Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 8923617" data-attributes="member: 7035894">One of the two main schools of ethics, consequentialism, judges actions based on consequences (as you might expect). It is quite influential - it is why we don't punish recklessly running a stop sign the same way we prosecute recklessly running a stop sign and killing a pedestrian. From a consequentialist perspective, outcomes are what matter, not motives. Hasbro should be applauded for ultimately doing the right thing.You, on the other hand, seem to be espousing a fairly hardline deontological perspective, for which motives are all that matter. Thus, Hasbro are terrible villains for even thinking about rescinding the OGL, and the fact that they didn't go through with it is irrelevant. Fair play to you.I'm generally more of a consequentialist. From my perspective, when it comes to sharing its D&amp;D IP, Hasbro is in practice miles better than the vast majority of entertainment corporations are with any of their IP. They tried to backslide but got busted, so the result is they wound up with a policy even more generous than what they started with (irony!). They actually took in feedback and did a 180 on their policy. That's objectively great - don't we want more corporations to do that? What even is the point of protesting if we get what we want and still have beef with the folks who acceded to our demands? That just seems petty to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Clint_L, post: 8923617, member: 7035894"] One of the two main schools of ethics, consequentialism, judges actions based on consequences (as you might expect). It is quite influential - it is why we don't punish recklessly running a stop sign the same way we prosecute recklessly running a stop sign and killing a pedestrian. From a consequentialist perspective, outcomes are what matter, not motives. Hasbro should be applauded for ultimately doing the right thing. You, on the other hand, seem to be espousing a fairly hardline deontological perspective, for which motives are all that matter. Thus, Hasbro are terrible villains for even thinking about rescinding the OGL, and the fact that they didn't go through with it is irrelevant. Fair play to you. I'm generally more of a consequentialist. From my perspective, when it comes to sharing its D&D IP, Hasbro is in practice miles better than the vast majority of entertainment corporations are with any of their IP. They tried to backslide but got busted, so the result is they wound up with a policy even more generous than what they started with (irony!). They actually took in feedback and did a 180 on their policy. That's objectively great - don't we want more corporations to do that? What even is the point of protesting if we get what we want and still have beef with the folks who acceded to our demands? That just seems petty to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification