From: jgm@ais.org (jim miller)
Subject: Essay Time for Felix  (Was: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights)
Organization: Ann Arbor Information Society -- Toledo Annex
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:03:31 GMT


rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org (Felix) writes:

>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>
>>Indeed, showing that Felix's arguments against ethics on muds also "prove"
>>that apartheid is not wrong as long as the whites get away with it, is
>>unlikely to convince Felix.
>
>There are some extremely serious things wrong with Ken's sentence, above.
>
>1) I am not arguing against ethics on muds.  I am arguing that there are no
>rights guaranteed to players on muds, and also that there are no such things
>as 'objective ethics' in which one possesses 'rights' even though the
>possession of those rights means less than a hill of beans to anyone else.
>
>2) I believe that apartheid is wrong.  I believe that apartheid is morally
>unethical.  I do not believe that blacks have rights under apartheid, because
>that's what apartheid's all about -- denying privileges to the other guys.
>Rights are what the oppressed in South Africa *are trying to get*.

I think we almost got ya there, Felix.  Ignore the word "rights" for a
minute.  Based on your paragraph 2 above, it seems like you believe
that there is some basic human privilege, or entitlement, or need,
that the blacks in South Africa deserve, but are not getting.  They
don't have the *power* to get it right now, but they deserve it
nonetheless.

1.  Explain the substantive difference between the elusive "it"
    the blacks in South Africa don't have, and the lofty, muddle-
    headed "rights" that Ken and I go on about but in which there's
    no point because it's just a silly abstraction unless there's
    someone with a sharp stick present to dole them out.  In
    particular, what is your basis for your belief that apartheid
    is "morally unethical", and what is the difference between
    that basis and the brand of pointless abstraction that Ken
    'n' Friends are apt to bandy about in this forum with such
    distressing singlemindedness?

2.  You now say that you are not against ethics on muds.  Why
    is the project of trying to improve ethics on muds a target
    of your ridicule?  In particular, you cite that mud players
    do not have "rights" guaranteed to them.  Compare this situation
    to that of the blacks in South Africa.  They do not have
    "rights", in your sense, and they, just like mud players, often
    suffer mistreatment within their respective domains.  But
    apparently it *is* desirable to improve the situation for
    South African blacks.  Would you balk at doing so because,
    at some relief conference, it was consistently asserted that
    these blacks have *rights*?  But they don't.  Or do they?


Papers are due in by Saturday at noon.  As always, neatness counts.


-- 
"Consider a lion, sneaking up to rip an innocent gazelle into shreds.  Is
this morally wrong, should the gazelle get a fighting chance, should we
step in and declare that gazelles have rights too?  Of course not."
                      - Felix Gallo, on why mud users don't have rights
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny