ThunderPeel2001

Hmm. Troubling news indeed. I'm still working my way through Peacewalker before I jump into this one, but I don't like what you're saying (I haven't read your entire post for fear of spoilers).

It is in the public domain, actually. Edit: In my country, and most of the world. In the US it becomes public domain in 2021. Yay, America.

I suppose some people (not me) would argue that nature or more important than mankind.

Following on from Rodi's "Is eating children immoral?" thread, I thought I'd pose another Big Question: Do you have the right to hurt someone? I'm speaking not just physically, but also emotionally. For example: If someone has hurt you, do you have the right to hurt them back? I have formulated my own opinion on this, but I'm interested in hearing others.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. The last thing I wanted to do was drag this topic down to the level of "what is right? How do we define right?" You seem to think that my (comparatively) light question has little merit, but you're missing a key component: Although, as you say, the average person would agree that hurting someone out of spite is unethical, everyone does it. I've done it. And I've had it done to me. Lots of times. Someone who is angry, hurt, upset will often lash out for no other reason than to try and exact some form of revenge. ("You've hurt me, I want to hurt you back.") I'm sure you've done it yourself. And that, to me, is where the interesting part lays. This question was not asked in order to try and justify hurting someone, it was asked to make people think about typical, everyday behaviour. Behaviour which, according to you, is pretty much unanimously seen as a bad thing, but which continues every day. If people think it's bad, but still engage in it, maybe there's something worth examining there...? Sorry if it wasn't a particularly deep discussion, it's just something that was on my mind!

That's just silly. (But still I laughed.)

I'm not sure what you're missing here, so I'll try and restate what I've already said in a different way: It's possible to hurt someone NOT out of spite. It's possible to hurt someone out of spite. So, IMO, it is wrong to hurt others when you are motivated by spite. That is not saying "it is wrong to do something when it's wrong". This has nothing to do with what's being discussed, so I'm going to skip it. Well, let me know when you find one. (I'm not convinced that one exists.) This is where I think we're not seeing eye-to-eye. Even in the example you've given, it does not encompass all the variables you think it does. Would it be wrong for the person to refuse marriage solely out of spite? Yes, of course it would. You plainly state this yourself when you describe the person in your scenario as being a "jerk". (If you want to talk about tautology, there's a great example!) For your example to stand, the alternative would have to be a happy (or functional, at worst) marriage (and not, as you stated, marriage to someone you "hate"). For even this example to be of any merit, it has be assumed that if the "spite" didn't exist, that the person would say "yes" (otherwise your default alternative of accepting marriage wouldn't stand -- there would be a third option of, "Don't marry for another reason.") So let's go with that. The alternatives are: 1. A reasonably happy/functional marriage -- i.e. not to someone you hate. 2. Refusal of a happy/functional marriage solely out of spite. (I actually already gave this as an example to you in one of my other replies, but never mind...) Given everything I've just explained, do you now see why, even held to these stricter rules, your "thought experiment" doesn't say what you think it does? It's not that it's ethically wrong to refuse marriage, it's that it's ethically wrong to refuse marriage out of spite, when actually you would otherwise say "yes".

This really doesn't read well, but I think I gather what you mean. Yes, it's quite possible that since you made the distinction between hurting someone out of necessity, and hurting them out of spite, it seems quite obvious that doing anything out of spite is morally reprehensible. Which means I'm agreeing with you, which also means I have no idea what you're asking me to say. I'm not misunderstanding anything here. I think you completely missed what I'm saying, so again, I have no idea how to respond :-/ Obviously I was referring to your notion of sending someone to jail EVEN THOUGH they could never commit 'X' crime again. As you wrote: I was merely pointing out that we don't just send people to prison "because they deserve it", even if they could "never commit the crime again": Another reason is deterrence. I'm not sure you understand the definition of "revenge". Courts, and the society they represent, are not acting out of revenge. Also, as we both agree courts are not acting out of spite, I'm not sure why you expect me to consider Retribution to be a bad thing? (I should probably point out that there are MANY justifications for Criminal Justice, not just Deterrence and Retribution. Incapacitation (keeping the streets free of criminals) is one. Rehabilitation is yet another. I have studied this in the years gone by.) Your example is so bizarre and unlikely that it's meaningless. I don't know where you've gotten the idea I wish to rule out retributive punishment...? Punishment != Revenge. With that in mind, I guess my principle still stands?

Sorree! Rodi started it!

[tangent]I like the Golden Rule. I don't understand why the 10 Commandments weren't just reduced to that. Surely The One Commandment! works better and is easier to remember?[/tangent]

Malicious = "Out of spite, without good reason." "Payback" is not good reason in my books. The desire for revenge is driven by spite. It will not actually undo the hurt they've caused you. Sending people to prison for a crime they've commited, even if they will never do it again (can you think of any crime you could only ever commit once...?), is not punishing them out of spite. The decision is being made by people who are not emotionally involved in the case. And even if you could think of a crime that can only be commited once, people may be punished in order to serve the greater good: For example, to send a signal to others who may be considering committing that crime and getting away with it because they can only do it once. I can't say I understand your marriage example. If you don't wish to marry someone, it's not spiteful to say "no". If you want to marry someone, but you say "no" just because you want to hurt them (and I'm sure people have actually been that silly and childish -- love does strange things to people), then that's out of spite. I just cannot imagine a scenario where someone wouldn't care if they were to spend the rest of their lives married to someone...? Finally, yep, you're right. What I said needs serious re-wording. It doesn't make sense to harm someone out of spite if you're actually trying to advert permanent disaster. Let me try again: I don't think you have the right to hurt anyone, emotionally or physically, under any circumstances, unless you really dislike them unless it's not done out of spite. Does that cover it?

I like this guy's well-reasoned review of Diablo III (sorry if it's been posted before)...

Ars Technica has just release their GOTY list (even thought the year isn't over!!!). Some interesting choices: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/12/ars-technicas-2012-games-of-the-year/

Nice answer! I hadn't thought of that. I've revised my personal answer to my original question accordingly: Unless someone is in mortal danger, you don't have the right to maliciously emotionally or physically hurt someone. And we, as human beings, do it all the time.

As no-one (seemingly) wants to tackle this particular hot potato, I'll try and get the ball rolling by injecting a bit of grey... What if someone was physically attacking you in a life-threatening way?

I forget his name...

That guy has hypnotic fingers.

Sure it was...

That's what I was just about to add. It's also worth noting that the GDP of the country you live in doesn't directly correllate to happiness of the people living there. You may look at other, poorer, countries and feel sorry for them, but those that live there might be very happy to be alive indeed. Same goes for people born with illnesses and disabilities. This also falls under the "knowing what's best for someone else" category. I personally don't think you can EVER know what's best for someone else. You may GUESS correctly sometimes, but it's ultimately not up to you to decide what's best. You may hate the idea of having a delibilitating illness, but that doesn't mean someone living with it would automatically wish they'd never been born. A better solution to all of the problems you highlighted is to try and make the world a better place for everyone who's in it, and everyone who may yet come into it. I believe that this is, and can only ever be, a personal decision. I'm not sure there could ever be a definitive answer that would satisfy everyone :-/ If you decide that you do consider it immoral to have children, don't get angry with those who believe differently. Personally, I don't think it's immoral. There are certain circumstances which may make me believe it's irresponsible, but, as a whole, not immoral.

ThunderPeel2001 - Predictably

Indeed, with a VideoToaster. They didn't look great, though :-/

Hmm. I read this not too long ago, but aside from the beautiful use of language, it didn't move me. As others have noted, it's hard to care for the characters for one thing. I'm eager to try and understand what I'm missing, though, and so will endeavour to try and take part in this book club. (Is the Great Gatsby public domain, btw?)

In other words, Amigas rule

That stuff did get a little cliched, though. At least for me.

It's weird because I loved the original THPS series and totally played them to death. When I saw the HD version, I thought it was going to be great, but it just didn't look as good as I thought a HD remake should. Plus, it's pretty expensive. I'll get it eventually I guess.