RE: [ba-poker] Ethical guidance needed

[<E.Dieter.Martin(deleted the rest)>]

Mark Rafn wrote:

> Ahh, enforceability.  I'm in agreement that unenforceable rules are
almost 
> always a bad idea, but it does beg the original question, which was
about 
> morals, not rules.  Unless you believe that morals come from rules
(vs. 
> rules coming from morals or rules being independent of morals), it
could 
> be both immoral and not prohibited by online rules.


A good friend of mine is a philosophy professor teaching ethics and
moral theory. I asked him about the enforceability and other issues in
the thread. That's his answer:

> That would be the Hobbesian approach (named after British philosopher
Thomas
> Hobbes)...unenforceable sanctions are "null and void."  The
utilitarian
> would ask what negative consequences this would have if it were a
widespread
> practice: perhaps people would feel that some are gaining an unfair
> advantage, would not want to play the game anymore, and the online
practice
> as a whole would suffer.  The Kantian of course would probably
consider it
> cheating regardless of the consequences and would be evermindful of
the
> sword of duty always lurking above one's head regardless of whether
anyone
> is watching or not....good example to bring these different theories
out.

> Lance

So we have 3 approaches to ethics here. Hobbes taking care quickly of
the unenforceable variant. Utilitarian (taken from former discsusions
with him) being the american way: will it be okay if everybody does it.
Which seems reasonable to me, since every play has the opportunity to
just do that without slowing down the game flow.
He's described Kant and the consequences for Uncle Roger very well
already.


Dieter