Just stick with the common definition of murder: Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human.

As you can see, this definition excludes animals.

Obviously punishment is a human construct, but have we here reached the conclusion that you feel punishment is inherently injustifiable in all cases as there is no way to determine the moral value of an action?

My position is that that are things that are wrong, and things that are right, and it does not depend on the eye of the beholder. In my view, there are certain laws of morality just like there are other laws of nature. True, these laws are not as easily observed such as gravity or friction, but they are still there. I know many people will balk at a definition like that, but without it there is no justification for anything.

Again that definition is subjective, it ties it back into a legal issue ('unlawful killing') I think there are several cases of killing another human being that are murder but protected under law (and vice versa)

Also I did not say punishment is inherently unjustifiable, that is you taking my words and twisting them. As I see it punishment is based on what society deems wrong which makes perfect moral sense to me but others might disagree.

Once again I am not trying to change your opinion I simply disagree with it, all things - including truth and morality I believe are to use your phrase in 'the eye of the beholder' at some level.

Also I disagree that morals being subjective would equate to no justification for anything but I respect that you have the right to believe that if you want.

The more I think about it the more I realize I'm fine with rules that are arbitrary at some level which is something I would not have inherently though of myself, its interesting and kind of fun to spark thinking at a bit of a higher level like this - thank you for the interesting discussion and I hope I didn't offend you with my words and/or different opinion.

Of course.

If not, then what are you paying full price for? Permission to play a digital game you could pay the same amount for and get a physical copy without the stupid restrictions?


If people think downloading a copy in this scenario is wrong, then I question their idea on what ownership entails.

To me, if I pay for a digital game and that game gets taken off a server and no longer accessible, either they give me my money back or I pirate another copy.

Consumers first in my eyes. Nothing will ever change that.

Legally? No.

Then again nobody will ever know/care. Never understood why people found privacy so morally wrong. Shit. If you're broke then download the game. If not, buy it. If you have money but torrent then you're a douchbag. End of story.

People get so scared when talking about piracy. "Oh well, will the cops, like, come to my house? Omg s000 scared!@!#scared"

Legally? Yes, actually. For some reason I've noticed some folks conflate that with morality as well. Not so much on this site, admittedly, but still. Which is what led me to pose the question in the first place.

It is indeed good to challenge one's thinking, I am glad you see the value of my off topic ramblings. Many people chose to get unhinged rather than to reflect when their ideas are challenged. There's no more ground for us to cover here, we see the nature of right and wrong differently. Nothing wrong with that, I do however have to point out that the definition of murder is not subjective. It's not subjective what is unlawful, it is as close to objective as we can hope to get. Most societies invest a good deal of time, money and effort into giving clear and objective guidelines for what is unlawful and what is not.

Not sure if you mentioned it yet, but what is your view?

Do you think that if a digital title you paid for is taken off the server you should have the right to regain access to your initial purchase?

This is my main gripe with digital. They want you to pay the same exact price for media that you have always paid, with the consumer losing their actual ownership priveledges.

I can't grasp how people support this, but I don't really want to get into a big argument about it. It just seriously rubs me the wrong way.

I'm pro-consumer enough to say yes, but I also know that what you're really purchasing is just a temporary license to download and use. It's why I tend to shy away from digital games, when possible.

I feel that if you download digitally and it is only a license, then what would normally cost $14.99 at release (A movie) at retail should cost no more than $8-9 digitial.

Currently they save on pressing discs, paying for packaging, distribution and giving retailers a cut. So why do we pay the same price?

I feel that anyone doing so is only doing not only themselves a massive disservice, but leading towards doing the same to the rest of us. They see it as a conviencence to themselves, yet it is in reality only leading to a loss of consumer rights and allowing themselves to be overcharged for something they never really own. They are in essence paying more for less. Although that is for another topic and another day.

Whilst on principle I agree with you, in reality often people simply decide that because a game isn't immediately available to them in their preferred form, they will torrent it.  For example, games that see re-release on one or two platforms, but not the ones someone already onws.