Jump to content

Taishaku

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    219

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Taishaku

  1. On the Nature of Absolute Morality

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Taishaku

    @Vilien

    Need I honestly clarify further?

    He first stated his background as a scientist and engineer. I pointed out in my reply that it is a rather silly background to have regarding this topic. In addition, that his background is diametrically opposed to relativism due to the need of engineers and scientists for the absolute.

    I am not in any way using his background as my argument against him (that would be the part you did not quote). I was simply using it as an opening statement, pointing out his error in using it to bolster his authority, while it really undermines it.

  3. On the Nature of Absolute Morality

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Taishaku

    @muffasamini

    The fact that you're a scientist and an engineer undermines your authority in matters of philosophy, morality, and deductive logic. This is because scientists and engineers use inductive logic, which is convenient for absolute variables but hopeless for predicting and explaining complex social matters. Ironically, if there were no such thing as absolute knowledge, such as that of morality, you would be out of a job.

    That being said, you simply cannot take two variables, conduct two simplistic and highly subjective experiments out of them, then conclude that your views are correct. I can just as easily create another two examples that prove my own views correct.

    On a sidenote, I approach this matter as an actuary, logistician, accountant, and economist and also as a Calvinist.

    Anyhow, your premise is flawed:

    "Morality is not universal, it is possible for people to have different morals."

    Simply because people have different morals does not rule out the existence of absolute morals. It is like saying scientists disagree on the relations between carbon dioxide and cloud formation (the primary drivers of global warming), therefore, global warming does not exist.

    Also, your example of spying actually does you no favors... as everybody believes it is wrong, it is an absolute moral that seems to coincide with popular agreement. In addition, your argument that because it is popular, it must be relative lacks rigor.

    You state that NPO is being encroached upon in an imperialistic manner because it has violated the moralities of others and not its own. I believe you are not seeing the forest for the trees. To say that NPO is only accountable to its own standards requires quite a stretch of the imagination. You call those who enforce their standards of morality upon others as imperialists, but you ignore the fact that they are not beholden to your values and thus, would not consider themselves imperialists (and the problem with relativity is that nobody can be anything but right). Indeed, you would also be an imperialist to insist that they follow your value system and call themselves imperialists.

  5. On the Nature of Absolute Morality

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Taishaku

    @Vladimir

    "I'm afraid the logic still applies to you, regardless of the justification you use for your position."

    Actually, I fail to see the logic of your argument whatsoever. Indeed, if we were allowed to break character, I would like to see your credentials in the field of logic.

    I honestly wanted to avoid it, primarily because it seems to be what you want, but I'll entertain you and pick apart your "logical" argument against absolute morality.

    The gist of your argument is that "morality is relative; absolute morality is fallacious and flawed." This is pretty much something that has been argued against since the time of Plato, in the dialogue Thaetetus.

    First, let me point out that I am neutral in this current conflict. However, I am a moralist and will be defending absolute morality as at least a practical necessity.

    Second, let us pause to consider the ramifications if indeed this statement were true. It would mean that moral progress is impossible due to an invalidation of the concept of isomorphism. It would also mean there would be no need for objectivity (being that this is a totally subjective world) nor truth. Indeed, reason and logic itself would fall under the domain of relativism, and absolutes such as facts and evidence would lose their value (IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO PROVE YOURSELF RIGHT!). And perhaps what Francoist alliances would fear the most: authority itself would no longer be a sufficient justification for rule.

    Now, just looking at the prior post, this argument is self-contradictory. As an absolute statement. Your argument itself is subject to its own argument.

    Indeed, even the briefest of observations would demonstrate to the most stalwart moralist that absolute morality is a fiction.

    This is a personal preference that lacks rigor and clarity. However, if I am to take it for truth, then it seems even the briefest of observations would be sufficient to prove to you, the most stalwart of relativists, that your argument is a fiction. That is, unless you are a hypocrite.

    Every individual, every alliance, every bloc: all undeniably have their own unique moralities. Sometimes they overlap, but none are the same; and even where there is a lot of overlap on a certain issue, it is never universally held.

    Now, being that you too are an individual with his own unique morality, which apparently does not overlap with those of the moralists, why is it that your own beliefs should be universally held, but not ours?

    We can therefore see morality as entirely relative, changing from person to person, from group to group, and that the vision of an absolute morality is nothing more than the forced extension of one's own morality onto others.

    Morality is entire relative. Except your own. This entire thread is a forced extension of your morality onto ours.

    How is it that the moralists are flawed and you're not? Seems like presuppositional bias.

    So where does morality come from? From the moralist's brief observation they should have discovered the simple answer: morality develops inside any group in order to aid in its smooth operation, and from there it is internalised by the individuals involved.

    And this is the form of morality that you have internalized to sleep at night. It's definitely not something the vast majority of this world would go for, simply because it is absurd.

    If another country is committing mass genocide on people who don't have straight teeth, the Francoist would be cheering them on? What if a country believes that Francoism needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth? If everything is relative, is this not a legitimate viewpoint? And how is it different from the current conflict?

    We could go on to expand this point at great length, but there is only one important lesson for our purposes here: the pursuit of an absolute morality is not only the forced extension of an individual morality onto others, but in fact the forced extension of the individual's political interests onto others. It is thus that moral outrage always stems from those with vested interests in the downfall of the supposed perpetrator, whether from a desire for revenge over past acts or greed for their place in the international order (whether in the name of power politics or simply reshaping the world in their image). At this point absolute morality can be seen as not only overlapping with imperialism, but leading inevitably to it. Since different moralities have developed to best pursue the interests of different alliances, by negating these one is actually fettering, if not launching a direct attack upon, the political interests of other alliances. Some moralities, of course, outlive their usefulness and become fetters on the host group itself, but the origin nevertheless remains the same.

    So your claim that morality is relative and that people should all stop believing you are wrong and thus, people should stop fighting you... is not politically motivated WHATSOEVER? What a joke. Hegemony is serving its own vested interests like anyone on the side of Karma. This does not logically disprove absolute morality. Indeed, even if your enemy is always wrong (something you seem to be arguing by stating moralists always act out of "moral outrage"), this is a form of absolute morality that is verifiable (but it would, as you said, be a form of imperialism if it is exerted upon others as a means of dominance, much like what Francoism has done).

    The moralist is therefore pushing for all others to live in a manner that is suited best to his own prosperity at the expense of that of all others. Moralism becomes, by its very definition, imperialism par excellence.

    Not really. Religious moralities such as Christianity subject the people to live for the prosperity of God. The name "Islam," for example, means "to submit."

    I find it ultimately ironic too that many Alliances in CN are Francoist/Realpolitik, and half of them find it to be good realpolitik to give NPO that stern talking-to they keep talking about. Meanwhile, NPO is spewing irrational propaganda in an attempt to explain how their realpolitik is flawed and that it would be in their own interests to not oppose NPO.

    I quote the Introduction to Francoism: "The natural world that we see around us is a brutal one: a world where no law, no morality, and no right or wrong exist. Individuals are open to do whatever they will and to take from others whatever they desire. Nations exist, in short, in a constant war and fear."

    NPO should not be surprised that everyone wants to kill them. It should have been the assumption from the beginning and no amount whining will make them look less like hypocrites.

  6. The server lockout, and the (unpopular) solution.

    in Gameplay Discussions

    Posted · Edited by Taishaku

    @Viluin

    Your strategic thought is astounding (that was sarcasm).

    You assume people can only coordinate at the update? You do realize the Europeans have NEVER coordinated at the update? Primarily because it's 5 AM there?

    It seems rather naive to assume everyone only attacks when you can defend. No, the reason why they attack on updates is because you can do 2, then another 2 within a few hours. This means you can wait an entire day without doing anything.

    @Comrade Tiki

    Here here!

    Why is it that the same people who whine about server crashes are also the same people who whine when people want to change it?

    I mean technically, there shouldn't be any problem whatsoever if people quit being idiots and attack earlier in the day and repair their damage after update.

    @Duncan King

    Actually the OP said 20 hours. But I said before that 24 is too long, 12 is too short, so 18 is just right. ^^

  8. War And Treaties

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    The ultimate problem with treaties is that leaders rarely consider the consequences of signing them. Here, we saw the network of diplomacy that NPO had constructed, arguably their most powerful asset, disintegrate under a wave of ambivalence. Technically speaking, everyone who signed a treaty with NPO should have honored it and Karma should have been smothered at birth. But they didn't. Thus, future behavior will be influenced by these events, at least concerning those that did renege (and eventually came back, COUGH COUGH).

  10. On the Nature of Absolute Morality

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    "QUOTE (Athenius @ Apr 27 2009, 04:20 PM) *

    Come to me, I will give you understanding. I will crush you with word and sword, along with the rest of Lady Pacifica!"

    :rolleyes: , Kids these days. For three years NPO has tried that..., look what it has brought you. Face facts, your time is over. With all this talk of trying to restore former NPO greatness, you are starting to sound very like like legion members ;)

    I think you mean something else. Athenia is talking about NPO. Unless you're saying NPO has been trying to "crush" NPO for the last three years...

  12. State of Failure

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    @Athenius

    So this is why I was attacked 4v1 as a young nation for TRADING with a target on your ZI list? No warnings, no diplomatic overtures? I mean, you could have asked for cooperation, but you opted to shoot first. Honestly, I had liked NPO before this rather traumatic event in my nation's history, but at that time, I knew that you had become too complacent in your power. Where was my justice? I didn't even have any military beyond the optimized number of soldiers! And the 1/4 of my infrastructure that you razed to the ground didn't even get reparated.

  16. The Worst Resource Combination

    in Gameplay Discussions

    Posted · Edited by Taishaku

    "The 8BR trade circle is quite poor, by the way, aim for the 3BR or 5BR."

    Agreed, 1 BR with the population boosters and infrastructure reducers is better.

    Remember, the number of BRs is not important. The bonuses they give are.

    I would say the best non-swapping tradeset is:

    Fish

    Cattle

    Pigs

    Sugar

    Wheat

    Uranium/Water

    Nothing/*Beer

    Aluminum

    Lumber

    Iron

    Marble

    *Construction

    Oil

    Rubber

    *Asphalt

    Infrastructure Purchase Cost: -36%

    Infrastructure Upkeep Cost: -23/26%

    Number of Citizens: +27.5%

    Citizen Daily Income: +3/7.5

    Population Happiness: +5.5/2.5

    Technology Cost: -0%

    Environment: +2

    Land Purchase Cost: -25%

    Purchased Land Area: +20%

    No Fast Food because the happiness bonus from it and Spices are inferior to the infra-reducing power of Rubber, Oil, and Asphalt. Beer is optional too, depending on if you have enough Land to not need Water.

  24. Infrastructure vs. Population Tradesets

    in Gameplay Discussions

    Posted

    So I just passed the 9000 infrastructure mark and I guess I am beginning to become a "large" nation.

    Before, I had always considered population boosters to be the most worthwhile stat in a tradeset, but I have increasingly been looking into infrastructure cost and upkeep reduction.

    Can anyone tell me what type of tradeset is ideal for a nation of my size? I have terrible resources though (Silver and Lead).

  25. The Worst Resource Combination

    in Gameplay Discussions

    Posted · Edited by Taishaku

    @lonewolfe2015

    Aiyah, I was talking about splitting Affluent Population and Fine Jewelry so that you would not need FJ to make AP. It's a modification to resources that I am proposing, meant to increase tradeset flexibility.

    I mean I know how to make a tradeset with the current resources. I said before that I use a Big Three without Spices and Lead and Silver as the Wildcards (I cannot avoid my native reources). xD

    By the way, nice nation name. Though generally speaking, "Nosce" has a "G" in front.

×
×
  • Create New...