Public Statement of Position: A Hacker's Decree

[XRay]

Youll see - when theres no enemy, friends turn on each other.

There will always be minor quarrels over the limited resources in the game, but I doubt those must be fought in a destructive manner. Even nice players will keep stealing other people's software, blackmailing others by faking IPs, stealing each others' virus farms and missions and so on. However, that doesn't mean you need to actively damage others (apart from some collateral damage to their virus and mission income).

Besides, I'm sure that there's no lack of players who act nasty enough to make them natural enemies; just look at the number of players complaining about finding all their software deleted.

[plubius]

my personal ethos is that there are no rules but what you can do to others, and what others can do to you. the tricky part is that the others might figure out those rules, and the fact is that you cant survive based on "us against the world" so you also need to understand that working together is in the best intrest of those involved. then as long as it is in the best intrest of all parties the alliance will go on, but not longer than when one of them figures that out. your ethos must be based on logic, and his is... for now.

[Rothum]

We could all just sit around the campfire and hold hands. Being friends is much safer! When all of the get-along gang are running v.5,are they going to be satisfied with the " I wont harm PC Gates" Manifesto?-I doubt it. People in power dont stay in power by giving it to others. Youll see-when theres no enemy,friends turn on each other.

Chuckle actually in my day job I do just that empower others. 

[XRay]

your ethos must be based on logic, and his is... for now.

I couldn't disagree more. You cannot base any decision purely on logic, you need certain axioms to begin with. You can then use logic to deduce the consequences of these axioms and act accordingly.

After searching for about five years now, I don't see any other basic foundation than my own feelings, and those clearly state that it is nice to deal with others in a friendly manner, even when there's no personal gain involved other than sharing happiness with the people around you. That's Epicurean Ethics in a nutshell.

[plubius]

ah, but your own ethos, as you have just stated it is one of logic, that the only basic foundation upon which to act is your own feelings. however there are certain situations where that does not hold, like when i feel like killing my brother for taking my stuff, we must then base our ethos on logic, noting that every person has certain rights which should not be violated, life, liberty and the product of the two, property.

[ManoftheSea]

You can't base a house on more house, you can't base an ethic on logic.  You must have a foundation, which is his axiom of his feelings.

[XRay]

however there are certain situations where that does not hold, like when i feel like killing my brother for taking my stuff, we must then base our ethos on logic, noting that every person has certain rights which should not be violated, life, liberty and the product of the two, property.

You assume that there are fundamental rights to every person, but how do you deduce that by pure logic? You always need at least one starting point for your argumentation, some basic premise you believe to be true. My starting point is the subjective influx of feelings and sensory perception. What's yours?

[plubius]

my starting point is the objective belief in personal liberty, and that it trumps everything but another persons personal liberty.

[XRay]

my starting point is the objective belief in personal liberty, and that it trumps everything but another persons personal liberty.

I understand this sentence except for the word "objective belief". What do you mean with that?

[plubius]

i probably should have said objective continuation of the beleif. the phrase objective belief is an oxymoron. and to be honest, an objective continuation isnt the starting point anyway.

[XRay]

and to be honest, an objective continuation isnt the starting point anyway.

Yeah, explaining the basics of your personal metaphysics can get rather lengthy, that's why philosophers usually write long books about just a single topic. Definitely doesn't fit in a single thread.

[plubius]

oh, i don't know, ayn rand was once asked to describe her personal philosophy while standing on one foot. plus i though we were talking about ethics, not metaphysics 

[XRay]

plus i though we were talking about ethics, not metaphysics 

Yeah, but since I was asking what your basic premises are, I asked you an implicitely metaphysical question. Imho, you cannot logically deduce the things that should be from the things that are without at least a tiny bit of metaphysics hidden inside your argument.

However, maybe my definition of metaphysics is too broad.

[Andreas]

A summary of this;
Not kill your brother despite he have your toys because of wanting him to live=Logics.
Wanting him to live=A thes that you have picked up and adopted.=Your personal belief which is based on (someones) feelings or our sociity (how do I spell that?)=If it was inspired by feelings it can be tracked down to the insticts and finally the genes. If it was inspired by our almost working sociity (There AGAIN!) it cant be tracked down about that easy. My personal belief in this matter is herd mentality. This makes us wanting the herd (our f**kING SOCIITY!!! d**n!) to work well.

[XRay]

If it was inspired by feelings it can be tracked down to the insticts and finally the genes. If it was inspired by our almost working sociity (There AGAIN!) it cant be tracked down about that easy.

Probably a combination of the two. Psychologists are constantly changing their opinion about whether it's 20% genetic and 80% conditioned or exactly the other way round.

PS: It is spelled "society".