Jump to content
  • entries
    34
  • comments
    516
  • views
    24,121

A Brief Musing on Means


Vladimir

386 views

070422_strip.gif

The world has split into two camps over terms, one supporting harsh terms for the defeated alliances and one opposing them. But both groups are brought back together (for the most part) under the idea that after this war there will no longer be harsh terms. This brings us to an odd situation, where those morally opposed to something are perpetrating it ostensibly in order to oppose it. But where does this lead us?

The most fascinating thing to watch from my perspective has not been the change in ends -- the terms themselves -- but the change in means; that is to say, in the justifications being used, as 'no draconian terms' became 'the word draconian is relative' (read: the word draconian is undefinable and thus doesn't exist -- nothing is draconian), because it is these, not the terms themselves, that tell us the mindset of those offering them, and that set the precedents.

The vast majority of justifications we see today are notable for their generality -- that is to say, for the way in which their logic applies far beyond the current war. In this category we can see examples such as 'the victors dictate the terms, not the losers' and 'we must make sure that they can no longer be a threat'. What the former amounts to is that negotiations shouldn't exist, and that the losing alliance should be willing to accept anything given to it without complaint; what the latter amounts to is a decree that terms in general should be designed to remove any potential future threat by removing their physical ability to ever be one. Of these the latter is the most interesting, for what war isn't fought over a perceived threat?

This brings us nicely to the next justification, that harsh terms are only being offered because the NPO (and Echelon, heh) are evil and deserve it. This makes our current situation out to be unique, but is it? In what Great War has the enemy not been made out to be a great evil threat? Even in the 'War of the Coalition' Gramlins, TOP and pals were making the NpO out to be an evil alliance and an immediate threat to their existence that must be crushed and prevented from rebuilding as long as possible. Likewise we go back to the Unjust War and we find the same thing -- the defeated alliances being portrayed as a great evil. And further back we find similar in the previous Great Wars, from all sides. The point here being that alliances don't fight because they think the other to be full of splendid chaps, but because they perceive them to be a great threat and thus evil, with a history of oppression. Not to mention that there is always a concern that a defeated alliance (and especially a massive and well organised defeated bloc) will return for revenge. Of course, from one perspective or another the accusation sounds absurd (just as the current accusation does to the NPO [1]), but it nevertheless exists for the other side, and is used to justify all manner of actions.

The foundation on which Pacifican exceptionalism lies is therefore extremely sandy in character, for the circumstances being used to launch it are the same that will exist in all future 'great wars', and indeed, in most future minor wars

9 Comments


Recommended Comments

Yes, I agree. The justification for harsh terms in one instance but not in others is predicated on a firm and objective standard that does not exist.

The idea of reciprocity - giving them to those who have given them in the past - has some merit as a firm(ish) standard, but it exposes those acting as "karmic" forces to the same thing in the future and so obviously nobody is keen to go down that road. You can cast it in terms of only giving it to those who have done it unjustly in the past and satisfy yourself readily; I'm sure those writing terms have no trouble sleeping at night. It's not really a viable precedent though.

Of course, your own past does loom large here. Do you agree that your opponents are making intelligent choices in pursuing hard terms, or do you concede that you were in error in the past when you did the same?

Link to comment

The problem with trying to set precedent with words like 'unjust' is that everyone thinks that they are just and that their enemies are unjust (which is ostensibly why they are their enemies in the first place) -- indeed, you see our actions being cast as unjust today when the very same people were cheering us on as we did them.

On your final question there is an important point that first needs to be made: much of our presumed 'past' has been either exaggerated or completely fabricated by those currently fighting us. You can see this particularly clearly where people blame us for wars and terms that we had nothing to do with -- most notably the NpO terms which were actually given by Karma alliances!

Beyond that, yes, I agree that we have made errors, and that those got us into a pretty sticky situation.

Link to comment
The most fascinating thing to watch from my perspective has not been the change in ends -- the terms themselves -- but the change in means; that is to say, in the justifications being used, as 'no draconian terms' became 'the word draconian is relative' (read: the word draconian is undefinable and thus doesn't exist -- nothing is draconian), because it is these, not the terms themselves, that tell us the mindset of those offering them, and that set the precedents.

I disagree with this quote, Vladimir, as I see the terms imposed upon the NPO as a definite means to achieve an objective, an "end" if you will (related to a post-war scenario). The decisions of the group labeled as Karma rise from a partial consensus, and in a divided front you will be hard pressed to find an end that justifies, to each single member, the employment of those means. Personally, I don't really know where I want to go from this point of the war, but I agree that surrender terms you would call harsh are instrumental to the fulfilment of a number of goals listed in Karma-internal discussions (of course, those I take part in are low-tier). If I live by categorical imperatives, they don't cover any of the terms we offer in this game, which brings me to a valuable conclusion:

Likewise we go back to the Unjust War and we find the same thing -- the defeated alliances being portrayed as a great evil. And further back we find similar in the previous Great Wars, from all sides. The point here being that alliances don't fight because they think the other to be full of splendid chaps, but because they perceive them to be a great threat and thus evil, with a history of oppression.

You mentioned at the beginning of your post that few people, if any, desire the future imposition of harsh terms, but I think it would be a great achievement of the Cybernations community if such terms disappeared from the face of Bob, because of the above quote (I'd like to separate 'evil' from 'threat', though). A victorious war presents an alliance with an opportunity to subjugate an, at the time, perceived threat, and it's fairly reasonable for the victors to desire the disappearance of such threat (I'm not talking of the enemy alliance, but rather its relative power, political stance, leadership or whatever). However, in a future Great War, you'll have on one side a couple of alliances that received harsh terms one year ago, and on the other, another group that received similarly harsh terms two years ago: what I'm going at is that both parties count on this instrument to solve their problems, despite obviously not wanting to be on the opposite end of the gun*.

The degeneration of world conflicts** into manichean characterizations has certainly contributed to the appearance of increasingly harsh terms, as the Hegemony's alienation of former allies and previously neutral parties enlargened the 'perceived threats' at the beginning and resolution of large wars. The Karma War is, in my opinion, exceptional, because the position of the New Pacific Order is exceptional, with its history of power and domination in contrast with its current leverage in negotiations. How our actions change the future CN is an important question (within the limits of a browser game) we should always consider, even though we may not be able to answer it.

*An inappropriate but perhaps illustrative analogy is the dilemma a real nation leader would face if he was presented with the option of disarming, and thus exposing his people, in the name of world peace. The nation in question is relatively impaired against potential enemies (everyone?) by the lack of armed forces.

**In contrast, I believe minor conflicts are becoming progressively more... uh... humane, in terms of the conditions issued to the losers at their end.

Link to comment

Everything is subject to various opinions, that doesn't give them all equal weight or justifiability. Defeated alliances may be portrayed the same way but that does not in fact, make them the same. Especially when there's the clear difference between an alliance that was attacked and an alliance the started the war to begin with.

Link to comment

Things are not exclusively ends or means -- they can be both. much like the conclusion of an argument may form a premise in the next argument, an end can go on to form a mean. It's an ever decreasing and increasing tree, not a line.

For the second half you'll have to forgive me, but I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with what I wrote. One can say that the Order is exceptional insofar as no one else is the Order, but the arguments being used to justify actions against her are still generalisable to anyone else, and with the rapidly changing arguments of Karma from idealistic (NPO is evil, make a better world) to strategic (NPO is a threat to our power) -- or as Nietzsche might have put it, from slave to master -- there is no sign that this won't be the case.

You are quite right, Azaghul; however, I do not see how this relates to what I said.

Link to comment
The problem with trying to set precedent with words like 'unjust' is that everyone thinks that they are just and that their enemies are unjust

Heh, not quite correct. Some people do things that they believe are unjust and then try to justify them using propaganda. And no, this is not aimed at you, just at alliances at large.

Link to comment

Vlad you seem to be a very intelligent person, who can think quite deeply into these situations (this is a genuine compliment :P)

So I am curious (in part because a lot of these opinion pieces are yours)if you feel that the former actions of the Hegemony and allies from the end of GW3 till the Karma war were "JUST". Considering your position within NPO, im curious how you dislike/justify their actions.

EDIT: fix a typo

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...