britwarlord Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) Simply what do you think is more important for an alliance or nation to have on Planet Bob. By this I mean would you allow morality to get in the way of your ambitions or would you just ignore it and go ahead with doing whatever you need to do to progress. Edited September 28, 2009 by britwarlord Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 One and the same. Null vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodrod Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Brit what are you doing? :| Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britwarlord Posted September 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Brit what are you doing? :| Annoying you of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyndicatedINC Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 One and the same. Null vote. I concur, they are inexorably linked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Pitt Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 First post explains it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 As I recall, Order and Freedom are on opposite ends of the scale, not Morality and Freedom. How can you be moral under modern definitions and not be free? You can't. Null vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britwarlord Posted September 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Sorry I could of worded this a bit better it would seem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Null boated. Meh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tautology Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 It's not such a bad topic idea but it'd be more interesting if you gave definitions of what morality and freedom are, even if those definitions are idiosyncratic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 One and the same. Null vote. Morality imposes restrictions on the way people act, which is the antithesis of freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Pitt Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Morality imposes restrictions on the way people act, which is the antithesis of freedom. No, because its morally wrong to restrict anything, thus Morality = Freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Morality imposes restrictions on the way people act, which is the antithesis of freedom. "Freedom" places restrictions on the liberties of others, Morality (with a capital M) requires the protection of those freedoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 No, because its morally wrong to restrict anything, thus Morality = Freedom. Correction: you believe it is ethically wrong to restrict anything. I fail to see how this negates my point in any event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Pitt Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) "Freedom" places restrictions on the liberties of others, Morality (with a capital M) requires the protection of those freedoms. Actually Freedom and Liberty are linked at one of the highest points possible, general meaning. Correction: you believe it is ethically wrong to restrict anything. I fail to see how this negates my point in any event. Morality = Ethics, there is nothing in their definitions that disagrees with the others. It negates your point because you are saying Morality poses restrictions on peoples actions, making it not freedom, when if you have one, you have the other 50 words meaning the same thing. Edited September 28, 2009 by Fort Pitt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 "Freedom" places restrictions on the liberties of others, Morality (with a capital M) requires the protection of those freedoms. Then the only ethical rule is to protect and uphold freedom? Isn't that contradictory, because in order to uphold freedom you must impose your will on others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choader Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 The concept of morality only exists within the weak and delusional. There's other places where it's perfectly applicable, here it's just inane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyriakos Raanb Dorou Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) By this I mean would you allow morality to get in the way of your ambitions or would you just ignore it and go ahead with doing whatever you need to do to progress. It would seem that the morality the OP is suggesting here (the morality of Planet Bob) has to do with exercising one's own freedom up to a point, while not encroaching on the freedoms of another. "Just ignore [morality] and go ahead with doing whatever you need to do to progress." For instance, tech raiding obviously infringes on the freedom of the raided nation. But, on another note, to say that no one can tech raid is technically an infringement of the freedoms of the raider. Even though said freedoms contradict other freedoms. Similarly, to note a more universal virtue here on Bob, we can look at treaties. It is generally considered the moral thing to do to defend a treaty partner against unjust aggression. However, it may be beneficial to the party not yet engaged to stay out of the war in spite of that morality - what Bob knows as "honor". Hence, exercising freedom by remaining neutral in the conflict (though no one would agree that this is moral). Are you in fact asking whether or not the nations of Bob take others into consideration when acting, britwarlord? As opposed to doing whatever is in one's own interests without regard to the interests of another? Edited September 28, 2009 by Richard VII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Then the only ethical rule is to protect and uphold freedom? Isn't that contradictory, because in order to uphold freedom you must impose your will on others? I'll make a quick note before we start this debate: Please read my posts and respond to them instead of something you wish you heard. It's pretty basic. It's immoral to impose restrictions on the liberties of others by subjecting them to attack, threats, whatever. Thus, a proper understanding of morality would allow all parties to continue enjoying their own freedoms without imposing on others. (And, seeing as we're about the engage in a hearty "freedom to" vs. "freedom from" debate, I'll get this clear right now: "Freedom to" is !@#$%^&*. There's no possible way you can justify taking aggressive actions against other people, which is what this comes down to, and expecting there to be no consequences for doing so. That's not how things work.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Morality Is Freedom; Ignorance Is Strength; Owned Is Awesome. /thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 (edited) This has a lot to do with how exactly you define Morality or Freedom, and seeing as how they are both politically charged words, that is an almost impossible task to do. Let's start with freedom. You can have "Absolute Freedom" - that is you can just wake up one day, go down the street and start shooting people, without any consequence to you whatsoever. This is of course an inherently impossible state - even in the absence of the rule of law, retaliation would occur - but it can be converted to more very day usage - Absolute Freedom would include being able to tech-raid others without allied retaliation due to some higher power (an alliance) making it so. Of course, it readily becomes apparent that this kind of "Absolute Freedom" can only exist on an individual basis - if you have everyone trying to kill each other, they aren't free, they're dead. You can't really do anything you want when other people are also doing "anything they want" by putting a bullet in your head. Which is why "Absolute Freedom" merely ends up being a chaotic power contest where the strongest guy does what he wants, and the rest are anything but "free". So, it becomes apparent that: 1) You can't have an "Absolute Freedom" for everyone where life is a video game and you can do anything you want, and 2) Freedom needs to include Freedom from the influence of outside forces (interference, retaliation, etc) as well as freedom to act. (Otherwise the forces of everyone else's freedom will become a restraining force of their own) This second trait is what requires the restriction of the actions of individuals - which means that while Absolute Freedom is denied to them, a more Conventional Freedom can exist. And something has to safeguard it in order to exist - which is where concepts such as laws and morality come in - they are what ensure a state of conventional freedom can exist. In essence, this ironically means that in order for the people of society to be "free of restraints", those restraints have to be restrained. I.E, the literal definition of freedom is a pipe dream, so everyone has to work in the shady gray area of a balance between restrictions imposed by morality/law/order and restrictions imposed by the unrestricted interference of other people. Edited September 29, 2009 by Letum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadshot Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Morality Is Freedom; Ignorance Is Strength; Owned Is Awesome./thread I agree completely. Pack it up guys, this thread is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Jack Diorno walks into the room, and instantly realizes that the other nation rulers are debating whether or not morality is the same as freedom. Jack Diorno takes a gun to his head and blows his brains out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Why exactly are the two mutually exclusive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Panda Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Already been said, but these two should work hand in hand. Ok, so who's doing what to help with the packing again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.