[Morgoth]

Adjutant Stormy~, on 30 April 2013 - 04:21 AM, said:

If you're mad about some part of bronies, see here.

Feminism is about a neutrality in gender, ultimately. And I think it's important to stop selecting the gender-related issues we feel comfortable fighting, and fight the rest.

This argument is such a trite piece of nonsense, and I can't count the amount of times it rears its acne ridden head in discussions on feminism. Chosing which battles we want to fight is not a negative thing. Picking specific issues that we care about, rather than all issues within the field in no way limits the value or importance of that issue.

Some issues interests me more than others. Trying to criticise me for not also focusing more on some other, related issue is absurd, and seems to me more an attempt to find a reason to dismiss an uncomfortable topic.

[Morgoth]

Adjutant Stormy~, on 29 April 2013 - 11:39 PM, said:

If misogyny is important to the artistic vision of the videogame, let it be.

Incidentally, this has hardly been a central point of the discussion so far. Of course Bioshock Infinite is fine. Have there been anyone in this thread arguing against Bioshock, or similar games?

Or for that matter, has there been some sort of media backlash against Bioshock? I certainly haven't seen anything. Sure, I imagine you'll find blogs here and there arguing for that sort of thing. You can find a blogs supporting any and all points of view, but those are hardly relevant.

[Kanese S's]

I don't think there's anything wrong with choosing which issues you're going to direct your efforts to. Choosing which thing that upsets you to take a stand on is actually somewhat necessary at times.

If I chose to speak out on every single thing that came up that bothered me, I would be arguing with people pretty much every waking hour. If I chose to put my energy into trying to fix every single thing that I view as broken, I would have no time to do anything else. And even then, I would fail.

[Studlock]

Honestly I think it's absurd that people try to focus on all aspects of a particular problem. Feminism is so multifaceted and large and it would hardly be efficient to focus on all of it. It would be either be a shallow attempt or it would force feminism into a very narrow viewpoint. I'd rather have many feminist POV, even extremist ones, than a very narrowed one.

Also I ask this in all seriousness when is it ok to put the rights of an artist over the rights of a woman? Or other oppressed group? I always see this defense when is comes to racism and sexism in fiction -'it's art, they should be able to express themselves because art man, and freedom of speech man'. I'm all for artistic expression, indeed I think it's one of the fundamental and uniting parts of the human condition, but when we start brushing off women complaints that the feel mistreated or abused in some way to protect (usually male) the right of the artists we're doing something wrong. I'd even argue that it stops being art at that point a piece of social propaganda for groups that hold power. I've yet to see a game that handles gender and sex in any serious and mature way while being the focus of the narrative (and also at glances) but I might just be playing the wrong games.

[Morgoth]

Criticism and sensorship is not the same.

[Kanese S's]

As Morgoth says, criticism isn't censorship.

Sure, freedom of speech allows you to express whatever you want (with a few limitations), in art, video games, other media, etc. However, that same freedom of speech allows whoever has an issue with it to tear it (and you) to shreds, verbally and in writing. You can't have one without the other.

[amphibian]

Studlock, on 30 April 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

Also I ask this in all seriousness when is it ok to put the rights of an artist over the rights of a woman? Or other oppressed group?

That's a very tough question to ask.

I'd put the "No, you absolutely should not be doing that" line at the point where the "artistic expression" is inciting direct violence or propagating a method of enacting such violence (putting bomb schematics in or telling people to go kill members of a minority group). I'd put another "Would not buy and really would not like my tax dollars or donated money supporting this" line at something extolling a hateful philosophy, sexual assault-porn and a few other things.

The lines are not clear demarcations and the "would not buy" thing extends pretty far for me. I've not bought a titsploitation or jingoistic/exclusionary shooter game or movie perhaps ever.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Studlock, on 30 April 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

Also I ask this in all seriousness when is it ok to put the rights of an artist over the rights of a woman?

When the rights of the artist do not conflict with the rights of a woman. An Artist can choose his content, he even chooses his trade. You don't choose your gender.

[Silencer]

BalrogLord, on 01 May 2013 - 01:01 AM, said:

Studlock, on 30 April 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

Also I ask this in all seriousness when is it ok to put the rights of an artist over the rights of a woman?

When the rights of the artist do not conflict with the rights of a woman. An Artist can choose his content, he even chooses his trade. You don't choose your gender.

Easy answer, difficult to prove where that line is in practice, though. Let's take the use of the words "rights" seriously and put this under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a broad-base, applies-to-all sort of thing.

The parts we're interested are, I believe the following articles:

Quote

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

vs

Quote

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.


Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.


Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.


Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

So you see, fundamentally, the UDHR is against your position. It says, without reservation, that anyone can express any opinion without restraint. It also says that nobody shall be subjected to degrading treatment, that everyone has a right to the security of their person, and that all are entitled to equal protection against discrimination in violation of the declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.


The question is, are people willing to break Article 19 in order to enforce Article 7? And what, precisely, counts as incitement?

One could argue that, in the form of art such as a video game or other entertainment medium - where the product is understood to be such, and not just a shell to push the incitement - any and all things that could be considered "incitement" are fictional and not intended to reflect reality. The same way that it is not a breach of the UDHR to shoot a virtual person, it is not a breach of the UDHR to portray, or even to ask the player to enact, acts of discrimination upon ANY person - whether that person is a woman, a man, of a minority ethnic group, whatever. The same law for all. It doesn't apply here because you are playing/reading/watching a work of fiction.

In other words, if it is, to borrow the meme, "FOR ART!", then it is fair game. If it is clearly intended to have real-world consequences? Then it breaches Article 7 of the UDHR and is a violation of some party's human rights.

There really isn't any other concrete way to work this out. And the UDHR is pretty clear that freedom of expression shall not be infringed. There's a reason for that. Fundamentally, it is that freedom of expression which ALLOWS people - all people, not "just" women or "just" minorities - to say what they do or do not like. It is that freedom which allows the transmission of ideas and concepts - concepts like feminism, the abolition of slavery, the rights of homosexual couples to marry, and so forth - and in that sense trying to censor transmission of those ideas is probably the greatest crime against humanity one can easily commit without inflicting physical suffering on the world directly.


At the end of the day, you're asking the wrong question, imo. It's not "When is it OK to put the rights of an artist over the rights of a woman?" - that makes some atrocious assumptions, btw - it is "how can art infringe on the rights of another human being?". And the answer is clear; when it is no longer art...when it is no longer an artistic expression...but when it becomes media designed to influence the thoughts of those consuming it, with the intent to incite discrimination. What game intends this? And what game merely is artistic expression? That's the real battle, if you want to bring rights into it...

In short, as others have said; there is a difference between criticism and censorship. Censorship is EVIL* and WRONG*, no matter what opinion you're trying to censor. Criticism is the correct response to opinions you disagree with.
*I use these terms with the assumption that they reflect the current societal morality not necessarily any actual "evil" or "wrongness", given my firm stance as a cultural relativist.

[amphibian]

I don't think censorship is always evil or wrong. There are some situations where the removal of a truly bad or evil opinion or post raise the general level of discourse over time to a noticeable and much higher level than existed before - which is essentially the argument for moderation (as in moderators).

[Silencer]

amphibian, on 01 May 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

I don't think censorship is always evil or wrong. There are some situations where the removal of a truly bad or evil opinion or post raise the general level of discourse over time to a noticeable and much higher level than existed before - which is essentially the argument for moderation (as in moderators).

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, admittedly, though generally speaking censorship is considered a moral wrong because it forcefully infringes upon a person's freedom of expression. The argument to moderators is actually found in the "Tyranny" part of our Benevolent Tyranny.

However, point taken. Though I add the caveat that actually, the ideal of forums, or indeed any platform for idea sharing, is that moderation not be required. In an ideal world I get to sit here and flick switches and never moderate a single post - because people don't get upset over someone espousing some unpalatable opinion, they criticise the opinion and have a debate over it. Indeed, while we generally do moderate for hate-speech (see the caveat about incitement of discrimination...) and generally just keeping good manners (attack the post, not the poster, don't troll/flame, etc), it is more often the case that we step in when people are just going round in circles arguing "but I'm right!" - which is not about censorship of the opinion but about kicking the discussion into either new and better arguments (thereby raising the level of discourse) or by getting people to stop wasting time and arguing rather than talking (again, that's not really about the content).

So...really, what I'm saying, is that hopefully we see criticism triumph long before we have to consider censorship.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Silencer, on 01 May 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

Easy answer, difficult to prove where that line is in practice, though. Let's take the use of the words "rights" seriously and put this under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a broad-base, applies-to-all sort of thing.

snip

Rather then dogmatically reffering to the UDHR (which is a fine piece of legislation im sure) let's look at it from other view points

There's the utilitarian criterion, notwithstanding the utilitarian calculator is impossible to use, but looking at it from the perspective of the utility gained from watching this kind of stuff vs the negative impacts of reinforcing negative gender stereotypes. Pretty sure your dis-utility would be greater.

Sartre's freedom: by reinforcing negative stereotypes you are reducing the freedom of others. Therefore don't do it. (negative stereotype, affects relationships, women perceived as objects etc...)

CI: Pretty sure women don't like being portrayed like that. .

So i'd be inclined to say that we shouldn't be doing this sort of thing. Since we have several ethical criterions all saying the same thing well i think there's a definite issue here.

On a more practical level, freedom of speech is important, but it isn't sacrosanct, and it shouldn't be regarded as such. Freedom of speech helps ensure the functioning of a democratic society, which ultimately benefits the majority (utilitarianism another words), but there comes a point when freedom of speech doesn't help a whole Lotta people. Those westboro baptists camping out the funeral processions of dead soldiers, the spreading of hate based propaganda etc..., and encouraging negative behaviors. Now should this be censored? i'd say no because of the terrible precedent it would set, in short it's the practicality of such an act as well as the ramifications of those acts that outweigh the benefits. Vote with your wallet is the practical course of action to take. Perhaps even a boycott if such could be done.

[Silencer]

BalrogLord, on 01 May 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

Silencer, on 01 May 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

Easy answer, difficult to prove where that line is in practice, though. Let's take the use of the words "rights" seriously and put this under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a broad-base, applies-to-all sort of thing.

snip

Rather then dogmatically reffering to the UDHR (which is a fine piece of legislation im sure) let's look at it from other view points

All fine and dandy, BL, but I believe the specific wording Studlock used was "rights". Not "morality", not "ethics", and not "philosophy". He clearly and specifically stated "rights". I.e. those things which have been enshrined in legislation as belonging to a person by virtue of their existence upon this planet, in order to protect them from the machinations of others. So bring up these wonderful(ly outdated) philosophers as a separate point by all means - but you, good sir, just committed the Red Herring Fallacy. Thanks for playing.

Quote

There's the utilitarian criterion, notwithstanding the utilitarian calculator is impossible to use, but looking at it from the perspective of the utility gained from watching this kind of stuff vs the negative impacts of reinforcing negative gender stereotypes. Pretty sure your dis-utility would be greater.

Only if one looks at it from a surface level. Go a bit deeper and consider the validity of positive utility coming from people being able to analyse, reflect upon, and seek out new meanings or positions from the offerings of others! I also contend that the dis-utility of *censoring* artists, especially, say, those working on historical or thought-experimental settings, is vastly greater than any perceived reinforcement of negative stereotypes - bear in mind that the world today (at least publicly) openly decries these practices in reality. Where does the reinforcement of (mostly decried) stereotypical depictions, let alone depictions which are stereotypical in nature but clearly deemed unwelcome by the work itself, gain so much power as to fight against the weight of public opinion on the balance of things?
If people are being reinforced by these stereotypes, I contend that it is unlikely that the problem is with the reinforcement, but rather with the people who hold these opinions - something which is considered to be a fundamental human right for them to hold, regardless of how unpalatable it may be to everyone else.

And let me not forget to point out that the real fundamental flaw in the case for utilitarianism is not in the infeasibly complicated calculus - that's the practical concern - but rather in the inability for society as a whole to agree on what specifically increases or decreases utility, or indeed to what utility is most important!

Quote

Sartre's freedom: by reinforcing negative stereotypes you are reducing the freedom of others. Therefore don't do it. (negative stereotype, affects relationships, women perceived as objects etc...)

By restricting creative expressionism you are reducing the freedom of others; therefore don't do it. (Did Sartre ever come up with a simple method to resolve such conflicts? I can't recall...)

Quote

CI: Pretty sure women don't like being portrayed like that. .

Which is almost as bad as presuming that because *most* people don't want to be prostitutes, no-one should be able to - a classic sticking point for "extremist" feminists vs...several different groups. Or that voluntary euthanasia should not be permitted because one cannot conceive of a situation where a rational individual would wish to waive their (unreasonably) inalienable Right to Life (notwithstanding other arguments against it, of course, but just pointing out that this one is flawed). Or indeed, that we should never portray anything as being negative, ever, because that's just mean. >.> Wow, why don't we just wipe out the entertainment industry altogether while we're at it!?

Quote

So i'd be inclined to say that we shouldn't be doing this sort of thing. Since we have several ethical criterions all saying the same thing well i think there's a definite issue here.

Several very flawed, not widely adopted, let alone universal ethical criteria which have little relevance to our day-to-day decision making. This almost falls under a fallacious Appeal to Authority, doesn't it?

Quote

On a more practical level, freedom of speech is important, but it isn't sacrosanct, and it shouldn't be regarded as such. Freedom of speech helps ensure the functioning of a democratic society, which ultimately benefits the majority (utilitarianism another words), but there comes a point when freedom of speech doesn't help a whole Lotta people. Those westboro baptists camping out the funeral processions of dead soldiers, the spreading of hate based propaganda etc..., and encouraging negative behaviors. Now should this be censored? i'd say no because of the terrible precedent it would set, in short it's the practicality of such an act as well as the ramifications of those acts that outweigh the benefits. Vote with your wallet is the practical course of action to take. Perhaps even a boycott if such could be done.

Case in point: this is precisely why the UDHR makes the exception in Article 7 that inciting discrimination is something to which all people have legal protection against. Hate-based propaganda, I'm fairly certain, falls under that category.

So I'm not sure what you're actually arguing for in that closing paragraph - you say that there is this bad stuff which means freedom of speech shouldn't be sacrosanct, but then you go on to say that it still shouldn't be censored? So aside from the fact that this stuff falls outside of art, and into the "inciting discrimination" category, you STILL think people should be allowed to do this, but that we shouldn't allow negative stereotypes to be portrayed in art? O.o


I love it when the discussion board gets interesting.

[Morgoth]

I'm really too hungover to dive into the legal aspect of this discussion right now. However, I do think focusing on legal aspects is taking the discussion in the wrong direction. In the end I believe we should be focusing on ethical responsibility and morality, something of which law makes no judgement.

[Silencer]

Morgoth, on 01 May 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

I'm really too hungover to dive into the legal aspect of this discussion right now. However, I do think focusing on legal aspects is taking the discussion in the wrong direction. In the end I believe we should be focusing on ethical responsibility and morality, something of which law makes no judgement.

Meh. The legal aspect is actually inherently invoked whenever someone brings up "rights", Morgy - given that feminism is rooted in obtaining equal rights and treatment before the law as much as it is about obtaining equal social standing, I don't think you can completely rule out the legal side of things.
(Also, this is probably the shakiest I've ever seen your claim about the law and its lack of moral or ethical judgements to be - given the treatment of your fellow human beings is actually based on ethical thinking, and has clearly resulted in laws to enforce certain minimum standards of treatment. Yes, "minimum" standards - but that is still actually predicated on what society deems as acceptable, else whence cometh the various Bill of Rights' in most countries? After those laws have been enacted, sure, they become removed from and cease to make ethical judgements but that hardly means they are not predicated on or related to morality or ethics - and it certainly doesn't mean that they aren't a good point of reference for what should or should not be allowed in society - that is purpose. Which brings us back to the difference between censorship and criticism, does it not?)

But read on, we shift pretty rapidly into ethics/morality, thanks to BL.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Silencer, on 01 May 2013 - 04:43 AM, said:

BalrogLord, on 01 May 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

Silencer, on 01 May 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

Easy answer, difficult to prove where that line is in practice, though. Let's take the use of the words "rights" seriously and put this under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a broad-base, applies-to-all sort of thing.

snip

Rather then dogmatically reffering to the UDHR (which is a fine piece of legislation im sure) let's look at it from other view points

All fine and dandy, BL, but I believe the specific wording Studlock used was "rights". Not "morality", not "ethics", and not "philosophy". He clearly and specifically stated "rights". I.e. those things which have been enshrined in legislation as belonging to a person by virtue of their existence upon this planet, in order to protect them from the machinations of others. So bring up these wonderful(ly outdated) philosophers as a separate point by all means - but you, good sir, just committed the Red Herring Fallacy. Thanks for playing.

rights, which are derived from legislation, which in turns are derived from principles which in turn are derived from philosophy. If we're going to be having any serious discussion about rights we need to go to the source. The right of life liberty and security of freedom for example originates in locke's political philosophy, which is in turn derived from his epistemology. So if we're going to be talking about rights, we need to understand rights as the philosophical concept that they are. If we can get into a discussion of where those rights came from, then we can analyse the argumentation and make judgments accordingly. This is opposed to dogmatically looking at the legality of things. Morgoth made a good point as to why the legality isn't the right direction. And outdated? trust me philosophers i mentioned are old, but they certainly aren't irrelevant. Locke's philosophy still holds to this day as mentioned earlier.

Quote

There's the utilitarian criterion, notwithstanding the utilitarian calculator is impossible to use, but looking at it from the perspective of the utility gained from watching this kind of stuff vs the negative impacts of reinforcing negative gender stereotypes. Pretty sure your dis-utility would be greater.

Only if one looks at it from a surface level. Go a bit deeper and consider the validity of positive utility coming from people being able to analyse, reflect upon, and seek out new meanings or positions from the offerings of others! I also contend that the dis-utility of *censoring* artists, especially, say, those working on historical or thought-experimental settings, is vastly greater than any perceived reinforcement of negative stereotypes - bear in mind that the world today (at least publicly) openly decries these practices in reality. Where does the reinforcement of (mostly decried) stereotypical depictions, let alone depictions which are stereotypical in nature but clearly deemed unwelcome by the work itself, gain so much power as to fight against the weight of public opinion on the balance of things?
If people are being reinforced by these stereotypes, I contend that it is unlikely that the problem is with the reinforcement, but rather with the people who hold these opinions - something which is considered to be a fundamental human right for them to hold, regardless of how unpalatable it may be to everyone else.

Woah hold your horses there. I was referring to our more recent case of those character drawings, or in a broader sense what this thread was talking about, the equality of women in video game. What's this nonsense about historical, or thoughts experiment settings. You're changing the parameters of the issue. We're talking about misogyny, i'm not talking about all artists in all of thier works. Let's look at it on a case by case basis shall we?

The problem is the people themselves i agree, however those attitudes aren't developed in a vacuum. We've already established the role the media does in altering our attitudes, consciously or not. Therefore it's a problem of modifying the stimuli given to people so that these attitudes dissipate over time. And utilitarianism has no fundamental rights, only the calculator which is to be harnessed by individuals striving to improve their reason, thereby making better decisions.
And let me not forget to point out that the real fundamental flaw in the case for utilitarianism is not in the infeasibly complicated calculus - that's the practical concern - but rather in the inability for society as a whole to agree on what specifically increases or decreases utility, or indeed to what utility is most important!

Which is why it requires individuals to make decisions for the masses, "competent judges" was the term used for those who seek to better their understanding of utility. And that's not an issue with utilitarianism, that's the incurable problem of ignorance, compounded further given the complexity of our world.

Quote

Sartre's freedom: by reinforcing negative stereotypes you are reducing the freedom of others. Therefore don't do it. (negative stereotype, affects relationships, women perceived as objects etc...)

By restricting creative expressionism you are reducing the freedom of others; therefore don't do it. (Did Sartre ever come up with a simple method to resolve such conflicts? I can't recall...)

painter can chose to paint other things, or a painter can chose too no longer be a painter. You can't chose to be a woman.

Quote

CI: Pretty sure women don't like being portrayed like that. .

Which is almost as bad as presuming that because *most* people don't want to be prostitutes, no-one should be able to - a classic sticking point for "extremist" feminists vs...several different groups. Or that voluntary euthanasia should not be permitted because one cannot conceive of a situation where a rational individual would wish to waive their (unreasonably) inalienable Right to Life (notwithstanding other arguments against it, of course, but just pointing out that this one is flawed). Or indeed, that we should never portray anything as being negative, ever, because that's just mean. >.> Wow, why don't we just wipe out the entertainment industry altogether while we're at it!?

Quote

If you get into the 2nd formulative, ends in of themselves you find that prostitution and euthanasia are permitted as there is consent present. So long as a rational moral agent consents then you cannot infringe their rights to be a prostitute since by virtue of being rational moral agents they can set their own ends. I didn't think i'd really look at the CI in depth but let's do it.

Can we universalise the maxim of degrading women? No we cannot, therefore we should not degrade women.
Ends in of themselves not means>if a woman, who is a rational moral agent, consents to being degraded then she has the right to be degraded. Does not neccesite then you the are the one that does it (negative formulation). However women at large? nope, sorry objectifying women by definition means you are using them as means, not ends.
Kingdom of ends: Sexism cannot be legislated into a kingdom of ends. Therefore don't do it.
So i'd be inclined to say that we shouldn't be doing this sort of thing. Since we have several ethical criterions all saying the same thing well i think there's a definite issue here.

Several very flawed, not widely adopted, let alone universal ethical criteria which have little relevance to our day-to-day decision making. This almost falls under a fallacious Appeal to Authority, doesn't it?


On the contrary they are very widely adopted. They just aren't explicitly stated as this is x ethical position at work. If you really take the time to look at legislation, look at everyday morality, "moral feeling" you'll find traces of these. Golden rule which has been found in several cultures world over ressembles the CI. Democracy is based on utilitarian principles, but also principles that can be found in the CI. Also of all of these, utilitarianism is the most relevant as utilitarianism is how we make decisions on a day to day basis. Whenever we weigh our options, it also boils do to the utility we get from our actions. Choice a with utility of x, disutility of y, vs choice b with utility g and disutility h etc...

It's not an appeal to authority per say. Rather i'm looking at the strongest ethical systems i have encountered so far and seeing how they measure up. Were your philosophy instructors any good? cause it looks like all your pihlosophical knowledge is old guys prattling on about what people thought and no applying it in any concrete sense.

Quote

On a more practical level, freedom of speech is important, but it isn't sacrosanct, and it shouldn't be regarded as such. Freedom of speech helps ensure the functioning of a democratic society, which ultimately benefits the majority (utilitarianism another words), but there comes a point when freedom of speech doesn't help a whole Lotta people. Those westboro baptists camping out the funeral processions of dead soldiers, the spreading of hate based propaganda etc..., and encouraging negative behaviors. Now should this be censored? i'd say no because of the terrible precedent it would set, in short it's the practicality of such an act as well as the ramifications of those acts that outweigh the benefits. Vote with your wallet is the practical course of action to take. Perhaps even a boycott if such could be done.

Case in point: this is precisely why the UDHR makes the exception in Article 7 that inciting discrimination is something to which all people have legal protection against. Hate-based propaganda, I'm fairly certain, falls under that category.

So I'm not sure what you're actually arguing for in that closing paragraph - you say that there is this bad stuff which means freedom of speech shouldn't be sacrosanct, but then you go on to say that it still shouldn't be censored? So aside from the fact that this stuff falls outside of art, and into the "inciting discrimination" category, you STILL think people should be allowed to do this, but that we shouldn't allow negative stereotypes to be portrayed in art? O.o


I love it when the discussion board gets interesting.

And i in turn love having you as a sparring partner. MY conclusion is that we shoudln't be degrading women. However going about to affect a change is a different ball game all together. Logically we should censor this stuff, however the ramifcations of such acts would outweigh any supposed benefit resulting from censoring this (assuming a benefit would materialise at all). It's one thing to say x is wrong, it's quite another to fix x. Therefore censorship IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE simply isn't an option.

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 01 May 2013 - 01:18 PM

[Silencer]

I'll get back to you in detail once I've...er...started-and-finished this assignment due tomorrow...er, I guess that's "tonight" now, but for the moment:

My philosophy lecturers came in two flavours - terribly boring, and awesomely engaging. The former were the phil 101-era of my experience (i.e. the fun people who were believers experts in X Philosophy and taught us about why it was good (so we had one expert in Deontology/Virtue Ethics, one in Consequentialism, etc. and then we had one guy who was more about the broad-strokes stuff, i.e. Cultural Relativism, Realism, etc..)) and the latter was mainly limited to my favourite course EVER, Phil 210, "Applied Ethics" - now that was a philosophy course! Actually we spent most of our time discussing/debating various topics and their ethical/moral implications, such as: crime and punishment, euthanasia, etc., in a practical sense. Oh, and also this Crim 220 course I attended with my friend who was enrolled in it (I wasn't), the lecturer for that was cool.

Suffice it to say I find that there is no one ethical philosophy which is practical and realistic. The vast majority of people subscribe to some form of utilitarianism or some other form of consequentialism, or in rare cases they hold to a system of virtue ethics - though in reality most people have one set of decision making protocols for the small stuff and then have oddly stubborn "principles" which, rational or not, they stick to like deontologists in all situations, and then in other circumstances are remarkably open-minded and fail also to apply any form of consequentialist reasoning...bah, I always forget what the other branch is called...

In any case, my point is that I've actually spent a lot of time studying and researching philosophy and have found all of the "old school" somewhat wanting - thus my tendency to disdain their positions. If there was one which I couldn't pull apart sufficiently to show that it can be broken, I'd subscribe to it, believe me. But all of them have flaws, and cobbling them together like most people unconsciously do is merely the practical solution, rather than a truly viable alternative, imo. So while I tend to operate on the consequentialist end of the scale (if nothing else, I'm pragmatic, dammit) I don't find it a suitable position to hold to philosophically speaking - it has its own flaws (you've seen Fate/Zero, right? ). But trust me, I've applied philosophy in the concrete sense.

[amphibian]

There is one point that BalrogLord mentions that I'd like to talk about: "You can't choose to be a woman."

I disagree with that. I am of the crowd that believes in a distinction between "gender" and "sex". The "sex" is what you're born as (XX, XY, XXY, XYY etc.) and the "gender" is what you identify as (male, female, trans etc.). So for me, you can choose to be a woman, but you can't choose what you're born as.

And of course, you can't quite avert the heaping load of cultural assumptions, prejudices, problems, limitations, benefits and more of being a woman (or man) that come with that choice these days (more of this for women than men, sadly).

[Morgoth]

Silencer, on 01 May 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

Meh. The legal aspect is actually inherently invoked whenever someone brings up "rights", Morgy - given that feminism is rooted in obtaining equal rights and treatment before the law as much as it is about obtaining equal social standing, I don't think you can completely rule out the legal side of things.

In a discussion regarding feminism and society as a whole I would agree with you. However, our current topic was related to the portrayal of women in video games, and as such I find a discussion of rights to be missing the point.

Quote

(Also, this is probably the shakiest I've ever seen your claim about the law and its lack of moral or ethical judgements to be - given the treatment of your fellow human beings is actually based on ethical thinking, and has clearly resulted in laws to enforce certain minimum standards of treatment. Yes, "minimum" standards - but that is still actually predicated on what society deems as acceptable, else whence cometh the various Bill of Rights' in most countries? After those laws have been enacted, sure, they become removed from and cease to make ethical judgements but that hardly means they are not predicated on or related to morality or ethics - and it certainly doesn't mean that they aren't a good point of reference for what should or should not be allowed in society - that is purpose. Which brings us back to the difference between censorship and criticism, does it not?)

But read on, we shift pretty rapidly into ethics/morality, thanks to BL.

I wrote that the law makes no moral or ethical judgment, a claim which I’m surprised you find so objectionable. Still, I’ll see if I can’t lay out my opinion in a more developed fashion (the main systems are down at work today, so I find myself with the time to write).

I think the mistake you are making is giving law properties which have been specifically excluded from the field by design. Law is a tool and a tool is incapable of understanding the reasons for its own creation. It has a purpose, in the case of law to apply the legal code to society, but no understanding of why.

Well, that’s not a good start.

So, modern society has been built in such a way that there is a clear separation between the people who enact laws and those who maintain the law. When parliament decide upon laws they do so using the moral basis (one assumes) for which they were elected. Laws are argued and written in order to accomplish a goal, and yes the goal has a moral basis, even when the law regulates, say, the distribution of potato flour.

Now, the law is written, enacted and handed to the courts. The courts apply the text of the law to the situations brought before the bench, but only as one part of a massive whole. A whole consisting of decades, if not centuries of statutes, case law and international treaties. How do you reconcile all these factors? All these conflicting philosophies?

The way the law works, the way the courts work – or at least are meant to work – is that morality is kept entirely separate from the consideration. The law makes a judgment on how a situation relates to the law. Whether the result conforms to the currently most popular system of morals is entirely irrelevant. Quite often a verdict follows closely with what the populace feels is just, but quite often it does not. It is not important. The result is no less correct because it goes against the majority’s gut feeling as to what is right. It makes no judgment on what is right or just. It makes judgment on what is law.

It might be tempting to wave and say this is simply a matter of semantics. That would be wrong. The very essence of our society is based on this distinction. We elect our leaders to guide society in a moral direction. It is their domain and theirs alone. The courts apply the laws to actual situations, and if parliament is unhappy with the result they make new laws.

Now, in certain situations (in some legal systems) the courts are given permission to include morals as a factor in some of their consideration, typically in cases of conflict between the state and individuals. However, these are exceptions that require a series of very specific conditions in order to apply, and are quite rare.

When that is said, judges are people too and let their personal morals colour their decisions. This is very reason why the legal system is created the way it is, to make it as easy as possible to remove ones morals from the equation. Otherwise the consequences of ones actions would be dependent, not upon the law, but on which judge is set to consider your case.

This post has been edited by Morgoth: 02 May 2013 - 12:29 PM

[LinearPhilosopher]

amphibian, on 01 May 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

There is one point that BalrogLord mentions that I'd like to talk about: "You can't choose to be a woman."

I disagree with that. I am of the crowd that believes in a distinction between "gender" and "sex". The "sex" is what you're born as (XX, XY, XXY, XYY etc.) and the "gender" is what you identify as (male, female, trans etc.). So for me, you can choose to be a woman, but you can't choose what you're born as.

And of course, you can't quite avert the heaping load of cultural assumptions, prejudices, problems, limitations, benefits and more of being a woman (or man) that come with that choice these days (more of this for women than men, sadly).

http://en.wikipedia....ki/David_Reimer

Actually i'd argue the opposite. You can change your sex (or has your sex corrected to be politically correct), however based on the existence of transgendered people and the above case there's definitely something innate about gender. Not that society doesn't play a key in defining gneder, but gender more than just societal influence. As such gender isn't really a choice.

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 03 May 2013 - 02:05 AM