There are 24 messages totalling 805 lines in this issue. Topics in this special issue: 1. ATTN: All Fan Fic writers (15) 2. Morality (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) (3) 3. Belated ADMIN: Endgame Spoiler lifetime is over (2) 4. Morality (4) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 19:49:19 -0700 From: Diana DeShaun <ddeshaun@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers I said: > >>>Please. I'll save my morality for _real_ issues > like > hate crimes and child abuse, and let others worry > about the minutia.>>> And Nina: > Well, since you aren't (I assume) perpetrating hate > crimes or abusing > children, I'd think you could spare a look at the > morality of what you ARE > doing. But Nina, whose morality? Yours? As Emily Dickinson said: I'm nobody, who are you? Are you nobody too? I'll answer that - yep. Neither you nor I count for diddly except to ourselves. I sleep just fine at night, thanks. I'm willing to assume you do too. Good for both of us. Diana ===== my webpage: http://www.geocities.com/ddeshaun/index.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 23:14:56 -0400 From: KLZ <zklee@patriot.net> Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers > Could you also provide for us proof of > economic damage caused by fan fiction? The idea of a copyright is that when you own it, you're entitled to whatever income results from those characters. Whether or not people make anything from f*nf*c, it is use of the characters where the owner does not receive anything. If an episode of HL is shown on TV, the owner receives something. If the logo is stamped on a keychain, the owner receives something. If a book is published, the owner receives something. If the characters are used in f*nf*c, the owner receives nothing. The copyright owner did not create the characters for amusement, he did it ultimately to make money. Illegal use of the characters deprives him of income from the characters. I don't think that the argument that nobody makes money from f*nf*c holds water. If the media tie-in novels weren't written, or merchandise produced, or HL were not shown on TV, they wouldn't receive money from those sources either, but that doesn't mean that those things can happen without the copyright owner being paid. Whether or not the copyright owner would have received income from that use of the characters, the owner should have. JMGLO, of course. ZK zklee@patriot.net (I know what I mean, so there) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 23:32:57 EDT From: Dotiran@aol.com Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers In a message dated 7/13/2001 9:49:47 PM US Eastern Standard Time, ddeshaun@yahoo.com writes: > whose morality? Yours? Excuse me while I head off to a corner to laugh -- or cry. Moral relativism. The fallacy of our age. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:53:12 -0700 From: Lynn <lloschin@sprynet.com> Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers From: <Dotiran@aol.com> > > whose morality? Yours? > > Excuse me while I head off to a corner to laugh -- or cry. Moral relativism. > The fallacy of our age. Sheesh -- so there is only *one* morally right way (which I'm guessing is yours) and anyone who doesn't abide by those moral principles is inherently immoral? Nice concept... I bet the Taliban would heartily agree. (And one with which I bet Duncan MacLeod would, fortunately, disagree.) So much for respect for diversity and differing spiritual and religious ideas -- which of course frequently breed disagreements on moral issues. What if you don't think something as mundane as fanfic (no pun intended) raises any moral issue whatsoever? At most it raises a *legal* one, IMO, which, as we all know, is not necessarily the same thing. Lynn ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 00:00:28 EDT From: Ashton7@aol.com Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers In a message dated 7/13/01 11:33:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Dotiran@aol.com writes: << > whose morality? Yours? Excuse me while I head off to a corner to laugh -- or cry. Moral relativism. The fallacy of our age. >> I happen to think it was a perfectly valid question. As others have already pointed out, there are copyright holders who could try to sue fan fiction writers if they choose to do so. They have not chosen to do so. If they did do so, the court may or may not decide in their favor. There is, to my knowledge, no legal precedent to draw upon. The actors in question have no legal rights regarding copyrighted or trademarked materials connected with, for example, the Highlander franchise. Some folks, as is their right, believe that if an actor doesn't like something, they should comply with his or her wishes. They have the right to follow their own conscience in that situation. They do not have the right to foist off their moral outrage on me or anyone else, much less demand that I (or anyone else) comply with their definition of what is or isn't "moral." I've always found it interesting that in all of the fandoms I've been involved in over the years (20+ years), I've never encountered a situation where a slash fan has deliberately shown an actor slash fiction or art (unless the actor *requested* to see it, that is). I have, however, on several occasions encountered the situation where *anti* slash fans just felt it was their "moral" duty to shove the slash stories and/or art into the actors face and ask them what they "thought" of it. In at least one case, the person then took the actor on a personal tour of all of the writers in the fandom by revealing who was behind each pseudonym that had been used on stories (for the ones that had pseudonyms, of course). She felt this was her "moral" duty and that she was only protecting this actor. He'd known about slash for years. In fact, he had often joked about it publically. But, somehow, everything got very twisted around after that. This poor little "moral" fan later told people that she had been warned her life was in danger because rabid slash fans were going to have her *killed* for denying them their "fix." Er, they were never denied anything. Fan fiction and slash never suffered so much as a hiccup in production just because she had warned Mr. Actor about the big, bad fan fiction writers. I ask you? Who was being kinder to the actor in question? The "moral" fan who felt she just had to "out" a large segment of the fandom to him? Or the folks who didn't choose to assume that he would share their delight at their fannish hobbies? Annie CWPack ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:23:34 EDT From: Bizarro7@aol.com Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers << Of course, by the time Edan is 18, all the slash fans will probably be slashing totally new shows. (Tanith and Apophis? <g>) >> Technically, isn't that a 'foursome'? Toooooo kinky. Leah CWPack ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:38:44 EDT From: Bizarro7@aol.com Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers In a message dated 7/13/01 11:33:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Dotiran@aol.com writes: << Excuse me while I head off to a corner to laugh -- or cry. Moral relativism. The fallacy of our age. >> Pardon...that's a new term to me. Just what does 'moral relativism' mean? Leah CWPack ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:09:56 +0200 From: Marina Bailey <fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za> Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers Leah wrote: >(Tanith and Apophis? <g>) >> >Technically, isn't that a 'foursome'? >Toooooo kinky. *Snerk* Just how *did* Goa'ulds reproduce before they got hosts, anyway? We know the queen Goa'ulds like Hathor make the baby snakes, right... - Marina, feeling she can post since this is rather... off- topic. <g> \ "But then, we saw that Obi-Wan doth look upon ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // // Qui-Gon with lust, and that Mr. Lucas was not || R I C H I E >> \\ \\ likely to include that in the next movie, so we ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // // said screw it and wrote it ourselves." - Warning || \\ \\ page of the 'Master & Apprentice' slash site || // //==fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za=Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie==\\ I want to go back to my home planet - if someone would please tell me where it is! - Tarryn ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 09:18:17 EDT From: Dotiran@aol.com Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers In a message dated 7/14/2001 7:39:34 AM US Eastern Standard Time, Bizarro7@aol.com writes: > Just what does 'moral relativism' mean? > It is a philosophical/ethical term for that point of view which posits only subjectivity in the resolution of moral dilemmas. [e.g. no "objective" standards, only "your" truth, vs. "my" truth.] Here is a pretty good article on it. http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/moral-relativism.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 09:29:43 EDT From: Bizarro7@aol.com Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers In a message dated 7/14/01 9:09:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za writes: << *Snerk* Just how *did* Goa'ulds reproduce before they got hosts, anyway? We know the queen Goa'ulds like Hathor make the baby snakes, right... >> I dunno; I was wondering that very same thing yesterday. Presumably, a Queen Goa'uld's gotta be fertilized somehow (although Annie tells me they don't have respective sexes), but they do take DNA from the host race so that their larvae will be compatible with the species they're going to 'occupy'. This led to the rather disturbing idea that in the episode of Hathor's first appearance, she mated with Daniel Jackson to get his DNA and start a new brood...and then planted one of the larvae in Jack O'Neill. Which would make this either one of the most indirect cases of 'slash' ever between TV characters on a show, or else O'Neill was actually pregnant with Jackson's 'baby'.... Okay, I'll stop now. The heebie jeebies have caught up with me again. Leah ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 09:35:58 EDT From: Bizarro7@aol.com Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers In a message dated 7/14/01 9:18:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Dotiran@aol.com writes: << > Just what does 'moral relativism' mean? It is a philosophical/ethical term for that point of view which posits only subjectivity in the resolution of moral dilemmas. [e.g. no "objective" standards, only "your" truth, vs. "my" truth.] Here is a pretty good article on it. >> Er...since every individual human being on the planet has a different perception of reality (and the morality within it), under this definition, 'moral relativism' is the norm, not the oddball exception. For example, two parents may bicker over the proper way to deal with an incident of a child's misbehavior, because they see the scope and consequences of the moral sin the child has committed differently. Apart from identical twins, maybe, I would imagine no two intelligent individuals are going to have the same perception on morality, are they? Maybe I'm not getting the definition correctly. Or maybe the real issue is actually 'tolerance' for differing perceptions and definitions of moral behavior. Leah CWPack ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 09:50:46 EDT From: Dotiran@aol.com Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers In a message dated 7/14/2001 8:36:44 AM US Eastern Standard Time, Bizarro7@aol.com writes: > since every individual human being on the planet has a different > perception of reality (and the morality within it), under this definition, > 'moral relativism' is the norm, not the oddball exception. > Which is precisely the problem. You speak of "perceptions". On those [shaky *g*] grounds we have no disagreement. If there are 50 people in a room no two may have the same "perception" of anything. Moral relativism stops there and says therefore there is no truth, at least no truth that can be known. Those philosphers and theologians who reject moral relativism [which is a broader topic than "morality"] believe that although all 50 of us in the room will see perhaps a different side/part/angle on that 2 ton elephant in the room --so that none of us may see the entire picture,-- nonetheless there IS an elephant, a truth there, "objectively" present and it can eventually be known. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:15:59 -0400 From: Trilby <trilby23@bellsouth.net> Subject: Morality (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) Dotiran answers the question: > << > Just what does 'moral relativism' mean? > > It is a philosophical/ethical term for that point of view which posits only > subjectivity in the resolution of moral dilemmas. [e.g. no "objective" > standards, only "your" truth, vs. "my" truth.] Here is a pretty good article > on it. >> And Leah continues: > Er...since every individual human being on the planet has a different > perception of reality (and the morality within it), under this definition, > 'moral relativism' is the norm, not the oddball exception. <snip> > Maybe I'm not getting the definition correctly. Or maybe the real issue is > actually 'tolerance' for differing perceptions and definitions of moral > behavior. After reading the article Dotiran posted the link to, I think Leah's right. Some moral values are ingrained in us by our culture, some we develop from life experience, but no one moral precept is ultimately "better" or "more moral" than another. HL illustrated the concept of moral relativity in some of the most interesting eps. Duncan understood that Kenny's world was different from his own. Amanda wasn't what 20th-century North America would call "moral" but we love her anyway, and she was always able to rationalize theft, deception, and using Duncan's credit cards. Relying on my incredibly faulty memory, "Under Color of Authority" may be one of the best illustrations of moral relativity. Duncan, Richie, and Mako all had conflicting views of what was "right" or "moral". None of them were wrong. -------------------- Trilby "Please don't tell my mother I'm a social worker. She thinks I play the piano in a whorehouse." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:25:39 -0400 From: Dragon Lady <dragonlady@darkmage.net> Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers This may or may not be of interest, depending on what side of the fence you're on. But I thought some may be interested in legal opinion (note use of *opinion* please) on this subject (although certainly not the last word, I'm sure!): [sorry for the long urls] Protection of Fictional Characters <http://library.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getfile.pl?FILE=firms/plc/plc000020&TITLE=Subject&TOPIC=Intellectual%20Property%20Law_Copyright&FILENAME=intellectualpropertylaw_1_233> Protection of Graphic Characters <http://library.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getfile.pl?FILE=firms/plc/plc000024&TITLE=Subject&TOPIC=Intellectual%20Property%20Law_Copyright&FILENAME=intellectualpropertylaw_1_233> How Much of Someone Else's Work May I Use Without Asking Permission?: The Fair Use Doctrine, Part I <http://library.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getfile.pl?FILE=firms/plc/plc000006&TITLE=Subject&TOPIC=Intellectual%20Property%20Law_Copyright&FILENAME=intellectualpropertylaw_1_233> How Much of Someone Else's Work May I Use Without Asking Permission?: The Fair Use Doctrine, Part II <http://library.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getfile.pl?FILE=firms/plc/plc000008&TITLE=Subject&TOPIC=Intellectual%20Property%20Law_Copyright&FILENAME=intellectualpropertylaw_1_233> And someone mentioned that copyright infringement was *only* a civil action NOT criminal. I don't believe that to be true in the broadest sense (although in the case of fanfic, I don't believe there is a case for criminal action). Here's an article that details what the Feds consider criminal infringement: CRIMINAL REMEDIES FOR COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS <http://library.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getfile.pl?file=/federal/doj/doj000043/sectiii.htm> ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:13:04 -0400 From: Debra Douglass <ddoug@catrio.org> Subject: Re: Belated ADMIN: Endgame Spoiler lifetime is over On 7/13/2001, on HIGHLA-L@lists.psu.edu, Jette Goldie wrote: >>> It just dawned on me that I never ended the Spoiler lifetime on >>> "Highlander: Endgame". Sorry. I do believe that it has been released >>> in most if not all of the countries of people who belong to this list >>> and that ten months should definitely have covered it for most >>> people. The last release that the Internet Movie Database shows was in >>> Lithuania on May 25th. >> >>But not in Britain. Lithuania but not Britain - and not >>the Netherlands either from what I'm told by my Dutch >>friends. Do you have a release date yet? -Debbie -- .------------------------------------------------------------------. |Debra Douglass ddoug@catrio.org http://www.catrio.org| `------------------------------------------------------------------' ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:18:59 +0100 From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: Morality (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) Well, never let it be said that this List doesn't go for the biggies. Moral Relativity, perception, legal rights and elephants. I feel like I've walked into an episode of South Park. Isn't the truth more basic than we're actually making it....simply: A person is entitled to do (almost) whatever they want as long as they realise that it may have consequences of varying degrees. ie: if you do something you know to be illegal, you must be prepared to live with any legal punishment if you do something you know to be dangerous, you must be prepared to live with physical pain if you do something you know will cause others pain, you must deal with their hurt and reaction if you do something you know to be controversial, you must deal with/expect diverse reactions AS long as you realise that consequences are not just how YOU react, but how others react or pay for your actions (and how your country/society implements the rules regarding this), then most people's moral codes are pretty much in unison. In other words: do as you would be done by. Not so much of a 'Can I do this (and not be punished)?' society, but a 'Should I do this?' Of course, that''ll screw the lawyers. John ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:20:07 +0100 From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: Belated ADMIN: Endgame Spoiler lifetime is over Highlander: Endgame received its video release in the UK on May 21st 2001. There will be no cinema release. I have no information on any DVD release. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Debra Douglass" <ddoug@catrio.org> To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [HL] Belated ADMIN: Endgame Spoiler lifetime is over > On 7/13/2001, on HIGHLA-L@lists.psu.edu, Jette Goldie wrote: > >>> It just dawned on me that I never ended the Spoiler lifetime on > >>> "Highlander: Endgame". Sorry. I do believe that it has been released > >>> in most if not all of the countries of people who belong to this list > >>> and that ten months should definitely have covered it for most > >>> people. The last release that the Internet Movie Database shows was in > >>> Lithuania on May 25th. > >> > >>But not in Britain. Lithuania but not Britain - and not > >>the Netherlands either from what I'm told by my Dutch > >>friends. > > Do you have a release date yet? > > -Debbie > > -- > .------------------------------------------------------------------. > |Debra Douglass ddoug@catrio.org http://www.catrio.org| > `------------------------------------------------------------------' ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:02:53 -0400 From: jjswbt@earthlink.net Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers Marina wrote: >I think I've bemused you a lot, Wendy. :) Off and on <g> But that's what makes you interesting. >I think your argument has already been answered by Trilby: >>... I see it, by and large, as a "victimless crime". [snip] >>If I'm not harming myself or someone else, or decreasing someone's >>material gains, my guilt quotient is very low. I guess I don't see it in terms of "material" harm. I agree that fanfic doesn't "rob" anyone..TPTB aren't losing money. As for it being "victimless"..I was really addressing John's question as to whether a writer of fanfic might, or might not, stop writing if specifically asked by an actor. One assumes that if that was the case, the actor feels "harmed" in some way and is asking for relief. There are lots of annoying things that people do that bother those around them. These things are often legal. That doesn't mean that those exposed to the annoying "habit" aren't ..well...annoyed. It's like an embarrassing story your old friend keeps telling all your new friends even though the events are 20 years in the past. You wish the friend would stop embarrassing you. It's not illegal for the friend to tell the story ...just embarrassing and hurtful. A friend would stop if asked. A good friend would stop without being asked. And before anyone tells we..yes..I know... actors and fanfic writers are not "friends". However, in very small fandoms..with only a handful of "stars" and a few hundred dedicated fans...I think the relationship is close enough that the feelings of *all* parties should be considered..not just the wishes of one party. >Annie also wrote: >>An actor's opinion, pro or con, has absolutely no effect on whether >>or not I choose to write or publish fan fiction. I don't really care, >>either way. I write and read fan fiction about *characters*, not about >>actors. Marina: >Exactly. And some of us have been in fandom of one kind or another >for so many years (23 years for me) that the *shock!* *horror!* that >some (relative) newbies to fandom display is... I dunno... amusing. I'm not shocked by slash. I was, I admit, surprised the first time I ever heard of it..mostly because I didn't "get" why anyone would want to see the characters in question in that kind of relationship. It had simply never occurred to me. No wait....I *had* heard of Kirk/Spock many years ago...but I thought it was done as a joke..a parody. After all these years, I certainly know that some people *do* like slash (for many reasons) - many to the exclusion of any other kind of fanfic. I also know that some people find it very offensive. And, to be honest <g>, I still don't "get" it . I understand on an intellectual level, still don't comprehend the attraction on a gut level. But then, I don't "get" how anyone can like liver and onions, either. I don't see that being an actor somehow takes away your right to be upset at slash involving a character you have portrayed. Does being "in the business" suddenly remove all your personal feelings and beliefs? Does every actor automatically get a crash course in fanfic and slash along with their SAG card? I can think of one HL actor who was totally thrown off guard by the discovery of slash..and he wasn't any 18 year old kid. >But since (as someone else said) the actor doesn't >own the character, I feel I can write about that character. I'm NOT >writing about Adrian, I'm writing about Duncan. And I'd hope that >Adrian, of all people, knows the difference between fantasy and >reality. As I have said before..I know that Duncan and Adrian are two different entities- one real, one not. I know that Peter is not Methos. I know that slash between Joe and Methos is not slash between Jim and Peter. I know that when Kronos rapes Methos ..it isn't Val raping Peter. I can separate reality and fiction. I think most people can. But....when I read fanfic with Duncan in it...in my mind..who do I see? Duncan, of course. But who does Duncan look like? Adrian, of course. Methos looks remarkably like Peter. Kronos and Val could be twins. I don't think it is quite so clear cut that fanfic does not involve the actors, only the characters. No one pictures Duncan as 5' 7" stoop-shouldered and blonde.The actor and the role are intimately connected..and I think that gives the actor some right (not legal right) to have feelings -pro-or con- about fanfic. Whether a writer takes those feelings into consideration when writing is another question (actually, it is the question John prop! ! osed.) Actually, fanfic in general, and slash in particular, presents an interesting sociological phenomena. Here we have a group of people who have decided that they want what they want regardless of its legality. Kinda like drugs and prostitution <eg> Wendy(Someone compared fanfic to Napster.)(Napster is - was- actually much worse.)(Napster existed solely to allow people to obtain, for free, music they would otherwise have to pay for.)(Napster and its users were knowingly screwing song writers and artists out of their royalties.)(The fact that someone will create a new way to so do this doesn't make any of it acceptable in a law abiding society.) Fairy Killer jjswbt@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:11:26 EDT From: Ashton7@aol.com Subject: Morality In a message dated 7/14/01 9:51:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Dotiran@aol.com writes: << believe that although all 50 of us in the room will see perhaps a different side/part/angle on that 2 ton elephant in the room --so that none of us may see the entire picture,-- nonetheless there IS an elephant, a truth there, "objectively" present and it can eventually be known. >> And who decides what that one "moral truth" *is*? There are many things in our world which are, at this point in time, unexplainable for us mere mortals and there are many, many scientific and spiritual theories and mythologies which all attempt to explain the unexplainable. We all have different acceptable limits as to what we are willing to "believe" as proof. Obviously, for some people, the delicate sensibilities of some actors is extremely important to them and they believe it is a "moral truth" that everyone should bend over backwards to do the bidding of these actors. To others, the opinion of the actors just isn't relevant because media fan fiction revolves around the *characters* the actors played. Who decides which concept of morality is "right"? Annie CWPack ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:17:13 EDT From: Ashton7@aol.com Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers In a message dated 7/14/01 12:03:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jjswbt@earthlink.net writes: << I don't see that being an actor somehow takes away your right to be upset at slash involving a character you have portrayed. Does being "in the business" suddenly remove all your personal feelings and beliefs? >> Well, no. Who said that it does? They have a right to feel anyway they want to about it. The question was whether or not the fans writing it should then feel obligated to *stop* writing it just because the actor is bothered by it. There are a lot of people bothered by slash who *aren't* actors. They just don't like it or they just don't like that homosexuality exists (much less gets written about) or they don't like fan fiction or whatever. Should the writers thus stop writing slash (or any fan fiction) because someone out there might be "bothered" by it? Why? The people who don't like it *don't have to read it*. If you don't like a TV show, turn it off. If you don't like a book, put it down. If you don't like a movie, leave the theater. BTW, when I first encountered Kirk/Spock fiction yea many a year ago, I too thought it must be a joke. I just couldn't believe it was there. It didn't offend me. I just found it funny. Some of the first slash I saw was pretty soppily romantic, too, which didn't help my giggle factor. I was surprised that the slash existed but it certainly *never* occurred to me that I was entitled to some kind of moral outrage and indignation over its existence, and certainly not on behalf of the actors. Annie CWPack ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:11:42 +0100 From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: Morality Who decides which concept of morality is > "right"? > > Annie CWPack The only reasonable answer to that is: "the law", a set of restrictions which, in a democracy, have been voted as to benefit the rights of the people, or at least the largest majority of those people possible. For instance, someone may think it is morally right to commit murder but in a society in which it is unacceptable by law, the person does NOT have the right to commit murder. Is that imposing a morality other than their own upon them? Ubetcha... but I doubt that anyone else would complain about it. (Actually, nowadays, where the victim can be sued by his/her attacker, who knows?) A society has to walk the tightrope between an individual's rights IN society and the right of the individual's rights TO society. Otherwise the prisons would be empty because murderers would claim their own moral code was sufficent right to kill as they saw fit without consequence? Are you suggesting NO restrictions to how people practise their moral code? Or only in certain cases? John ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:36:16 EDT From: Dotiran@aol.com Subject: Re: Morality (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) In a message dated 7/14/2001 10:19:03 AM US Eastern Standard Time, a.j.mosby@btinternet.com writes: > Not so much of a 'Can I do this > (and not be punished)?' society, but a 'Should I do this?' Ah, but should implies a standard. > > Of course, that''ll screw the lawyers. > . Snarf. *g* ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:42:41 EDT From: Dotiran@aol.com Subject: Re: Morality In a message dated 7/14/2001 11:11:53 AM US Eastern Standard Time, Ashton7@aol.com writes: > . Who decides which concept of morality is > "right"? > This reminds me of the old --which came first the chicken or the egg --theory. If there is such a thing as "truth" or "right" then we stand "under" it and are judged by *it*, we do not place ourselves "above" *it* and judge whether truth is truth. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:50:20 +0100 From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: Morality ----- Original Message ----- From: <Dotiran@aol.com> To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:42 PM Subject: Re: [HL] Morality > In a message dated 7/14/2001 11:11:53 AM US Eastern Standard Time, > Ashton7@aol.com writes: > > > > . Who decides which concept of morality is > > "right"? > > > > This reminds me of the old --which came first the chicken or the egg > --theory. If there is such a thing as "truth" or "right" then we stand > "under" it and are judged by *it*, we do not place ourselves "above" *it* and > judge whether truth is truth. ------------------------------ End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 13 Jul 2001 to 14 Jul 2001 - Special issue (#2001-196) *******************************************************************************