Morality

[Prime minister Johns]

Personally, if you want my opinion on which alliance is the most moral it would have to be the GPA.

As a whole:

They have always stuck by their charter and their stated reasons for existing.

They have never fought an offensive alliance war.

They have never used PZI, EZI, or caused an alliance to disband.

And above all they have never sought to impose their world view on to the greater community, they are happy to sit in a corner and do their own thing and not bother anyone.

When a leader did misbehave he was eventually impeached by the membership and his actions and policies were disavowed so his actions are excluded from this general assessment.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Prime minister Johns

[Tick1]

As a whole:

They have always stuck by their charter and their stated reasons for existing.

They have never fought an offensive alliance war.

They have never used PZI, EZI, or caused an alliance to disband.

And above all they have never sought to impose their world view on to the greater community, they are happy to sit in a corner and do their own thing and not bother anyone.

As a whole:

They have always stuck by their charter and their stated reasons for existing. (Results in a standstill)

They have never fought an offensive alliance war. (Results in a standstill)

They have never used PZI, EZI, or caused an alliance to disband. (Good for them)

And above all they have never sought to impose their world view on to the greater community, they are happy to sit in a corner and do their own thing and not bother anyone. (Good for them)

[SleepiB]

If morality is the most basic rule to live by, mine is to never deceive myself, to understand my motivation and the goals of others, to be a straightforward friend and a devious enemy.

[Ashley Smith]

And who decides what is right? What if I disagree? How do you explain the ever-changing conception of what is morally right?

In theory, Morality ought to be an ever changing concept based upon new reasonable assumptions based upon recent information, yes?

Morality is the new honour: a misunderstood concept universally applied to every situation and used so frequently as to have no real meaning in debate. Last year everyone was talking about honour. This year it's morality.

Well said. Probably the most coherent thing here.

Personally, if you want my opinion on which alliance is the most moral it would have to be the GPA.

_stuff_

Like I said: Morality is inaction.

[Valerius]

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.

This sums up my beliefs too. And unlike many people's, they have always and will continue to stay the same.

[Vladimir]

In theory, Morality ought to be an ever changing concept based upon new reasonable assumptions based upon recent information, yes?

I disagree. Morality as far as it is discussed in the international sphere is meant to be an absolute, for how else could you use it? If we accept morality as a relative concept derived from specific perspectives and interests, then to label someone as 'immoral' means nothing at all -- indeed, at worst it becomes an imperialist enterprise.

Your suggestion that it changes as a result of new information [if that is what you are saying] is incomplete for this very reason -- it assumes that there is an absolute and that what is changing is our understanding of it. I reject this on the basis that two people can have exactly the same information and access to exactly the same theories but still have mutually incompatible moralities. [Also on the basis that there is no source for this absolute morality, but I digress.]

For example [OOC: an example prominent in other games where 'farming' is a major issue], unaligned nations and micro-alliances are likely to consider tech-raiding to be 'immoral' because it is detrimental to their interests, and they are likely to support this position by applying arguments with universal legitimacy: chasing away players, etc. Meanwhile larger alliances that participate in tech-raiding are likely to dismiss this as nonsense on the basis that it's a nation's responsibility to protect itself.

We can see in this example that both have the same information and access to the same theories, and yet each chooses to apply a different morality -- no doubt both sincerely believing (internalising) in them -- because it emphasises their own interests. This also helps to explain how genuinely held morality can change so swiftly when one's circumstances change -- all of a sudden they are viewing the world from a different perspective, and this requires a new moral framework to justify it.

This is what I meant when I said on the first page: "Genuine morality is the emotional internalisation (and usually universalisation) of self-interest. "

Ferrous always gets his way in the end.

[SpacingOutMan]

How can morality possibly be absolute? It's impossible. Your morals will never match my morals, even if it is by the slightest degree. Yet in spite of the blatant difference, we will both claim whether or not something is moral. Morals are constantly swayed be external influence, whether consciously or subconsciously, and we use them to justify our actions because we, as people, want there to be something more. Take, for instance, existentialism. Some see this philosophy as a dreadful and inefficient way of living life because in Nihilism, one has no morals and is beyond the brink of Atheism. What is is, what isn't isn't. That is the fundamental breakdown of amorality, but in retrospect those who are Nihilists accept it because their viewpoints and perspectives lead them to believe there is nothing more, thus allowing them to accept that code of belief. Though a true Nihilist wouldn't claim that amorality is correct, they can make the claim that they, themselves, are amoral. So it is completely relative based upon the perspective of the beholder. There are too few absolutes in this world, and morality is not one of them.

[Prime minister Johns]

Saying you are moral in this day and age is essentially meaningless.

Morality has been used as a propaganda tool to further the political causes of the immoral so often that it has lost all meaning.

If you want the world to know you are moral then let your deeds to the talking, because moralistic propaganda is just so much empty rhetoric now.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Prime minister Johns

[Ashley Smith]

I disagree. Morality as far as it is discussed in the international sphere is meant to be an absolute, for how else could you use it? If we accept morality as a relative concept derived from specific perspectives and interests, then to label someone as 'immoral' means nothing at all -- indeed, at worst it becomes an imperialist enterprise.

Your suggestion that it changes as a result of new information [if that is what you are saying] is incomplete for this very reason -- it assumes that there is an absolute and that what is changing is our understanding of it. I reject this on the basis that two people can have exactly the same information and access to exactly the same theories but still have mutually incompatible moralities. [Also on the basis that there is no source for this absolute morality, but I digress.]

For example [OOC: an example prominent in other games where 'farming' is a major issue], unaligned nations and micro-alliances are likely to consider tech-raiding to be 'immoral' because it is detrimental to their interests, and they are likely to support this position by applying arguments with universal legitimacy: chasing away players, etc. Meanwhile larger alliances that participate in tech-raiding are likely to dismiss this as nonsense on the basis that it's a nation's responsibility to protect itself.

We can see in this example that both have the same information and access to the same theories, and yet each chooses to apply a different morality -- no doubt both sincerely believing (internalising) in them -- because it emphasises their own interests. This also helps to explain how genuinely held morality can change so swiftly when one's circumstances change -- all of a sudden they are viewing the world from a different perspective, and this requires a new moral framework to justify it.

This is what I meant when I said on the first page: "Genuine morality is the emotional internalisation (and usually universalisation) of self-interest. "

Ferrous always gets his way in the end.

I disagree. Morality, being an individual choice of action, is not absolute. Laws and other such things MOST DEFINITELY must be absolute. Rule of Law FTW, etc. ad nauseum. As for the noniterated code, they do in fact change depending on circumstances.

Firstly, one must consider the idea of ethics. Ethics, being essentially that which you wish to accomplish, the goal, etc., is really what determines action. If you want food, the desired end being fulfillment, it would be moral to feed yourself.

That being said, the ethics themselves depend upon ones homeostasis, as can be described psychologically through Maslow's hierarchy of needs and such models. I may note(ooc: that these "ethics" depend widely between OOC and IC). The variation of Ethics, however, is quite limited. Being that we are all human, we all need the same things and have similar desires, eg.: food, fun, relationships, saftey, etc. In order to attain such things (in order to act ethically), one must cooperate with others and form a society. Doing otherwise, as we have learned, is detrimental towards our ethics/goals.

Therefore, Morality, the code of conduct, changes depending on the need to service ever changing other people, thus a changing society, and by our knowledge of how to do so. There may be many ways to skin a cat, but sometimes you don't need the fur. Rather, morality is acting towards an ethical goal. Amorality is acting against an ethical goal.

Unethics would be where you get it wrong. "I just ate a sandwich, but OH MY GOODNESS I'M SO HUNGRY I COULD EAT A FREAKING COW" <-Unethical/fatty.

tl;dr: Ethics change slightly. Morality changes to fit the current ethic. Morality remains constant so to ensure future possibility of cooperation towards ethical ends.

tw;du: I'm hungry. I eat a sandwich. I don't eat my boyfriend's sandwich because then he wouldn't like me.

[Vladimir]

If I understand you correctly, you are agreeing with me. My argument is that morality varies depending on one's perspective, with that perspective primarily shaped by self-interest. If we look at the workings of a society as you did (rather than an international anarchy as I did) then we can see that morality functions in precisely the way that you described; and indeed, I noted this myself in the above link: "morality develops inside any group in order to aid in its smooth operation" eg. don't steal your boyfriend's sandwich.

There are many such societies, and (as you imply) each develops its own unique internal morality based on its structures and history. What we can take from this is that there is no single morality in the international sphere, since every alliance brings its own to the table -- each equally valid. This combines with the alliance's place in the international system to create an international morality; but it is at this point that it is important to recognise said morality as a purely self-serving instrument, as I described.

Note: amorality isn't acting against an ethical goal, it is just indifferent to the label -- one can be amoral and still act in what another may consider to be a completely moral fashion.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Vladimir

[Ashley Smith]

If I understand you correctly, you are agreeing with me. My argument is that morality varies depending on one's perspective, with that perspective primarily shaped by self-interest. If we look at the workings of a society as you did (rather than an international anarchy as I did) then we can see that morality functions in precisely the way that you described; and indeed, I noted this myself in the above link: "morality develops inside any group in order to aid in its smooth operation" eg. don't steal your boyfriend's sandwich.

There are many such societies, and (as you imply) each develops its own unique internal morality based on its structures and history. What we can take from this is that there is no single morality in the international sphere, since every alliance brings its own to the table -- each equally valid. This combines with the alliance's place in the international system to create an international morality; but it is at this point that it is important to recognise said morality as a purely self-serving instrument, as I described.

Note: amorality isn't acting against an ethical goal, it is just indifferent to the label -- one can be amoral and still act in what another may consider to be a completely moral fashion.

To be honest, I didn't read the link (nor did I read closely your previous statement. Concisity ftw.)

However, I did make a stipulation which you didn't. Societies don't have moralities, they have standards. Standards are usually set, whereas morality is fluid. And being that we as humans have ethics that vary in very similar manners (especially within the context of western culture), those standards OUGHT to be very similar. In other words, there is, more or less, a right way of doing things.

This is where "moral" relativism breaks down. Whereas individually, depending on the desired goal, morality becomes fluid, on a societal scale the standards do not change (quickly, anyways). There certainly is a bad way of doing things, and are standards that are detrimental. It's all based upon a best guess, right?

True, each alliance may have it's own culture and set of standards, but not all are equally valid. Any standards that prevent the furthering of ethical goals are bad standards.

Therefore: to determine standards, one must find what the goals are for the standards and from that find through trial and error what is in fact beneficial.

P.S. I probably didn't actually stipulate that, but oh well