Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
That Penny Arcade Controversy
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6179455" data-attributes="member: 8461"><p>...and back!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Now <strong>that</strong> is some fine parsing. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></p><p></p><p>Slightly more seriously, the reason I was using them interchangeably is because ethics and morals largely exist in a continuum; that being that (as I see it) a lot of people take an ethical code of conduct and (unconsciously) adopt it as their own moral code, often with some personal tweaks to it. For example, somehow who takes legal ethics and starts treating them as what's morally right and wrong. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>That said, I'll differentiate between the two more clearly from now on.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, this speaks not at all to the moral aspect of the question involved. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's morally sound. This also doesn't speak to litigation brought for non-contractual reasons.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See above. You're ignoring the moral aspect of this, which is what the original question is about. Look at the question of "what <em>is</em> right?" instead of "what are your legal rights?".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, utilizing your "economic power" to squelch the ability of someone else to express themselves in a given venue is an act of censorship. The fact that it's legally protected is meaningless in this context.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, but what's the moral dimension of that? You don't seem to want to engage with this aspect of the discussion, despite that being what the topic is about.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No worries. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Precisely, and I don't see this being addressed very often. Corporations have the ability to exercise power over the public, and when that power extends to things that we've come to rely on and view as ubiquitous - if not essential, to some degree - then that power approaches that wielded by the government. The difference is that we're used to checks and balances in the government, whereas we champion the lack of such restraints on private enterprises, based around the idea that multiple entities will keep each other in check...something I consider dubious.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>For a question like this, I find it helpful to clarify the nature of the particular moral failing we're discussing, and then examine the actions that went into making that happen.</p><p></p><p>In this case, we're talking about a violation of the moral duty (according to my personal moral framework) of "do not suppress someone else's freedom of creative expression." From a nonconsequentialist standpoint, this is one of the negative duties - the highest tier. It means that this is one of the things that is bad if you do it.</p><p></p><p>As such, we need to examine just who performed this action. I'm tempted to cite the ESRB here, as they likely knew what the results of their issuing an AO rating would be. However, the point of nonconsequentialism is that it's not concerned with consequences - it's the nature of the action itself that matters. Ergo, the ESRB can't be held accountable for what happened; their action was simply to rate the game as they saw it.</p><p></p><p>That leaves the companies themselves, and it's here we find the moral fault. Each of them had a policy saying that they were going to suppress a particular instance of free expression, conditional to the rating it was given, because they didn't like it and didn't want to be associated with it. Now, that's entirely legal, but as listed above, it violates the stated moral principle. Ergo, I find that the moral fault is with the big three video game companies.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Don't worry about it. I suspect that fewer people are using the classic background these days.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I could not agree more. Well said.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 6179455, member: 8461"] ...and back! Now [b]that[/b] is some fine parsing. :p Slightly more seriously, the reason I was using them interchangeably is because ethics and morals largely exist in a continuum; that being that (as I see it) a lot of people take an ethical code of conduct and (unconsciously) adopt it as their own moral code, often with some personal tweaks to it. For example, somehow who takes legal ethics and starts treating them as what's morally right and wrong. ;) That said, I'll differentiate between the two more clearly from now on. Again, this speaks not at all to the moral aspect of the question involved. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's morally sound. This also doesn't speak to litigation brought for non-contractual reasons. See above. You're ignoring the moral aspect of this, which is what the original question is about. Look at the question of "what [i]is[/i] right?" instead of "what are your legal rights?". Again, utilizing your "economic power" to squelch the ability of someone else to express themselves in a given venue is an act of censorship. The fact that it's legally protected is meaningless in this context. Yes, but what's the moral dimension of that? You don't seem to want to engage with this aspect of the discussion, despite that being what the topic is about. No worries. :) Precisely, and I don't see this being addressed very often. Corporations have the ability to exercise power over the public, and when that power extends to things that we've come to rely on and view as ubiquitous - if not essential, to some degree - then that power approaches that wielded by the government. The difference is that we're used to checks and balances in the government, whereas we champion the lack of such restraints on private enterprises, based around the idea that multiple entities will keep each other in check...something I consider dubious. For a question like this, I find it helpful to clarify the nature of the particular moral failing we're discussing, and then examine the actions that went into making that happen. In this case, we're talking about a violation of the moral duty (according to my personal moral framework) of "do not suppress someone else's freedom of creative expression." From a nonconsequentialist standpoint, this is one of the negative duties - the highest tier. It means that this is one of the things that is bad if you do it. As such, we need to examine just who performed this action. I'm tempted to cite the ESRB here, as they likely knew what the results of their issuing an AO rating would be. However, the point of nonconsequentialism is that it's not concerned with consequences - it's the nature of the action itself that matters. Ergo, the ESRB can't be held accountable for what happened; their action was simply to rate the game as they saw it. That leaves the companies themselves, and it's here we find the moral fault. Each of them had a policy saying that they were going to suppress a particular instance of free expression, conditional to the rating it was given, because they didn't like it and didn't want to be associated with it. Now, that's entirely legal, but as listed above, it violates the stated moral principle. Ergo, I find that the moral fault is with the big three video game companies. Don't worry about it. I suspect that fewer people are using the classic background these days. I could not agree more. Well said. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
That Penny Arcade Controversy
Top