On the Nature of Absolute Morality

[Raider]

The Gremlins Rap makes this easier to understand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FsObrj2aIE

[Vladimir]

It's well made and all that (despite its many factual errors), but I'm not sure what it has to do with this thread.

[Raider]

I just wanted to post it somewhere and I picked your thread.

[mpol777]

I wasn't discussing you, I was discussing FAN. For the past year your alliance has spent every waking moment moaning about how unfair life is, and how the Order acted immorally, appealing to the pity of those around them. My point was that it is humorous to see, as soon as the slim possibility of getting out from war arises, you immediately begin to revert back to your old amoral selves, where things are right because FAN said so. Not what the moralists expected I dare say -- nostalgia claims yet another victim.

If you are discussing FAN you are discussing me.

FAN has steered itself in the direction chosen since the community was formed. The conclusions you've drawn from past events are formed by your perceptions and while your perceptions are your form of reality, they aren't necessarily true reality. That is unless you are omnipotent. Which is apparently not the case based on your comments. Don't worry. I'm not either and since I'm a much better individual than you it's not expected from you.

There are always multiple realities. You have slightly higher level access to that which is the NPO than I do, so our views of the NPO will differ in a similar way as our views of FAN will differ. Couple that with your belief in morality and the inherent need to categorize under that and I can see your point of view. I know it to be incorrect, but I can see how you got there. Or these are not your views at all and this is simply a means to an end. Whichever is the truth of the matter is insignificant and personally I wouldn't want to know which it is. I love mysteries.

I do wonder where you came to the idea that "the slim possibility of getting out from war" has arisen. At least with your faction any talk of a future peace was suspended when it was made known to us that you refused to talk about the war with us. If you are in fact talking about our war, please do invite us to the conversation at some point as it would likely speed negotiations up considerably.

[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.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Taishaku

[muffasamini]

TL;DR: Read the two bolded tl;dr conclusions, and then skip to "Aggregate Conclusion" at the bottom and just read that, cause this baby is way too long for any sane person to read.

I have to agree, and not because I am in NPO, though being in NPO of course provided the bias and motive forcing me to evaluate current world affairs from a position in which the world does not have absolute morality, for when viewing the world with some sort of inherent morality that must be enforced, it is very easy to see the NPO's actions as highly undesirable.

I am an engineer and scientist, not a philosepher, therefore, I make my points using experiments (case studies) and drawing conclusions from them.

A Scientific Exploration of Current World Affairs Based on Vladmir's "On the Nature of Absolute Morality"

Abstract: This exploration involves first, two unsubstantiated, but accepted facts forming fundamentals for the study. Next two case studies are done on existing, well accepted items, anti-spying morals, and Causus Bellis. This is followed by an exploration of the current world affairs. These will be attempted to be done without pro-NPO prejudiced, and combined to form a conclusion on current world affairs. The conclusion is not restricted to being unbiased, but should be based off unbiased facts.

Morality:

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

CN Morality:

CN is a moral society. We believe that it is both necessary and valid for you to punish an alliance not abiding by your accepted morality.

Case Study: Spying:

CN is a society that views spying to be amoral. We view spying as fundamentally wrong, and believe it necessary that such a view is homogeneous, endemic among all alliances, an necessary to our societies function, to an extent requiring punitive action against any entities not abiding by this rule. Why is this? Is it because spying is inherently "wrong"? No, there is no universal, natural morality limiting spying. Morality is a tool we humans use. We percieve spying as wrong because spying presents a hazard to our own selfish wellbieng. Perceiving a hazard, CN communities needed a method with which they were allowed to remove that threat and punish anyone that participated in the threat in a justified way. Since this threat was universal and not regio-specific, it has been adopted by most CN entities, and is hence part of our "morality"

Conclusion (tl;dr): We create morals as tools to use for our own gain, or the gain of our community based on our own selfish desires.

Case Study: Causes Belli:

-CB is a tool of popular morality similar to spying. Therefore conclusions reached in they spying case study are applicable in a study of CB's.

-We are going to ignore CB's enacted due to treaty obligations, to avoid confusion. I trust you can see where to fit them into the study in order to make it applicable to real CN situations.

1. Popular morality finds it ammoral to disagree (in a war-like method) with a war that has a valid CB.

2. CN Wars occur due to valid transgressions in popular CN morality

3. A CB is a justification that the offending party did indeed violate accepted morality

4. An alliance having a valid CB protects others from you incurring punitive action on them for their war, since this marker of the morality that was violated against them is in accordance with you own morality.

5. Therefore, attacking a entity for a war with a CB would be synonymous with committing, or at least pledging your abhorrence for the infringed morality that was the genesis for the original CB.

6. What happens when the moral behind another party's CB isn't concurrent with your own morality? Is it just fine then to attack the party with the CB that, while valid, is based on a moral you do not share?

7. The awnser is no, we do not allow that. We as a society demand that you act in accordance with the system of CB, a system derived and added as part of our morality. This is an example of how morality is used as an "imperialistic" tool in which popular morality is forced upon inferior or alien morality.

Conclusion (tl;dr): The moral tools we create are used to impose our will upon others.

I'm going to add as an addendum that wars only truly end when one party agrees to add the violated morality to their personal behavior.

The Current War: an exploration

Since CN is a moral society, conclusions drawn in both previous case studies are applicable to the current political situation. This war (the Karma-NPO conflict, not the NPO-OV seed conflict) is not a war with a truly valid CB as we all perceive CB to be. Having a CB means that you are attacking an alliance for a justified, unavoidable, or tactical reason due to violations in your morality, which have previously been stated and edicted to the world as violations that will incur punishment. The NPO-OV CB conforms to this, with bias. It is true that the CB was most likely not important enough to necessitate an all out war between NPO-OV, it is also true that the methodology behind the enactment of the NPO-OV was (despite the distinct possibility and probability that there was most likely large amounts of miscommunication between entities combined with pressure on both sides for war to occur regardless of necessity) not in conformity with accepted and norms. However, from an end-result perspective, a war was necessitated, and was brought, regardless of methodology used. Therefore since, if we exclude the sever reset hours around the time of war bieng engendered, nothing inappropriate (as defined by the moral perspective as seen by the majority of KARMA entities) occurred, and the world would not be in this state, therefore, it must be the actions that occured during the engendering of the NPO-OV war. However, nothing was done to any current KARMA entity that would necessitate and generate a valid CB. SO why are we at war? We are at war because the actions that are perceived to have occurred during that time must have violated the morality of KARMA entities. KARMA has not been specific with which moralities were infringed, as they have not needed to declare them in their CB, instead using the web of MDP's discriminatingly (only picking the MDP's they want to) in order to avoid having a true CB in accordance with the REAL reason this war is occurring. The real reason for this war to be occurring has not been clearly stated, this does NOT devalue the fact that a moral infringement has occurred, however it is important to note that has yet to be clearly defined. Especially since, in accordance with previous conclusions, all future alliances on the KARMA side (if they win) will need to abide by it, and all alliances on the hegemony side will need to accept their compliance with it for peace to be achieved.

Therefore whatever the hegemony has to do for this war to end other than standard decommissioning, peace terms, etc -OR- (looking at it from the KARMA perspective) the reasoning behind most peoples participation on the KARMA side of the war, is synonymous with the moral that was infringed, necessitating this war.

[sidenote: Usually, this moral is the same for both option is either side of the OR. However, since KARMA did not need to provide a CB outside of treaty obligations, they are in an unusual situation in which the true CB behind them entering the conflict, and the official CB they will demand rectified if there is to be peace, may be different. Since no peace terms have been agreed upon, outside of letting people leave the conflict by removing themselves from their alliance, I will focus on the reasons KARMA entered the war]

In my experience, I have seen only one overriding reason for this war [This single sentence is where you may disagree with me, along with the repercussions of disagreements over this sentence on derived conclusions. Everything else has used only undeniable logic, and has truly (other than some qualifying statements) not been pro-NPO, and if it is I'll correct it] and that is KARMA is at war with the NPO because the NPO has been imperialistic, enforcing their will on others, without their consent, and they have done this in order to further their personal gains over the gains of their community.

Aggregate Conclusion:

When viewing the world from a perspective that assumes that your personal ideas of morality are both universally homogeneous, endemic to all men, and necessary for societies function, to an extent requiring punitive action against any entities not abiding to your perceived universal laws, it is easy to understand how the current situation arose. The NPO has acted unjustly in recent events and has broken moral code not of its own, but of others. The morals broken by the NPO are not universal morals being protected, but personal morals held by KARMA members, with this discrepancy being the genesis behind the war. KARMA has a morality different from that of the NPO, and it is using this morality as a tool with which to CB the NPO into the ground. The <moral broken/reasoning behind the war> is that the NPO has been imperialistic, imposing its will on others selfishly. This is a valid moral standpoint, I'm not devaluing it. However, the CB is therefor only valid if KARMA adopts morals into its morality set that is in accordance with its actions/reasoning. However, as proven earlier, morality, especially partial/regio-specific morality, is inherently imperialistic, as one entity inevitably must attempt to force their morals on another. Therefore while their CB is valid only because they have entered into conflicts by using treaty obligations, they are being hypocritical in their actions, and anger, and are truly no different then the people they are so angry at.

Edited April 28, 2009 by muffasamini

[Vilien]

Post.

There are a number of issues with your analysis. These are not necessarily your fault, but more in line with problems in the way you view the CN community. These issues fall primarily with your focus on the casus belli. It is true that a "valid" casus belli is considered by many to be the impetus for any war. You use spying as an example of something that the CN community does not accept. Spying is generally frowned upon, in most circles. However, I have never spoken to anyone who is morally outraged by spying. But spying, or accepting information about other alliances, is still considered to be a casus belli. Why?

It is because spying is never the reason we go to war. We do not go to war because of insults suffered on the forums, and we certainly do not go to war because of an alliance's unwitting acceptance of a rerolled member. The entire concept of the casus belli is a lie. We fight for reasons that are far more profound, and far more relevant, than the mere existence of spies. Whether it is greed, or anger, or a desire to eliminate one's enemies, or even (however rarely) because we cannot stand continued assault on our communal structure, war almost always occurs for an important reason. We lie to ourselves with the casus belli. The entire community of Cybernations accepts the lie, for it is far easier to pretend that we despise spies than to admit that we desire the destruction of an alliance.

It is in this spirit that politics have run for three years. More wars have been fought over petty reasons and manufactured casus bellis than I can remember. You are correct in addressing the fact that this war has no casus belli, for it needs none. Our actions have been based on our duty to our fellow men. Avalanche does not hold a treaty with Ordo Verde. But when we heard of what was happening, the first question was not "Will our side be larger? How can we help ourselves?". Our first and only question was "When?" I understand there are some who are in this war for personal gain. But for many of us, it is an acknowledgment of our fundamental promise, and our duty to each other. The absoluteness of our Morality can be easily seen in our stand. It is a stand against years of intimidation, of destruction, and of greed.

I do not force my Morality upon you, for you recognize it in your justifications. You admit to yourself, ever so slightly, that what you have done is wrong. I hope that some day you will be with us, but for now, I choose to protect the fates of my brothers, you included.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Vilien

[Detlev]

Whether or not someone is allowed to speak truth depends on your flawed opinion of their history? You would do better to concentrate on what is said, rather than your emotional reaction to who said it.

You would do better to put in three years with a non-imperialist, non-tyrannical alliance before you run your mouth about imperialism and tyranny.

The NPO has acted unjustly in recent events and has broken moral code not of its own, but of others. The morals broken by the NPO are not universal morals being protected, but personal morals held by KARMA members, with this discrepancy being the genesis behind the war.

So vladimir has a student.

The reason why NPO is getting stomped right now is not morality or lackthereof. NPO is getting stomped because, for the umpteenth time, it tried to bully a little alliance. But this time the little alliance had more friends than did NPO and so NPO is getting a beatdown.

I don't like the term "karma" and the phrase, "what goes around comes around." What went around from the NPO is not what is currently coming around. NPO attacks other alliances for largely BS reasons, and this war is not for BS reasons - it is happening on the scale that it is because of the defense of a small, innocent alliance, and treaty obligations. Furthermore, by all accounts the leaders of karma do not intend to do what NPO is so infamous for doing to defeated enemies - no perma-zis, no disbandment, no viceroy, etc..

NPO certainly doesn't deserve any lenience; it never gave any of its own. But in any case, NPO is on the receiving end of a just and well-deserved beat down and most likely will not be punished as it has punished when the war is finished, and so the idea that NPO is receiving "karma" is nonsense. If what goes around comes around, NPO would be given a viceroy, all of the IO's perma-zi'd, and then disbanded a while later after it has paid a bazillion tech in reparations.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Detlev

[muffasamini]

The entire concept of the casus belli is a lie. We fight for reasons that are far more profound, and far more relevant, than the mere existence of spies. Whether it is greed, or anger, or a desire to eliminate one's enemies, or even (however rarely) because we cannot stand continued assault on our communal structure, war almost always occurs for an important reason. We lie to ourselves with the casus belli. The entire community of Cybernations accepts the lie, for it is far easier to pretend that we despise spies than to admit that we desire the destruction of an alliance.

It is in this spirit that politics have run for three years. More wars have been fought over petty reasons and manufactured casus bellis than I can remember. You are correct in addressing the fact that this war has no casus belli, for it needs none.

I actually completely agree with you. There are simply different ways to look at it. I am not attempting to say one side is right or wrong, but merely illuminate the true reasonings behind this war.

The question is therefore the statement, "this war has no casus belli, for it needs none" While you are correct in your own right, does that mean that KARMA's actions are moral or immoral? Or does it simply mean, as you've stated, that there is no morality in CN, Karma is simply furthering its interests in whatever way possible?

Regardless of right or wrong, the skinny is I think it is ridiculous for people to say that KARMA is some moral high ground of the future against an evil NPO empire. You are merely attempting to replace one hegemony with a new one in the hope you might like it better. If you succeed, you wont. Success in such an endevour is inherently impossible.

Edited April 28, 2009 by muffasamini

[mpol777]

It is because spying is never the reason we go to war. We do not go to war because of insults suffered on the forums, and we certainly do not go to war because of an alliance's unwitting acceptance of a rerolled member. The entire concept of the casus belli is a lie. We fight for reasons that are far more profound, and far more relevant, than the mere existence of spies. Whether it is greed, or anger, or a desire to eliminate one's enemies, or even (however rarely) because we cannot stand continued assault on our communal structure, war almost always occurs for an important reason. We lie to ourselves with the casus belli. The entire community of Cybernations accepts the lie, for it is far easier to pretend that we despise spies than to admit that we desire the destruction of an alliance.

My only complaint in an otherwise great observation is the use of the word 'we'.

'Caustic belly', treaties and other muck are excuses for war, not reasons as you so well put. It is the morality that Valdimir was discussing that causes the need for such excuses in many. It is the idea that one must give a reason for war so that one can justify to themselves that war is the best option. The particular excuse is given so that the unwashed masses will give praise and support which in turn supports what the aggressor 'thinks' is right. The same can be said for peace however. There are excuses for peace the same as there are for war. We've all witnessed times when someone has not fought because of some trivial thing as many as we've seen the times when they have. The lie, as you put it, goes both ways.

Faith in oneself makes a reason out of an excuse. It is the difference between, "I do what is right because I think it is right." and "I do what is right because you think it is right.". The line is often hard to judge. Of course in the end the real judge is yourself. At least it should be.

[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.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Taishaku

[Vilien]

@muffasamini

The fact that you're a scientist and an engineers 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 more complex social issues. Incidentally, if there is no such thing as absolute knowledge, such as that of morality, you would be out of a job.

As far as I'm aware, that's called Appeal to Authority.

[Taishaku]

@Vilien

He has the wrong background, just pointing that out.

And the logical fallacy only occurs when it is used as the exclusive support of a statement.

For example:

"You are a geologist, therefore your opinion on global warming is wrong."

[Vilien]

@Vilien

He has the wrong background, just pointing that out.

And the logical fallacy only occurs when it is used as the exclusive support of a statement.

For example:

"You are a geologist, therefore your opinion on global warming is wrong."

The fact that you're a scientist and an engineer undermines your authority in matters of philosophy, morality, and deductive logic.

This is a game, his points are just as initially valid as yours are.

[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.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Taishaku

[Vilien]

@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.

I do not care about either of your professions, and neither does anyone else. This argument is specifically addressed to in-game issues, and should be made on in-game terms.

[Taishaku]

@Vilien

Those aren't my professions.

And I only listed mine as a sidenote in the event that the person would inquire of my own OOC background. I never once appealed to my background in my argument as a source of authority.

Once again, are you going to continue attacking a point that is secondary to the topic at hand?

[Vilien]

@Vilien

Those aren't my professions.

And I only listed mine as a sidenote in the event that the person would inquire of my own OOC background. I never once appealed to my background in my argument as a source of authority.

Once again, are you going to continue attacking a point that is secondary to the topic at hand?

No thanks. See my previous posts for salient points.

[Taishaku]

@Vilien

I have, and I believe we are both in agreement that it is rather silly that NPO is arguing that it is imperialism to be held to Karma's standards while ignoring the fact that Karma does not share NPO's values. And if NPO insists that Karma shares their values, well, they are imperialists by their own definition of it.

[muffasamini]

Semantics. I only added that to explain why I was approaching the essay in such an unusual (to most readers) form. It doesn't undermine any authority, it simply doesn't add to it.

Regardless, I disagree with your evaluation. I believe you are automatically assuming that I believe that the NPO is a beautiful benevolent entity. Its not (as seen with your moral lenses, just not mine), if it was we wouldn't have done so well in getting to the heights we attained, sometimes at the expense of others, most often at the benefit of our forgetful "friends." I am merely saying that KARMA is no better (and biased judgment that its worse).

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.

No, there are no absolute morals, it is simply a popular moral, and I have stated why this is, please view the argument wholistically. Since almost all current alliances keep this moral, it may appear to be absolute, but it is not. Just look at vox, who no one cares that they spy.

it is rather silly that NPO is arguing that it is imperialism to be held to Karma's standards while ignoring the fact that Karma does not share NPO's values. And if NPO insists that Karma shares their values, well, they are imperialists by their own definition of it.

No, you missed one of my points. I specifically and directly said that Karma and NPO have different values. One of the things I'm attempting to substantiate is that Karma is being imperialistic in forcing it's values on others, yet their values appear to be that imperialism is amoral. This conundrum cant exist, meaning that the true motivations behind Karma are NOT to end imperialism, they're to create a new ruling class. They are simply an elite few (unsubstantiated, but I haven't of any grand Karma council meetings) Karma rulers furthering their own gains, riding on the waves of public opinion. They are attempting to replace one hegemony with another, and all the alliances cheering for the death of imperialism are about to be very disappointed. Thats the conclusion I derive from my exploration.

[Oh yea, and sorry to hijack your topic Vlad, I couldn't resist]

Edited April 28, 2009 by muffasamini

[Taishaku]

No, there are no absolute morals, it is simply a popular moral, and I have stated why this is, please view the argument wholistically. Since almost all current alliances keep this moral, it may appear to be absolute, but it is not. Just look at vox, who no one cares that they spy.

Still, the fact that a moral is popular has nothing to do with whether or not it exists as an absolute. Much like how the popularity of any scientific theory does not guarantee whether it is true or false. No one can believe in it at all and it would be true.

Hence what I said before about your background. It would not be possible without absolutes.

Regardless, I disagree with your evaluation. I believe you are automatically assuming that I believe that the NPO is a beautiful benevolent entity. Its not (as seen with your moral lenses, just not mine), if it was we wouldn't have done so well in getting to the heights we attained, sometimes at the expense of others, most often at the benefit of our forgetful "friends." I am merely saying that KARMA is no better (and biased judgment that its worse).

I never did say you think NPO is faultless. I read your statement. I know you think NPO and Karma are both at fault. The problem is, Karma is not at fault at all (not yet anyway; you can be pessimistic, but innocence before guilt). See, only NPO believes that it is imperialistic to make it do what is right. If your father gives you a stern talking-to, is he some horrible dictator? No.

It is ignoratio elenchi to say "Karma believes that forcing its values on NPO is right; forcing one's values on another is imperialistic; therefore, Karma is attempting to establish a new ruling class." How did you get to that conclusion? I mean, it calls into question whether or not "imperialistic" is the right word. Coercive is perhaps a better choice, as it does not carry the baggage of longterm political domination.

No, you missed one of my points. I specifically and directly said that Karma and NPO have different values. One of the things I'm attempting to substantiate is that Karma is being imperialistic in forcing it's values on others, yet their values appear to be that imperialism is amoral. This conundrum cant exist, meaning that the true motivations behind Karma are NOT to end imperialism, they're to create a new ruling class. They are simply an elite few (unsubstantiated, but I haven't of any grand Karma council meetings) Karma rulers furthering their own gains, riding on the waves of public opinion. They are attempting to replace one hegemony with another, and all the alliances cheering for the death of imperialism are about to be very disappointed. Thats the conclusion I derive from my exploration.

Oh right. Because the Karma rulers don't think what is happening to the Hegemony is going to happen to them if they start emulating the Hegemony. Honestly, you assume too much to assume it will be exactly the same. Moral progress is made possible by the existence of moral absolutes. And there will be some progress, if only in the short term.

I might sound naive to say such things, but if precedent is anything to go by, I'll be happy under anyone but NPO. After all, I've only been attacked without warning by NPO in the past. Apparently I TRADED with a EZI target that restarted itself. The next day ONE-FOURTH of my infrastructure was razed to the ground without a single warning in my inbox. A "Please cancel your trade" would have done it. But no, tanks and cruise missiles from 4 separate nations was NPO's medium of diplomacy. And after I surrendered, I didn't get a dollar in reparations.

EDIT: Added quotes.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Taishaku

[Nietzschee]

OMG yur so smart, people impose slave morality upon others for self benefit, where did you think this stuff up

*looks up and left*

yur 100 years late bro, try harder

*edit:date adjustment*

Edited April 28, 2009 by Nietzschee

[Vilien]

No, you missed one of my points. I specifically and directly said that Karma and NPO have different values. One of the things I'm attempting to substantiate is that Karma is being imperialistic in forcing it's values on others, yet their values appear to be that imperialism is amoral. This conundrum cant exist, meaning that the true motivations behind Karma are NOT to end imperialism, they're to create a new ruling class. They are simply an elite few (unsubstantiated, but I haven't of any grand Karma council meetings) Karma rulers furthering their own gains, riding on the waves of public opinion. They are attempting to replace one hegemony with another, and all the alliances cheering for the death of imperialism are about to be very disappointed. Thats the conclusion I derive from my exploration.

[Oh yea, and sorry to hijack your topic Vlad, I couldn't resist]

I think the point here is that it's patently ridiculous for you to talk about imperialism in the light of your actions over the past three years. You aren't fooling anyone.