NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5419852" data-attributes="member: 18280">It is certainly implied in any statement which conflates a legal system with a justice system.  It is also strongly implied in any absolutist statement of morality or ethics.For example: I wish I could be as certain of ethics as these people seem to be.I wish I could be as certain as to what the public good was, and what harms it.I wish I could be as certain as to how ethics applies to the idea of holding ideas as property (and there is a legitimate reason why these questions apply to IP more than, say, to your house!).I wish I could be as certain that recognized rights (legal system) was co-equivilent to recognized ethics (justice system).Ethics is not covering your ass in a legal sense.  Ethics is what one does (hopefully) regardless of the consequences of action.  Covering your ass requires turning a blind eye to unethical behaviour (and more often than not, your own), either because of an actual or perceived benefit accruing from doing so (or negative consequence of not doing so).  Declaring that there is absolutely no ethical problem is a common means to do so.So, let me repeat my stance:  There is a legitimate debate as to the ethical quality of WotC's behaviour in this case.  Indeed, there is never a case where examining/debating the ethics of any behaviour by anyone is illegitimate.The primary legal duty of a corporation is to make the most money possible for its shareholders.  This is not, and should never be considered, the primary ethical responsibility of anyone or anything.RC</blockquote>

Verification