Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 18  All

Author Topic: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]  (Read 121017 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

zxcvbn2

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #175 on: July 03, 2012, 07:05:10 pm »
0

Personman, if you had a way to say order your deck in anyway you wanted, and no one would find out about it, would you do it?

If only I had this ability, and I knew that, absolutely not.

If everyone did, yes! And I've often thought that that would be a really interesting Dominion variant, though it would be slow, and a lot of people wouldn't like to play it.

So something's okay because everyone does it? I'm sorry, but there are so many things wrong with that. I don't care if everyone in the world played the most wrong and most unfair variant, I want to play the most fair way. I think Monopoly is pretty comparable. Everyone plays the wrong way. It's just a variant. It makes the game suck, so I never play that way. In professional tournaments, you play by the official rules, period.
Logged
One Day Cup II Champion: qmech III: Rabid IV: Qvist

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4371
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #176 on: July 03, 2012, 07:13:57 pm »
+6

There are two discussions (well probably more) that are happening and getting intertwined here. One is whether or not point trackers should generally be allowed in tournaments like this. The vast majority of the arguments of the pro-point tracking crowd are geared toward this set of arguments. Guess what: I don't actually think that there's an objective answer here. Now, it's a variant for sure, but I am not going to say that it's objectively a worse variant than actual dominion. I like the memory aspect to the game, and other people do not. And there are enforceability issues. Indeed, I could see myself being convinced that, in general, for online tournament play, which is to say tournament play in general perhaps, if you hold that online is a better format for tournaments generally, as I do, that the variant with point counters, assuming equal access to all participants, is better than the one without. There are legitimate disagreements of opinion and discussions to be had here, and ultimately, whichever more people like more is the one to use, because the whole point is to have fun for the most people.

However. There are other issues here. One of these is what was to be done in the tournament that we just had. And that should be based on the rules that we had, not the rules as they should be. Because if you arbitrarily decide to go on the rules as they should be, you end up with all kinds of people doing their own different things.

And of course, the biggest thing, IMO, is the ethical questions.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #177 on: July 03, 2012, 07:22:07 pm »
0

Great post, WW. I agree with 100% of it, though of course my beliefs about the answers to some of the questions you raise are different.

The part I'm having the hardest time with is why you think it is me and not you who was attempting to change the rules. Many, many earlier tournament matches had been played with the extension in use, and there had been 0 complaints! Suddenly outlawing it in the finals seems like a drastic and inappropriate change.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4371
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #178 on: July 03, 2012, 07:30:30 pm »
0

I must admit that after all these posts, I'm still surprised by people calling using the extension cheating.

Do they not understand the meaning of cheating? The people who are using the PCE aren't ordering their deck in the manner it pleases them. They're not suddenly grabbing Moats in hand whenever an opponent plays an attack card. They're not breaking the rules by sending fake messages to the server. All they do is use the information that everyone has.

Card counting is not cheating, it's not against the rules to count. It is frowned upon though and it will get you thrown off private property. Online you can count cards all you want, but apparently it's less useful as they use decks with a gazillion cards? I'm not sure though as I haven't played online Blackjack. The thing is that online Blackjack is different from real life Blackjack. You can't shuffle a gazillion cards in real life.

The same is true for Dominion.

All of the arguments of the PCE haters don't hold if they don't accept it's a different game, or at least a variant.
But the haters already seem to have lost the possibility to think rationally. Heck, people who advocated the use of the PCE on the forums were actually subject to bans for future tournaments, even if they would agree not to use it!

The point is, mentally counting your cards is not cheating. Using external aids absolutely is. It is not only frowned upon, it is in fact cheating. And "it doesn't make a difference anyway to make it cheating" is an unconvincing argument, because then you would not be so upset about people calling it cheating. Whether it SHOULD be cheating is a different debate. But under the rules as they are, it is cheating, as has been explained repeatedly. And so I'm shocked that you're shocked that people are calling it cheating, because that is precisely what it is. It is a circumvention of the rules, and I can only assume that it is done in order to gain an advantage. If you want to play 'online dominion' by some other ruleset than the dominion ruleset, that is A OK with me. But don't treat it like it is the same thing, and until you have some other, accepted, comprehensive ruleset that is out there and accepted by your opponents, then you can't say you are following that. Because it doesn't exist. Online dominion CAN be a variant, but doesn't need to be. And at this point, your variant does not have a codified set of rules. If you want it to be a thing, make those.

Personman, you actually did a pretty crappy job of keeping track of who had what. I watched the videos. I could point out all the little mistakes, but I don't really have the time. I generally do better than you did, and have never played with such a memory aid. Regardless, don't act like it's not an advance, even over just taking notes, which is itself also against the rules of dominion qua dominion.

RE: What happened. The timelines. Well I can post my version, which will differ from those posted somewhat, but this is why I want to post what was actually sent back and forth. It is objectively what actually happened.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4371
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #179 on: July 03, 2012, 07:33:55 pm »
+3

Great post, WW. I agree with 100% of it, though of course my beliefs about the answers to some of the questions you raise are different.

The part I'm having the hardest time with is why you think it is me and not you who was attempting to change the rules. Many, many earlier tournament matches had been played with the extension in use, and there had been 0 complaints! Suddenly outlawing it in the finals seems like a drastic and inappropriate change.
Man, it is not my fault if your earlier opponents did not complain about it. How am I supposed to complain about it, when I don't even know you're doing it, and why should I complain about it if your opponents agree? And how am I to know whether they agree or not. Of course it's against tournament rules. cf. http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=876.msg13546#msg13546 . As well as the tournament rules stating that games are to be played with official point counter. Which in and of itself makes the tournament be played as a variant, true, but one we agreed to by signing up. But there is no provision in the rules ALLOWING you to do this, and therefore, as a game-related activity, it is forbidden, in precisely the same way I can't do a billion other things which are obviously illegal and can't all be individually proscribed.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #180 on: July 03, 2012, 07:35:19 pm »
0

Quote
Personman, you actually did a pretty crappy job of keeping track of who had what. I watched the videos. I could point out all the little mistakes, but I don't really have the time. I generally do better than you did, and have never played with such a memory aid. Regardless, don't act like it's not an advance, even over just taking notes, which is itself also against the rules of dominion qua dominion.

Oh, I know. In many cases I stopped caring. In one game (the pirate ship one, where I was probably just dead anyway) stopping caring was a fairly bad mistake, but I think that's the only game where it really mattered.

Man, it is not my fault if your earlier opponents did not complain about it. How am I supposed to complain about it, when I don't even know you're doing it, and why should I complain about it if your opponents agree? And how am I to know whether they agree or not.

From your perspective I can see how that is reasonable, and it was reasonable for you to bring up the question. But can't you see how from my perspective, having assumed it was legal and having played many games with it so far, and having seen other players using it, it would seem strange for (what seemed to be) the rules to suddenly change?

Once again, we all know that the real issue was a lack of time to get a comprehensive ruleset put together. This really isn't anyone's fault. Theory did his best to bring us an awesome tournament in a short time, and there were some inherent problems with that. I'm still super glad he did, and I'm sure jtl005 is as well!
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 07:40:45 pm by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4371
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #181 on: July 03, 2012, 07:36:50 pm »
0

Also, my estimate of the chance of a future online qualifier happening is zero.

Let's not punish the many for the sins of a few. 
There are other reasons why not to have online tournaments. Case in point: it's incredibly difficult to enforce the rules.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4371
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #182 on: July 03, 2012, 07:41:00 pm »
+2

Quote from: Donald X
long rebuttal

Thank you! It is very helpful to know what you are talking about. I'm glad you decided that it was worth your time. Also it was funny!

First, my not-serious response: I'm totally poly, so whatever, man! (I actually am, but this obviously does not invalidate your argument).

My actual response is that games are different from life. In life, I agree wholeheartedly that we must trust each other, and that is, in the end, usually more rewarding to be worthy of trust than to betray it. There are exceptions; as you've said, it's all just a bunch of atoms moving around, and there's no real moral consistency to anything. But on the whole I think we're on the same page here.

I just don't think the same ideals can apply to games with stakes played over the internet. There's a reason that my side won this debate in the Poker community but hasn't done so so convincingly here: it's bigger, and there's more at stake. Under those conditions, the system will converge towards the strictly, logically fair alternative much more quickly, and analogies to real-life morals and community values stop holding water. (Of course, there are other, insoluble fairness issues in online poker, like collusion. But since people really like playing online poker, they kinda just have to ignore them.)

I don't think we need to have a 100-page discussion about this. I respect the desire to have an online community in which rules are not made on the presumption of dishonesty. It's a nice dream, and maybe I am too cynical in thinking that we cannot achieve it here (though see my earlier point re trolls on isotropic). I personally prefer it when rules ARE made on that assumption, because then I don't have to be afraid that I am being a chump by not taking advantage of my trivial ability to cheat, and can instead rest assured that my actions are legal and that everyone else is doing it too. But it's okay for us to have this difference of opinion, and there is room for both kinds of people to play and enjoy this wonderful game that you have made for us.

As theory put it very well at some point during the email discussion, the primary take away from the whole thing is that rules need to be hammered out a bit better ahead of time.
tl;dr morals don't matter and screw trust when it comes to games? I couldn't disagree more on both counts. Especially the first count. Which I think you're misreading Donald? (I read that as him being sarcastic).
Remind me to never have anyone of you over to my house, or preferably within a large radius of me, who thinks morality doesn't matter.
Ethics is everything, man. Ethics asks the question, "What should I do?". And if you reject that, you fall entirely into chaos.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #183 on: July 03, 2012, 07:51:49 pm »
0

Wait, can you single out the quote of mine where you think I said "ethics don't matter"? That couldn't be further from my actual beliefs.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

dghunter79

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 279
  • Respect: +318
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #184 on: July 03, 2012, 07:53:01 pm »
+5

The doping and speeding analogies illuminate some of the hidden depths of Personman's argument.

Speeding, as was said, is something basically everyone does.  The speed limit is not really enforced unless you're driving way, way over it.  As a result, just about everyone drives a decent ten miles over the speed limit.  As a result, there's a lot of pressure to drive ten miles over the speed limit.  But there's still a rule on the books saying you can't.  But it's not enforced; you can drive ten over right by a police cruiser.  They won't pull you over.  But maybe they will!

Doping is also against the rules, but for a time in the 90s, this rule was not enforced in professional sports.  This created a lot of pressure to violate the rules.  Players saw other players taking performance enhancements, and thus performing better, and they weren't being punished.

If you are caught in the jurisdiction of a rules-system like this, than you are trapped in a sort of double-bind.  The system is constantly sending you conflicting messages: "don't break the rules," and "break the rules."

An ethically designed system of rules actually should, I think, take into account the enforaceabililty of each rule so as to avoid placing its constituents in this double-bind.  If a rule can't be enforced, either because there aren't enough resources or because the rule is by its nature unenforceable, then there's a larger burden in justifying the rule's existence.  The rule should in this case be necessary to protect a larger principle.  That is, a good rule should be principled, or it should be enforceable, or both.  But it can't be both arbitrary and unenforceable.

It was exactly these criteria that were honored in the evolution from Throne Room to King's Court.  The rule that Throne Room <i>must</i> find an action was unenforceable.  And it was arbitrary.  So it was deleted.  King's Court, the newer card, <i>may</i> find an action.

So Personman's argument for changing the rules based on their unenforceability is perfectly valid.  Either he's wrong, and the rules can be enforced, or he's right, and the rule needs to be justified on higher grounds.  That principled justification seems like it's going to be especially challenging if you don't also object to the tepid point-counter that's much more mainstream.

Personman's argument isn't an excuse to violate the rules -- it doesn't make it okay to cheat on your spouse.  But it is part of a good argument for <i>changing</i> the rules.  Or, redefining the terms of the marriage, to Throne Room the marriage metaphor. 

Or, to Throne Room the Throne Room metaphor, Personman's argument doesn't allow that people who cheated with Throne Room weren't cheating.  They were.  But it does hold King's Court to be an ethically superior card.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4371
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #185 on: July 03, 2012, 07:53:35 pm »
0

Wait, can you single out the quote of mine where you think I said "ethics don't matter"? That couldn't be further from my actual beliefs.

I am referring to "it's all just a bunch of atoms moving around, and there's no real moral consistency to anything."

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +440
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #186 on: July 03, 2012, 08:00:06 pm »
+1

tl;dr morals don't matter and screw trust when it comes to games? I couldn't disagree more on both counts. Especially the first count. Which I think you're misreading Donald? (I read that as him being sarcastic).
Remind me to never have anyone of you over to my house, or preferably within a large radius of me, who thinks morality doesn't matter.
Ethics is everything, man. Ethics asks the question, "What should I do?". And if you reject that, you fall entirely into chaos.

While I'm pretty much completely in agreement with you on this particular brouhaha, I'd definitely prefer if we kept this discussion focused on ethics rather than morality.  (I'd be quite happy to have a discussion about the relationship and difference between ethics and morality, actually, but it's probably too much of a tangent for this thread.)
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 08:01:24 pm by chwhite »
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4371
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #187 on: July 03, 2012, 08:02:20 pm »
0

tl;dr morals don't matter and screw trust when it comes to games? I couldn't disagree more on both counts. Especially the first count. Which I think you're misreading Donald? (I read that as him being sarcastic).
Remind me to never have anyone of you over to my house, or preferably within a large radius of me, who thinks morality doesn't matter.
Ethics is everything, man. Ethics asks the question, "What should I do?". And if you reject that, you fall entirely into chaos.

While I'm pretty much completely in agreement with you on this particular brouhaha, I'd definitely prefer if we kept this discussion focused on ethics rather than morality.  (I'd be quite happy to have a discussion about the relationship and difference between ethics and morality, actually, but it's probably too much of a tangent for this thread.)
I was very precise in where I used which.

Edit: but I agree with your main point. It is pretty pointless to speculate whether or not a person has morals, if you are not that person. But I do think that, ethically, one ought to espouse morality.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 08:05:48 pm by WanderingWinder »
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #188 on: July 03, 2012, 08:04:36 pm »
0

Wait, can you single out the quote of mine where you think I said "ethics don't matter"? That couldn't be further from my actual beliefs.

I am referring to "it's all just a bunch of atoms moving around, and there's no real moral consistency to anything."

That was a quote from Donald, which I see now is what you were reading as sarcastic. I don't think it was sarcastic at all, but we'll have to ask him. Or, well, that's not quite right. I think that both Donald and I are moral humans who happen to also believe that our morality is at heart arbitrary and self-chosen.

I don't want to open this can of worms too far, but it may be helpful to know that I am an atheist. I also believe strongly (as it seemed to me Donald was also saying) that atheism is consistent with morality, and that choosing to be moral is a good idea for atheists for a large number of reasons.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1261
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #189 on: July 03, 2012, 08:05:52 pm »
0

I was very precise in where I used which.
Fork request!

I don't know the difference - but will be finding out shortly - and would be interested in any discussions on the subject that aren't focused at a higher level than Personman v. Wanderingwinder - in which I state that I enjoy the point tracker - and am in favor of its use to further greater dominion analysis and strategy, but in which I also find Personman's refusal to disable unsportsmanlike and thus unacceptable.
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1342
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #190 on: July 03, 2012, 08:21:33 pm »
+3

Ah, so this thread will also degenerate into a religious debate now? Why on earth did you have to bring that up, Personman? So am I, does it matter here? I thought we were talking about Dominion and cardcounting aids...

This is why we can't have nice things.   
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #191 on: July 03, 2012, 08:27:20 pm »
+1

No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4371
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #192 on: July 03, 2012, 08:30:39 pm »
0

No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.

My presumption is not based on that premise, but your statement "there's no real moral consistency to anything."

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +440
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #193 on: July 03, 2012, 08:40:44 pm »
0

I was very precise in where I used which.

Edit: but I agree with your main point. It is pretty pointless to speculate whether or not a person has morals, if you are not that person. But I do think that, ethically, one ought to espouse morality.

Interesting.  I must admit it looked to me like you were muddying the waters a bit.  I also think it makes much more sense to say that "I do think that, morally, one ought to espouse ethical behavior". 

We are pretty clearly operating under somewhat different definitions here.  Which is why I wanted to keep things focused on ethics and save the philosophy for another forum (though, as I've said before, I'm glad to talk philosophy in those other fora).
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #194 on: July 03, 2012, 08:43:09 pm »
0

No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.

My presumption is not based on that premise, but your statement "there's no real moral consistency to anything."

I guess, much like explicitly legal things and things you can't be DQ'd for, I see those as the same. If the universe is just a big pile of atoms, how can there be true moral consistency? Only certain clumps of those atoms even feel themselves to have any notion of what "moral" means, and of those such clumps, no two share exactly the same such notion. I certainly think we can try our best and be better off for it, and I do.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4371
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #195 on: July 03, 2012, 08:48:39 pm »
0

Distinction as I have studied it: A moral man does what he thinks is right. An ethical man knows what is in fact right.

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +440
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #196 on: July 03, 2012, 08:52:23 pm »
+1

Distinction as I have studied it: A moral man does what he thinks is right. An ethical man knows what is in fact right.

Aha.  That explains things somewhat.  The distinction as I've always understood it:

Morality is ultimately a function of the individual, ethics is a function of the community/society.
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4371
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #197 on: July 03, 2012, 08:53:45 pm »
0

Distinction as I have studied it: A moral man does what he thinks is right. An ethical man knows what is in fact right.

Aha.  That explains things somewhat.  The distinction as I've always understood it:

Morality is ultimately a function of the individual, ethics is a function of the community/society.
Your definition of ethics inherently rejects the possibility of an objective ethical code, a rejection which I reject.

Edit: I should say, the definition that you give here, rather than 'your definition'.

verikt

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 272
  • Respect: +65
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #198 on: July 03, 2012, 09:12:19 pm »
0

I find this interesting. But can we split this into two, or maybe 3 threads? If we could move the philosophy part to general discussion I'd be glad to join. Then have this thread be about either the point counter extension or tournament etiquette.
Logged

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +440
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #199 on: July 03, 2012, 09:49:36 pm »
+1

Distinction as I have studied it: A moral man does what he thinks is right. An ethical man knows what is in fact right.

Aha.  That explains things somewhat.  The distinction as I've always understood it:

Morality is ultimately a function of the individual, ethics is a function of the community/society.
Your definition of ethics inherently rejects the possibility of an objective ethical code, a rejection which I reject.

Edit: I should say, the definition that you give here, rather than 'your definition'.

Well, I consider ethics to be objective.  Granted, I am using "objective" in the more limited pragmatic sense, rather than the Platonic one, which I find to be at its core unintelligible.  Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 18  All
 

Page created in 0.084 seconds with 21 queries.