Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3049199" data-attributes="member: 18280">Mostly correct.  The value of the idea of normative behavior, particularly in something like the philosophy of ethics, is that one can attempt to achieve some degree of objectivity.  An ethical philosophy mandates that the general opinions of societies related to ethics are accountable to rational examination in the same way that the opinions of individuals are.  In other words, something isn't unethical or unfair simply because most people think it is; some demonstrable and abnormal disparity must exist.This is not altogether dissimilar from the "reasonable man" test in law.  It is not enough to say that the general opinion might be X, but rather one tries to determine if, in a given situation, a reasonable person would agree and/or believe X.One does not have to disprove all possibilities to find someone guilty of a crime; one needs merely to remove believable possibilities until guilt is established "beyond the shadow of a doubt".  In this case, whether or not the trap is fair is not as consequential as determining guilt related to a crime, and the determinant of unfairness can therefore be reduced accordingly....let us say "beyond reasonable doubt".IMHO, the "proofs" offered that this trap is unfair, in this case, fall far below a reasonable standard.So, rather than promoting "the most inclusive definition of fairness....even if that renders the definition pretty much useless to any DM that's not a psychopath" I am promoting a reasonably inclusive definition of fairness, that recognizes that there is a difference between intrinsic fairness and whether or not something is fair within a particular subset of context.RC</blockquote>

Verification