We don't hold ED accountable to us. Therefore, he doesn't really OWE anything to us, and nobody is saying that he does.
1)
Gringe did, and he was not the first. I tried to explain at that point, quoting him directly, that the argument being used was not a good one, that just because there was 150K money injected into the program at some point it did not necessarily mean the entire sum (or even any of it) was required, and therefore EvilDragon did not necessarily owe anything to them. There are many other reasons why they should get the Pandora they paid for but this was not one of them.2) You came along and repeatedly tried to prove I was wrong, that the 150k WAS necessary, without it the project would necessarily have failed, therefore EvilDragon DOES owe the preorders for it's continuation. Not wanting to argue any further I simply agreed, there is evidence that all 500 preorders were necessary for the continued existence of the project, EvilDragon would not have reached this point without them, therefore he owes them.
3) Now you are flat out stating that he does not owe anything.
How can I be wrong that he does not owe you anything and still have him not owe you anything? That is precisely the thing I was trying to say that you told me was completely wrong. It CANNOT BE BOTH WAYS. Either 150K was needed to get this far and therefore he owes the remaining 500 preorders for their sacrifice, or he doesn't and it wasn't.
I know, the situation might seem different depending on how strongly people see moral obligations. But in my case, I don't see the current situation strong enough for it.
There's no "strong" enough about it, it's black and white: if something is good and you want to be good then you have a moral obligation to do that. If ED owes the remaining 500 preorders then it is currently net-negative morality, and in order to bring it positive he must repay what he owes: he has a moral obligation to the remaining preorders. On the other hand, if, as I said from the start, they were not instrumental in his continued existence and he therefore does not owe them anything then he does not have a moral obligation. When I talk about morality, I'm talking about straight up mathematics of good vs evil: you can't say "1+2 = 5 if you believe it hard enough", it just is, and so to it is possible to build a framework that demonstrates certain behaviours as moral and others as immoral. But just because you have a moral obligation to something does not mean you have to do it. There are legal and financial obligations to consider as well, all three of which might be at odds with each other. Ultimately EvilDragon will decided what to dobased on what he feels is right and what can be afforded, but if the projected NEEDED the 150K to get here, then EvilDragon DOES owe the remaining 500 preorders for what little success he has managed to this point, and he DOES have a moral obligation to repay them. 1+2=3.
But once you enter the business world, the moral code is a secondary issue
Doesn't matter. You can work the midnight shift for weeks and never see the sun, that doesn't mean it doesn't rise every morning. If a business ignores their moral obligations for legal and financial obligations then that's their decision, but it doesn't change the fact that the moral obligations still exist. Please drop this line, it is entirely irrelevant because no one is debating the legal responsibilities. Everyone knows the legal responsibilities that EvilDragon has. The question is and has always been what his moral responsibilities are which do not necessarily coincide with legal obligations.
