On Moralism

[nippy]

Ah yes, exactly as Machiavelli said. Whom I'm a fan of. Now note that I didn't say take leave of one's senses, but instead invoke the other side of the golden rule: do unto others as they do unto you.

"The 'whole of human kind' doesn't deserve respect by default." No, they don't. They deserve the same respect you would want from another who doesn't know you.

Take note of what I actually emphasized in this piece: Morality is a contract. As you said, why expend effort to others if they are only going to take advantage of you?

Now consider this, those who are in abundance, or in a position of strength, can risk being the first to put their trust out there. If it is not reciprocated, then they know not to deal with them anymore, to treat them as they themselves were treated. But a little loss was worth the venture. It is those that fear that risk, that lack the resources to put themselves out first, that actually display their own weakness.

Those that take advantage of the gifts of others may think themselves clever, but really they display their own untrustworthiness, need, and detriment to the system as a whole. Much like any parasite.

Very well stated. I should probably look into Machiavelli's writings...I've never been an avid reader of philosophy, therefore what I posted was my own views on society in my own original prose.

A counterpoint on what you stated about those who are in abundance or in a position of strength: how often do these people achieve such positions by following the same 'righteous path' they preach once they reach such a position? How many of these people are merely attempting to gain more notoriety by vocally preaching such a stance? A perfect example of this would be [ooc]t.v. evangelists[/ooc]. I am under the impression that their main goal is money...not the 'salvation' of others. They take on the burden of preaching 'the words of a higher power' and in turn receive man-made value. To me, these people are the parasites you speak of.

Edited September 25, 2009 by nippy

[Kzoppistan]

Very well stated. I should probably look into Machiavelli's writings...I've never been an avid reader of philosophy, therefore what I posted was my own views on society in my own original prose.

A counterpoint on what you stated about those who are in abundance or in a position of strength: how often do these people achieve such positions by following the same 'righteous path' they preach once they reach such a position? How many of these people are merely attempting to gain more notoriety by vocally preaching such a stance? A perfect example of this would be [ooc]t.v. evangelists[/ooc]. I am under the impression that their main goal is money...not the 'salvation' of others. They take on the burden of preaching 'the words of a higher power' and in turn receive man-made value. To me, these people are the parasites you speak of.

That's quite true, Nippy, and something to be wary of.

Just like in the animal world, camouflage is a great survival adaptation. It can be difficult to divide those that walk a particular path and those that simply pay lip service to it.

I guess the only way is to see if a person's actions match their words.

Related:

Democritus said-

"When you do a favor study the recipient first, lest he prove to be a scoundrel and repay evil for good."

[nippy]

That's quite true, Nippy, and something to be wary of.

Just like in the animal world, camouflage is a great survival adaptation. It can be difficult to divide those that walk a particular path and those that simply pay lip service to it.

I guess the only way is to see if a person's actions match their words.

True. Well, I must say, it's refreshing to have a conversation on these forums without people resulting to circular arguments.

Related:

Democritus said-

my sentiments, exactly.

[Bob Janova]

Muffa, I'm going to disagree with you:

Morals are a tool of the strong in their oppression of the weak. Or, they are a collective tool of an elite society for self protection. Regardless, they are never for the benifit of others. Morals as a tool of compassion, not an excuse for war, are non-real. Morals are an excuse to get what you want. You cannot say that morals tell you to be empathetic of others opinions, when the only way to back them up is to let them guide your sword against opinions deemed amoral. Your desire to destroy anything outside of compliance with your moral standards is all the proof needed of the hollowness of your words.

Morals can certainly be subverted to that end, but that is a rare thing. How many wars have been fought for morals, or support rallied for them through morals? I can think only of the Unjust War and the Karma War, in both cases the expression of popular anger directed against the 'strong' by the 'weak' which had finally got to the point where the leadership could not keep it down. (In the case of Karma, the spark was another attack made by the Hegemony, in the Unjust War it was a tech raiding incident.) In both cases the strongest non-neutral alliance on the planet was destroyed by the coming together of people and alliances thought of as 'weak'.

In fact it is pragmatism that is used as a 'tool of the strong in their oppression of the weak' or 'a collective tool of an elite society for self protection' – don't express your (moral) opinions or act on them, or we'll roll you. The Unjust were more explicit about that threat than the Hegemony, but there were plenty of 'do something about it' posts then too. The moralists were defeated by this pragmatist oppression back when CNARF (the ultimate moralist enterprise) was cowed into permanent inaction by the Initiative, and is kept down by it almost all the time, to the extent that we hardly ever see actions taken purely on the basis of morality. Those few cases we do see are usually remembered as glorious failures (IAA sacrificing itself in accordance with the GATO MDP, back when defending against the Hegemony killed you, or the alliances around BLEU defending it and taking a heavy defeat for their pain), or even ignominious ones (CNARF or NONE – Walford is still ridiculed to this day for being an unceasing moralist).

Of course, the issue with moralist action is that morals are not universal. The most obvious example is the tech raiding debate that comes up time and again (and is live again right now), but there have also been disagreements over the morality of viceroys, reparations, pre-emptive strikes and many other issues. That seriously restricts the ability for any entity to act morally, because any entity that is large enough to be able to dictate its own agenda will have disagreements over the moral course of action. So you get 'moralist' compromises like the peace terms for Polaris in the BLEU war last year, or IRON in the Karma war.

Kzoppistan, I disagree with the notion that morality is a contract. As Nippy says, some people do not respond is the way that the 'contract' would dictate, and morality is not about getting something in return – it's about doing the right thing even if it doesn't help you. (Doing the right thing when it helps you is pragmatism, and doing it when it helps you and claiming to be moral for it is grandstanding or propaganda.)

[Kzoppistan]

Kzoppistan, I disagree with the notion that morality is a contract. As Nippy says, some people do not respond is the way that the 'contract' would dictate, and morality is not about getting something in return – it's about doing the right thing even if it doesn't help you. (Doing the right thing when it helps you is pragmatism, and doing it when it helps you and claiming to be moral for it is grandstanding or propaganda.)

Ah, but all the elements are there to make the contract analogy. If one breaks that contract, aren't there repercussions? We have a number of instititutions erected towards ensuring that people follow the laws of the land. Defualt on a loan, there will be repercussions. Murder someone one, there will be repercussions. Break the conventions of social nicities and tell so-an-so that their new sweater looks like a dog barfed on it, there will be repercussions.

To understand morality, you have to look at why it exists. In accordance with the principals of evolution, things that provide an increase of survivability have a tendancy to stick around. Think about that for a minute.

It is the social glue that holds a group together. As yourself, why are some acts considered moral and other immoral? What is the commonality between all good acts. And what is the commonality between all bad acts.

Morality is always about getting something in return. It's just that "getting something in return" is beneficial to the group rather than the self. By following the laws of proper conduct, one helps themselves by helping another.

Even if there is no immediate traceable benefit to one's self by helping a complete stranger, ask them why they did that particular act and you might hear such things as: "it makes the world a better place", "it made me feel good", or they will expound on the benefits of what ever virtue they are upholding.

[deSouza]

Before GOONS went off the deep end and stopped giving a !@#$ they were certainly capable of being reasoned with, so long as you were capable of speaking to their interests, needs, issues, problems, desires, etc. The mistake many people make is trying to "reason" with someone without understanding what the other person's rationale or values actually are, and so their attempts at persuasion fail.

Dont think they ever gave a !@#$.

Think that even at the deep end they were highly capable of being reasoned with, but their interests, needs, issues, desires, etc included things outside the pragmatist spectrum.

My point here is that, in my experience, morals tend to provide the greatest avenue for exploitation and dictation. And leaders do certainly have a very disproportionate amount of influence in setting what values are "correct" and "wrong." Certainly not 100% control, but enough.

I disagree.

What really gives an avenue for exploitation to leaders is influence.

Might makes right. If leaders have enough faithful supporters and are well liked enough, they can do anything they please and justify it with whatever they want (from morals to the lack of it) and get away with it.

Morals do not give leaders an avenue to exploit, clear and explicit morals give leaders expectations from the membership, and the more traditional and formal those expectations are, the less liberty leaders have to act. Influential leaders can twek those morals, yes, but its not exactly about the morals itself but the politics behind it.

In general, I have never observed any particularly meaningful positive differences between a "moralistic" alliance and a pragmatic, materialistic one, and believe the idea that if everyone were simply to embrace some form of moralism things would get better to be nothing more than empty theory and happy dreams.

Every alliance behaves in a pragmatic fashion, otherwise it doesnt exists for long.

Nevertheless, alliances that are keen on promoting pragmatism as an ideal tend to create a culture around that that is clearly different from moralistic alliances, and an alliance's culture effectively dictates how that alliance behaves, so an attempt to promote pragmatism might generate "lulz" (which is fairly more exploitable to hidden interests because there aren't expectatives towards the "lulzy" path to follow and it needs absolutely no justificative) and an attempt to promote moralism might generate responsible pragmatism.

Edited September 26, 2009 by deSouza

[Heft]

Every alliance behaves in a pragmatic fashion, otherwise it doesnt exists for long.

Nevertheless, alliances that are keen on promoting pragmatism as an ideal tend to create a culture around that that is clearly different from moralistic alliances, and an alliance's culture effectively dictates how that alliance behaves, so an attempt to promote pragmatism might generate "lulz" (which is fairly more exploitable to hidden interests because there aren't expectatives towards the "lulzy" path to follow and it needs absolutely no justificative) and an attempt to promote moralism might generate responsible pragmatism.

Except that's not what happens.

[deSouza]

Except that's not what happens.

And what exactly happens

[Heft]

If you're promoting moralism then you're promoting your own morality and people outside your view of that morality invariably are maligned and often attacked because of it. Pragmatic alliances allow others to do what they want so long as they aren't actually harming them, while "moral" alliances see others behaving "wrong" as justification to intervene and punish them. That's not responsible use of power.

[Valerius]

If you're promoting moralism then you're promoting your own morality and people outside your view of that morality invariably are maligned and often attacked because of it. Pragmatic alliances allow others to do what they want so long as they aren't actually harming them, while "moral" alliances see others behaving "wrong" as justification to intervene and punish them. That's not responsible use of power.

Not quite. You're missing the capital 'm' on Moralism and hence missing the fact that the Moralism described in this thread is an objective set of values, and so is subject only to these mentioned values, not the interpretations of individuals. Furthermore, it is not the same as the twisted 'moral' cassus bellum in the past. I've never met Moralism personally, but I'm sure it would not accept morality alone as a cassus belli since the purveyors of this are motivated by a subjective morality, which in turn, in my experience, has been ironically immoral.

[Heft]

You are aware that this philosophy is itself a subjective morality which others may disagree with? Also, if it's never actually occurred, could that be because it doesn't actually work or becomes quickly distorted the moment reality touches it?

[Bob Janova]

The 'Moralism' in the OP is still subjective. From your summary: "We sacrifice all, our comfort, our safety, our lives, for the knowledge that we have upheld our duty to our fellow man". But what is your duty? It's subjective and determined by your morals. The only thing which is really unique is the 'taking the hard road', i.e. not backing out of a losing war; this is more about honour than morality, in my opinion.

[Vilien]

The 'Moralism' in the OP is still subjective. From your summary: "We sacrifice all, our comfort, our safety, our lives, for the knowledge that we have upheld our duty to our fellow man". But what is your duty? It's subjective and determined by your morals. The only thing which is really unique is the 'taking the hard road', i.e. not backing out of a losing war; this is more about honour than morality, in my opinion.

I'd say that the duty to treat other men with a modicum of decency shouldn't be subjective so much as universally understand, though I do understand your point.

[Bob Janova]

Maybe it shouldn't, but history is full of examples of alliances that did not treat others with a modicum of decency.

[Vilien]

One of the arguments central to this essay is that a simple understanding of the morality of some actions, vis-à-vis the alliance wars that you're referring to, exists among the vast majority of players and can only be ignored.

[Louisa]

Did the old goons promote the ooc attacks on bilrow following a pragmatist, rational agenda?

Were they easy to reason with?

The bold part: you (a general "you" and not you personally deSouza) would be surprised, actually, how easy it was, and still is, to reason with goons, old and new, as long as you are reasonably sane and has some manners when you go to talk to them.

Strangely, for how blackened and evil the goonish reputation has been made in the last years, I was always treated very well by GOONS from even the earliest times when I was just a brand new ruler belonging to a Alliance they saw as a joke. I would even go so far to say that GOONS is pretty much the only Alliance ever to have never hurt me in any way at all. I love the little rascals, each and every one.

(I am only here to see the nearby drama, even if I was present as it happened, so I have no interest in commenting on this moralist mumbo-jumbo After all, the world is just a grand game to us burkaninjas, here to be enjoyed and then left behind if the fun should ever stop. I hope all you debaters stop and take some time for just pure fun every now and then.)

PS. deSouza, reply coming soon, sorry for my delay! Also sorry if I just disappointed you, Mr Janova

[Vilien]

I hope all you debaters stop and take some time for just pure fun every now and then.

Never.

[Ogaden]

Subjective morality is no different from hypocrisy. The ends do not justify the means.

If a starving man steals a loaf of bread he has still stolen property that does not belong to him. Did he even bother to ask the man who owned the loaf of bread whether he might have some? It is easier to steal than to beg because theft does not attack ones pride as begging does, and it is easier. That does not make it right.

What other excuses can his starvation win him? How about murder anyone who gets between him and his bread? Can he kill and eat someone because he is starving?

Morality is an absolute, it is a mutually agreed set of rules to self-govern a society. Once the rules have been bent for circumstance, there is no limit to how far those same rules can be bent further. Showing compassion due to circumstances and aiding those in need of help is moral, but there is no excuse for breaking the social contract so long as the terms of morality are just ones.

Attacking unjust moral standards in order to overturn entrenched attitudes is one thing, but ignoring them in some cases and prosecuting violations in others is mere hypocrisy.

[Prime minister Johns]

The failure to consider circumstances is unjust. Justice is a subjective experience and it varies wildly from case to case. This is where compassion enters into the picture. A wise judge tempers the demands of absolute justice with compassion for if an absolute view on justice is allowed to be the only factor that is considered when making a judgement then justice becomes a draconian tyranny.

Morality is more than just justice. It is a complex blend of all the virtues of which justice is just one. Compassion and Mercy must not be forgotten along with other virtues in the quest for morality.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Prime minister Johns

[zzzptm]

All people sin. Moral people feel bad about the sins and try to not do them again. Immoral people feel the same inner pain, but deny it and make no such resolutions. Amoral people think nothing of sin, but call it something different and feel the pain all the same, whether they are aware of it or not.

There is more to Planeta Roberto than naked power. Of that I am certain. For all the boasts that power and worldly splendor are all that are worth having and that there are no absolutes, I point to the fact that not one nation has ever attacked an enemy more than twice from one midnight to the next. Oppressive as some leaders may be, not once has ever collected taxes more than once per day - we know our absolute limits and dare not transgress them. We trade with no more than five other nations, at most. We build no more than the sacred five of certain types of buildings: others 3, others 2, still others 1. We know our limits. This speaks to me that there is something beyond our world, and that something wants us to be moral.

[Sterling Shmigadoo]

My knee-jerk reaction here as I prepared to post was to object to how Msr Vilien has his opening discourse framed.

I see some others also objected to this, perhaps or even likely on similar grounds objecting to the characterization of fear and the human spirit. Yet....I still feel motivated to further challenge that opening assertion regarding fear since so many responses here overlooked that slight and jumped to reject any consideration of morality qua morality. But... yet^2 or even indeed^1 or perhaps ^3, I am mostly disturbed by those who object to any universal expression, let alone acceptance of any moral standard.

I applaud this topic's pursuit and further consideration all the more so upon seeing lines of thought such as that expressed and pursued by President Kent above.

There is a right and there is a wrong. All you need to do to see what distinguishes these two fallaciously dichotomized terms is to stand in front of a mirror the next time you prep your next presidential or dictatorial address. You will see it.

Thank you for your thought and consideration of this important topic.

Shmiggy

[Hayzell]

Are we not all hypocrites? You all speak of morality, yet most of us have engaged in the senseless bloodshed of tens if not hundreds of thousands, the launching of nuclear missiles, and the bombings of civilians. The author's argument in essence attempts to define morality in terms of good reasons to go to war, but there are none, war is never moral.

[Sterling Shmigadoo]

Are we not all hypocrites? You all speak of morality, yet most of us have engaged in the senseless bloodshed of tens if not hundreds of thousands, the launching of nuclear missiles, and the bombings of civilians. The author's argument in essence attempts to define morality in terms of good reasons to go to war, but there are none, war is never moral.

I disagree. I believe in the use of defensive destructive force a la defensive warfare. I find it to be quite consistent with any natural law discussion of morality, or with even the most relativistic approach to your quandary.

[Hayzell]

War is inconsistent with deontology, pacifism, and utilitarianism, to name a few. It is also against the teachings of most of the world's religions.

[zzzptm]

War is inconsistent with deontology, pacifism, and utilitarianism, to name a few. It is also against the teachings of most of the world's religions.

Do you practice each of those religions in a way so as to understand how each one views war and what constitutes a just or unjust conflict? In Nueva Vida, we have a god of war, Huitzilopochtli. He requires us to participate in wars. The sorts of wars we take on are determined by what other gods we follow at the time of the war. We have a code of morality within which we function, as that is how Quetzalcoatl teaches us to wage war.

Morality can be included in discussions of war. Should one person's morality not have a 1:1 mapping to yours, that is not a matter for dispute, but for understanding.