You bot because it enhances "your" experience which naturally is subjective. In almost tautological fashion this takes away any concrete justification for botting other than subjective reasons. Naturally this is a pretty big slippery slope. For instance, lets say I hacked accounts for RMT and because it really enhanced my experience. And I hacked your account. I am sure you wouldn't be too pleased with that because you place some value on your account - if you don't my offer to take it off your hands is still open. Point being relying entirely on subjective standards of "enhancing gameplay" that go beyond some baseline or rules will inevitably effect others in a negative way that goes beyond the definition of fairness. It is the simple principle of my right to punch you in the face only goes so far as your nose.
Not trying to get into a moral quibble with you, just trying to show you that you are inconsistent really (that is, as long as you would be the slightest bit annoyed when your account gets hacked, someone outbots you, or you don't give me your account). I think Sartre called this "Bad Faith", look it up.
@Tymon: As for why these arguments are of importance... Flames about the existence of botting and such are pretty dead, but I think it's important to challenge the idea of it being right or wrong, or not hurting anyone. General apathy toward botting itself shouldn't really be used as a justification to argue for the moral nature of botting.
Completely aside from Mansin in particular, if you boil it down to the motivations , it becomes easier to look at from a moral perspective. The two big things that have been mentioned as reasons have really been, greed (eg: want of items, enhancing game play) and egotism (eg: willingness to use, sense of entitlement.) Neither of those two things are really bad things, so it's not easy at that point to arrive to any conclusions. I would agree that the _act_ of botting is morally ambiguous but I don't think I'd go so far as to say, there's nothing morally wrong with it, ala Krono.
If we think about it from the server perspective, botting has really never been such a widespread problem as it is now, prior to server migration being implemented. Whether or not there were problems or weren't isn't the issue, but the majority of the end game shells either frowned upon it or took no real stance. Compared to now, the arguments in the past usually centered on who it was. If you consider the local atmosphere and the influence of the consensus on what's morally acceptable (say, to a game, or to a server, or to a linkshell) at that point I don't think there was really much disagreement about it being, "right," or, "wrong." But server migration sort of challenges the local server environment so it's a bit pointless to argue about now, but it's certainly a factor that some people consider when deciding what opinion to hold towards botting.
But I think that's partially because I'm looking at it from the perspective of it being specifically a game. When you start to add money to the equation, and not talking about gil, but actual money, then It seems to get even more questionable. At the point where you're starting to choose to extract real worth out of it doesn't really seem to be about a game anymore. In any real situation to make money out of cheating with the motivations of greed and egotism would illicit a pretty general moral judgment. A reason like, "Because I'm not getting caught," is going to fall short in that arena.
If we follow the not so great analogy about downloading music (let's use something completely fine to download like stuff under licensed under CC,) if you started burning the music onto cds and then selling them, I'm sure it would be just a little more morally questionable than before, and if you started calling that music your own creation, then it'd be even more so. However, if you started suing the original creators for plagiarism for something you stole, then you'd be... a bona-fide popstar.
Anyways, within a locality you'll generally find that the consensus held toward conversion of something free into real money to be generally morally shady or outright wrong (eg: scanlations and stoptazmo, onemanga, etc,) even if that particular locality is already morally questionable in the big scope (every scanlater that has their head on right will tell you what they're doing is illegal.) Aside from subjective morals concerning individuals, when you examine the act itself and what it stems from, it becomes quite difficult to argue for anything more than it being morally questionable.
