I have stated the reasons that there is no objective moral component to plundering in FoE (the game was designed for it and encourages it, so it is not a violation of either the letter nor the spirit of the rules, in fact it's quite the opposite; and no real-world harm is done). But now you've moved on to whether or not a player might feel that it's immoral or unethical. I of course cannot speak for what someone else wants to feel except to say that feelings are more often than not wrong and counterproductive to an exercise like this, for they are by definition irrational things. I cannot speak for someone who wants to invent a moral quandry for themselves in a circumstance that doesn't carry its own. But that's all they're doing: inventing it for themselves. They're role-playing FoE, and if that's what they want to do, then okay.
You said you enjoy philosophical discussions. I don't, at least not anymore. If I were twenty years younger I would go back and forth with you for days on every nuance and every set of circumstances to plumb every depth and shadow of ethicality. I often did, spending hours upon hours on political message boards. I've discussed and debated economics with everyone from Marxists to free marketeers. I've discussed and debated politics with everyone from anarchists to fascists. Of course those discussions invariable involved ethical questions of all kinds. Been there, done that; I've heard it all, and through it all I've solidified my own philosophy. I have now sated my desire to duke it out over Big Questions. Nowadays, I think there's a lot to be said for stating one's position and then shutting the hell up. Which I will now do, at the risk of being accused of "hiding"' or some such. I've been accused of worse and more inaccurate things.
I now understand why my Biff gambit paid off, hit a nerve and has potentially led to a personal grievance.
I never moved the argument to feels, that is what ethics
is. Unless you can point me to the tool that objectively measures ethics and morals? Ethics and morals are what a person feels is right or wrong. This thread is an excellent example of differing views (feelings) that give us the little bit of objective data that shows how ethics and morals can vary, depending on who you talk to. On the one hand, you argue feelings are often wrong and counterproductive, on the other, we have nothing but ourselves (feelings) to justify our ethical stances or morals. Again, Where is the tool that objectively measures ethics and morals? Are we talking about the laws of man or the laws of a higher being? How is your proclamation objective while somebody else's is not?
I see your appeal to authority/experience and grant you it. I'll abstain from trotting out my resume. I do my best to practice the "stating one's position and then shutting the hell up" for proposals, as we know how fast they devolve in personal opinion shouting matches. I see no issue in sharing knowledge gained from years of experience in other topics.
What worries me is this "I've heard it all, and through it all I've solidified my own philosophy". This is the dismissal I rail against. It strikes me as self-righteous and absolute. By themselves, I view a dismissal from an moral absolutist stance as counterproductive, unless there is an explanation of how and why they arrived to their argument. Repeating that there is "no objective moral component to plundering in FoE (the game was designed for it and encourages it, so it is not a violation of either the letter nor the spirit of the rules, in fact it's quite the opposite; and no real-world harm is done)" doesn't make or convince me that it is true. This why determining the proper framing of the analogy is important for me. If we are arguing from the laws of man, we can tease out the nuance together(As I seeded in my spoiler, we are nearly of the same mind when looking at plundering). If we are arguing from the laws of something higher, then we shouldn't shy away from all that comes out of that Pandora's box.
Regardless of differing opinions, thank you for the back and forth.
Is it immoral to want things? Maybe.
I'd vote Nah.
Although, some could argue that dirty thoughts are a sin, so I suppose it depends on who you talk to. I don't like the idea of thought crime. I prefer sticking to punishment/rehabilitation of more serious crimes. Whatever that loaded sentence means.
First thing is (and there is a lot of SHAMING going on, but I don't care), I am a plunderer. That's right, I go through my neighborhood every single day and clean it out.
That's the only tool the plunder moralists have, shame. To be fair, us plunderers tend to shame them right back. So it's a shameful shame fight. Thankfully, the DNSL shuts down the low
Some of the comments in this thread made me laugh out loud.
If you get emotional when you get plundered and compare your emotions to emotions you would experience when being attacked in real life, you should IMMEDIATELY delete this game and seek out professional help before you hurt yourself.
As for the morality - it's a game. Is throwing a banana peel under your opponent's vehicle to make them lose control of their vehicle in Mario Kart also immoral? After all, you don't NEED to do it, you can race without using any props.
What would, for example, be immoral (and yet not against the rules) is agreeing to do a FP swap with someone, wait till they get 50 FPs ahead of you and quit the swap.
But how would tapping on a big sword next to your neighbor's avatar, virtually attacking them and virtually stealing their virtual goods be immoral...
If we use virtual words in a virtual space to harass somebody. Is that amoral, moral or immoral?
Mario Kart: If you want to win, You use that banana peel. If the goal is to win, there is a NEED to use it.
Check mate Atheists! Semantics wins yet again!