If you're dumb enough to pay for a picture, well, you've got a picture. Moreover, they don't deceive customers (what con men you mentioned do). They're selling these things to make money, that much should be obvious by this point. I don't see SC as taking advantage of anyone's goodwill at this point. It also doesn't matter whether anyone but the deceiver in question knows about the deception. Lying doesn't matter for the market (indeed, pretty lies are in very high demand), but it makes a world of difference when it comes to morality. On the other hand, someone who genuinely believes that these prophecies will come true aren't doing anything immoral, strictly speaking (though he may be deluded, but that's another thing). Someone who sells prophecies knowing that they're just making it up is definitely immoral. I believe that whether this sort of thing is moral or not depends on intentions behind it. So you classify all fortune tellers, supposed psychics and the like as con artists? I don't think it's right, though I can see why you could think so. Perhaps that's your personal goal and I'm even inclined to believe in this, but it isn't mine and I can assure you it's not where the overwhelming majority's aspirations go. The only way such a logic could prevail would be if we defined human beings as being perfectly rational at all times, careless amoral nihilistic beings who only care for market signals and so on. So it's not immoral, right? No, there is such a thing as taking advantage of people's good will, and then there's taking advantage on the order of magnitude that Star Citizen has deployed, which is staggering. It matters not if they are lying according to this market logic (how can you even know that without telepathy), it matters merely that there is a kind of a service provided and that there are always people giving these guys money for it. Con artists do this all the time, providing "services" like mind reading and other supernatural shenanigans for a lot of money. It's the current overwhelming ideology, wherein anything that the market does, it's not immoral, because there's supply and demand between human agents. The reason why your demand and supply argument is wrong is that you take it dogmatically to be right, or at least not immoral. But everyone should feel bad for doing it. Since people want these things and want more of them (to the point they're willing to pay), why not go with the latter option?Įxploitation is deeply immoral, except for BDSM-type of exploits, you know, fetiches. Assuming these things are created by paid employees, the choice is to have them available for money or not make them at all. Someone dumb or obsessed enough to pay for them deserves everything he gets. Sure, it's exploitation, but if someone essentially agrees to be exploited, is it really wrong? Nobody is forcing them to buy those things, the way out is wide open and there is no physical addiction. SC merchandise isn't one of these things (unless, of course, you're a die-hard hater). If you classify selling fancy pictures as wrong, what about paper greeting cards, posters, merchandise, autographs and other stuff like that? Is it also immoral to print out a fancy picture (since that's what many posters are these days) and sell it for many times the price of ink and paper it took to create it? Sure, there are things bought and sold that are immoral, but for most part, these are things that shouldn't even exist. These terms are used interchangeably so bloody often that they got me doing it. The FreeSpace Universe Reference Project.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |