Good point, but I believe war crimes mainly come when you substitute ‘a people’ for ‘a person’ in:
> "Unfair" is in there. If you are competing against a person who will pull out all the stops against you, then there is nothing unfair about pulling out all the stops against them.
But I did specifically mean a person, just one. (I also was envisioning, like, struggling for top spot in a class, not struggling to take San Juan Hill. But I'm not immediately sure I can sign on to an ethical principle that says that you are not entitled to respond to one specific competitor with as much fierceness as they bring to the competition, even when that competition becomes deadly.)
> So how about the shifting alliances and goals of Squid Game ?
I couldn't comment, since I haven't seen it, but I think the mandate of fairness makes sense even in the presence of shifting goals, and probably governs the extent to which it's reasonable to switch alliances.
Good point, but I believe war crimes mainly come when you substitute ‘a people’ for ‘a person’ in:
> "Unfair" is in there. If you are competing against a person who will pull out all the stops against you, then there is nothing unfair about pulling out all the stops against them.
But I did specifically mean a person, just one. (I also was envisioning, like, struggling for top spot in a class, not struggling to take San Juan Hill. But I'm not immediately sure I can sign on to an ethical principle that says that you are not entitled to respond to one specific competitor with as much fierceness as they bring to the competition, even when that competition becomes deadly.)