Morality

[Iotupa]

I don't particularly care what it's called, though I do think the word morality is a misnomer. I think it's a bad idea to try to create a world where people can't stand for or against anything without a simple written and recorded interest. Eliminating the ability for different alliances to come to their own conclusions about what is right and wrong by saying that there is no right and wrong seems like it would do just that. So to more directly reply to your statement, I am happy to tolerate morality in the lexicon if it means protecting the ability of alliances to decide what is right and wrong for themselves, advocate it, and get into conflicts over it if it comes to that.

It's beneficial to you in the broad sense that you are trying to convince the rest of us to make a world that you most want to live in. It doesn't necessarily have be favorable to your infrastructure level or any other statistic. You wouldn't be advocating a world that you didn't want to live in though, right? There shouldn't be any surprise or shame in having your "moral" principles line up with those of a world that you would most enjoy being a part of. I believe that's usually where those principles come from to begin with.

To address your first point, I'm not sure whether you are trying to refute my point or disagree with it. I personally believe morality should have far more to do with alliance actions than whether or not they have a treaty or written document saying they are "allowed" to do it. This is why I hate "optional" clauses in treaties, because in my opinion, that is saying that you have no sovereignty as an alliance and can't decide when and where you want to go to war, that only paper and the community allow you to go to war if they want you to.

As for your second point, you are going back on what you said earlier. You said people advocate a moral stance that is beneficial to their survival. My personal advocacy for my moral viewpoint is FAR from conducive to safety and security for my nation. If I see someone doing something wrong, friend or foe, tiny nation or humongous coalition, I will speak out against it. This has been the case for some time now. If you recall, I was on e-ZI for an extended period of time under the NPO and co. for speaking out against their injustices, and then during the last war I lost most of my friends for speaking out against them for behaving just like the NPO in many instances. Neither of these specific examples, nor in general, is any of this conducive to my survival.

[Penguin]

To address your first point, I'm not sure whether you are trying to refute my point or disagree with it. I personally believe morality should have far more to do with alliance actions than whether or not they have a treaty or written document saying they are "allowed" to do it. This is why I hate "optional" clauses in treaties, because in my opinion, that is saying that you have no sovereignty as an alliance and can't decide when and where you want to go to war, that only paper and the community allow you to go to war if they want you to.

Neither. I was clarifying my original statement because I was not very clear in that post (or this one to be honest; I find it difficult to express these sort of thoughts in writing which is why I usually avoid these kinds of topics). I think it's great that you are advancing the feelings which you call morals. I think it's bad if people tell you that you can't or shouldn't act on those feelings because it might make you too nosy. I think discouraging intervention makes things dull.

As for your second point, you are going back on what you said earlier. You said people advocate a moral stance that is beneficial to their survival. My personal advocacy for my moral viewpoint is FAR from conducive to safety and security for my nation. If I see someone doing something wrong, friend or foe, tiny nation or humongous coalition, I will speak out against it. This has been the case for some time now. If you recall, I was on e-ZI for an extended period of time under the NPO and co. for speaking out against their injustices, and then during the last war I lost most of my friends for speaking out against them for behaving just like the NPO in many instances. Neither of these specific examples, nor in general, is any of this conducive to my survival.

I'm not trying to be cynical, Jonathan. I'm saying that you want a world that best matches your particular nature and one that you think will be better and more enjoyable for you and those close to you. Presumably the world you want is one where individuals won't be EZIed when they speak out against those in power or where alliances won't take heavy reparation payments or other harsh terms. The process by which you are trying to get there might require sacrifice, but the aim is to create a world that you think is better than this one. Similarly, Starfox thinks that all mention of morals is bad for the world and that they reduce his enjoyment. Presumably, his aim is to create a world where everyone stays out of everyone else's "business". He thinks that world would be better than this one and advocates it even if it might require some sacrifice on his part.

Each of you are advancing your own preferred set of global standards which you call morals and he calls who knows what. What you call them is largely irrelevant. Those that are quick to point out that morals shouldn't exist are making a semantic point. By the very nature of their public stance against morals (or fake morals etc.) they are also advancing their own set of global standards that they think are better than the existing ones.

I'm not disagreeing with you on any of the positions that I've seen in your above post. I also think a world without heavy and humiliating reparation terms and EZIs would be more enjoyable and more dynamic. I also think it's acceptable to advance those positions with what weight I carry and make sacrifices to further those ends when necessary. The only difference is that I don't call them morals because I am saying up front that I have a selfish interest in wanting to create a world that I would find more enjoyable, which just so happens to align somewhat with yours. I also recognize that other people might actually enjoy the world I want less than the world they want presumably because they would be more restricted in how they behave under the standards of my desired world and would be happier in a looser environment. I encourage them to conflict over our different visions rather than incorrectly asserting that I hold the true answer to universal enjoyment and they are hypocrites for thinking otherwise.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Penguin

[Iotupa]

Neither. I was clarifying my original statement because I was not very clear in that post (or this one to be honest; I find it difficult to express these sort of thoughts in writing which is why I usually avoid these kinds of topics). I think it's great that you are advancing the feelings which you call morals. I think it's bad if people tell you that you can't or shouldn't act on those feelings because it might make you too nosy. I think discouraging intervention makes things dull.

Well, don't worry, Penguin, there will certainly be people (in fact there already have been) that tell me to stay out of their business, and I will continue to ignore those people. I didn't hold back when I felt the NPO and co. did wrong, there is no way I am changing just because the people in power now are, or were, my friends. If I see injustice I will call it out.

[Penguin]

Well, don't worry, Penguin, there will certainly be people (in fact there already have been) that tell me to stay out of their business, and I will continue to ignore those people. I didn't hold back when I felt the NPO and co. did wrong, there is no way I am changing just because the people in power now are, or were, my friends. If I see injustice I will call it out.

Sounds fine to me. Helping to define the standards of the world is everybody's business whether the impact is felt directly or indirectly.

[White Chocolate]

My theory on morality and it's uses:

Now the people that waited longer also want war but normally can hold themselves from going to war for quite some time, this is because while they like war, they have a hard time conviencing themselves to commit to it unless there is good enough reasons. Normally this is due to their view of right and wrong, and thier unwillingness to sacrific that for fun,

Why is it impossible for people so many people here to realize that at least for some of us "moral" types, morality is fun? Seriously...

I know, I know - some of us are just odd.

Edited December 2, 2009 by White Chocolate

[Ashley Smith]

Why is it impossible for people so many people here to realize that at least for some of us "moral" types, morality is fun? Seriously...

I know, I know - some of us are just odd.

Morality is inaction. This makes no sense.

[Poobah]

However they want. Just be ready to deal with the consequences.

[Iotupa]

Morality is inaction. This makes no sense.

Morality is NOT inaction. That's, quite frankly, ridiculous to even say.

[White Chocolate]

Morality is inaction. This makes no sense.

Define action.

If you define action as war, then I think I know what you mean. However, if that was all there was here, I'd have left probably a year ago. The action that I like is the challenge of working toward peace in a world where the majority - er, I'm trying to find a neutral sounding phrase...takes more of a pragmatic view.

That is, for me at least, both challenging and fun.

Edited December 2, 2009 by White Chocolate

[Arcades057]

Morality is subjective. If you have power on your side, then you have a moral imperative. If you are the weak side, you are usually morally wrong.

At least that's what I've learned over my time here.

[Starcraftmazter]

Morality is simple: Doing what is right no matter what.

Everyone knows what to do to follow that principle, but many do not for one reason or another.

[Vladimir]

One might argue that to deny the inherent immorality of your motives and their outcomes is to lose your very humanity: "We with our bad faith, at least keep the intellect lucid, and we remain bad men, but men: whereas you lose it altogether and become beasts."

Edited December 2, 2009 by Vladimir

[SpacingOutMan]

Morality is the cat we get our children for Christmas, but then realize we forgot to poke air holes in the box so when it's opened, well, I assure you that what you are hearing is not a scream of joy. It comes out smelly, putrid, and you have no idea what you are looking at. That's exactly what morality is. It's a manifestation of our own self-interests that allows us to justify our actions, but in the end we question what morality is even though we use it everyday to justify our mundane actions as being something more.

[Kaiser Gutenhagen]

Morality is in the eye of the beholder

[Bob Janova]

Morality is subjective. If you have power on your side, then you have a moral imperative. If you are the weak side, you are usually morally wrong.

At least that's what I've learned over my time here.

That must be why you kept jumping to the stronger side, to be 'right'!

As someone involved in one of the few acts almost universally acknowledged to be 'immoral' (the rolling of ICP after Martens gave them a direct promise that it wouldn't happen), I don't think you're really in a position to talk about what morality is.

In addition, you're just wrong. One of the things that people find immoral is beating down a weak enemy. Viridia was in the moral right, the Initiative wasn't. GPA was in the right, Continuum wasn't. ICP was in the right, NoV and friends were not. These were the opinions of people at the time, not just the story told after Karma. The difference is that if you are powerful, you can act immorally and get away with it, but that doesn't make those actions moral.

Morality is inaction

Morality is not inaction. Morality currently has another name: interventionism, or acting in places where an amoral alliance would not. We even have our first anti-moralist guerilla, Jack, because morality is acting in places where it upsets him. For many people, Karma was a grand action of morality, and it was the largest war in history. Morality can require action even where it is not pragmatic, for example offering military support in the Viridicide.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

Morality is not inaction. Morality currently has another name: interventionism, or acting in places where an amoral alliance would not. We even have our first anti-moralist guerilla, Jack, because morality is acting in places where it upsets him. For many people, Karma was a grand action of morality, and it was the largest war in history. Morality can require action even where it is not pragmatic, for example offering military support in the Viridicide.

With Karma, so many individuals were acting with revenge that morality became mixed up in the affair. If you're going to war with someone because you feel they've "wronged" you, that's not morality, but revenge. When exacting revenge, a person is not seeking to punish the recipient for wrongdoings, but rather to reverse an action by the recipient that left the person on the raw end of a deal. Admittedly it's a thin line, but it's a distinct one nonetheless.

[Bob Janova]

That's why I said 'for many', not 'for all'. Morality was one of a number of reasons why so many people flocked to Karma. But it's definitely true that for some people and alliances, it was a moral intervention. Major alliances like TOP, MHA, Sparta, ODN and others that joined Karma were not avenging a particular wrong in doing so.

[Lonely]

Ethics justify weakness and impose restrictions which inhibit the interests of the strong. But as for me, I believe in freedom.

[Iotupa]

That's why I said 'for many', not 'for all'. Morality was one of a number of reasons why so many people flocked to Karma. But it's definitely true that for some people and alliances, it was a moral intervention. Major alliances like TOP, MHA, Sparta, ODN and others that joined Karma were not avenging a particular wrong in doing so.

From my experience, the majority of the people in "Karma" were after revenge. I would say a minority of that coalition was acting not in the interest of revenge, and an even smaller minority with any concerns for morality.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

That's why I said 'for many', not 'for all'. Morality was one of a number of reasons why so many people flocked to Karma. But it's definitely true that for some people and alliances, it was a moral intervention. Major alliances like TOP, MHA, Sparta, ODN and others that joined Karma were not avenging a particular wrong in doing so.

Well, for some of those alliances, they just saw NPO's PR start to tank after the BLEU-tC War, so they just started slowly jumping ship, more for survival than anything else, right?

[Rebel Virginia]

Everyone knows what to do to follow that principle, but many do not for one reason or another.

Well, thank God for you then. Where would we be without your constant preaching about what we ought to do? Tell me, do we actually have to do something or does simply talking about how we might do something count? Cause if you're any example to go by then I ought to say that the latter is just as good as the real thing.

[eyriq]

Morality breeds sophistication and proper behavior. Every form in the universe is governed by natural laws, from atoms to clocks to evolution, and so on. Why would our rationality be any different?

[Fernando12]

Morality is simple. People should be free to associate, speak, share ideas, and act, within reason, as they wish. People should be free from fear of assault or oppression. Morality is about protecting liberty from the abuses of the powerful.

I agree with Vilien on his points.

But to go a bit further on what he said...

Morality is seeing what is right no matter your side in a situation or what "popular" beliefs are or what a person or alliance may have done in the past. For example some people here like to lol certain leaders or alliances. Rather than just jumping in mindlessly saying yeah destroy him or that alliance etc... Morality should lead you to first evaluate the situation and then give an intelligent comment on whatever the situation is. Previous actions by an individual or alliance shouldn't matter, just evaluate the current situation and speak what is right in the situation of the day even if today you speak to defend a person or alliance that was clearly wrong in previous occassions or even those that were previously your enemies.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Fernando12

[Azhrei]

It's often used as a transparent excuse to further blacken the image of an alliance you don't like when they attack someone that, up to that point, you couldn't give two !@#$s about. You know. Fun.

[wickedj]

It's often used as a transparent excuse to further blacken the image of an alliance you don't like when they attack someone that, up to that point, you couldn't give two !@#$s about. You know. Fun.

You mean Bilrow didnt suddenly wake up and find morals? Le GASP!