[MUD-Dev] Our player's keepers? (long)

[Lee Sheldon]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu
> [mailto:mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu]On Behalf Of
> Matthew Mihaly
> Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2000 9:22 PM
> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject: RE: [MUD-Dev] Our player's keepers? (long)

> I really think this thread is pointless. Ethics and morality are
> completely subjective (something many posters seem to forget in their
> eagerness to impose their particular ethics or morality on the rest of
> us), and so this discussion becomes utterly useless. You
> believe you know
> better than your customers what they want and what is good for them.
> That's fine. Maybe you do. I am not that enlightened and if
> someone wants
> to do something that looks very stupid to me, well, if it
> benefits me, I'm
> not going to stop him or her. Perhaps he or she has reasons
> I'm not aware
> of or am unable to appreciate.

I tried to stay out of this discussion.  I really did.  But I think an
important distinction must be made, and you're welcome to blame my
subjective ethics for even thinking a distinction should be made. :)

There is a profound difference between arguing the merits of the ethical
systems we live by, and coming to the conclusion that we should live by...
something...

To say that you sit back and do nothing, if something you create has a
negative influence on another human being is to opt out of responsibility
for your actions.  It is easy to do.  It is attractive.  But it is not a
loyal opposition to someone else's more restrictive system.  It is amoral.
It is the definition of amorality.  Note I'm not making a value judgement in
that point.  That is a -different- discussion.

Every social interaction we conduct as human beings carries responsibility.
Whether it is moral (saving a single life) or immoral (genocide), or any of
the more common interactions in between.  Again, no value judgements
intended.  Whether I think genocide is a good solution to anything or not is
irrelevant.

But the fact is we have a responsibility.  And if we pick the right or wrong
direction, something (wealth/bankruptcy, role model/jail, the
accolades/condemnation of history) will come along to slap us with the
consequences.

The average individual will never have a chance to interact with more than a
relative handful of the rest of humanity.  The average individual remains in
one contained geographic and cultural location for a lifetime.  (No,
internet users, are -not- average individuals yet).

But we as creators of content, entertainment, whatever... we have a greater
responsibility because we -can- interact with hundreds,
thousands, -millions- of people.  My top number remains 60 million who
experienced something I created.  I will never achieve that again in my
lifetime, although at the time I took it for granted.  I wish I hadn't.  I
wish I'd done better.

Amorality for us therefore is an extreme luxury.  We have chosen a path, as
creators, that imposes greater responsibility on us.  The fact that a great
number of creators opt out of the responsibility doesn't in any way, shape
or form absolve them from facing the consequences either from their own
private demons, or the public at large.  Nor does it make opting out a
worthy choice for the rest of us.  If it is only a single voice crying in
the wilderness of mass media, that voice must be heard.  We need to hear it.

Therefore, this discussion, one I've seen in a variety of media over many
many years, -can't- be "pointless" or "utterly useless."  We can deny the
need for taking responsibility.  We can embrace amorality.  But the
consequences are waiting regardless.  Particular ethics or morality aside,
deny it or not, it is simply an immutable fact of culture and history.

Lee




_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev