Mr. T was very disappointed (and I agree with him) at the movie remake of the A-Team, because of the number of random people who get killed in the movie. At one point the "good guys" blow up a few dozen law enforcement dudes who are basically doing their jobs and aren't really "bad guys". I know Mr. T isn't especially relevant anymore, but I though it was good to see someone calling this out.

Mr T is amazingly cool. He always strived to be a good role model, and tried very hard to show that you can be cool while living with morals, that it's a good idea to finish school and contribute to the society you live in. It sounds corny as hell when you say it, but he made it work. I'd buy him a beer any day.

He also stripped every tree out of his 7.5 acre yard and put up a stockade fence around it, much to his neighbors' chagrin.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/30/us/genteel-chicago-suburb-...

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-12-02/news/031202032...

  > In recent weeks, Mr. T, reportedly suffering from
  > allergies, has already cut down more than a hundred
  > of the oak trees on his English Tudor estate here,   
  > violating an unwritten code of esthetics in this
  > picturesque town along the shore of Lake Michigan.

So it's immoral to cut down a bunch of trees on your property that are causing you allergies? Sorry, but I don't equate home owner's association-type rules (an 'unwritten' ones at that) with morality.

This is just a bunch of rich people complaining about the height of 'first world problems.'

Not sure where it mentions morality, but judging by the text you quoted, and your response, I'm assuming you misread esthetics as ethics. If not, just let me know. Just confused by your remark is all.

I didn't misread that. I was confused as to the response to

  Mr. T shows that you can be cool and have morals

with

  Mr. T cut down a bunch of trees and pissed off some
  prissy rich people back in 1987

Problem is, that's exactly how the human brain interprets real-life people, too. You can call it the Monkeysphere or Dunbar's Number, but fact is that people are incapable of conceptualizing random strangers on anything like the same level as familiar people. It's the reason you have more emotional reaction to a package being delayed than you have to a suicide bombing in Afghanistan. It's a limitation of the human brain. Movies and games with collateral casualties reflect the way every single human being actually looks at the world; you just notice it because it's someone else's version of who's important and who isn't instead of your own.

Consider these two statements:

What you would do for your closest friends, you should do for everyone.

What you wouldn't do to your closest friends, you shouldn't do to anyone.

Your post explains why the first doesn't work, but that has no bearing only the second.

I may not feel as strongly for random strangers as I do for my closest friends, but I still wouldn't kill or torture or otherwise dehumanize them.

It is not a limitation as such. It is a feature. If that worked differently the very idea that unknown, but substantial number of people die every moment (say from accidents and natural causes, to avoid "how it would change humanity" arguments here) it would cripple every person into permanent and severe depression (for the lack of a better word). Imagine a close friend or a lover dying every second.

I for one would support the Red Cross if they decided to endorse a sentiment like "maybe your video games should care about bystanders and not treat them as expendable pieces of trash, because that's not really cool. please consider this! thanks."

At the same time, a would-be Hays Code would be rightly ridiculed and ignored...