Proposed Supplement To Francoism: Analysis Of Ethics

[Delta1212]

The point is that simply because the majority of people believe something does not make it correct.

Except that in terms of morality, a set of morals can only be found in error by another set of morals. There isn't an objective standard, unless of course we assume a deity which sets the standard for us, but since humans can't see to agree on what said deity would set as a standard anyway, we can pretty much ignore any concept of objective morality until God comes down and lays it out for us in terms everyone can agree on.

In the mean time, no ethical standard can be wrong by its own standard, which means that you would require another standard to judge it by, itself subject to the judgment of other standards including the one being judged. Societies reach an assumed ethical standard through a consensus of the generally accepted moral and ethical standards of the individuals which comprise the society. Those who deviate from the ethical standard are wrong within that society. Since there is no known objective ethical standard, the morality of any action can only be judged in terms of a given society's own ethical code. You can judge other societies by your own ethical standard which you have derived from your society, but ultimately you're still judging by the metric of one society.

This means that if an overarching consensus exists across, that becomes the gold standard by which all actions in all societies are judged in terms of ethics. A sort of ethical meta-code for societies. Societies whose ethical code deviates significantly from this ethical code would then be deemed wrong. In the modern world, this covers things like genocide and large-scale human rights abuses.

Judged by their own ethical standards, those societies which perpetrate such things would be unlikely to consider themselves as unethical. By the same token, a murderer wouldn't necessarily consider themselves to be acting unethically on a personal level, even in the event that they recognize that society deems their actions to be unethical.

In the same way that society deals with those individuals which it deems to be acting unethically, a meta-society of the world would deal with those ethical codes which didn't match up to the general consensus. This is the closest we come to objective morality. It's not something you have to like, but it's still true.

[Il Impero Romano]

And if you don't have a moral viewpoint? What then?

Then you live on, but are still held to the common norms of the system in which you live. A sociopath has no moral viewpoint, but is prosecuted and held accountable if he goes on a killing spree.

A rudimentary system that is not rooted in objectivity.

If you are defining objectivity as used in philosophical studies, then it is most certainly rooted in reality due to the fact that the system arose from the community's norms of the game, and therefore obviously has its basis (or roots) in the reality of the game.

If your defining objectivity as being filtered of emotion, I think its safe to say that any moral system that lacks emotion is not a moral system at all.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Il Impero Romano

[Shep309]

And with thus, your post is concluded..... did you just agree with me? Careful, you might make it a habit.

Did I? I don't think I did. I was merely trying to point out that different subsests of people disagree on what is ethical.

For instance, the NPO and those allied to it, had a different view of ethics than those opposed, hence you have the Karma War.

Now, without the majority of Planet Bob agreeing with that the ethics of NPO were not acceptable, do you think Karma would have won?

[TypoNinja]

You know, I spent a good deal of time on the OWF during the war pointing out how the NPO was forced by their nature to view Karma and its motives through the lens of their own experience. NPO could only imagine what they would have done had the positions been reversed, the OP illustrates that far more clearly than any post I made over the last 4 months did. Especially gems like this one.

With regard to the second option, why would Karma preach ethics that they do not believe in? The answer to this is simple. Ethics in this context are merely an instrument to propel their own agenda: to criticise the New Pacific Order and her allies, to unite the masses against them, and to unify an otherwise divided coalition for the purposes of destroying a common enemy.

Its what I've come to consider "the party line" slant, Its in the broadest sense technically true, but the slant on it is so severe I'm amazed I don't have to read it sideways.

PS. Your are still misusing Hypocrisy.

[Francesca]

Except that in terms of morality, a set of morals can only be found in error by another set of morals.

Not necessarily.

There isn't an objective standard, unless of course we assume a deity which sets the standard for us, but since humans can't see to agree on what said deity would set as a standard anyway, we can pretty much ignore any concept of objective morality until God comes down and lays it out for us in terms everyone can agree on.

Irrelevant to this particular argument, as there is no God in Cyber Nations.

In the mean time, no ethical standard can be wrong by its own standard, which means that you would require another standard to judge it by, itself subject to the judgment of other standards including the one being judged. Societies reach an assumed ethical standard through a consensus of the generally accepted moral and ethical standards of the individuals which comprise the society. Those who deviate from the ethical standard are wrong within that society. Since there is no known objective ethical standard, the morality of any action can only be judged in terms of a given society's own ethical code. You can judge other societies by your own ethical standard which you have derived from your society, but ultimately you're still judging by the metric of one society.

This means that if an overarching consensus exists across, that becomes the gold standard by which all actions in all societies are judged in terms of ethics. A sort of ethical meta-code for societies. Societies whose ethical code deviates significantly from this ethical code would then be deemed wrong. In the modern world, this covers things like genocide and large-scale human rights abuses.

Judged by their own ethical standards, those societies which perpetrate such things would be unlikely to consider themselves as unethical. By the same token, a murderer wouldn't necessarily consider themselves to be acting unethically on a personal level, even in the event that they recognize that society deems their actions to be unethical.

In the same way that society deals with those individuals which it deems to be acting unethically, a meta-society of the world would deal with those ethical codes which didn't match up to the general consensus. This is the closest we come to objective morality. It's not something you have to like, but it's still true.

This meta-code you are referring to would essentially be objective ethics. However, I'm arguing that without the existence of a deity, at the least it is impossible to determine what those ethics are, and likely they do not exist. Or did I somehow miss your point? Possibly, but I'm feeling sleepy, so you'll have to excuse me.

Then you live on, but are still held to the common norms of the system in which you live. A sociopath has no moral viewpoint, but is prosecuted and held accountable if he goes on a killing spree.

The point is that you can't inflict your ethical viewpoint on others if you don't have one.

[Grumpdogg]

...to be honest, I could write books expanding on why ethics are subjective without a deity...

For the love of God, please spare us.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Grumpdogg

[Francesca]

Did I? I don't think I did. I was merely trying to point out that different subsests of people disagree on what is ethical.

You agreed that morality is essentially subjective.

For instance, the NPO and those allied to it, had a different view of ethics than those opposed, hence you have the Karma War.

Now, without the majority of Planet Bob agreeing with that the ethics of NPO were not acceptable, do you think Karma would have won?

Of course not. My very argument rests upon the fact that Karma used ethics to win the war.

[Shep309]

Okay, just for sake of argument, let's say "ethics" is determined by a deity.

Where exaclty is/was this "deity in Karma?

[Stumpy Jung Il]

Okay, just for sake of argument, let's say "ethics" is determined by a deity.

Where exaclty is/was this "deity in Karma?

Stumpy.

[mythicknight]

Okay, just for sake of argument, let's say "ethics" is determined by a deity.

Where exaclty is/was this "deity in Karma?

This came to mind...

[Il Impero Romano]

The point is that you can't inflict your ethical viewpoint on others if you don't have one.

No, the point is you cannot be excused from acting in want of moral consideration simply because you have no ethical viewpoint, you can however rightfully be expected to answer to the viewpoint of others when you breach its collective sense of morality, as the community created and perpetuates the system and you live within the community.

...it just occurred to me that you probably have no idea what I'm talking about :/

[Delta1212]

Not necessarily.

In what terms other than another ethical standard could an ethical standard be found to be unethical?

Irrelevant to this particular argument, as there is no God in Cyber Nations.

This is an OOC forum and everything I'm talking about happens to apply to RL as well as CN.

This meta-code you are referring to would essentially be objective ethics. However, I'm arguing that without the existence of a deity, at the least it is impossible to determine what those ethics are, and likely they do not exist. Or did I somehow miss your point? Possibly, but I'm feeling sleepy, so you'll have to excuse me.

My point is that a meta-code would be an ethical created by aligning the similarities between various ethical code to create a standard consensus code using the ethical codes of individual societies in the same way that societies use the ethical codes of the individuals that make up the society to determine the consensus code of that society. That code is then imparted to and imprinted on future generations ho use it as a blue printed for forming their own codes of ethics which are then used to modify the overall consensus that creates that society's ethical code.

A meta-code would be a broad ethical guideline that uses the whole of human society to determine what is generally considered acceptable and what is not. This would be the measuring stick to determine whether individual ethical codes could be considered ethical objectively in the same way that societal ethical codes are used to determine whether individual ethical codes are objectively ethical.

There is no real objectivity when dealing with morality. There is only consensus.

[Shep309]

You agreed that morality is essentially subjective.

Of course not. My very argument rests upon the fact that Karma used ethics to win the war.

Well Duh, because NPO never practiced them

Edit: How else could one alliance get the majority of the planet to hate them so?

Edited September 2, 2009 by Shep309

[Delta1212]

This came to mind...

That's amusing on multiple levels.

In other news, this topic is now redundant as ethics are whatever I say they are.

[Bill Wallace]

...it just occurred to me that you probably have no idea what I'm talking about :/

I don't know about Fran, but my eyes have definitely glazed over.

[KingEd]

Oh god, the "ethics" argument is getting so old and useless in Planet Bob. Ethics wont play no bigger role in (DoW's) than it has in the past. It's unreasonable because we as humans playing a nation simulation game get bored and constantly have the urge and face the temptations of declaring war. The only thing that stops us are our ambitions for power, the vision of alliance growth and the crude politics of planet bob (i.e the expansive never ending treaty web that connects most alliances together).

When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion.

(Abraham Lincoln)

And what that leaves us with is what we think "good" and "bad" are, and that's based on: morals, personal opinion, life experiences, and eventually ethics themselves. The only thing is that "ethics" are things that most of us have to agree with while morals are a bit more personal.

[Francesca]

No, the point is you cannot be excused from acting in want of moral consideration simply because you have no ethical viewpoint, you can however rightfully be expected to answer to the viewpoint of others when you breach its collective sense of morality, as the community created and perpetuates the system and you live within the community.

...it just occurred to me that you probably have no idea what I'm talking about :/

But Impero, that's imperialism at its finest!

This is an OOC forum and everything I'm talking about happens to apply to RL as well as CN.

Ah, ok.

My point is that a meta-code would be an ethical created by aligning the similarities between various ethical code to create a standard consensus code using the ethical codes of individual societies in the same way that societies use the ethical codes of the individuals that make up the society to determine the consensus code of that society. That code is then imparted to and imprinted on future generations ho use it as a blue printed for forming their own codes of ethics which are then used to modify the overall consensus that creates that society's ethical code.

A meta-code would be a broad ethical guideline that uses the whole of human society to determine what is generally considered acceptable and what is not. This would be the measuring stick to determine whether individual ethical codes could be considered ethical objectively in the same way that societal ethical codes are used to determine whether individual ethical codes are objectively ethical.

There is no real objectivity when dealing with morality. There is only consensus.

And what function would this meta-code fulfil? And why would it even be necessarily correct? And wouldn't it be hugely prone to change?

Edit: How else could one alliance get the majority of the planet to hate them so?

Oh trust me, there are many ways.

[Shep309]

Stumpy is and always will be my personal deity... in private.. in my closet..in my bedroom.,, of course

[Stumpy Jung Il]

Stumpy is and always will be my personal deity... in private.. in my closet..in my bedroom.,, of course

At the end of the day, I think I am everyone's closet deity.

[Delta1212]

And what function would this meta-code fulfil? And why would it even be necessarily correct? And wouldn't it be hugely prone to change?

Judging societies basically. It would be correct by most ethical standards by definition. There isn't really any other way to determine correctness in terms of morality. And yes, it would.

[Francesca]

Judging societies basically. It would be correct by most ethical standards by definition. There isn't really any other way to determine correctness in terms of morality. And yes, it would.

But the meta-code itself would not necessarily be correct. It would just be the majority opinion of the human race at the time. Therefore, it would not objectively be true. My point still stands (even if this were to be applied to Cyber Nations.)

[Delta1212]

But the meta-code itself would not necessarily be correct. It would just be the majority opinion of the human race at the time. Therefore, it would not objectively be true. My point still stands (even if this were to be applied to Cyber Nations.)

I think I might have lost the train of whatever your point was.

[Il Impero Romano]

But Impero, that's imperialism at its finest!

No? Going to another community and imposing your system would be imperialism...

See, I knew you weren't actually following :x

[Portugal]

But Impero, that's imperialism at its finest!

No, it is not. If one commits a wrong-doing against another entity, is it imperialism for that entity to demand reparation or exact vengeance? Imperialism would be to pro-actively impose an ethical and cultural guideline against others, for no reason than personal gain. If you compare it within the Karma context, what karma did was grab historical events which it perceived as wrong-doings against itself, and responded to NPO in a way to make them cease their wrong-doings. NPO was not an innocent alliance just standing there peacefully, and you damn well know it.

Self defense isn't unethical, or imperialism, or whatever the hell you believe in. It's a natural right we all posses, regardless of our moral paths.

[Il Impero Romano]

But the meta-code itself would not necessarily be correct. It would just be the majority opinion of the human race at the time. Therefore, it would not objectively be true. My point still stands (even if this were to be applied to Cyber Nations.)

Ugh, not at all, it was already refuted a few times by a few different people you just keep saying it over and over again anyway.