Men are, above all else, motivated by fear. This is most readily apparent in politics, where principles like honor and common decency are abandoned as quickly as it takes one to recognize an opportunity for gain. Watching rulers scurry away from the threat of destruction, clinging to their strongest friends and abandoning those bound for the chopping block, is no spectator sport. We are active participants in this visceral game; we lie, we stab our closest allies in the back, we destroy those who get in our way. It comes as no surprise then that the concept of morality is discarded so easily by those looking to get ahead. It is only natural that the proponents of moral behavior be laughed at, sneered at, and spit upon.

I do not argue that there are not those who follow their principles. Surely almost all men will hold their beliefs in the highest regard, and follow them to the utmost extent, so long as they do not inconvenience them. Rare indeed is the man who clings to his ideals even as the seas of popular opinion and the greed of great powers carry him to his doom. We've seen these men; the truly great. We have held their stories to heart when the powerful knock on our doors. And yet, how many of us would follow such an example?

Despite our ability to ignore our duty to our fellow men, and despite our efforts to ignore obvious truths, it cannot be denied that the natural concepts of morality are close to our hearts even at the most seemingly unbearable and unthinkable instances of human brutality. It is in the twinge of doubt in the heart of the conqueror, in the un-ignorable question in the heart of the slave-driver, in the unease of the dictator that we find our greatest hope. There is no escaping the demands of morality. We are only able to ignore them, at least for a time.

For even though inhumanity so often characterizes our actions, we know these natural concepts, the self-evident truths, that all men are entitled to liberty, the freedom to express your feelings without fear of repression; self-determination, the right to choose how you shall be governed; and mutual respect, a level of decency in conduct and interactions between persons. These moral tenets, so basic in nature and yet so profoundly important, are those that should guide our actions. It is easy to ignore the demands of the conscience. It is extremely hard to live in a manner that is true to your ideals. Moralism is about taking the hard road.

Moralism is about truth. Eternal, fundamental truth. We sacrifice all, our comfort, our safety, our lives, for the knowledge that we have upheld our duty to our fellow man. We are the keepers of a sacred Covenant, not between God and Creation, or between King and Subject, but between men.

Common, fallible men though we are, we live the difficult life. We make the impossible choice. What greater calling is there than that?

Nice essay, although I must highlight that

are a part of contemporary western morals, and that morals are highly relative to the culture one is inserted in.

Some societies, in contrast to freedom of expression could be more focused on "honor", others instead of "choosing how to be governed" "accepting the way you are governed", and other different particularities.

deSouza has made an excellent point.


The essay, while very well written, only really talks about the Western mind set regarding Moralism.

Keep in mind that in some societies, it is considered wrong to freely express yourself, or to go against what your direct superior orders you to do.

In western culture, such as America, Freedom of Expression and the ability to act on your own judgment, thus upholding your morals, is not only allowed, it is somewhat encouraged.

An excellent work Vilien, while I subscribe to the belief that moralism is subjective..

(for example;

a starving nation steals a rich nation's food..

compared to

a rich nation steals a starving nation's food..)

.. you certainly have given me onus to digest what you have had to say and inspiration to contemplate; well done!

Wait, wait, wait, how can someone possibly justify a rich nation stealing a starving nation's food as moral?

There's no possible argument for that, even if you make the logical conclusion that the starving nation would die off anyway, so the rich nation stole the food to put it to better use.

While I have my own thoughts about morality and power, I shall keep them to myself this time, and instead congratulate you on a finely scribed, and encouraging, piece of introspection.

Think he meant that the starving nation might be more 'moral'. Although it starts feeling less moral when one starts wondering who they're stealing from. And the effects it has. And whether the rich nation's just better managed or not--some nations are poor for a reason.

Personally, I think that there is an absolutely moral answer to every question that's 'right'. Problem is, you have to be very, very, VERY specific or you don't have a clear enough question for a clear answer; the tendency to not quite ask the right questions ends up making things look relative.

An excellent work, Vilien.

And though the points about this essay focusing solely on Western values are, in a sense, valid, I tend to get the vibe that Vilien's moralism is focused more on tenets like truth and honour, and that the mentioned liberties of expression and choice are secondary and therefore subject to these. Hence, while it may include Western values, it is relevant to all cultures of differing values in that it advocates the pursuit of a higher ideal apart from simple self-preservation. I don't think that is exclusive to the West. In fact, I could go so far to as to say that that is particularly lacking in Western philosophy.

You cannot stereotype men, men are different in different cultures. Your character depends on your upbringing.

I object.

Yes, but whose morals are you using?

Most of the time, people fit into general stereotypes because of that upbringing.

So, yeah.

Well, not quite.

Although the ideals you speak of in Western socieites may not be practiced highly today, thing's such as truth, honor and honesty are still valued highly. In other parts of the world, for example the Middle East, being moral means you follow your religion to the best of your ability. To the West it's more about Medieval practices that date back to the code of chivalry.

What of women? A post on moralism should read people instead of men.

Ya see? How chivalrous of you, Alterego

Moralism is a joke ideal in CN, Really it is.

It's an online simulation game, so just get over yourself and off your high horse.

I'd like to speak to whoever declared this ideology to be a "joke", and ask what authority they had to make such a statement. I'm assuming that you're the one who did so, because you can't understand why anyone would view their experiences here in a different way than you do, but it'd be nice if you could actually back up your arguments with logic and facts. Of course, arguing with reason might be difficult for someone in your position.

Not all ideology, just moralism. Thats his idology and its as its something that cant be measured it cant be right or wrong, just different to yours.

I'll agree with his sentiment, however. Moralism is just asinine.

Yeah, who could possibly agree with "do the right thing"?

Honestly, this is something I spoke about a while back with a member of IAA. It seems as though we have become so intent on proving ourselves "right" that in turn we have forgotten what it means to be "right." It has begun to matter little: who we intrude on, who we hurt, how we handle ourselves, and the standards we hold ourselves to.

I credit this to be an overall lack of respect throughout this community, and quite honestly, it sickens me. Can any of you look at what you post on here and feel proud of what you say? Your comments are the greatest quality of your character, and I really really hope that people just lose etiquette on these forums and it's not a dying trait in overall society. Moral decay is what we have here, and a very gross sampling of it.

It's too bad that people can actually say "moralism is a joke ideology" or that "Moralism is asinine." It just shows that as a species we have become nothing more than wolves, waiting for another to slip up so we can take their spot. Opportunist, worrying not about logic and morals as much as how it will benefit us. Disturbing, to say the least.

You Moralists are jokes. It's easy for you to be all Moral and do the right things when your on top. But when push comes to shove, most "Moralists" value their infra above their friends, and thus that is why your a joke.

I would dump all of us 'Moralists' into the same group if I were you.

Some of us go balls deep when we need to, and are not so petty as to value infra over friendship.

Infra can be rebought; The ties that bind us, however, are much more difficult to rebuild and replace.

If you knew my history, or had any desire to learn about it, you'd understand how completely ridiculous you sound. But go ahead, make those baseless accusations.

Also, one quick question: did you even read the essay?

So you consider yourself an underdog? You play the villian and attack a defenseless Crimson Guard and call us the jokes? I'm not a moralist, I defend my friends. I've been on the losing side these past two wars, do I consider that moralism? No, to me it's just loyalty to your friends. And maybe that's what CN's about. If it's about war, then it's about who you go to war with and why. You decided to go to war with Crimson Guard. Why? Because you could and decided with your friends it'd be hi-larious if you do.

Now ask me, what did it accomplish? You're so quick to judge us and criticize us of how we play the game and when we return the favor you can't comprehend why. Now, you're just being ignorant.

I really like this essay, Vilien. It is well written and I found myself believing it. However, moralism is nice and convenient when everyone is doing it. However, I would like to pull something from your essay.



When I read this, I immediately thought about the Pre-Karma War way of handling things. Those times were darker, indeed, and people were not given their Western-Moralist rights.

However, I want to analyse this and look at what happened DURING the Karma War. When things were looking grim for the Hegemony, a few choice groups immediately jumped ship and joined the popular opinion in striking down what they thought was wrong. That, as the majority can agree, was the morally right thing to do.

However, what about the Pacificans who stood their ground? Was it morally wrong for them to cling to their ideologies which got them in trouble while they faced the same punishment they dolled out on to other people?

I don't have answers for any of this because moralism is the epitome of philosophical ambiguity. What one person thinks is right, another will think is wrong. When one group's freedoms and liberties are being infringed, it is to preserve the freedoms and liberties of another group. Who is to say which group is right and which group is wrong?

That's easy, Hextor.

Sadly enough, the winners make the rules because the winners write the history.

The moral high ground is more often than not given to the victor, simply because they get to shape the future.

The most pervasive and damaging precedents and acts of vandalism and international/interalliance totalitarianism are those carried out in the name of morality and proper behavior.

People are motivated by their ambitions, and chained by their fears. Those who have espoused morality have almost always been using it as a tool to shape that fear.

Heft, you make a good point.

However, the thing about that is that those who use moralism for their own ambition usually have the power to achieve said ambition, and even if they truly were moralists to begin with, when they reach the top of the pile their ideals begin to decay.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Really? Was the WotC argued on morality? Or the Green Civil War? Or how about the Polar Wars for that matter? Those who espouse morality have consistently been in the minority in Cybernations. Those who espouse morality were the first to be put to the sword.

Very few people can get into power and still keep enough self-awareness and perspective to accurately judge their actions and values, true enough. But they still believe themselves to be morally correct, and the tyrant that believes in his own moral rectitude is the most dangerous of all. Much more preferable to cut the concept of steadfast morality off at the knees, instead of letting it fester into something wicked.


I don't really consider those to be the most damaging ideas. Though WotC could argued to have been borne, at least partially, out of some parties moral rectitude. Green Civil War may have been an abuse but there wasn't anything particularly spectacular about it, and there wasn't anything wrong with either of the Polar wars. The belief in one's own moral superiority is very often the key to the belief of being entitled to whatever you please and subjugating others to your own values, or punishing them for transgressing your values. Wars, just and unjust, will happen with or without morality, that's just politics. The treatment of enemies is perhaps what I was speaking to.

I've never seen "it's morally right" as an excuse for treating vanquished enemies poorly. If anything it's always been "see if you can stop us".

All of the OOC attacks issues? That was probably the apex of it, granted. Maybe it was never stated as such, but the general attitude that many used to have of "How dare you challenge us on this you scumbag." The worst excesses and abuses of power by hegemony related leaders was almost always borne out of a feeling of moral superiority and entitlement (may not hold true for the ones like noWedge who were just mentally unbalanced). Abuses by people who were pragmatic and materialistic as opposed to moralistic and righteous did happen, but those people are generally much easier to reason with. Even if their position is "I'm doing this because I can" it's still ultimately rational, as opposed to "I'm doing this because I'm right and anyone that disagrees with me is clearly in the wrong."

In general, moralism either creates leaders who can justify the worst actions to themselves or creates followers who can be persuaded into going along with the worst actions. I much prefer pragmatism.

Not to excessively use Pacifica as an example, but the vast majority of their reasoning (presented at least) was "pragmatism". They consistently argued that it was simply a practical matter that they keep nations on PZI and EZI. There wasn't ever much reasoning, moral or otherwise, behind it, it was simply "we don't like them, we can, and we're going to do it since you can't do anything about it". I prefer to see morality as a check on the instinct to destroy rather than a tool used to control people.

Using morality as a tool to control people is not moralism. In fact it's quite the opposite. Masking something as "it's morally right" is easy to do. But often times it isn't so. That's why no one person will ever determine what is morally right and what is morally wrong. But rather, the community as a whole should determine it.

That is why I urge everyone, that when they see someone treating an individual in a manner that they find offensive, abusive, or just plan wrong, speak up. Chances are there are other people on here that feel exactly the same. It is time that as a community we fight for our own people. We need to treat everyone with dignity and respect in victory and in defeat.

Now I know better than anyone that in this game we have people that abuse the generosity of this community from time to time, and it is with those heinous crimes that the above can be altered. But in said situation those people would be violating our rules of morality, and as such be subject to the actions that they condemned their selves to. This is our community, and we need to reclaim it, and ensure it remain a healthy environment for everyone.

The worst acts of Pacifica were from that same feeling of superiority and entitlement, which is never pragmatic no matter how they like to paint it. Further, Pacifica was generally not the worst offender for randomly picking on people who said something "inappropriate" and hounding them away (enabler, perhaps).


It is the leaders who determine what the community believes and follows. Opening the door to "let's all do what's right always!" is opening the door to abuse. Further, I don't want the community telling me what to do. I disagree with the community plenty, and a tyranny-by-all is no better for me than one bad leader. Probably worse, as one person can be worked with or managed, but an entire community has too many variables to account for. No one should determine what I am allowed to do but me, and those I grant that authority to (my alliance membership and other government to some degree, and to a larger degree Ivan). Everyone else can screw right off, as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah. NPO certainly did its share of crappy stuff, but mostly it was just a power conduit that other people tapped into to get away with pulling off really !@#$ty stuff they wouldn't have been able to get away with on their own. I think they get blamed for a lot of stuff they didn't personally do for that reason, consciously or unconsciously on the part of the blamers.

Just a little out of context (I was attacking the whole 'relativism vs absolutism' theme), but I'll answer.

Actually, no, I can't. Mainly because lots of folks have different morals in different areas, and it's pretty difficult to get a good consensus going. Especially when I'm right about everything (note: this sentence may be inaccurate).

This tends to cause debates much like the 'western vs eastern' one going on above. About the best we humans can do is try to figure out what's going on and find something we agree on, as long as it doesn't turn out to be 'we're all moral and by definition we're right to do anything we please'.

Did the old goons promote the ooc attacks on bilrow following a pragmatist, rational agenda?
Were they easy to reason with?

Merely doing things because you can is irrational and, in the context of cybernations and internet in general, it means massive and generalized recklessness. From a pragmatist stance I find that morals are particularly interesting in that area. They tend to argue about said consequences and regulate/institute some responsability on in game interaction, something that this whole "immoral" movement is famous for not having, and thus being more complete and beneficial for the player-to-player relation and game experience of everyone.



Randomly picking on people can be seen as an attempt to banalize the deed and make it easier to actually persecute political enemies.
Just saying.




I agree, there is no difference between a tyranny-by-all and a tyranny-by-one. The very reason you felt the need to express that is because you were raised to think otherwise, you were raised in a western-liberal context and the ideas you were exposed to are part of a larger structure, which is not exactly determined by a top-bottom leadership. To think that leaders can virtually control what everyone believes is aisine, every dick and jane had a say in it and most likely inserted ideas in that "collective soup" that were not determined by their leaders.

No system is tyranny-proof, its precisely why it is so important for rational people to be politically active and to attempt to influence things, in a way that reduces or extinguishes oppression. An entire community is much easier to influence than a small group of people (or one leader) with a strong resolve, that's precisely why dictatorships don't empower many people to base their political intransigency on many variables.
Good leaders or bad leaders, a larger group is less cohese and will be less steadfast to its own interests than a smaller group, resulting on higher chances of you being allowed to do whatever you want...
Lets make a parallel with real life here. Lets define "working with" as hard headed activism seeking a cause.
Think of "working with" the powers that be in a democratic republic.
Now think about hard headed activism in a dictatorship.
One could actually lead to something, the other would most likely lead to death(one side or another), regardless of how benevolent that dictatorship is.

I agree with 'do the right thing'. The right thing for me is obviously not 'the right thing' for you.

This was a well written article. Nicely done.

I can certainly understand your viewpoint. It actually takes me aback how similar your viewpoint is to the viewpoint I held for the first half of this year. You’re an idealist, and somewhat an optimist in that you believe in heroes and villains, and you believe that the heroes should punish the villains for their heinous crimes. You probably place much value on your friends. Furthermore, from my discussions with you on Red Dawn I know that you identify the villains with the New Pacific Order. You also retain a belief in objective ethics.

However, I’m afraid I must differ. Idealism and realism don’t compute. Idealists are hurt when people lie to them, manipulate them and betray them. They are disappointed when the world constantly fails to live up to their expectations. Perhaps your friend, the leader of your alliance who you always looked up, to will sell you out to NPO and you’ll learn that just because you treated them with kindness and trusted them doesn’t mean they care about you. Perhaps your alliance will cancel on their allies before a curbstomp. Perhaps your allies will use you for their own purposes. In my case, I joined Karma because I believed in its ethics, only for them to propose some of the harshest terms this world has seen to the New Pacific Order, not to mention the pre-terms. Whatever happens, I can predict that you’ll end up battered, cynical and apathetic, and better off for it. It’s a matter of time.

I have a rather simple philosophy these days. What’s most important is to have fun and to develop friendships with a small, close-knit band of friends who would die for you, like you would for them. This is important, because the probability that one of them will betray you is lowest. However, limit the people you entirely trust to perhaps one or two. In my experience, even close friends tend to betray you over time. This group are your support base who you turn to when the world outside misunderstands you and hates you and you reciprocate when they need it. Furthermore, find an alliance with awesome community and comradeship. That helps too, but remember, your alliance is no hero, because there two sides to every story and thus there are no heroes or villains.

Oh my dear, no one is ever better off by straying from a moral path. Their experiences simply become more convenient. Like Vilien stated, moralists prefer the hard road. You took it once too.


Idealism's compatibility with 'realism' is irrelevant to me. I have always and will always pursue this Moralism. To reject it based upon the wrongdoings of others is weak. Moralism's legitimacy is not diluted by immoral or amoral persons who would seek to use and manipulate moralists. Indeed, I believe this only increases the need for it.


What you just described is exactly what Vilien has done. A "small, close-knit band of friends" is a fairly adequate summary of The Moralist Front. Nothing could be further from the political workings and internal !@#$%*ing of Karma, the tangled MDP Web of mega-alliances and the elitist backrooms where surrender terms are formulated and signed. It is a community completely withdrawn from this environment and is therefore able and qualified, and perhaps even obligated, to judge it. Hence, we have Moralism. And I also disagree that there are no heroes and villains. There is always a side who's motives and end game is closer to moralism's than the other.

All in all Fran, I trust Vilien's experiences and views not just because they happen to be similar to mine, but because he has been playing this game longer than both you and I. I couldn't help but notice a slightly condescending tone in your post, and this both surprised and, to a degree, disappointed me. Vilien has seen more than us both and, call this conclusion overly simplistic, I think that counts for a lot when evaluating his views and comparing them to yours.

Please define more convenient?



The question is whether idealism is an accurate lens through which to view the world and base our actions around. The answer to this is no. Idealism, and moralism, is impractical when dealing with other people.



The group of my friends to which I refer does not revolve around moralism, though. Regarding heroes and villains, perhaps you're correct that one side's actions are "closer to moralism" than another, perhaps you're not, but how do we determine which side that is? It comes down to which propagandist you chose to believe. Furthermore, when variances in ethical codes arise, that further confuses who the heroes are because it is a matter of opinion.



I did not intend to speak with a condescending tone, but rather I wished to express my viewpoints on the topic and contribute to the discussion with my own experiences, just as Vilien did. I also think that to accept someone's opinions because they have been around for longer than us is a logical fallacy. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are correct. Furthermore, both you and I have had some interesting experiences in this universe and they serve to enrich discussions like this.

[whycan'tthisbeinanoocforum?]
You seem to think of me as an actual person. I am not a person. I am an NPC. I am a target waiting to get killed. I have no emotions other than that which I display as a natural part of my programming. Why do you treat me like a part of humanity? Humanity resides only on Earth, not Planet Bob, right? There cannot be any moralism. Morality is for humanity. We are all simply NPC's.

Nay. Let us be logical. We must become the largest possible. There is no concession for pure dominance and submission. It may be necessary to confer with the NPC's in order to do so, but what do they care if I shoot them? As long as I only shoot four marines, they won't start shooting me, right? After all, they're all just NPC's, right?


To be moralist is to assume society with inanimate objects. I for one will not stand for this. Society is giving up rights so that other people will reciprocate. NPC's don't have rights to give up. How can there be society?

[/whycan'tthisbeinanoocforum?]

Optimist, maybe. Idealist, sure, some would say that. But that idea that I view things in "black and white, heroes and villains" is false and you know that. I've seen my fair share of broken promises, I know the world isn't perfect. More importantly, Moralism isn't about viewing things in black and white. It's about respect and decency, and understanding the different view points of other people. It's about accepting those viewpoints, and letting people express how they feel without being threatened. There's no moral superiority in saying "I'm right, you're wrong", there is something wrong, however, with using your power to prevent other people from expressing their own ideas.

Moreover, you can't honestly expect me not to hold some inherent bias against Pacifica. You know that history, and you know my reasoning. That doesn't change the fact that I've worked with them in Red Dawn, always in a respectful and mutually beneficial manner. Even if that were relevant, I'm not sure how it would effect the point of the essay, but so be it.


As President Kent so eloquently said, idealism is as much about the pursuit as it is about reality. I reject the notion that "realism" is about denying that principles have a place in politics. I understand your viewpoint, and where you're coming from, and I respect the way you feel.

But don't tell me that I haven't experienced betrayal and manipulation. The idea that you can sit here and lecture me about cynicism, and feeling apathy, and being "realistic" about things is absolutely ridiculous. I've seen the best and the worst of this game, and I can tell you that the worst consistently outdoes the best. I've been back-stabbed, cheated, and ridiculed. I don't need to tell you the stuff that I and my past alliance went through publicly, that's all well known history, but even assuming that you consider me too inexperienced or too fresh to develop your sense of disgust with the world, you have absolutely no inkling of what I've been through.

And this isn't a debate about Karma. I agree with some of the things that the coalition did, and I disagree with others. This is a debate, more or less, about the validity of morality in a distinctly brutish world. Your disillusionment with Karma, whether real or simply portrayed, has nothing to do with that.


Kent has seemed extremely capable of making my points before I'm able too, but I'll repeat: TMF isn't about playing "moral police" or "getting bad guys". We're exactly what you've described.

Now, again, I think it's up to me to choose who I trust and who I don't. The fact that your ability to maintain trusting relationships with others has been hampered by whatever it is you're currently on about, politics, Karma, just generally being "fed up with it", has nothing to do with my respect for my close friends.


I've seen you doing "the right thing", and if you're really into suppressing speech and bullying those who you can get away with bullying, that's great for you. But I don't think there are very many people who would defend what I've experienced you doing as "the right thing" by any stretch of the imagination.

Before GOONS went off the deep end and stopped giving a !@#$ they were certainly capable of being reasoned with, so long as you were capable of speaking to their interests, needs, issues, problems, desires, etc. The mistake many people make is trying to "reason" with someone without understanding what the other person's rationale or values actually are, and so their attempts at persuasion fail.


My point here is that, in my experience, morals tend to provide the greatest avenue for exploitation and dictation. And leaders do certainly have a very disproportionate amount of influence in setting what values are "correct" and "wrong." Certainly not 100% control, but enough.

In general, I have never observed any particularly meaningful positive differences between a "moralistic" alliance and a pragmatic, materialistic one, and believe the idea that if everyone were simply to embrace some form of moralism things would get better to be nothing more than empty theory and happy dreams.

No its not. Moralism is about finding a way to ensure that your personal expectations of acceptable behavior are held at knife point against anyone who might hurt you. Morality is a way to ensure that those in control retain it, and those not in control are yoked by it.

You say its about letting people express themselves without bieng threatened? Alright. Lets give that pretty thought a little spin: I love viceroy's. People should stop whining about how mean they were and accept the fact that they lost. Tough luck. I think we should have been more crushing in our dealings with alliances in the past. Our mercy in allowing small alliance to survive our jackboots has now only been shown to be a flaw, allowing enemies to crystalize instead of bieng on the run. We should have ran 1v and Q with an iron fist to stop all that pointless bickering that resulted in its failure. Allowing allies to giude our policies and actions only resulted in us bieng their henchmen. It should have been the other way, we should have run their affairs for them under the threat of our wrath. We were on top, and we should have ground everyone else into dust, no pits, no vipers, only order and rule. And trust me, we will rise to the top again, and we wont make the same mistake we made last time.

Gasp! Did I just say that? Arent you mad? Go ahead... I know you want to start talking about how you could allways start up the karma machine again. Do it... threaten me. Tell me how yall should curb stomp me again for saying such things. For bieng so, unrepentant. Go on, I know you want to put in your little acid quip. Bash be for me "feelings." Come on, do it.

Know, I know you wont since you know very well I said them to prove a point, not mean anything, but I'm using this as a proxy of general CN community dynamics. If I went out and said those things, even in your moral society, I would have your moral retaliation shoved down my throat. There'd be calls for my head, and discussions about how the NPO "learned nothing!" "The NPO are so evil" "all I need is a little humility from them."

Morals are a tool of the strong in their oppression of the weak. Or, they are a collective tool of an elite society for self protection. Regardless, they are never for the benifit of others. Morals as a tool of compassion, not an excuse for war, are non-real. Morals are an excuse to get what you want. You cannot say that morals tell you to be empathetic of others opinions, when the only way to back them up is to let them guide your sword against opinions deemed amoral. Your desire to destroy anything outside of compliance with your moral standards is all the proof needed of the hollowness of your words.

As a person who usually holds his cards pretty close to his chest, I'm going to do something uncharacteristic and speak at length about something that not only am I interested in, but have studied, observed, and discovered over the course of many years.

Morality is a contract.

It is a contract between a person and society. The details of that contract differ from culture to culture but everywhere it is an intricate balancing act between the needs of the individual human and the needs of the societal human.

The end result of what a culture regards as proper conduct is derived from a complex equation, in it which is placed a multitude of variables, such as: the preexisting values of the society involved, the context of the situation, the ramifications, what parties are involved, ect.

To understand morality as a system with definable elements, there are two concepts you have to hold simultaneously.

The first, to discover what something is you have to understand what is not. If you take a look at all the actions considered 'immoral', if you take all the great sins, and compare them, you will find a trend that runs through them all. A sin is an action that gratifies the wants of a person- at a detriment to society. It takes from the whole and gives to the one. Conversely, all great acts are sacrifices of the self for the benefit of the whole. The dichotomy of human intention is brought about by attempting to balance the demands of both in order to ensure not just survivability but prosperity.

The second concept is the web of connections one has and what degree they make up the in-group/out-group phenomenon. Every person rests in the center of his or her world, like the bull’s-eye in the middle of a dartboard. Around him or her is the group they hold the closest. The person identifies with their goals, values, philosophies, and usually has the strongest of all emotional connection to them. Radiating outward, like those rings on a dart board, is web of connections that make up the groups this person knows and has affinity for, seeing their success as tied to his own, outward to neutrality and to the extreme edges that are made up of those the person sees as working against them. To be sure, the border of these associative ranks are fuzzy indeed, but there is at least an appreciated line at which a person or group is “in” and those that are “out”.

The farther away from the various in-groups an act if perpetrated, the less immoral it becomes.

Conflict arises when people encounter others that not only have different values but different spheres of who is in the in-group and who is in the out-group.

While some hold only the closest to them as recipients of their group sacrifice, others hold a much wider radius.

To give one's self to another is an act of trust. To extend that sacrifice to the farthest extremes of the web has the greatest risk, and possibly the best payoff.

Morality is a contract of implied reciprocation. It is the gold rule. It is an extension of trust that says, "I will give, if you will return the favor. If not to me directly, then to the groups I support or even society as a whole."“

For those of you who say that morality in a game is asinine or other such things, that is simply not true. That would only be true if there weren't alliances or any cooperative nation to nation contact. Even in most pragmatic sense, people who act in accordance to their moral code consistently create honor for them selves and build trust with their allies. Honor and trust is political capital. A person or group that consistently uphold their part of the contract prove themselves to be worthy allies.

Now, why a person would even help another person at all has to do with how they perceive their success as dependant and tied to the success of the group (not to mention the good feelings that accompany it), as this is brought about by the understanding that "many hands make light work." People are a powerful resource, the more you have behind you, the greater acts you can accomplish. The more potential there is. Which is why how politically or FA adroit an alliance is always factors into one's calculation of their strength.

Moralism, to me, is a path of truth. It encapsulates human behavior and is an illumination of other's motivations. It is also a discipline. When the urges of the lower self call for fulfillment at the cost of a brother, it is will power and righteousness that fends off those demons in the night.

It requires patience, attempt at understanding, and a benevolent desire to let people speak from their hearts without the fear of retribution. It is not about control or power over others, it is about studying the very bonds that holds society together and working to create an environment where everyone can enjoy their brief sojourn on this mortal coil.

To extend a hand to those, even far removed from your own in-group, is an act that ultimately benefits the whole, even if those in their narrow viewed groups, blinded by want and fear, cannot see it. It is the investment in people, even those foreign, that will increase the wealth of the world and angle international cultural development towards a unified cause. Even if that cause is simply friendly competition and entertainment.

Now the question is this: would you prefer to be a good ally only to yourself, or maybe just a narrow scope of people, or to the whole of human kind?

Voting 'narrow scope of people'. The 'whole of human kind' doesn't deserve respect by default. The only viable path is one of guarded friendliness, not giving too much of one's self until it is proven to be deserved by another. Proclaiming one's self to be a 'giver' is a sure-fire way to find your giving nature exploited. Human nature is vile and savage. This form of mock Utopianism is laughable to those of us who are willing to take advantage.

Ah yes, exactly as Machiavelli said. Whom I'm a fan of. Now note that I didn't say take leave of one's senses, but instead invoke the other side of the golden rule: do unto others as they do unto you.

"The 'whole of human kind' doesn't deserve respect by default." No, they don't. They deserve the same respect you would want from another who doesn't know you.


Take note of what I actually emphasized in this piece: Morality is a contract. As you said, why expend effort to others if they are only going to take advantage of you?

Now consider this, those who are in abundance, or in a position of strength, can risk being the first to put their trust out there. If it is not reciprocated, then they know not to deal with them anymore, to treat them as they themselves were treated. But a little loss was worth the venture. It is those that fear that risk, that lack the resources to put themselves out first, that actually display their own weakness.

Those that take advantage of the gifts of others may think themselves clever, but really they display their own untrustworthiness, need, and detriment to the system as a whole. Much like any parasite.

Read the OP again. It gives a fairly objective definition of exactly what Moralism is. This makes it fairly easy to reach an objective conclusion as to who acts more morally, or who was motivated more by Moralism. And OK, perhaps the degree of this motivation might be dismally low in some circumstances (this being the primary cause of your new found and publicly declared cynicism), but this is irrelevant to the legitimacy of Moralism. Let me sight Jesus Christ as an example. A moral creature, to be sure, who was subsequently persecuted and killed primarily because of his morality. The fact that Christ's messages were rejected by the vast majority of people at that time does not dilute them or somehow make them less moral. And 2000 years later many still follow them.

Similarly, Vilien's Moralism is not subject to or legitimized by it's reception or past application in this universe. It is separate, and there will always be those who act according to it, and those who do not.



More convenient in a mental struggle sense. By rejecting Moralism as a lost cause, you and others like you have, probably subconsciously, embraced a more convenient mindset. A mindset which does not require one to act according to the strict principles of Moralism, which are, as highlighted above according to you, impractical. Moralists do not deny the impracticality of Moralism, or any aspect of Idealism. We accept it and the inherent role it plays, and choose to focus instead on its (lower case 'm') morality. As I stated previously, Moralism's impracticality, 'the hard road' if you will, only exemplifies its place as the right one.



Fran, what Vilien has said here is basically what I was referring to. I was not downplaying our experiences or the role they play in such discussions as this, I was saying that Vilien has seen and experienced more than you and so is probably several stages beyond your 'cynical, apathetic, indifferent' etc. one. And I'm sure that one day soon you will move on from this too. Here's hoping.