From: ghudson@athena.mit.edu (Greg Hudson)
Subject: The society analogy and rights (Was: Re: Essay Time for Felix)
Keywords: right wrong left ethics schmethics
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 12:24:38 GMT

jgm@ais.org (jim miller), <C1A2py.4ou@ais.org>:
> In particular, you [Felix] cite that mud players do not have
> "rights" guaranteed to them.  Compare this situation to that of the
> blacks in South Africa.

jgm@ais.org (jim miller), <C1Atys.BvE@ais.org>:
> Trivializing muds to D&D games has been shown to be hazardous to
> your health.  You haven't been around the block yet, son.

I really can't help but find it amusing to see a proponent of the
society analogy sniping at other people's comparisons.  There is a
particularly good reason why people's grievances against societies and
governments should be taken more seriously than mud players'
complaints: you can't decide you don't want to play in society.  I
can't just decide that I don't like this North America game,
disconnect and reconnect to the Swedish society server.

Another failing of the society analogy, in this particular case, is
that it is impossible to set up a situation where mud users and mud
administrators share power without changing the basic framework of the
ownership system.  As long as administrators still control the
machines servers run on, they will have no means by which to abdicate
any power; they can only delegate authority while retaining the
ability to take it back at any time.  In South Africa, on the other
hand, it's quite possible to imagine an end situation where blacks and
whites share power in a meaningful way.

I don't see any reason to compare muds to any other situation.  Such
comparisons will always fail, I think, because different people think
of muds in very different ways, and quite a few of us think of it in
different ways at different times.  We're much better off taking
people's perceptions of muds as they are.  Remember: analogies can
have force as emotional appeals, and they can illustrate an argument,
but they can't prove anything by themselves.

jgm@ais.org (jim miller), <C1Atys.BvE@ais.org>:
> You're treading well-beaten ground.

Amusing how statements like this turn up, even in discussions of this
nature.  I'm afraid there's little being said in this argument that
hasn't been said before, Jim.

I think the majority of the argument can be split up into two parts:
first, there is the matter of Ken's objective approach and Felix's
subjective approach to ethics.  That can't be resolved, although Ken's
apparent unwillingness to resort to theological arguments makes it
tougher for him.  Second, there are the semantics of a "right":

jgm@ais.org (jim miller), <C1Atys.BvE@ais.org>:
> People have a right to be treated decently, whether it's in their
> own home, the shopping mall, the neighbor's house, or even, gasp,
> the program of a would-be autocrat running on a computer port.

I personally don't like using the word "right" to refer to any outside
condition except governmental suppression.  That is, I think rights
which limit governing bodies--in society, not on muds--are on a
completely different level than such claims as a "right to health
care"--which in my view is essentially looking for a government or
other form of societal handout.  Some claims are on the borderline:
the "right to privacy", if it refers to a right not to have government
poking into your personal life, is asking for governmental restraint.
On the other hand, if it refers to a right not to have anyone poking
into your personal life, it's asking for a guarantee.

I will state a priori that I will consider any comparison between
"government" and "mud administration" with regard to the above
paragraph to be silly.

Now, let's turn to "People have a right to be treated decently."  This
is a whole new breed of cat.  Apparently, when Sherrian neglects to
change the litter box for a week or so, my rights are being violated.
I never thought of it that way before.  This "right" isn't just asking
for a guarantee; it's asking for a highly improbable guarantee.  Not
only can the government (or a mud aministrator, for that matter) not
guarantee that you will be treated decently, but nobody can guarantee
that they personally are treating you decently, because none of us are
perfect.

You can use the word "right" in any context you feel like, of
course--but the more unreasonable you make your claims to "rights",
the less likely people are to take them seriously.

jgm@ais.org (jim miller), <C1B6w1.EDv@ais.org>:
> And btw, my original article in this thread was a challenge to Felix
> to follow up on some of his chains of reasoning which have become
> quite involved over a long series of articles, not an invitation for
> you to take us back to square one with your indignant sputtering.

Usenet is not your private mailbox, Jim.  Please don't try to exclude
people from conversations.

--Greg

Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny,alt.angst,alt.romance,soc.women