Proposed Supplement To Francoism: Analysis Of Ethics

[Francesca]

The Bird sighed dismally.

Do you, Francesca, believe in your own ethics and mores? Once, you were ardently opposed to Pacifica for those very concepts.

I don't believe in ethics any more (IC.)

But this is not an essay about ethics and mores, Fran. It is not an analysis of thought on Digiterra...it is a Pacifican propaganda piece without the incredible writing prowess of Vladimir to confuse the rest. I mean not to dismiss it merely for that fact...being that I am not the Karmic people that you describe, I cannot know their true intent. I suspect genuine claims from some parties, and suspect vengeful or malicious intent from others.

I'm not Vladimir, I'm a teenager attempting to have fun writing an article on a philosophy I did not invent.

Karma was a diverse coalition, Fran. Not all of its parties were necessarily taking any moral high-ground, and some, such as the future Frostbite alliances, did not even consider themselves a part of it, being as such because "Karma" was what all of those alliances were automatically grouped into.

Earlier in this thread, Tygaland identified STA as a Frostbite alliance in order to counter my points.

As well, "Karma" is something to remember it by...was it vengeful? It would certainly be laughable to claim that such was not involved. Was it ethical? For the most part, until Echelon's Surrender. In all actuality, though, the name of the Karma Coalition was just that: a name. If it had been the embodiment of Karma, it would have been much more ruthless, unforgiving, and unmerciful. In retrospect, however, the punishments given were by no means severe enough for the crimes. Would I have been as lenient? Very likely, I admit...but if it were truly and wholly about vengeance...then Pacifica would not be free for another three years, and its allies would have seen similar deals.

I'm talking specifically about the Karma Coalition that NPO surrendered to.

I do not regard Karma as innocent either...its name was unfitting...its stated intent was not always followed through...its true intent was questionable at best...

...but I cannot help but be bothered by how quickly and easily Pacifica has you here, publicly, claiming a Pacifican moral high-ground, spreading their propaganda. I know that you have more forethought than this...

...your affiliation to one side of the spectrum does not necessitate spreading its propaganda, Fran. It is possible to be neutral, notwithstanding one's Alliance Affiliation.

That is all that I will say on the matter.

I'm doing this for fun. I don't take this game seriously. I have not "succumbed" to Pacifican propaganda, at least in an OOC sense.

[Shep309]

This is the sort of post I was looking for. Good, solid analysis of what I wrote. Thank you for an excellent post.

Essentially, I assumed that people would concur that without some sort of divine arbitrator, ethics became subjective. For anyone who has read philosophy in any detail, it seems to be a cut-and-dried conclusion. You only need to illustrate the variances in opinion that different people hold, point out that there is nothing to determine who is correct, and presto, your point is made (to be honest, I could write books expanding on why ethics are subjective without a deity, this is extremely simplified in the interests of avoiding a wall of text.)

Ethics are and always will be subjective in accordance with what the general population believes to be "ethical".

Case in point [/ooc] The American Civil War was fought by two groups of people who generally believed in the same deity (God) yet disagreed on the ethical treatement of a so called "inferior color of skin" [/ooc]

Ethics is decided by the population at large, not by a "deity" unless you consider the community of CN as a "deity" in which case you'd have to wonder, what would one call a "deity" rebelling against members of said "deity"?

Ethics is subjective to what the majority deems ethical, and always will be, regardless of religion or creed.

[Francesca]

Ethics are and always will be subjective in accordance with what the general population believes to be "ethical".

Case in point [/ooc] The American Civil War was fought by two groups of people who generally believed in the same deity (God) yet disagreed on the ethical treatement of a so called "inferior color of skin" [/ooc]

Ethics is decided by the population at large, not by a "deity" unless you consider the community of CN as a "deity" in which case you'd have to wonder, what would one call a "deity" rebelling against members of said "deity"?

Ethics is subjective to what the majority deems ethical, and always will be, regardless of religion or creed.

Why does a majority vote make something objectively right? If the majority of people on earth voted that the earth revolved around the sun, would that make it correct?

[John Michaels]

Why does a majority vote make something objectively right? If the majority of people on earth voted that the earth revolved around the sun, would that make it correct?

no, but empirical scientific evidence would.

[Il Impero Romano]

If the majority of people on earth voted that the earth revolved around the sun, would that make it correct?

...yes, yes it would and not just because they voted

Also, as ethics are not tangible...they cannot be analyzed, easily quantified, labeled, and packed into nice little neat boxes for you to point at and yell "see! told ya I'm right". Universal "truths", except math (and by proxy logic in regards to validity, soundness notwithstanding), are forged from the society who thinks of them and based on the collective past experiences of that society. Furthermore, they are and will always be debatable. Its safe to say though that the poster you quoted is essentially correct.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Il Impero Romano

[Francesca]

...yes, yes it would

Also, as ethics are not tangible they cannot be analyzed, easily quantified, labeled, and packed into nice little neat boxes for you to point at and yell "see! told ya I'm right". Universal truths, except math (and by proxy logic in regards to validity, soundness notwithstanding), are and will always be debatable. Its safe to say though that the poster you quoted is essentially correct.

The fact that the majority of people can be wrong on something disproves the theory that if they were to vote on what was ethical or not, their conclusion would not necessarily be objectively correct.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Francesca

[ModusOperandi]

Why does a majority vote make something objectively right? If the majority of people on earth voted that the earth revolved around the sun, would that make it correct?

No, but it would make its decision equivocate the common good; the desire of the common good is usually in the majority's best intermediate interests.

That doesn't make it objectively right, that does make it supremely pleasurable since pursuit of the advantageous is a contemporary brick in pulp thought.

[Delta1212]

oops, started arguing OOC, one moment

Because whether the sun goes around the earth isn't a subjective issue, whereas ethics are. In fact, ethics only exist subjectively. Societies create their own ethical standards and those standards apply to those societies. That's about all you can say on the matter of ethics as far as objectivity goes, and since societies are made up of individuals, what those individuals believe to be universal ethical rules are what the universal ethical rules of that society are by virtue of consensus.

[Gondor]

I wrote this article yesterday evening for another purpose and thought: "Why the hell not, let's take this to the Cyber Nations Forums for a bit of debate." Oh, and if you don't like my walls of text, by all means, go and read the treaty announcements, but for my sanity and yours, please keep your complaints about it out of my thread.

Proposed Supplement To Francoism: Analysis Of Ethics

Ethics. Commonly defined as this concept that certain actions are “right” and certain actions are “wrong” and thus, limitations are imposed on what we can and cannot do. Previously, despite the impassioned speeches of Vox Populi, ethics have not played much importance in the politics of Planet Bob. The criticism then arises: why address the question of ethics at all? They have not been important, to this point.

This is precisely the reason that ethics have not been addressed in previous Francoist essays in detail. However, in this day and age ethics have tremendous relevance. Francoism has always been a philosophy of the present, and it is impractical at best to pay no heed to the competing philosophies that are evident in Planet Bob today. So this article is an attempt to provide a Francoist perspective on the question of ethics, and to analyse ethics in today’s world, specifically relating to the Karma Coalition.

It is commonly recognised by philosophers that without the existence of a deity, ethics inevitably slide into the realms of subjectivity. This means that in Planet Bob, which has no deity or independent arbitrator of good and evil, questions regarding the use of viceroys, EZI, high reparations, etc etc have no objective answer. Indeed, in such a context, objective ethics could even be considered OOC. On what basis, therefore, are we expected to conform to the ethical codes of others? They would be imposing their viewpoints on others. Such is imperialism, the very crime that the New Pacific Order is accused of!

The leaders of Karma may be the enemies of the New Pacific Order, but they are not unintelligent. They recognised the importance of ethics and used ethics to define their coalition (which is also the reason that ethics have grown in importance in recent times, as Karma were victorious in the Karma War.) Did they truly believe in their own propaganda? That is a question that only they know the answer to, but we can attempt to determine it from their own actions. Would a coalition who so ardently believed in lenient reps and decent surrender terms demand colossal reparations from the New Pacific Order, and attempt to force them into terms that would destroy their alliance? Would they exclude people from government positions, as they did to Caffine in Echelon? Would they invent the term which only permits nations with over 1000 technology to pay technology reparations? This is the sort of thing they were sworn to oppose, however leniency for their own enemies seemed to be out of the question. Therefore we conclude that either Karma are hypocrites, or they do not believe in their own ethics.

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.

The author is inclined to believe in the second option, that the Karma War was not fought because Karma’s leaders believed that what the New Pacific Order had done was immoral, but because Karma wanted revenge for the various wars they had fought and lost against the New Pacific Order, or more personal grievances with the leadership of the New Pacific Order. Frankly, there is no reason for ordinary Karma members, who have perhaps bought into the “evil NPO” propaganda, to fight and die in wars because of the personal grievances of their leaders.

Perhaps the most telling indication of what motivates Karma is their name itself. Karma. Consequences for past actions. In other words, vengeance motivates this war. Not ethics. Not the propaganda they try to feed their members. This, above all else, exposes the real motivations behind the Karma War.

I thought it was well written but really, it isn't exactly news. Still, I disagree to the extent the ethics have a lot to do with CN politics. As much a real world politics? Of course not and no one should think that's a problem. But loads of problems are solved by ethics. Rogues, Tech Raiders, EZI and other such policies are constantly slammed because some actually think they aren't correct. Oh course it is objective since it is a secular game and has no real moral compass because no real people are actually invovled, I think gets out the scope of the game. Which is how it should be to an extent. In real life, launching a Nuke is a huge moral discision. Here, it is a military advantage.

It was overall okay, but seemed just to point out that Karma were evil. A line of thought that is somewhat well worn. Anyone who thought that Karma was just in it because they are great people (not that they necessarily aren't), need to realize that it is a (ooc) game (ooc). Ethics isn't a big deal here and people do things because a) it's fun B) it's practical c) it helps their alliance or d) they actually think they are in the right. Which is legit if you ask me. There are basic right and wrongs that nearly everyone accepts are obnoxious moves.

[Shep309]

Why does a majority vote make something objectively right? If the majority of people on earth voted that the earth revolved around the sun, would that make it correct?

NO, but you're arguing two different things.

Right and Wrong is subjective in the terms of morality.

however, right and wrong in the terms of truth are not.

[Space Ghost]

Because whether the sun goes around the earth isn't a subjective issue, whereas ethics are. In fact, ethics only exist subjectively. Societies create their own ethical standards and those standards apply to those societies. That's about all you can say on the matter of ethics as far as objectivity goes, and since societies are made up of individuals, what those individuals believe to be universal ethical rules are what the universal ethical rules of that society are by virtue of consensus.

^ most logical thing I've read in this thread so far. If this much isn't agreeable I don't know what is...

[Francesca]

NO, but you're arguing two different things.

Right and Wrong is subjective in the terms of morality.

however, right and wrong in the terms of truth are not.

Right in terms of truth strongly relates to Right in terms of morality.

[Francesca]

Because whether the sun goes around the earth isn't a subjective issue, whereas ethics are. In fact, ethics only exist subjectively. Societies create their own ethical standards and those standards apply to those societies. That's about all you can say on the matter of ethics as far as objectivity goes, and since societies are made up of individuals, what those individuals believe to be universal ethical rules are what the universal ethical rules of that society are by virtue of consensus.

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

[Space Ghost]

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

Yeah... because its subjective...

[ModusOperandi]

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

You're ignoring the fact that a decision of the majority always appears immediately advantageous, the only person who's saying its correct or incorrect now is you.

[KingEd]

Would they invent the term which only permits nations with over 1000 technology to pay technology reparations? This is the sort of thing they were sworn to oppose, however leniency for their own enemies seemed to be out of the question. Therefore we conclude that either Karma are hypocrites, or they do not believe in their own ethics.

Well if you don't believe in your own ethics that pretty much makes you a hypocrite.

The battle lines were not official until that point, but for the most part it was quite clear who was going to fight for who. Even the traitors who cancelled treaties were predictable.

Yea that's pretty much true. I can attest to this because while I was Chancellor of the MCXA, Francesca and others approached me various times on the topic and warning me of what was to come. She was obviously better informed than I was although I was a "higher rank". Needless to say, the battlefield was set 4-6 months before Pacifica declared war on OV, the only thing that was missing was the "who would strike first".

Edit:

One last thing, although many criticize Karma, Pacifica, and the "Hegemony" many fail to see that there wasn't going to be a war unless one of the sides agreed to be defeated. (Whoever attacked first would loose) Pacifica did just that by declaring on OV. Whether they knew or not what was to come, I don't know. But their fate was sealed from the moment a Pacifian declared on OV.

Edited September 2, 2009 by KingEd

[Shep309]

Right in terms of truth strongly relates to Right in terms of morality.

Not quite.

I may be morally right to think that I shouldn't have sex before I'm married

however the morality of the general population accepts the fact that I satatitcally won't wait until I'm married.

In essence, I'm ethically expected to have sex before I marry, it's seen as a common occurrence

[Bird of Passage]

Right in terms of truth strongly relates to Right in terms of morality.

Not quite...morality is subjective...what is moral cannot be objective truth.

[Gondor]

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

It also doesn't make it inncorrect.

[Shep309]

It'd be another storyy if:

Truth: having sex before you're married causes cancer

[Il Impero Romano]

The fact that the majority of people can be wrong on something disproves the theory that if they were to vote on what was ethical or not, their conclusion would not necessarily be objectively correct.

I edited my post above for a little more clarity, but I'll assume your response would be the same anyway so:

The word wrong is also subjective, if you are interested in philosophy I suggest you stop thinking in absolutes. Once again, my same point as before stands here for the word "wrong" as well. You cannot definitively state what wrong is in every nation/group/culture, merely imperialistically impose your view onto them by force, and over time their view will become your view. Or, you can do nothing and leave them alone. Or, you can whine about it. There's a million options in the aforementioned situation and a million interpretations out there of what wrong means, but none of them are arrogant enough to assume to comprise a list of attitudes and actions that are seen as wrong and attempt to pin them on a wall.

Here, in this community, a rudimentary system of what is right and wrong has evolved, ironically through trespass, and that very trespass is what led to the Karma war. Do all alliances commit "wrong" (as defined here in CN)? Of course. Does them committing a wrong as defined here while being aligned with Karma automatically make your interpretation of "wrong" correct? No. It does not.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Il Impero Romano

[Shep309]

Francesca, if anything I do appreciate your attempt to creat discussion in which it seems you were successful, but in this case arguing ethics is like beating your head against a brick wall.

Each alliance on [OOC]CN[/OOC] holds it's own ethical values, sure the vast majority of them are the same, yet some are not.

There are those who encourage raiding, those who don't

Those who feel first strike nukes are acceptable, those who do not.

If you look at [/OOC]CN[/OOC] as a whole, then look at [OOC]CN[/OOC] broken down by alliances, you'll find that while we may hold very similar ideals and goals, our ethics in achieving said goals vary drastically.

[Shep309]

Francesca, if anything I do appreciate your attempt to creat discussion in which it seems you were successful, but in this case arguing ethics is like beating your head against a brick wall.

Each alliance on [OOC]CN[/OOC] holds it's own ethical values, sure the vast majority of them are the same, yet some are not.

There are those who encourage raiding, those who don't

Those who feel first strike nukes are acceptable, those who do not.

If you look at [OOC]CN[/OOC] as a whole, then look at [OOC]CN[/OOC] broken down by alliances, you'll find that while we may hold very similar ideals and goals, our ethics in achieving said goals vary drastically.

dbl post, please delete

thank you

Edited September 2, 2009 by Shep309

[Francesca]

You're ignoring the fact that a decision of the majority always appears immediately advantageous, the only person who's saying its correct or incorrect now is you.

I don't quite understand your point.

Well if you don't believe in your own ethics that pretty much makes you a hypocrite.

I suppose..... what I meant was that either they believe in their ethics and act in a way that is inconsistent with those ethics, or else they don't believe in them at all.

I edited my post above for a little more clarity, but I'll assume your response would be the same anyway so:

The word wrong is also subjective, if you are interested in philosophy I suggest you stop thinking in absolutes. Once again, my same point as before stands here for the word "wrong" as well. You cannot definitively state what wrong is in every nation/group/culture, merely imperialistically impose your view onto them by force, and over time their view will become your view.

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

Here, in this community, a rudimentary system of what is right and wrong has evolved, ironically through trespass, and that very trespass is what led to the Karma war. Do all alliances commit "wrong" (as defined here in CN)? Of course. Does them committing a wrong as defined here while being aligned with Karma automatically make your interpretation of "wrong" correct? No. It does not.

A rudimentary system that is not rooted in objectivity.

[Francesca]

Francesca, if anything I do appreciate your attempt to creat discussion in which it seems you were successful, but in this case arguing ethics is like beating your head against a brick wall.

Heh, possibly.

Each alliance on [OOC]CN[/OOC] holds it's own ethical values, sure the vast majority of them are the same, yet some are not.

There are those who encourage raiding, those who don't

Those who feel first strike nukes are acceptable, those who do not.

similar ideals and goals, our ethics in achieving said goals vary drastically.

I could hesitantly give you this. It's not worth arguing, at any rate.

If you look at [/OOC]CN[/OOC] as a whole, then look at [OOC]CN[/OOC] broken down by alliances, you'll find that while we may hold very similar ideals and goals, our ethics in achieving said goals vary drastically.

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