. But I think that an autobuyer is morally ok because of the system that exists. Whenever a shop restocks the best prepared Person gets the item. It is not fair, just due to the different speed of computers and internet connections. So to get aroud the disadvantages you use autobuyers or whatever, this is morally justifiable because you would otherwise not have any chance to get the items because the system itself is not fair. So when would it be fair? I'd say the best thing to do would be that whenever a shop restocks everybody can click on an item and the it will be randomly give to one of the persons who clicked on that. Like that anyone regardless of his internet conection and whatever could restock. Scamming is to me an entierly different thing, here you steal something which to me is not morally justifiable while using an autobuyer means to me that you just try to improve your chances of getting an item.
I totally agree Freya, this is an example of Kohlberg's post-conventional morality, if this interests you he is a must read!