Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

He was the little gnome that changed straw into gold for a young woman in exchange for her first born child, unless she could guess his name.

No point in arguing. Since we have university professors of English in this forum, I am sure we are doing just fine. After all, I think most of us need to be picked up on our grammer using Sarcasm, rudeness & general antipathy towards the poster. (Ie: forget the grammer 'problem' and think of the content... But you can't I am sure!)

Cheers R&ian..

BTW: I thought americans sucked at sarcasm?? (I would guess that that is correct still, LOL!)

It's no ones place to say what I can't play or watch. Just like it's no ones place to make you play or watch something you don't want to. That's why you have the choice to not buy or watch movies/games that are violent or in anyway offencive to you. And if anyone has a problem with them being on sale... You don't have to buy them so deal with it.

I thought none of the people would ever hear it this is what needs to be said to all the people trying to censor television you freaking don't have to watch it and guess what guys your TV has a V chip they all have since 1995(?) can't remeber the exact year thay started that

seems to be beyond you. I made it very clear that I credit my parents with appropriate use of physical discipline, which was legal then and would not be now. You have been basing your responses on the opposite conclusion, and have been correct in no subsequent reference to anything that I have posted so far.

Try to steer clear of polygraph machines.

"not governed by or according to reason".

The case of a raped 12-year-old does not impeach the parents of the pregnant girl, I agree. But rape was not the original premise of this offshoot discussion, so can we first address the case of pregnancy through consensual sex, since it is more often the cause of pregnancy?

This side-track began when it was suggested that the parents of a pregnant 12-year-old have a moral right that government should recognize and enforce, to decide for that 12-year-old whether to give birth or have an abortion. That is the issue I find ridiculous, not the underlying notion that 12-year-olds need parental guidance, instead of condoms and abortions-to-order as if it were McDonald's. I don't mean to dismiss the rape scenario or to suggest that rape is trivial, but it is not the norm, and the norm should not be governed by the worst-case scenario, although law ought to recognize its occasional occurrence and be prepared to accomodate it when it happens. I think that is what reason requires.

"This side-track began when it was suggested that the parents of a pregnant 12-year-old have a moral right that government should recognize and enforce, to decide for that 12-year-old whether to give birth or have an abortion."

The government cares squat about morals per se, the parents have a "legal" right to determine what is in the best interest of their child, unless and until the child either reaches majority or that right is removed by due process. Several learned jurists have commented on exactly this issue over the last century, and this right has been upheld every time it has been challenged, the Court repeatedly applying "strict scrutiny" to whether to remove that right.

You or I might not agree that a particular parent is doing right by their child, but unless you can "prove" that the parents' decision would be harmful to the child, it should be the parent's decision. I mean, you or I may thing every good parent should send their child to college, but would you actually suggest we remove the parental rights of those parents who can't or don't?

"I don't mean to dismiss the rape scenario or to suggest that rape is trivial, but it is not the norm, and the norm should not be governed by the worst-case scenario, although law ought to recognize its occasional occurrence and be prepared to accomodate it when it happens. I think that is what reason requires."

I agree, however, the legislature is seldom reasonable in these matters. Most laws are their response to the worst case.

"The government cares squat about morals per se"

Perhaps. The government is still answerable to us, the people, occasionally, although I'd go for more decisions by referendum and fewer paid "public servants". Still, we have ways of giving input.

College...I could write a book, but not on this string.

"I agree, however, the legislature is seldom reasonable in these matters. Most laws are their response to the worst case."

There are enough pragmatists in DC making problems. I propose we drop the assumption that the present state of affairs is the only possible way things could be, and discuss the best possible ways of dealing with human nature as we all know it to be. "Imperfect", yet not without intrinsic virtue.

only shows if you are lieing, not if you are correct or not.

While I am sometimes wrong (or so they tell me) it is never a lie.

Don't tell me that I now have to pass a polygraph and quote 5 sources to prove myself.

two words: kangaroo court

I'm going socialist. This two party system sucks.

Kantians and deontologists demand that programmers have a moral obligation (defined differemntly by each) to accept responsibility for the use of their product. The original questioner postulate that this is similar to the rewsponsibility of the car manufacturer.

If so (and I do not accept that postulate), then the programmer is NOT repsonsible for the consequent use of his product, but merely its intended and designed use. A car manufacturer, gun manufacturer, liquor distiller has NO responsibilty, legal or moral, for the improper use of its product. If I get drunk, load my pistol and drive off in my car, none of the manufacturers has ANY repsonsibilty for the resulting crash in which my car crashes into a pole, the gun discharges, striking the pesticide container, spilling its contents into your drinking water.

NONE of the manufacturers has any responsibility if I use the car. the gun, the liquor or the pesticides in a manner not intended, nor do they have any resposnibility if possession of these products incites me to violence (or to indolence for that matter).
The free speech argument is , however, equally fallacious. "Free speech" is a Western tradition, not shared by all cultures and certainly not by all governments. This shibboleth has no meaning in virtue ethics.

Polygraph machines don't work if under the influince of Guiness so your good! Drink up and quit whinning about stuff that doesn't matter anyways!

Jager bombs all around!

if you're gonna feed me Jaegermeister, make sure you have Brass Monkey for me to chase it with.

Even though my ancestry is mostly German, me and ole Jaeger don't get along. Or at least, it makes me REALLY hard to get along with.

You're right...more Guinness for me. It keeps me happy and my ancestors too :)

THe "best possible way" is only someone's opinion.

12 year olds are usually not the best people to make these decisions for themselves (16 year olds, however, are often wiser than their parents, and are often "emancipated" for such reasons, giving them nearly all the rights of an adult), nor are most of them ready to handle the consequences of THEIR decision (meaning that if someone else makes it for them, the burden of responsibility is less).

An abortion might be the best answer, as well, giving birth might. It depends on the child. Could be that the baby would actually motivate the child to improve her lot (I have seen one such, though 14, not 12 at the time... 26 now with 11 year-old twins and makes more than I do), but there are too many variables and the faceless social services case worker is almost never going to get it right. Keep government involvement to a minimum, they always muck it up.

One the basis of our society is Ethics (Understood as deontology when applied to the professional practice. If we, as members of our society, do accept the development of harmful material for our children and young people, we would not be acting in a responsable way. They are the future!!!. Let's care about them, our future.

If you take kids to see a "rocky" movie, lot of them come out boxing each other. Same for a karate movie.

My boys are we behaved and I am told this all the time (so it isn't JUST my bias). I have had to take some games away because they would tend to go after each other more after certain games.

If a kid listens to "music" with crude language, will they be unaffected or will they start to talk in a similar way?

And yes, the age of the child does make a difference, but would you have let your child at a "pretty young" age watch the more violent movies of today? How about the ones with "strong sexual" warnings?

Why is this even a religious question? Do non-Christians sit and watch porn with their children? No. (at least I hope not) So if they wouldn't then it isn't a religious issue anymore.

I think the main thing is just make it so a child has to go through their parents to purchase the game/video and let the parents step up and be responsible for raising their kids.

In Europe games are regulated by the The Pan European Games Information (PEGI) www.pegi.info and those little symbols they put on the cases of games help the consumer to decide for themselves whether they think this game is going to be suitable for them or if they feel they may be offended/disgusted by any of it.
I dont know what they have in America or other parts of the world but in Europe this system works well.

I believe a Games Developer is only their to do exactly what his title states, Develop Games, whether those games are published is up to the publishers like Electronic Arts to decide, and whether is sells well or not is ultimately up to the customer who can use the little symbols and the information on the case to decide whether to buy it or not.

I dont believe computer games need to be regulated anymore than they are allready, in Europe atleast, and i dont think any blaim can be placed on a games developer because it is ultimately the consumers choice whether to play the game or not just as it is when going to see a movie.

I am partially biased on this subject because i am studying to become a games developer myself but my feelings on this issue about violence and so on in games were the same before i even considered becoming a games developer.

Kind Regards,
Rob Spurr

Here is my take on your question and why things are the way the are with the stereotypical view you speak of.

I would completely agree that people can be fiscally conservative, believe a strong military and not be socially conservative. However, that being said. Most liberals who group folks that believe in God as Socially Conservative and those who do not, as liberal, actually make sense in a way. Here is the reasoning. Morals that come from an Absolute or a Sovereign God as commandments given to man, gives a compelling reason to obey those commands. Without consequence, Morals and Ethics (yes, they are very different) become simply a matter of personal preference. Once something is personal preference and there is no consequence (at least in the persons mind) then there is simply no reason for ethics. You might as well, get all that you can get, because once you die, its over. I believe that is the fundamental reason that most people associate, Judeo-Christian ethics with Social conservatism. Now, I am not saying that Atheist can't place on themselves personal preferences on social issues. But lets be clear, that is ALL they are, personal preferences. Which mean, they can change or be omitted at any point, without cause or reason. Yes, very convenient, but how would you build an ethical society on something that is merely someone?s idea at any given time. Here is an excellent essay written by a former Atheist that goes into much more detail. (if your interested) I would encourage you to read it with the open mind that "Progressive Thinkers" claim to cherish and boast that Christians lack.

http://www.chaim.org/atheist.htm

I would agree that the assumption that a person has to believe in God to with some of the common conservative talking points, like Fiscal, Government, Military, education, is absurd.

Sincerely,

David
http://vanight.blogspot.com