quote: Original post by snak_attack
There''s an interesting philosophical question in here that has only been touched on. My apologies for the digression. How is ethics/morality affected when simulation is involved? Imagine a scenario where technology can provide you with very convincing replicas of other humans, whether through VR or robotics. Say there''s a group of people who really hates some ethnic group, people from Atlantis. If they aquire a bunch of simulated atlantians, then do horrible things to them, what do the laws of ethics & morality have to say? Legally, the simulations are not humans, therefore no law has been broken. But if the simulations reach the point where at some level they *really* seem human, and the perpetrators do the act thinking of the simulations as actual atlantans (though not decieved), I think at some level the perpetrators have still committed a condemnable act. To relate it to the original post, does the fact that the character was actually an android really excuse the criminality of the act? (To simplify the argument further, assume that the simulated atlantians aren''t actually intelligent, or concious, so we don''t have to argue whether they have rights of their own)

I didn''t read the book, but they touch lightly on that in the Minority Report movie. Anybody read the book?

If a publisher doesn't want sexually explicit material in their game because it will turn off the audience, that is not censorship. Censorship is when the power of the government is used to force a creator (and lets not kid around, ultimately all government power is backed up by the threat of violence) to change his work or not to distribute it at all. It's okay to use violence to stop a bank robber, or rapist, or a murderer. It's not okay to use violence to stop non-violent creators from distributing their work, no matter how objectionable the content.

Beat monsters to death with a lollypop.
www.happybigfun.com

[edited by - Prometheus666 on March 29, 2003 5:20:07 AM]

quote: Original post by smiley4
It''s like asking, "if you kill someone in a dream, does that make you a murderer or do you just have murderous tendidcies?"

Not really. You don''t have control over your actions in a non-lucid dream. In the simulation described, the people involved did have control over their actions.

well, does anyone here think they should get in trouble for thinking in there head that "this meeting is stupid", "my manager doesn''t have a clue", or "the 2 new guys are morons" ...

but now, does anyone here think you should maybe be repremanded for saying around your coworkers "the 2 new guys are morons". And you understand that telling someone the are stupid or don''t have a clue would make them upset?

Fundamentally, we just cannot and should not connect thought and deed. Learning to be nice / polite / tolerable isn''t about chaning the internal brain to recognize and destory negative thoughts before they occur ... it''s about deciding what we allow ourselves to do and say ...

I think killing a too realistic simulation can be harmful to the person doing it.

Also, there''s the question of how realistic a simulation of a human needs to be before it earns basic human rights.

What was the topic again?

I remember a Ray Bradbury story about the "crime" of killing an android. Anyone remember the title? The guy went to a service that built an android of his cheating wife so that he could kill it and feel like he had punished the wife. He was arrested, tried and executed for murder.

Considering that video games are nothing but images anyway, I''d say that the depiction of violence or sex is as far as it can possibly go. Neurologically, sex and violence are extremely similar, even indistinguishable at times. The scene described in the first post has definite erotic overtones, especially when it''s considered within the paradigm of anime.

It''s a tough call to make, and I don''t envy the people who have to decide what stays and what goes, but taking the path of least resistance just because it is least likely to offend people is not the solution. Moral, social, and artistic integrity must be maintained, and sometimes the best balance is way at one side of the continuum.

quote: Original post by Xai
Oluseyi, just wanted to point one of your contradictions back at you (out of respect for the dificulty of this topic, I mean no personal attack).

None taken.

quote: Now to the contradiction ... you seem to believe in keeping the thought and the deed completely seperate legally, you seem to be against mind control and social engineering, and yet you believe in censorship.

Failings of the English language. I think censorship covers way too many things, from the kind of oppressive government "censors" reading and blacking out personal mail (which I would never support in any form) to the decision by publishers and distributors not to broadcast or make available certain material because it is unpalatable to a significant proportion of their customer base and thus bad for business (which I completely support).

To put it in the most unambiguous manner possible, I don''t support censorship. I support the classification of material as inappropriate for people falling into various categories (most commonly stratified by age) and the prohibition of distribution of material to persons unqualified to consume by said stratifications. I support ratings and their legal enforcement, but I contend that the ratings and classification should be done by non-governmental, non-political (as much as possible) bodies for maximum objectivity.

I think that clears things up.

quote: ...(I actually do not know where you are from ... so I appologize if I have assumed incorectly)...

Ich bin Amerikaner, und aus Nigerianer.

I have dual citizenship by virtue of the fact that my parents are Nigerians, but I was born in Ithaca, NY. And I love and support both countries, come hell or high water.

Edited for unnecessary flaming, thread necromancy, and general dumbassery.


[edited by - Sandman on August 12, 2003 1:56:24 PM]

I''ve seen that scene in Xenosaga, both censored and uncensored (plus you can either go on kazaa and search or go to zenosaga.com). It''s not like the uncensored version was that more shocking, and considering that the guy who sticks his hand in the young artificial human (not androidal) girl also cuts off his own hand and head before he does that stomach probing, it''s not all that shocking to me. I think the scene was edited so that the game could get a T rating and therefore more potential sales. It''s not like it was all that shocking to me, since there was some important story-related meaning to it. It''s more disgusting when sex and violence in games has little relevance than to get the male demographic target audience drawn in.

That's a probleme with the girl :
I think that all the scenes (and quests) involving children in FALLOUT 2 were censored in Europa.

------------------------
- Seby -
www.dfhi-bomber.fr.st

[edited by - theSeby on August 12, 2003 7:31:13 AM]