Aethelwine

Language seems to create confusion sometimes. When people talk about Trespassing for example, my immediate thoughts are about the mass trespass in the 1930s (I think) local to me that led to the opening up of public spaces. Trespass since then has been a right (limited but still a right and a valued one). Others probably have very different associations. For others it is about their space being invaded. The same word, same derivation of meaning but very different reactions. This song is one result of the Trespass movement:

This entire thread seems to have gone that way since the 4th post.

The first post is about a landowner finding their land blocked by their neighbours actions. They spoke with their neighbour and they corrected the issue making the obstruction phantom (3rd post). At the other end of the route I spoke with the landowner there and they made a correction to their privacy settings. They told me they had set them temporarily. All this reaction comes from the fourth post with someone asserting that if the land owner can do it then that is all there is to it. Something out of context to the thread. Maybe you are thinking about another thread? and may be that is why the discussion seems so strange?

When I use Ethics\Morality my reference points are Aristotle, Kant, Schopenhauer, Sartre, Simone De Beauvoir etc. Not Lawyers or Priests! When Kant wrote his "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" one of the most important works on Ethics, he isn't writing about personal beliefs and upbringing ! he is creating a groundwork for the study of ethics. I have quoted Britannica discussion on the topic that comes to the same conclusion, as I have. Wikipedia's page on Ethics starts with "Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch." So far as I can see the words Ethics and Morality have the same meaning and the same for the people famous for writing on the topics. You have a very different understanding that comes from somewhere else and I am not saying you are wrong to use the words in a different way, but please understand. I am using the words in the way I am for a good reason, to be clear about what I mean using the conceptual framework that I work with.

I am totally lost on what you are saying. First definition I see: Virtue behaviour showing high moral standards. Why keep trying to make distinctions they are all the same thing Also why not answer my example I gave on the previous page it directly relates to the situation in the thread?

I am using the language most familiar to me, to try to communicate accurately and in a measured way. It does seem to be failing, but the words I am using have the meanings I am giving to them. The objections to what I say seem to come from misunderstanding rather than anything I have said. I am all for people having rights to use zero second orbs to protect their private spaces. The points I am making are simply those I have expressed, not those that seem to be being given to me.

Nice describes an ethical value.

I don't think your answer surprising, or different from my own. What about answering the question in my example though?

I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying at the end of your quote. But I have looked up the distinction, and I have studied ethics and moral philosophy to degree level, and frankly I am buggered if I know what that distinction really means. One comes from Greek the other from Latin. I am with the conclusion to the article "Ethicists today, however, use the terms interchangeably. If they do want to differentiate morality from ethics, the onus is on the ethicist to state the definitions of both terms. Ultimately, the distinction between the two is as substantial as a line drawn in the sand." https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-morality-and-ethics

That is a description that denies someone their experience.

I am sorry I am not being awkward I just genuinely don't see what you are trying to get at. Perhaps I see more from your response to Theresa, but I have never listed my land and I consider it public access. I think two Marinas I am involved with are listed on a LGBT Pride website external to SL, but that is about it. (edited to add and a gallery on the galleries website). I have about 10 or so public spaces and never considered listing them anywhere. So maybe that explains why I am struggling with the distinction and point you are making?

A better illustrative example is to go back to the situation outlined by the OP. imagine a waterway maintained by 10 private landlords. They each own water parcels that allows access through them. Some of them have paid considerably more than the going rate for the parcel based upon the collective understanding that there is a shared incentive to keep the waterway open. That is why the land is higher value than it would otherwise be. Now imagine one of the parcels is now up for grabs. The Moral\Ethical decision facing you now it is available, what should you do? A) Should you buy the land for well over the normal asking price and then block the channel? B) Should you buy the land at whatever cost is showing and block the channel? C) Suppose you spot it is available for free, you guess maybe they are inexpertly trying to transfer it to an alt but you can seize this opportunity and grab it and then put up your banlines. Surely none of those options are things anyone should do. They can do it of course, but the issue isn't whether they can, the issue is should they? Even if you answer they shouldn't to just one of them, then my point is made. That there is an ethical dimension to this. Not just a matter of whether someone can or cannot. Does anyone here really think it is not an ethical issue. If they can do it then they can that is all there is to it.

No not actually clear and for the reasons already given. How do you know if permission is given or not? If I can trespass then they have allowed it. If I can't then they haven't.

Whilst I am all for using inclusive language where possible. I can't think of an alternative to use that isn't either more wordy or a denial of the feelings of the person blocked traveling through what they thought likely to be traversible experiences. If you can think of an alternative do let me know so I can advocate for using it instead. Also I wasn't corrected for using the word someone else used "booby trap" in an example, I suggested to a couple of people objecting that trap might be more acceptible in two separate posts from , on reflection I am not sure there is a meaningful distinction between trap and booby trap they do both apply, although with the caveat that knowing the intention not always obvious and in most cases in my experience they are down to mistakes or a quick reaction to something that happened and then they forgot to revert.

Moral language is the language of answers to questions like what someone should do. In the case in point paying a premium for land that derives its value from others working together to keep open only to block it, is not just a waste of their money, but something I am not afraid to move to moral language over. To say they shouldn't buy land that spoils their neighbours investment does not seem at all unreasonable.

When I studied philosophy ethics and morality were the same. For example Kantian ethics are a part of moral philosophy. I am not understanding the distinction. With regard to your question without trespassing on private land much of what mainland offers would be off limits. All the marinas, waterways, shops and traveller centres are all on private property. So of course there are rights to go on to private property. I suppose the question arises whether that counts as trespass because whilst permission hasn't actively been given neither is it actively denied. Where actively denied the question seems moot. With regard to the OP the situation is that last time I checked a few days ago thanks to landowner cooperation and their ability to consider collective self interest and ethical dimensions the route remains open.

The principle of reciprocity is not just my perspective, it is fundamental to all moral codes religious or otherwise. It is a foundation principle for society.

In the case described by the OP, the passage across the top of Nautilus would not be possible if the perspective that a landowner should act without regard to their neighbours was widespread. Fortunately as the case demonstrates outside the forum it is not.

Entitlement has 2 meanings a weak one that conveys an ability to do something and a stronger sense where they have a moral right. Landowners have an entitlement in the former sense but not the latter one.

The property lines view on the minimap is a great tool for sailing. With a bit of experience and pattern recognition it is a great way to spot likely rezz areas. It is not however much use for helping the person in the original post because the waterway is entirely on private parcels.

To be clear what inspires me to post on threads like this, is not any sense of personal grief. It is the sense of entitlement that comes across from those that express the opinion that because a landowner can do something that makes them right. So I am sorry Belinda, but I can't ignore a moral dimension to this. I don't bring it up to judge or to be superior, but because moral judgment is part of human behaviour and the way we interact with others in a civilised society. It what allows people to come together and to create community. The principle of reciprocity can even be expressed as collective self interest, if you prefer it in a less moral language. Either way. without it Second life would not be as rich a place as it is. By coming together people can create spaces that are greater than the sum of their parts. There would be routes that simply would not and could not exist without that dynamic, including the route across the top of Nautilus that the original post to this thread was about.

In the context I would look at that parcel and actually assume because mostly empty apart from docking it was a likely candidate to have rezz enabled and enough free prims available to resit on my boat to correct a region crossing region error. Sailors do rarely hit ban lines like this, because they aren't all that common. That is why people relax when they see a parcel lay out like the one shown. And why they complain when they hit them. Human nature. The area like this I know best I can give an example...The Linden Village down to Sea of Fables, no banlines at all the last time I travelled that route. From Sea of Fables to Mare Secundus, there is one banline that has been there forever in Pierce. From Mare Secundus to Bay of Space Pigs, maybe two or three at any one time which makes it extra worthwhile checking before plotting a route. Bay of Space pigs up to L-shaped lake and beyond to Heterocera no banlines again last time I travelled there. I agree with you about the meaning of the buoys, I do look up the meanings before placing mine but I wouldn't expect the same from others. And I wouldn't remember that when seeing one ahead of me. I do however think it ironic if the bouys are actually directing traffic into the ban lines. Not sure if Booby-Trap has been used, but I would say to call it a trap fair. Like I said to Gabrielle using trap is not meant to indicate any intention on behalf of the owner, in just the same way an overhanging branch on a bridleway is a "trap".

I do exactly the same. But when travelling through Corsica waterways, around the Atoll or the edge of Satori when you encounter a situation like the one above don't you sigh a moment of relief that you can look around a bit and not focus so much on the protected passage? It seems to me that is human nature. I hear it from others when travelling with them, something I can relate to. I hope I am not coming across as crying about anything, on the scale of things these issues are relatively minor. I comment on them purely because I have an interest in them, nothing more. I plot and regularly run sailing routes for various groups and yacht clubs. I know that when a trap like the above is set if I don't mention it in the instructions some will find it themselves by hitting it. Even when I do mention it some will still hit it, I too don't always read instruction notecards on routes, but that does mean I then have to go looking for a rezz location nearby to mention as well. And just to be clear when I use the word trap I am not saying the trap has been set intentionally. Like an overhanging branch on a bridleway, traps aren't always set up with the intention to snare someone.

My bringing morality into it is not to judge the individual but the situation ahead of you when sailing. I have no idea the intention of the individual to judge them. But we all have moral faculties, I can't imagine going through life without referring to them to interpret situations, they are fundamental to what makes society function. If you are calling that fallacious, then I have no idea where to even start. We have a fundamentally different conception of how societies work and our places within them. My point is anyone with experience sailing around waterways like that would look at the lay out of the parcels, and interpret that as an indication that the waterway was likely to be open. 99.99% of the time that analysis would be correct. It is in that that the trap is created and why I think that the landowners security an oversight or unintended accident. My view on this comes from experience of talking to landowners who have done this before and my experience bears out that judgment. I think it very fortunate that in world, the view on this seems to be very different to the contrary views brought up on these threads every time it gets brought up.

The marker in one direction indicates to go away from the banline on the other it directs people in to it. Whilst I wouldn#t expect people to look up the meanings of the marker buoys it is far from clear keep off my parcel is its intended meaning. Regardless of that... There is a fundamental principle of reciprocity in all moral systems. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the "do unto others" principle, it is replicated in other moral frameworks in similar ways. In this case the the person with the banlines parcel is using his neighbours parcel to launch any boats on the coast side of the decking, and likely on the other side too unless they launch their boat using edit tools. The waterway looks like it will be open, especially if already in the parcel they are using for access, because it just defies ethics to set your security up to rely on your neighbours charity whilst denying that to others. Why to me it looks like an accidental security measure, or maybe only half considered one.