Beyond good and evil

[Auxilius]

If only because logic is subjective. A white man will save a baby over an elderly because said baby has the life in front of him while the elderly already lived long enough. A african man will save an elderly over a baby because his advices and experience are valuable and the baby doesn't even realize it exists.

[TrashMan]

To be more precise, the premises and values of differnet individuals are different and the logical though processes - even if they were completely the same - will yield differnet results.

And they aren't completely the same.

 

Two people read the exact same book, reading the exact same series of facts and events.

They have completely different oppinions on the character or situation in a book.

 

Good example - Dragon Age mages and templars issue.

People citing the same paragraph, each convinced it proves their point (or pre-concieved position).

[Walsingham]

The OP raises an interesting point which we have looked at before on the forum.

 

I think Obsidian does a consistently good job of questioning culturally subjective rights and wrongs. I'd highlight New Vegas, and the entire New California Republic for that role.

 

However, I reject utterly the notion that morality is transigent and flexible, when it comes to real values and standards. The man who does otherwise is not a man I'd care to depend on. Or indeed have much to do with at all.

 

I've been giving it some thought and the analogy which springs to mind is the question of the loaded gun. If I walk into a room and find a gun we can debate whether it is loaded or unloaded. We can even check. But the correct way to _behave_ is to treat all guns as if they are loaded. Just so, we can debate the morality of abducting and eating children, but the correct response is to reject and prosecute anyone who does it.

[JFSOCC]

I believe I have strong ethics, I care about ethics a great deal. I also believe that absolutes get in the way of review, and as such, it is generally unethical to depend on categorical thinking.

Morality is not something you have and then can sit on your laurels. It requires you think about it. Getting stuck on doctrine and saying abducting and eating children is always bad, while probably true, is not ethical. Deciding, every time, that it is unethical to abduct and eat children, that's ethical.

And by reviewing your choices every single time, it allows you to bypass those ethical exceptions which might arise. (as unlikely as they are)

[Haerski]

Let's take a simple example. Witches for example. Burning witches just because is hella bad. Sure, if they slaughtered a village for some kind of potion, it's justified. But going randomly after witches when they're just regular magicians? Bad. As hell.

That's what you would think in such a situation.

But say, you now have to save an innocent witch now. There is no doubt, she did nothing wrong. Therefore, you defend her, maybe kill a villager or two. Or talk them down. It doesn't really matter. At the end, she's saved.

Then, why must the world think you actually do a good thing? What if helping them is seen as bad? WE don't think it's bad, for various reasons and values that are deepy anchored in our minds. But these villagers are living on another world. They don't have to believe what we believe. And maybe logic can help.

 

Afterwards, if you go in other villages, you'll be known as the evil adventurer who helps witches instead of giving them the treatment they deserve, no matter how horrendous such a point of view is. It would do a great deal to set a different tone to P:E universe. The worldbuilding would improve drastically.

 

That's funny cause you ended up describing one scene from The Witcher almost from word to word. So in a way you just spoiled part of the game for yourself. Actually as Witcher you are not very much liked in any place you go, but rather just necessary evil which has to be tolerated to avoid getting run over by monsters. Good news are, from what I have heard many people from P:E team have lots of respect for their colleagues at CD Projekt RED and are aiming for pretty similar goals concerning narrative and morality of the story.

 

EDIT: Also few people from the team worked on Planescape Torment, which might be one of the most interesting universes when it comes to differences of culture and moral flexibility. Lots of bizarre moment to be found in there.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Haerski

[Chairchucker]

 

However, I reject utterly the notion that morality is transigent and flexible, when it comes to real values and standards. The man who does otherwise is not a man I'd care to depend on. Or indeed have much to do with at all.

 

 

Do you have an external source from which you glean this absolute morality, though, or do you just go with your gut and figure out where the truthiness lies?

 

I think it's a good thing that Obsidian has decided to ditch a morality meter in favour of reputation. While Fallout New Vegas is great, it feels a little bit odd that murdering certain people in cold blood can be an objectively morally good thing to do, for example. Meanwhile, if you go through the possessions of the people you've murdered, your karma drops again. (Unless you loot it from their corpse.)

 

And that's only murder and theft we've covered. What happens if you visit a brothel, what might a game maker decide is the absolute right or wrong regarding sex? How about charity, might you lose karma every time you tell a beggar "Sorry mate, I'm saving up for a shinier sword." Or might you gain karma on the basis that you having a shinier sword would make you more able to protect the town from rampaging whatever they are?

[Walsingham]

I would agree that personal morality must be explored and checked. However, I treat the process like caring for a good pair of walking boots, while you seem intent on admiring morality like a statue being carved.

 

One questions morality for the same end as one does NOT question it. So it can compel action when confusion, fear, or self-interest are screaming otherwise. One questions so that one does not doubt logically in changed or unexpected circumstance. One does not question so that one does not doubt emotionally in changed or unexpected circumstance.

 

As for the authority defining right and wrong that is an excellent question. When I was much younger I saw that it was rooted in axiomatic statements and this made it formless and weak. I met men and women over the years from many different cultures and creeds. I found them good or evil in different ways, but not the less so in degrees. I now perceive that the rootlessness of morality makes it stronger.

 

I am afraid I can't explain it any better just now. I am reading Chesterton, however, so he may already have worked it out. I'll keep you posted.

[JFSOCC]

Well the difference is between categorical thinking and consequentialist thinking. One judges the actions themselves, the other the resulting world from those actions. I'm firmly in the latter camp. I believe holding on to absolute morality like that leads to horrors of doctrine. Where you would not lie to save the life of a friend, because lying is bad...

 

Maybe you're interested in this:

 

It's a series of 20 lectures (2 per episode) given by Michael Sandel, a Harvard Professor teaching his ethics course.

[Chairchucker]

I would agree that personal morality must be explored and checked. However, I treat the process like caring for a good pair of walking boots, while you seem intent on admiring morality like a statue being carved.

 

 

Any chance you could have a crack at explaining this without the analogy? Completely over my head.

[Giantevilhead]

The problem with all the philosophizing about morality is that people set up imaginary scenarios that may not be applicable in real life. For example, in the trolley example, the scenario is set up in such a way that you know for a fact that you can sacrifice one life to save 5. However, in real life, you cannot know that for sure. That's one of the reasons why people won't sacrifice the fat man to save 5 people even though they would switch the trolley's track so that it runs over one person instead of 5. It's much easier for people to accept the idea that flipping the switch will change the trolley's track and save those 5 because we can easily envision it in real life. However, it is more difficult for people to imagine that the fat man can stop the trolley in real life. No matter how much you are assured that will happen, there is that doubt that the fat man won't stop the train and you'll just be murdering him for nothing.

[JFSOCC]

The problem with all the philosophizing about morality is that people set up imaginary scenarios that may not be applicable in real life. For example, in the trolley example, the scenario is set up in such a way that you know for a fact that you can sacrifice one life to save 5. However, in real life, you cannot know that for sure. That's one of the reasons why people won't sacrifice the fat man to save 5 people even though they would switch the trolley's track so that it runs over one person instead of 5. It's much easier for people to accept the idea that flipping the switch will change the trolley's track and save those 5 because we can easily envision it in real life. However, it is more difficult for people to imagine that the fat man can stop the trolley in real life. No matter how much you are assured that will happen, there is that doubt that the fat man won't stop the train and you'll just be murdering him for nothing.

I'd like to use what I call the "which vs what" argument. in scenario 1, you have to choose between two options, and no matter what, it's going to be one of them. In scenario 2 your choice is less clear. The option to push the fat man is a 'what' option, rather than a 'which' option. It's an additional choice, rather than an initial one.

[Giantevilhead]

And people are not just judged by what happened but what might have happened. In real life, if you made the choice to hurt to kill someone for the greater good, people are not just going to accept that there was no other way. People will ask you and you will ask yourself if there was another way.

 

In real life, both options are "what" options because you can never be certain of the outcome of any event. In either scenarios, you cannot be absolutely sure that the trolley will kill those five people if you don't sacrifice the one person. Even in the scenario where you can switch the track, you can't know that those five people won't get out of the way before the trolley hits them. You might be able to stop the trolley, you might be able to signal to those five people to get out of the way, other people might see the trolley and get those five people out of the way, etc.

 

So the pertinent question is not just, "would you kill one person to save many" but "can you live with yourself if you made decision" and "what if you were wrong?"

 

Logically, you might be able to tell yourself that it was the only way but you'll still ask yourself all the "what if" questions about what you or others might have done to prevent this tragedy. And even if you can be absolutely certain that there were no other ways, can you live with the fact that someone died as a direct result of your actions? If that person's family blames you and holds you responsible for that person's death, can you accept it and deal with it?

 

And what if right after you switched the track, those 5 people saw the trolley and managed to get out of the way and you killed that one person for nothing? Can you live with yourself then? What would people think of you? Should you be punished for your actions?

 

This is the problem with these hypothetical scenarios. It makes it all too easy to ignore all the complexities of real life. It sets you on a track to ignore or overlook other potential solutions. If you go into a situation with the starting assumption that someone must die so that others may live then you won't be looking for solutions where no one dies. In real life, the desired goal would be to prevent such no win scenarios from happening in the first place.

[JFSOCC]

This is the problem with these hypothetical scenarios. It makes it all too easy to ignore all the complexities of real life. It sets you on a track to ignore or overlook other potential solutions. If you go into a situation with the starting assumption that someone must die so that others may live then you won't be looking for solutions where no one dies. In real life, the desired goal would be to prevent such no win scenarios from happening in the first place.

For study purposes the hypothetical scenarios are excellent. This class prepares you. If you watch the series further, you'll find he uses some real life scenarios as well.

The "lets assume you know that" is part of the premise, because it's about thinking about your decision-making that is what is being trained.

[Lephys]

One thing I don't quite follow is how taking out a "bad" person always gets described as "murdering someone in cold blood," as opposed to, what, killing someone without killing them? If you beat them to death with a shovel, then maybe that doesn't say much about your vengeance issues, etc., but it makes them no less dead.

 

Anywho, the difference with humans is that we can choose things. If a fire breaks out, what do we do? We "fight" the fire. The fire is rampantly destroying stuff, and the only way to prevent stuff from being rampantly destroyed is by "killing" the fire. Of course, the fire isn't sentient, AND as a result, it cannot help but rampantly destroy things. It has no desire, and it made no choice.

 

However, a human KNOWS it can either destroy a bunch of stuff, or not-destroy a bunch of stuff. It doesn't just constantly destroy things in its naturally-existing state. Therefore, if someone goes around setting fires all over the place, and you can't stop them any other way, you have to kill the source of the fires. You're not "murdering a human in cold blood." You're intentionally stopping the source of aimless, voluntary destruction.

 

Yes, ideally, we'd just never kill anyone. Ever. But, also ideally, no one would ever have any reason at all to need to be killed.

 

If a psycho killer who just loves killing living things takes out that firestarting destructive person, then the effects of that person's death (in contrast to their constant decision to rampantly destroy like a chaotic fire) would be "good" to lots of people. But, if that psycho killer didn't care about the fact that he stopped rampant destruction, at all (or even wished he could've killed the guy WHILE continuing the rampant destruction), then his motives and actions would be seen as "evil," because they're in direct opposition to the desired state of things that was benefitted by the lack of a guy rampantly destroying everything.

 

No, I don't think any of it is somehow cosmically good or evil... It's not about filling some meter with goodness. It's fundamentally a battle of logic/reason, with upper layers of emotion/psyche reaction. It's the same reason almost anyone in the world has some sense of "honor," even if we choose to ignore it. Almost every single person (possibly every single person) recognizes that feeling/connection. If someone save's your life, you might be an "evil bastard" and not return the favor somehow. But, when it comes to an opportunity to do so, it's something you'll consider, even then. It's not like it just won't even pop into your head.

 

*shrug*

 

Obviously we're not going to explain the entire human condition in a couple of paragraphs, haha. No one's even been able to do it with entire books, thus far. I don't think it's because we're wrong, though. I just think it's because it's so complicated.

 

It's like an equation. Every single time you want to evaluate it, even if you've got the perfect equation, it doesn't mean you don't still have to plug in all the situation's variable values and solve the equation, which is extremely complex and could take weeks to solve, just with one set of values.

[Giantevilhead]

Our language retains vestiges from times when we understood less about the world. For a long time, people did believe that fire was a living thing or had some kind of agency behind it.

 

Much of our morality is shaped by our ignorance. We place responsibility or blame on the last chain on a causal link that we think we can explain. For example, we blame a person for committing a crime and assume that they chose to commit that crime knowingly. However, we rarely delve deeper and ask why that person is the way he or she is or the deeper reasons behind their choice. We assume agency originated only within that person.

[Lephys]

^ That's why I said it's actually fundamentally logical. And that's why we see a difference between self defense and straight-up murder, at the very least.

 

Sure, lots of people ignorantly jump to conclusions. That doesn't mean that "morality" represents such an act. Only that some people use it to represent such an act.

 

It's very similar to any organization/faction today. Catholic priests molested boys? OH NO! CATHOLICS MOLEST LITTLE BOYS!" No. Some people, who happened to be Catholic, decided to molest boys and/or cover it up. Even from the rest of Catholics. Unless they're a hivemind, they obviously can still act independently. But, people tend to not like unknowns, so some of them figure it's best to just go ahead and make the association.

[JFSOCC]

One thing I don't quite follow is how taking out a "bad" person always gets described as "murdering someone in cold blood," as opposed to, what, killing someone without killing them? If you beat them to death with a shovel, then maybe that doesn't say much about your vengeance issues, etc., but it makes them no less dead.

 

Anywho, the difference with humans is that we can choose things. If a fire breaks out, what do we do? We "fight" the fire. The fire is rampantly destroying stuff, and the only way to prevent stuff from being rampantly destroyed is by "killing" the fire. Of course, the fire isn't sentient, AND as a result, it cannot help but rampantly destroy things. It has no desire, and it made no choice.

 

However, a human KNOWS it can either destroy a bunch of stuff, or not-destroy a bunch of stuff. It doesn't just constantly destroy things in its naturally-existing state. Therefore, if someone goes around setting fires all over the place, and you can't stop them any other way, you have to kill the source of the fires. You're not "murdering a human in cold blood." You're intentionally stopping the source of aimless, voluntary destruction.

 

Yes, ideally, we'd just never kill anyone. Ever. But, also ideally, no one would ever have any reason at all to need to be killed.

 

If a psycho killer who just loves killing living things takes out that firestarting destructive person, then the effects of that person's death (in contrast to their constant decision to rampantly destroy like a chaotic fire) would be "good" to lots of people. But, if that psycho killer didn't care about the fact that he stopped rampant destruction, at all (or even wished he could've killed the guy WHILE continuing the rampant destruction), then his motives and actions would be seen as "evil," because they're in direct opposition to the desired state of things that was benefitted by the lack of a guy rampantly destroying everything.

 

No, I don't think any of it is somehow cosmically good or evil... It's not about filling some meter with goodness. It's fundamentally a battle of logic/reason, with upper layers of emotion/psyche reaction. It's the same reason almost anyone in the world has some sense of "honor," even if we choose to ignore it. Almost every single person (possibly every single person) recognizes that feeling/connection. If someone save's your life, you might be an "evil bastard" and not return the favor somehow. But, when it comes to an opportunity to do so, it's something you'll consider, even then. It's not like it just won't even pop into your head.

 

*shrug*

 

Obviously we're not going to explain the entire human condition in a couple of paragraphs, haha. No one's even been able to do it with entire books, thus far. I don't think it's because we're wrong, though. I just think it's because it's so complicated.

 

It's like an equation. Every single time you want to evaluate it, even if you've got the perfect equation, it doesn't mean you don't still have to plug in all the situation's variable values and solve the equation, which is extremely complex and could take weeks to solve, just with one set of values.

it's true that choice is important, P:E is going to have a prison in the stronghold, so maybe you can capture the person who sets the fire instead of killing him. Still stopping him. Now you have an ethical/tactical choice.

just remember not to give him any flammable objects while he's languishing beneath your stronghold.

[Chairchucker]

One thing I don't quite follow is how taking out a "bad" person always gets described as "murdering someone in cold blood," as opposed to, what, killing someone without killing them? If you beat them to death with a shovel, then maybe that doesn't say much about your vengeance issues, etc., but it makes them no less dead.

 

 

If you're referring to my comment I'm not referring to instances of self defense, I'm not referring to instances where they're in the act of raping someone, I'm not referring to instances where they're doing anything bad at all, I'm referring to characters who are flagged as karmically naughty rather than nice, and therefore even if you sneak up to them in their sleep and off them, your karma rises.

[Karkarov]

As I said in another post somewhere else you can not do a morality system in a game and be accurate.  What you CAN do is create a reputation system based on multiple factions and in some cases individual characters and have their feelings about the player change based on player behavior versus what the values of that faction/character are.

[Lephys]

If you're referring to my comment I'm not referring to instances of self defense, I'm not referring to instances where they're in the act of raping someone, I'm not referring to instances where they're doing anything bad at all, I'm referring to characters who are flagged as karmically naughty rather than nice, and therefore even if you sneak up to them in their sleep and off them, your karma rises.

Your comment made me think of it, as it used the phrase. Also, we're still both talking about the same concept, really. Does it matter if you catch someone in the act of raping someone, or if they happen to be reclining somewhere, not-raping anyone at the moment, but you know for a fact (and it is well-known) that they have raped hundreds upon hundreds of people? If you were to sneak up on that person and torture them to death, or castrate them and throw them in a dungeon, I'm pretty sure the people who were all wronged by that person (as well as their friends and families) would praise you for giving that bastard "what he deserves." Heck, it would be seen more as "the least you could do," as it probably wouldn't even be the full extent of justice, as you can never really make up for what he's done, there.

 

Granted, yes, if you're talking about actual cosmic karma, and not just using the word "karma" as reputation, then it's a bit silly for it to go up there, because you're still just doing something that's "inherently wrong/bad." You're producing a good result, but encouraging vengeance goes beyond simply taking that guy out of the equation. Of course, you could get into all kinds of complex there. Your vicious punishment could discourage other people from doing anything of the sort, which would technically be good. Etc. But then there are things that still suggest that, no matter what, castrating a man and imprisoning him for life is just-plain bad/evil on some cosmic scale.

 

I think that's exactly why most people don't like systems like karma, and innate forces of good/bad, and would rather see good and bad be derived from the world and its inhabitants (and gods and such, if they are existing entities in the lore), rather than from cosmically balanced forces that then influence and/or are tapped into by the world's inhabitants.

[Chairchucker]

Your comment made me think of it, as it used the phrase. Also, we're still both talking about the same concept, really. Does it matter if you catch someone in the act of raping someone, or if they happen to be reclining somewhere, not-raping anyone at the moment, but you know for a fact (and it is well-known) that they have raped hundreds upon hundreds of people? If you were to sneak up on that person and torture them to death, or castrate them and throw them in a dungeon, I'm pretty sure the people who were all wronged by that person (as well as their friends and families) would praise you for giving that bastard "what he deserves." Heck, it would be seen more as "the least you could do," as it probably wouldn't even be the full extent of justice, as you can never really make up for what he's done, there.

 

Granted, yes, if you're talking about actual cosmic karma, and not just using the word "karma" as reputation, then it's a bit silly for it to go up there, because you're still just doing something that's "inherently wrong/bad." You're producing a good result, but encouraging vengeance goes beyond simply taking that guy out of the equation. Of course, you could get into all kinds of complex there. Your vicious punishment could discourage other people from doing anything of the sort, which would technically be good. Etc. But then there are things that still suggest that, no matter what, castrating a man and imprisoning him for life is just-plain bad/evil on some cosmic scale.

 

I think that's exactly why most people don't like systems like karma, and innate forces of good/bad, and would rather see good and bad be derived from the world and its inhabitants (and gods and such, if they are existing entities in the lore), rather than from cosmically balanced forces that then influence and/or are tapped into by the world's inhabitants.

...so I think we're basically agreeing that reputation systems are better for video games than morality systems, then?

[Lephys]

^ That we are.

[Walsingham]

 

I would agree that personal morality must be explored and checked. However, I treat the process like caring for a good pair of walking boots, while you seem intent on admiring morality like a statue being carved.

 

 

Any chance you could have a crack at explaining this without the analogy? Completely over my head.

 

 

But I have analogical reasoning +8!

 

My navel gazing is to check my navel for fluff, and de-fluff it. Yours (i have so far assumed) is to admire the perfection or curse the imperfection.

 

The distinction is most acute when practically applied. You might spend hours debating some logical issue. I'm unconcerned unless I find my conviction wavering due to changed circumstance or mental stress.

[Chairchucker]

But I have analogical reasoning +8!

 

My navel gazing is to check my navel for fluff, and de-fluff it. Yours (i have so far assumed) is to admire the perfection or curse the imperfection.

 

The distinction is most acute when practically applied. You might spend hours debating some logical issue. I'm unconcerned unless I find my conviction wavering due to changed circumstance or mental stress.

Don't mistake my willingness to discuss how different people might see morality as an indication that I don't have my own very firm opinions on it. I just think it's worthwhile to try to understand what motivates people. I also think that if we hold something to be true, there should be some basis behind where that comes from.

 

And finally, I think it is possible to delineate between things which we believe to be morally 'right', and things that should be legally permitted to allow a society to function.