The Ethics of Stealing

[tallguy]

Emotions are usually the strongest base for arguments, from what I can tell.

I am apparently having difficulty understanding your point here, because I would contend that emotions are never a strong base for anything.  (Unless you intended a word other than base, maybe?)

[copperboxes]

Dec 7, 2015 22:13:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 7, 2015 22:04:55 GMT -5 copperboxes said:

If a high mach individual would not want an action done to them, they clearly feel it that the action would be harmful to them.

That's just the thing. A high-Mach individual would claim they deserved to be hacked for leaving vulnerabilities in their software. They deserved to have their defenses probed by provoking their user base with unreasonable prices.

So they would logically accept others hacking their own software and making price judgements for them?  They would feel they brought it upon themselves?  

I suppose I could see that for some, but it'd be a hard fit within a society.  By and large, a group's array of ethics generally promote unity and trust, if most or all within a group abide by them.  

I get the sense that many people who go against ethical codes and laws would very much be not okay with the same thing happening to them, though.  They wish to do harm, but receive none.  Someone who embezzles from a company and justifies it as not being paid enough, would not usually be okay with being robbed because someone else wasn't paid enough.


A true high mach individual's definitions of ethics sound pretty much like "might is right."  It sounds like they'd also logically be fine with being physically beaten up if caught off guard.  It would be their fault for not lifting weights or hiring guards at all times.

It strikes me a rather inefficient form of ethics, but if it's consistent and they would be fine with being hacked and pummeled themselves, I'll view it as alternate philosophy, though one that promotes a lot of distrust and inefficiency from the main point of projects.  

I honestly feel that game creators' resources could be much more productively used by creating new content, rather than spending resources to fight off hackers though.  A game is not improved with tons of security, the security is just there and continually developed to stem the tide of mistrust caused by the hackers themselves.

[Peace Of Mind]

Dec 7, 2015 9:21:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 6, 2015 22:49:12 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

OK - I double checked the dictionary and nowhere does "counterargument" mean "justification of behavior or ethical malfeasance" so stop playing with your widget gadgets and reimburse the creator of that game.

Now say 12 Hail Mary's and you are not allowed any verbal masturbations for a month to redeem yourself, young man! 

I did briefly contemplate reimbursement when I quit, but decided against it.

Even though my actions were immoral, I consider the only purpose of reimbursement to be reasonable compensation a party subject to a tort. In this case, although one could reasonably argue (as some have here) that my actions harmed the other players or harmed society in general, I have no means of compensating people for it. As for the developer, I plainly reject the notion that my theft caused them any practical harm. Indeed the whole reason this is an ethical conundrum is because the theft (pseudo-theft?) benefited the developer, netting them a healthy profit.

If I'd owed them compensation for anything, it would have been for (as laterbloomer suggests) robbing them of their freedom of choice in setting prices, but I had no means of compensating them for this specific wrong either.

The point became moot as of 1-2 years after I quit, since the developers went out of business.

So you've answered your own question.  Re:   "I'm defining "unethical" as "what you can prove causes harm via the application of disciplined reasoning; what provably fails to satisfy an ethical heuristic such as Kant's imperative, the Law of Reciprocity, etc.".

"what you can prove causes harm via the application of disciplined reasoning; what provably fails to satisfy an ethical heuristic such as Kant's imperative, the Law of Reciprocity, etc."

The harm was he went out of business.  You did not practice the "Law of Reciprocity" because the rule is that you pay in kind what another person has provided you.  The creator of the game gave you the rule of how much to pay for the service that was provided you and you did  not pay in kind by paying the price set forth in agreement for that service. 

[tallguy]

The harm was he went out of business.

So the developer went out of business because Virgil gave him $180 more than he would have otherwise?  I would define that as a stretch, but I'm funny that way. 

[copperboxes]

Dec 7, 2015 22:25:37 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Emotions are usually the strongest base for arguments, from what I can tell.

I am apparently having difficulty understanding your point here, because I would contend that emotions are never a strong base for anything.  (Unless you intended a word other than base, maybe?)

Hum.  Sorry for being unclear.  Emotions are usually the strongest "focus" for arguments?  People can acknowledge something logically, but still feel it is wrong.  

So using words and pictures and arguments that focus on swaying emotions are usually more persuasive to people than a chain of logic.  

People usually only make major health changes when they feel fear, for instance, even if logically they knew it was important to their health far earlier.

[Peace Of Mind]

Dec 7, 2015 22:52:12 GMT -5 tallguy said:

The harm was he went out of business.

So the developer went out of business because Virgil gave him $180 more than he would have otherwise?  I would define that as a stretch, but I'm funny that way. 

LOL!!!  THAT'S what you found "a stretch"?  Have you read all of Virgil's posts? 

ETA:  I suspect Virgil wasn't the only one doing it but he still contributed to the problem.  I think I read somewhere the creator couldn't come up with the remaining $180 owed so had to close it down.  

[tallguy]

Obviously, then, if only one more person had done what Virgil did the developer would have made it.  Too bad they were so...moral.      

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 7, 2015 22:34:17 GMT -5 copperboxes said:

I honestly feel that game creators' resources could be much more productively used by creating new content, rather than spending resources to fight off hackers though.  A game is not improved with tons of security, the security is just there and continually developed to stem the tide of mistrust caused by the hackers themselves.

Absolutely.

Look: I agree with you. I'm not going to stand here and defend Machiavellianism.

I'm pointing out that these individuals exist, they're much more common than people think, and arguments of the form "society grows stronger when we all work together" (as opposed to "society grows stronger when we all compete as individuals") simply don't resonate with them.

From a moral standpoint, it's very easy to defend the belief that compassion, selflessness, outflowing concern for others are the superior way of life. From an ethical standpoint, defending this belief is nigh impossible. Simply put: there is no unassailable proof that on a long-term basis, cut-throat rational self-interest isn't as good or better a model for human society. There is no unassailable proof that on a long-term basis, selflessness and cooperation necessarily lead to superior outcomes in all matters relative to cut-throat self-interest.

It goes back to the schism between reason (logic) and morals. The case in the OP is one of many cases where the two avenues lead to different conclusions.

Dec 7, 2015 23:23:54 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

Dec 7, 2015 22:52:12 GMT -5 tallguy said:

So the developer went out of business because Virgil gave him $180 more than he would have otherwise?  I would define that as a stretch, but I'm funny that way. 

LOL!!!  THAT'S what you found "a stretch"?  Have you read all of Virgil's posts? 

I'm not the reason they went out of business. For Pete's sakes.

They went out of business because they were... (how to put this delicately)... suicidally ignorant when it came to setting price points. If you listen to the video linked-to in the OP, it points out that this is still a tragically common problem today. Back in 2002-03 when the trend of F2P games was really swinging into gear, it's fair to say that the majority of early developers made suicidal decisions regarding pricing, content restrictions, and many other things.

Many, many near-instant bankruptcies. I believe the reported number in 2004 was a 2% chance an MMO would turn a profit, and the average lifetime of an online game developer before going broke was a matter of months.

I crunched the numbers. If this gave developer had lowered their prices to what I was willing to (and did) pay for the game, and the majority of their player base had paid in what I'd paid, they'd have made an absolute killing. The project head could hypothetically have retired in 2003.

But the above hypothetical would never have come to pass. Why? Because as I pointed out (and here's the true irony), I inadvertently set my per-minute price point above the upper limit of what research has now shown F2P gamers willing to pay per minute of online entertainment. Hence even if the developer had marked down their prices 99%, they'd still undoubtedly have gone bankrupt for overpricing their game.

The theft was wrong. I admit that. I should have walked away. But they committed suicide all on their own.

[copperboxes]

Dec 8, 2015 0:24:47 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 7, 2015 22:34:17 GMT -5 copperboxes said:

I honestly feel that game creators' resources could be much more productively used by creating new content, rather than spending resources to fight off hackers though.  A game is not improved with tons of security, the security is just there and continually developed to stem the tide of mistrust caused by the hackers themselves.

Absolutely.

Look: I agree with you. I'm not going to stand here and defend Machiavellianism.

I'm pointing out that these individuals exist, they're much more common than people think, and arguments of the form "society grows stronger when we all work together" (as opposed to "society grows stronger when we all compete as individuals") simply don't resonate with them.

From a moral standpoint, it's very easy to defend the belief that compassion, selflessness, outflowing concern for others are the superior way of life. From an ethical standpoint, defending this belief is nigh impossible. Simply put: there is no unassailable proof that on a long-term basis, cut-throat rational self-interest isn't as good or better a model for human society. There is no unassailable proof that on a long-term basis, selflessness and cooperation necessarily lead to superior outcomes in all matters relative to cut-throat self-interest.

It goes back to the schism between reason (logic) and morals. The case in the OP is one of many cases where the two avenues lead to different conclusions.

?  You asked for an argument that would convince a "high mach" person that a unilateral hacking/price decision was harmful?  

I offered one, that a refusal to willingly accept turnabout showed they felt it would be a harmful to themselves, and thus it is a harmful action?

I'm truly just bouncing ideas based on what you asked for: general thoughts, and then a logical argument for a specific type of person.



And it is true that ethics cannot easily be proved.  Heck, ethics vary from group to group, and even change over time.  Used to be, dueling to the death was viewed as a decent conflict resolution method.

I would argue that groups that have high degrees of trust in their agreed upon rules tend to be much more successful than groups with very high cut throat ratios though.  Nations need trusted currencies, trusted businesses, trusted methods of dispute resolution for people to innovate and coordinate efficiently. 

Amazing things happen when individuals cluster together to work on projects.  If everyone is spending 90% of their time and resources verifying they aren't being cheated or flat robbed by everyone they run into contact with each time they interact with another... that's pretty darn inefficient. 

I don't know how it would be proved exactly, except that when trust is lost in nations at the currency/legal/business level, and everyone is thrashing and slashing to defend themselves from each other, there is a pretty strong history of the nations becoming severely crippled and economically stunted, and often effectively or outright looted by more cohesive groups.   Just my analysis of it anyway.  

[copperboxes]

Dec 7, 2015 23:56:37 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Obviously, then, if only one more person had done what Virgil did the developer would have made it.  Too bad they were so...moral.      

Lol!

I do see your point.  But if a random person picks the lock on your house or manages to climb through a window while you're on vacation, rifles through your personal stuff, watches your movies, maybe tries on your clothes and then drops off $10 on the counter when leaving, you're better off.  

It could be argued you weren't out anything but a few cents of electricity by someone tresspassing and enjoying your house and couch without permission.  In fact, you're $10 richer, no harm to anyone, instead, benefits.

You'd still probably wouldn't feel like you were better off though.

Mutual agreements and laws are generally really serious things to most people.  

There's levels, and personal home invasion is higher up there than white collar crimes, but in general I figure that something done in secret and that would cause trust to fade is not usually ethical move, even if it can be argued that it was beneficial to both.  

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 8, 2015 1:06:45 GMT -5 copperboxes said:

If everyone is spending 90% of their time and resources verifying they aren't being cheated or flat robbed by everyone they run into contact with each time they interact with another... that's pretty darn inefficient.

It depends on how you define 'inefficient'.

Animals in the wild, putatively all living things on Earth, spend 90% of their time hunting, fighting, killing, competing for food, territory, and mating rights. Competition for survival is the driving force behind evolution. Without cutthroat competition, there is no selection of the fittest. The process fails. Mass extinction.

A social Darwinist would argue that the same principle applies to human societies. That we are in effect killing ourselves off by helping the lesser-fit--the poor, the mentally incompetent, the developers that allow themselves to be hacked--to thrive and propagate. The end result of any such society, they would argue, is extinction. Hence the "thrashing and slashing" is the price paid for society's survival.

This attitude is, believe it or not, perfectly ethical. So much so that entire societies have been built on it.

[resolution]

Dec 8, 2015 3:52:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 8, 2015 1:06:45 GMT -5 copperboxes said:

If everyone is spending 90% of their time and resources verifying they aren't being cheated or flat robbed by everyone they run into contact with each time they interact with another... that's pretty darn inefficient.

It depends on how you define 'inefficient'.

Animals in the wild, putatively all living things on Earth, spend 90% of their time hunting, fighting, killing, competing for food, territory, and mating rights. Competition for survival is the driving force behind evolution. Without cutthroat competition, there is no selection of the fittest. The process fails. Mass extinction.

A social Darwinist would argue that the same principle applies to human societies. That we are in effect killing ourselves off by helping the lesser-fit--the poor, the mentally incompetent, the developers that allow themselves to be hacked--to thrive and propagate. The end result of any such society, they would argue, is extinction. Hence the "thrashing and slashing" is the price paid for society's survival.

This attitude is, believe it or not, perfectly ethical. So much so that entire societies have been built on it.

Would that bring us to the libertarian paradise of Somalia?

[Deleted]

I'm pointing out that these individuals exist, they're much more common than people think, and arguments of the form "society grows stronger when we all work together" (as opposed to "society grows stronger when we all compete as individuals") simply don't resonate with them.

You don't reason with Machivellians, you overpower them. Just as they say we should do. Trying to reason with them is to use the moral system they despise.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 8, 2015 7:51:40 GMT -5 resolution said:

Dec 8, 2015 3:52:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It depends on how you define 'inefficient'.

Animals in the wild, putatively all living things on Earth, spend 90% of their time hunting, fighting, killing, competing for food, territory, and mating rights. Competition for survival is the driving force behind evolution. Without cutthroat competition, there is no selection of the fittest. The process fails. Mass extinction.

A social Darwinist would argue that the same principle applies to human societies. That we are in effect killing ourselves off by helping the lesser-fit--the poor, the mentally incompetent, the developers that allow themselves to be hacked--to thrive and propagate. The end result of any such society, they would argue, is extinction. Hence the "thrashing and slashing" is the price paid for society's survival.

This attitude is, believe it or not, perfectly ethical. So much so that entire societies have been built on it.

Would that bring us to the libertarian paradise of Somalia?

I was thinking more along the lines of Nazi Germany.

The National Socialists were evil, but they weren't unethical. They had bold philosophies, bold theories, and legions of brilliant, perfectly rational men and women willing to put them into practice. They knew exactly what they were doing and why.

Most of the power brokers who run the world today behind the scenes--the central bankers, the puppetmasters, the corporate oligarchs, the warlords, the kingmakers--are also clearly social Darwinists, to judge their writings. It's a very seductive theory.

Since we've drifted so far off topic, I find it prudent to point out that one doesn't need to be a social Darwinist or a high-Mach individual to believe the theft in the OP was ethical.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Stealer!

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 8, 2015 8:47:57 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

I'm pointing out that these individuals exist, they're much more common than people think, and arguments of the form "society grows stronger when we all work together" (as opposed to "society grows stronger when we all compete as individuals") simply don't resonate with them.

You don't reason with Machivellians, you overpower them. Just as they say we should do. Trying to reason with them is to use the moral system they despise.

Machiavellianists aren't inherently unreasonable. The key is that one has to reason with them on the basis of what they can get out of an agreement. What's in it for them.

Take corporations, for example, which are demonstrably psychopathic entities. Barring strict regulations, they'll murder, plunder, devastate the environment. With or without regulations, they'll spy, sabotage competitors, lie, cover up, flee to Ireland for tax savings, and build secret emissions test defeaters into their cars. Their only objective is to maximize the bottom line. And yet virtually all major corporations engage in charitable enterprises, event sponsorships, etc.

Why? Because it's in their rational self-interest to do so. At some point in days of yore, somebody approached McDonald's and said, "You should set up an endowment and give us a few million dollars a year to help sick kids. You can call it 'Ronald McDonald House', and it will show everyone what responsible corporate stewards you are. A better public image means more prestige, more money in the bank."  And, being very reasonable, McDonalds' corporate board said 'yes'.

Now, you can claim "But corporations and corporatism is gutting the western world." and I won't disagree with you. But in terms of proving that theirs is the inferior model for society, theirs is the unethical viewpoint... well, they're not the broke, inconsequential, powerless ones whose only recourse is to wave "Occupy Wall Street" signs while dodging tear gas canisters, are they?

[Deleted]

But Virgil the rest of us aren't interested in "appealing to their self interest". It's way easier just to go by their rules and over power them.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 8, 2015 10:03:56 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

But Virgil the rest of us aren't interested in "appealing to their self interest". It's way easier just to go by their rules and over power them.

If you consider that moral, be my guest.

All I'm saying is that they're not opaque to reason.

[Deleted]

Dec 8, 2015 11:10:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 8, 2015 10:03:56 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

But Virgil the rest of us aren't interested in "appealing to their self interest". It's way easier just to go by their rules and over power them.

If you consider that moral, be my guest.

All I'm saying is that they're not opaque to reason.

Yes they are. Or at least to the type of reason that means anything to me. If your own immediate self interest is the only thing that influences you then I have no logic that will influence you.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 8, 2015 11:15:36 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Dec 8, 2015 11:10:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If you consider that moral, be my guest.

All I'm saying is that they're not opaque to reason.

Yes they are. Or at least to the type of reason that means anything to me. If your own immediate self interest is the only thing that influences you then I have no logic that will influence you.

I reason with self-interested individuals all the time.

"Hey, neighbour. Can you shovel my walk while I'm away. I'll pay you $30.00."

One neighbour might say, "Oh, no payment necessary. I insist. Just pay it forward."

Another might say, "You're our neighbour. Just give me $10 and I'll pay our kids to do it. They'll be happy to get the cash."

A third might say, "Sure, but throw in the use of your snow blower while you're away."

In all three cases I agree. The transaction is complete. I have successfully influenced my neighbour to shovel my walk while I'm gone. For the third case, the logic is so simple it's transparent: my neighbour likes money; he will shovel my walk if I offer him money. Q.E.D.

[Deleted]

Dec 7, 2015 19:49:12 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 7, 2015 19:17:40 GMT -5 @joey said:

Virgil is a hacker and a thief?    Say it isn't so Virgil!!!

Thems was my wild days.

Well I am very happy that you managed to turn your life around and get on the "good side".

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 8, 2015 16:01:14 GMT -5 @joey said:

Dec 7, 2015 19:49:12 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Thems was my wild days.

Well I am very happy that you managed to turn your life around and get on the "good side".

I got all of the snow leopard out of me.

[cktc]

Dec 5, 2015 11:39:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 5, 2015 11:20:25 GMT -5 Shooby said:

  And, basically what you are saying above is that stealing is OK if because there is a cost involved to you if you don't.  So, if I steal some perfume i don't "need" that you view that as wrong.  But, if you steal something because it might cost you not to steal, then that is justified.

Let's not use "right" and "wrong", because I consider stealing immoral under all circumstances. Let's use "ethical" and "unethical", which basically requires us to "prove" wrongness via the application of some ethical heuristic such as Kant's imperative.

I'm saying that in both cases we're looking at, the only two reasonable options are "continue to use the services of service provider X at a price you know will net them a profit" or "stop using the services entirely". There is no option: "switch to service provider Y". In other words, there's no way to exert market pressure on service provider X. You either use their services or your don't. If you don't, they go out of business because they're incompetent, greedy, or both. That's the baseline situation.

The flaw in your logic is that you are only creating one hypothetical alternative scenario and disregarding a myriad of unknown alternatives which could have benefited numerous people without compromising your morals. In hindsight it is easy to say that you would have immediately quit playing that game, or any other, and never spent a dime. In reality, you cared so much that you spent time to find a hack, then spent $180 and 6 months on the game. In addition, you were basing your fair market value on comparable F2P games, so you weren't without other alternatives. Had you not indulged in the hack, you might have spent another 2 weeks and $20 playing this overpriced game, then decided it was not worth it and moved onto another F2P game. Had you done so, you could have spent ~$30/month for any duration of time, with a developer whose practices you actually supported, which would actually have done something tangible to establish the market price you felt was warranted for that particular level of game.

You reason that your actions actually supported the hacked company, but if this is the case, then how was it ethical for you to support a company with a pricing system which you held, and still hold, in such low regard?

Your logic reminds me of an adulterer arguing that she and her husband are both better off for her affairs because he would be devastated if she left him, and she would be miserable without side action. Can't you see how it is win/win? Can't you see that there are no other alternatives? Can't you see that my disdain for my spouse is justified, and my actions noble because no one else could ever love him?

It's a very myopic and simplistic line of reasoning when reality is much more complex and far reaching.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 8, 2015 16:56:46 GMT -5 cktc said:

Dec 5, 2015 11:39:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Let's not use "right" and "wrong", because I consider stealing immoral under all circumstances. Let's use "ethical" and "unethical", which basically requires us to "prove" wrongness via the application of some ethical heuristic such as Kant's imperative.

I'm saying that in both cases we're looking at, the only two reasonable options are "continue to use the services of service provider X at a price you know will net them a profit" or "stop using the services entirely". There is no option: "switch to service provider Y". In other words, there's no way to exert market pressure on service provider X. You either use their services or your don't. If you don't, they go out of business because they're incompetent, greedy, or both. That's the baseline situation.

The flaw in your logic is that you are only creating one hypothetical alternative scenario and disregarding a myriad of unknown alternatives which could have benefited numerous people without compromising your morals. In hindsight it is easy to say that you would have immediately quit playing that game, or any other, and never spent a dime. In reality, you cared so much that you spent time to find a hack, then spent $180 and 6 months on the game. In addition, you were basing your fair market value on comparable F2P games, so you weren't without other alternatives. Had you not indulged in the hack, you might have spent another 2 weeks and $20 playing this overpriced game, then decided it was not worth it and moved onto another F2P game. Had you done so, you could have spent ~$30/month for any duration of time, with a developer whose practices you actually supported, which would actually have done something tangible to establish the market price you felt was warranted for that particular level of game.

You reason that your actions actually supported the hacked company, but if this is the case, then how was it ethical for you to support a company with a pricing system which you held, and still hold, in such low regard?

Your logic reminds me of an adulterer arguing that she and her husband are both better off for her affairs because he would be devastated if she left him, and she would be miserable without side action. Can't you see how it is win/win? Can't you see that there are no other alternatives? Can't you see that my disdain for my spouse is justified, and my actions noble because no one else could ever love him?

It's a very myopic and simplistic line of reasoning when reality is much more complex and far reaching.

First of all, when I engaged in the theft, I wasn't thinking of it as theft and I didn't believe I was compromising my morals.

Secondly, the assessment that I'd have walked away from the game rather than paying full price is sound. How do I know this? Because I quit the game immediately after my friend convinced me my actions were immoral. I'd invested six months of my time in it at that point. I'd have been delighted to continue playing. But the sad reality was that the game was a hundredfold overpriced and continuing simply was not worth it.

Your argument about the lost opportunity costs--that the unethical component of the theft was to not support another developer with a more reasonable pricing model--is admittedly persuasive. My counterargument here boils down to the fact that: i) this particular game was unique, both in the sense that I knew of no other F2P games like it and in the sense that I'd already invested several hours playing it by the time I reached the playing-without-paying-isn't-worth-it barrier that initiated the theft, ii) I believed at the time (and still do) that the theft would benefit the developer, and iii) rewarding the developer for a unique-but-overpriced game seemed every bit as good a use for my money as hunting down an inferior-but-not-so-overpriced game to support instead. Hence I maintain that sticking with the developer of an excellent game in spite of its flawed pricing was an ethical thing to do.

Regarding your example with the adultery, there's no question the wife's actions are immoral. To judge whether or not they're unethical, we need to consider the various types of harm being perpetrated. Obviously if the husband finds out, he'll be crushed. The affair risks destroying the entire family. Exposed or not, adultery destroys the intimate emotional bond between husband and wife--that's a proven fact. The wife risks bringing disease into her household. She risks pregnancy, and possibly (what I consider to be) murder if she decides to abort her offspring. I daresay there's a mountain of harm we'd have to dismiss to deem her actions ethical.

Suppose we ratchet back the situation to the wife flirting with men out of sight of her husband, and suppose we concede that her flirting is so well concealed that there's no reasonable chance her husband will discover it. This eliminates all of the above factors save for the harm to the emotional bond with her husband. Let's further suppose that the wife is aware of this harm, but, as you've indicated, she believes her husband has already compromised that bond by failing to meet her emotional needs.

In this case, I could see a great many women coming to the conclusion that the flirting was ethical.

Do I consider it moral? Absolutely not. It's wrong, and a stain on the moral character of the wife. But I'd have a very difficult time arguing that her actions were causing more harm than good, especially if she was determined to be a miserable, surly individual when not at liberty to engage in a bit of flirting. In short, her "my husband and I are both better off if I flirt" assessment may in fact be reasonable. Immoral, but reasonable.

[cktc]

Dec 8, 2015 20:03:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 8, 2015 16:56:46 GMT -5 cktc said:

The flaw in your logic is that you are only creating one hypothetical alternative scenario and disregarding a myriad of unknown alternatives which could have benefited numerous people without compromising your morals. In hindsight it is easy to say that you would have immediately quit playing that game, or any other, and never spent a dime. In reality, you cared so much that you spent time to find a hack, then spent $180 and 6 months on the game. In addition, you were basing your fair market value on comparable F2P games, so you weren't without other alternatives. Had you not indulged in the hack, you might have spent another 2 weeks and $20 playing this overpriced game, then decided it was not worth it and moved onto another F2P game. Had you done so, you could have spent ~$30/month for any duration of time, with a developer whose practices you actually supported, which would actually have done something tangible to establish the market price you felt was warranted for that particular level of game.

You reason that your actions actually supported the hacked company, but if this is the case, then how was it ethical for you to support a company with a pricing system which you held, and still hold, in such low regard?

Your logic reminds me of an adulterer arguing that she and her husband are both better off for her affairs because he would be devastated if she left him, and she would be miserable without side action. Can't you see how it is win/win? Can't you see that there are no other alternatives? Can't you see that my disdain for my spouse is justified, and my actions noble because no one else could ever love him?

It's a very myopic and simplistic line of reasoning when reality is much more complex and far reaching.

Secondly, the assessment that I'd have walked away from the game rather than paying full price is sound. How do I know this? Because I quit the game immediately after my friend convinced me my actions were immoral. I'd invested six months of my time in it at that point. I'd have been delighted to continue playing. But the sad reality was that the game was a hundredfold overpriced and continuing simply was not worth it.

See, I just don't see that as proof. In one instance, you are so into the game that  you are willing to spend $180 and find a work around to do so. In the other, you have just spent 6 months having free reign, have surpassed all of your peers, and have now handcuffed your play. I'd be surprised if you wanted to keep playing without the perks of MC at that point, and I certainly wouldn't expect you to pay 100x after you were used to the five finger discount.

For a brief period I was insanely into this stupid app Tap Fish. You buy, raise and sell fish to make aquariums. I'd plan my fish acquisitions around my day to make sure I was netting the most coins per hour for how frequently I could check on them. I quickly surpassed my DH, and then discovered a glitch in the game that allowed me to advance the clock whenever I wanted. I quickly worked my way up to over a million coins and then the game lost all appeal. I could have any fish or aquarium decoration I wanted, but there was no point. It ceased being a game when acquiring wealth was no longer a goal. There was no challenge whatsoever. 

Maybe you would have quit immediately 6 months prior, but there is no way of proving that because you didn't. Quitting 6 months later under a completely different set of circumstances is not proof. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 10, 2015 10:35:01 GMT -5 cktc said:

Dec 8, 2015 20:03:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Secondly, the assessment that I'd have walked away from the game rather than paying full price is sound. How do I know this? Because I quit the game immediately after my friend convinced me my actions were immoral. I'd invested six months of my time in it at that point. I'd have been delighted to continue playing. But the sad reality was that the game was a hundredfold overpriced and continuing simply was not worth it.

See, I just don't see that as proof. In one instance, you are so into the game that  you are willing to spend $180 and find a work around to do so. In the other, you have just spent 6 months having free reign, have surpassed all of your peers, and have now handcuffed your play. I'd be surprised if you wanted to keep playing without the perks of MC at that point, and I certainly wouldn't expect you to pay 100x after you were used to the five finger discount.

For a brief period I was insanely into this stupid app Tap Fish. You buy, raise and sell fish to make aquariums. I'd plan my fish acquisitions around my day to make sure I was netting the most coins per hour for how frequently I could check on them. I quickly surpassed my DH, and then discovered a glitch in the game that allowed me to advance the clock whenever I wanted. I quickly worked my way up to over a million coins and then the game lost all appeal. I could have any fish or aquarium decoration I wanted, but there was no point. It ceased being a game when acquiring wealth was no longer a goal. There was no challenge whatsoever. 

Maybe you would have quit immediately 6 months prior, but there is no way of proving that because you didn't. Quitting 6 months later under a completely different set of circumstances is not proof.

All I can do is offer my reasonable assessment that the crippled no-pay version of the game was an absolute no-go for me. The only reason I invested the time and effort in finding the vulnerability was because I knew it would be necessary to continue playing the game.

I understand your situation with the Tap Fish game, and I acknowledge that cheating guts the challenge and enjoyment out of a game in many cases. This wasn't such a case. The game was poorly designed (or some might argue well-designed) in the sense that it simply became unplayable beyond a certain point without MC.

Ironically, the factor that prevented the burn-out you mention is that even at a 99% discount, I couldn't afford to purchase enough content to progress through the game as quickly as I wanted to. I thought many times about sweetening the discount, but decided against it each time because I considered it theft. I wanted to be absolutely certain that what I was paying the developer to play would make my patronage an asset to them.

[Deleted]

Heinz's Dilemma this is not!   

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 10, 2015 22:16:34 GMT -5 oped said:

Heinz's Dilemma this is not!   

Not really, although you could put on the various hats they use in that exercise.

[Deleted]

I don't really think it works when the ultimate goal is 'want to keep playing a video game'....

[toomuchreality]

I have a hard time thinking of stealing, as being ethical. But that's just me.


Maybe you helped them, by putting them out of business sooner?



In the code of ethics it said:  "Thou shalt steal, to 'help' they neighbor" ...Said no business code of ethics, ever!




When I can equate the two, I'll come back with my answer. For now, all I can say, is at least you paid something. Most people wouldn't have, I suspect.



Virgil Showlion- Were you on the debate team? 
-Just curious.