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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6180664" data-attributes="member: 8461">I agree that certain things necessitate immoral acts, and by way of that may be (as per my previous definition of immorality) expunged from society. I will say though that I'm not sure I agree with the qualifier "by the government" in your second point. Why is it okay for someone to make something unavailable to others due to their lack of governmental authority?In terms of "advocating," if that means "expressing their opinion" then I don't disagree, but otherwise taking action against something (presuming that the thing is an instance of creative expression) to make it unavailable strikes me as being immoral (with the usual caveat that this is a generalization for a moral framework that works best when applied to specifics).It took me way too long to get back to this, due to a combination of my home computer down and the difficulty of finding the time to post this on my work computer. Apologies for the delay on my end.That said, here are my answers to the following.Before anything else, I want to reiterate (simply because I think that it's important to keep these caveats forefront in the course of my responses) that the nature of the moral framework I listed previously relies upon the interpretation as to the nature of the act under discussion (e.g. asking what is happening here). I bring this up again to highlight the degree of ambiguity that will more often than not be a part of this consideration, since you can't know the other person's intent and can't judge the consequences until after the fact (and sometimes not even then). You can judge a particular action to be X, and someone else can judge it to be Y, and quite often that'll be it - you'll need to agree to disagree.Likewise, I want to restate that this is my own personal framework and the responses are likewise reflective of me, and nothing else.The above scenario can be interpreted as "selling only products that fit within an established theme of items for sale," much in the same way that you wouldn't expect a furniture store to sell cars. While I personally wouldn't care for that particular theme, it doesn't strike me as being the same as refusing to grant a venue to a product based on the nature of the content (hence why, in the actual instance of Manhunt 2 I mentioned previously, I said I found the moral fault to be with the video game companies).I respectfully disagree with jeffh here in that I do think that this runs afoul of the negative duty "do not suppress another's creative expression." Given that in this example it's very hard to interpret this action as being anything other than an attempt to stop a given media from reaching the public since the person under examination doesn't like it, I'd call this a breach of that duty.The first question is a fairly loaded one, as you're asking what their moral responses are. To the latter question (asking if running a business can be seen as creative expression), I can tell you that I personally don't think that it is (which obviates your third question). For the former, I'm reluctant to comment on what another person's moral options are, since I don't know what moral framework they're using to make their decisions - that's why I highlighted above that these answers are specific to me.In this case, the best answer I can give is "if they're using the same moral framework that I am, I suppose they could," but this carries a very big "but" with it (and I like big but's) in that I don't agree with the underlying reasoning that led to this particular ranking of moral action - that is, I don't agree that depictions of pornography and violance are exploitive and harmful to the viewer. Ergo, I'd still disagree with their decision; just not the process by which they reached it.Nobody is consistent all the time, whether due to acquiring new information, changing opinions, or simple human nature. As I noted above, if someone reinterprets the nature of a given action, that alone is enough to change the entire moral judgment that can be passed upon it. That's notwithstanding alterations to the moral framework itself (e.g. elevating something from being supererogatory to being a positive duty).  They don't have to enable it; they just have to not disable it via the venue(s) they control.</blockquote>

Verification