Moral Questioned - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  Moral Questioned

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Moral Questioned

Steel_Dragon posted 11-27-98 01:00 AM ET
Person A does not do action A
Person B response by doing action B
Both people are in the wrong.
Should Person A give in to Action B and do Action A?
DJ RRebel posted 11-27-98 01:27 AM ET
It was person C's fault !!!
OmniDude posted 11-27-98 05:22 AM ET
Not unless Person B admits that doing action B was wrong and honestly apologizes for overreaction.
If - as you state - both are wrong, then by doing action A person A admits to his/her error. However leaving it at that will make the "moral balance" uneven, making similar future situations start off unbalanced.
Which lead us to the weakness of moral dilemmas like the one you propose: They do not take motivations or intentions into account, but reduces the persons in question to mindless doers.
tOFfGI posted 11-27-98 06:26 AM ET
Yes. Since Not doing Action A was wrong, He should do action A, even though he was intimidated by person B's Action B. Doing theopposite would be like saying that since someone told you to do something, you shouldn't do it because you were forced to. I then suggest Person A does Action B to Person B to teach him a lesson (And blame it all on Person C).
DJ RRebel posted 11-27-98 06:42 AM ET
Person A = Santiago ???
Person B = Yang ???
DCA posted 11-27-98 09:01 AM ET
hello, doing -A is in no way related to doing B. this is a norwegian poem anyway: if you've done A, you've done A ((Jan Erik Vold).
DCA,
Pain looks good on other people; that's what they're for.
DCA posted 11-27-98 09:57 AM ET
sorry, i'm drunk
DCA,
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
tOFfGI posted 11-28-98 04:14 PM ET
Assuming the following, that:
Person A is a programmer at Activision.
Action A is releasing cctp with Anything good in it.
Person B is Brian Reynolds of Firaxis.
Action B is a Battering.
Person C is the Civrapers at Microprose.
If all this is true, Person B was morally right, while not legally right, in doing Action B to Person A. Therefore, since it is pointless to try to get Person A to do Action A, I think he should apply the same treatment to Person C.
DJ RRebel posted 11-29-98 11:24 AM ET
It's times like these that I think 26 letter in the alphabet is 26 too many !!! LOL
tOFfGI posted 11-29-98 11:48 AM ET
Person D: DJ RRebel.
Therefore, I think person D should apply action B to Persons A and C.
tOFfGI posted 11-30-98 09:56 AM ET
I like this thread. Go for more Stupid moral questions with letters.
DJ RRebel posted 11-30-98 11:33 AM ET
You take that back, or I'll F U up real bad !!! LOL
(btw, just in case ... that was a joke)
Who will Person Z be ???
DJ RRebel posted 11-30-98 11:34 AM ET
So let me get this straight, you want me to batter Activision programmers and Civrapers (what is a civrapper anyways) ???
tOFfGI posted 12-01-98 08:41 AM ET
Why Elementary. A Civrapers is one of the people who metaphorically "Raped" Civ by not releasing multiplayer, etc. ie. Microprose.
DJ RRebel posted 12-01-98 12:23 PM ET
I have yet to rape my computer, although I've come close to commiting other crimes against it !!!
Synthetic posted 12-01-98 01:23 PM ET
Steel_dragon: Let's restate this whole mess so we can keep things clear. You should NEVER use the same variable twice for different objects in the same phrase.
Person A does not do action X, as a result, person B performs action Y.
Furthmore, by not doing action X, A is in the wrong, and by doing action Y, B is in the wrong.
Your question is whether Person A should have performed action X to prevent B from doing Y.
Here are my questions to you:
Does A know that B will perform Y as a result of A's not performing X?
If A was already in the wrong by not performing X, why would B's actions be any more of a stigma to do X?
Or were you stating that X in itself wasn't wrong, but not performing it was wrong since it inspired activity Y?
Since you state flat out that both people are in the wrong, haven't you already answered your own question?
Perhaps what you meant to say was this:
Action X is wrong, but _must_ be performed by person A if they want to prevent person B from performing heinous action Y. Should A commit X? Would A be guilty by association of B's act of Y?
Since the VP is such a VIP, maybe the PC should be put on the QT, otherwise if the VC find out and make the VP an MIA, we'd all get put on KP.
Clear?
-synthetic
DJ RRebel posted 12-01-98 01:28 PM ET
ummm ... yeah ... I think !!!
mmm .. could you just repeat the part about ... umm .. well, actually .. never mind !!!
I still think C is behind it !!!
then again, it could be Q, he always sticks his nose in human affairs when he isn't wanted !!!
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Moral Questioned
Steel_Dragon	posted 11-27-98 01:00 AM ET Person A does not do action A Person B response by doing action B Both people are in the wrong. Should Person A give in to Action B and do Action A?
DJ RRebel	posted 11-27-98 01:27 AM ET It was person C's fault !!!
OmniDude	posted 11-27-98 05:22 AM ET Not unless Person B admits that doing action B was wrong and honestly apologizes for overreaction. If - as you state - both are wrong, then by doing action A person A admits to his/her error. However leaving it at that will make the "moral balance" uneven, making similar future situations start off unbalanced. Which lead us to the weakness of moral dilemmas like the one you propose: They do not take motivations or intentions into account, but reduces the persons in question to mindless doers.
tOFfGI	posted 11-27-98 06:26 AM ET Yes. Since Not doing Action A was wrong, He should do action A, even though he was intimidated by person B's Action B. Doing theopposite would be like saying that since someone told you to do something, you shouldn't do it because you were forced to. I then suggest Person A does Action B to Person B to teach him a lesson (And blame it all on Person C).
DJ RRebel	posted 11-27-98 06:42 AM ET Person A = Santiago ??? Person B = Yang ???
DCA	posted 11-27-98 09:01 AM ET hello, doing -A is in no way related to doing B. this is a norwegian poem anyway: if you've done A, you've done A ((Jan Erik Vold). DCA, Pain looks good on other people; that's what they're for.
DCA	posted 11-27-98 09:57 AM ET sorry, i'm drunk DCA, That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
tOFfGI	posted 11-28-98 04:14 PM ET Assuming the following, that: Person A is a programmer at Activision. Action A is releasing cctp with Anything good in it. Person B is Brian Reynolds of Firaxis. Action B is a Battering. Person C is the Civrapers at Microprose. If all this is true, Person B was morally right, while not legally right, in doing Action B to Person A. Therefore, since it is pointless to try to get Person A to do Action A, I think he should apply the same treatment to Person C.
DJ RRebel	posted 11-29-98 11:24 AM ET It's times like these that I think 26 letter in the alphabet is 26 too many !!! LOL
tOFfGI	posted 11-29-98 11:48 AM ET Person D: DJ RRebel. Therefore, I think person D should apply action B to Persons A and C.
tOFfGI	posted 11-30-98 09:56 AM ET I like this thread. Go for more Stupid moral questions with letters.
DJ RRebel	posted 11-30-98 11:33 AM ET You take that back, or I'll F U up real bad !!! LOL (btw, just in case ... that was a joke) Who will Person Z be ???
DJ RRebel	posted 11-30-98 11:34 AM ET So let me get this straight, you want me to batter Activision programmers and Civrapers (what is a civrapper anyways) ???
tOFfGI	posted 12-01-98 08:41 AM ET Why Elementary. A Civrapers is one of the people who metaphorically "Raped" Civ by not releasing multiplayer, etc. ie. Microprose.
DJ RRebel	posted 12-01-98 12:23 PM ET I have yet to rape my computer, although I've come close to commiting other crimes against it !!!
Synthetic	posted 12-01-98 01:23 PM ET Steel_dragon: Let's restate this whole mess so we can keep things clear. You should NEVER use the same variable twice for different objects in the same phrase. Person A does not do action X, as a result, person B performs action Y. Furthmore, by not doing action X, A is in the wrong, and by doing action Y, B is in the wrong. Your question is whether Person A should have performed action X to prevent B from doing Y. Here are my questions to you: Does A know that B will perform Y as a result of A's not performing X? If A was already in the wrong by not performing X, why would B's actions be any more of a stigma to do X? Or were you stating that X in itself wasn't wrong, but not performing it was wrong since it inspired activity Y? Since you state flat out that both people are in the wrong, haven't you already answered your own question? Perhaps what you meant to say was this: Action X is wrong, but _must_ be performed by person A if they want to prevent person B from performing heinous action Y. Should A commit X? Would A be guilty by association of B's act of Y? Since the VP is such a VIP, maybe the PC should be put on the QT, otherwise if the VC find out and make the VP an MIA, we'd all get put on KP. Clear? -synthetic
DJ RRebel	posted 12-01-98 01:28 PM ET ummm ... yeah ... I think !!! mmm .. could you just repeat the part about ... umm .. well, actually .. never mind !!! I still think C is behind it !!! then again, it could be Q, he always sticks his nose in human affairs when he isn't wanted !!!