A light dissertation on Morality in DayZ

[TheDesigner 1197]

Yes, like natural selection, surviving of the fittest :D

Mm, the guys running through Cherno shooting at everything that moves are the "fittest". It's odd that they lurk in spawn towns.. could it possibly be due to the fact they have to respawn a lot? Nooo..

[wild_man 4442]

Mm, the guys running through Cherno shooting at everything that moves are the "fittest". It's odd that they lurk in spawn towns.. could it possibly be due to the fact they have to respawn a lot? Nooo..

why walk to the north if everything you need for survive is south?

[iceman28001 36]

Morality in video games, this will get published. :rolleyes:

It is a game, I spent hours finding loot. I kill you so I am certain to keep my loot. In real life, no I would not kill you. Yet this is a game. I play some lifes as "avoidance survivor" and sometimes I will go active bandit to change it up. Why, because it is a game and that is fun TO ME and breaks the same cycle.

BTW, if you are close enough to a scowl on my face in SA you are either already dead (or I am dead and face is scowling a la rigor mortis) or a personal friend I play with. So good luck with that, don't let people I know that close before firing at least a warning shot/and VOIP or trying to kill. So either cry and put a mask on the baddies, or play with that wonder if the person is docile or going to murder you (one of the great things about DayZ that moment of tension).

Keep DayZ Fun.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Iceman28001

[Egi 5]

These suggestions are all rooted in one rule: morality. Now, in our every day reality, we have to follow rules. We have to be "moral" citizens, because (most of us) live in a large, populated society with easy access to food and medicine. Our society imposes laws based on ethics. I think most people like to believe that there is some sort of "universal ethos" that governs us all. These people would contend that actions like killing, or stealing, are inherently wrong, regardless of the presence of society.

Well guess what moaners - there isn't. How can I say this so certainly? Because human beings are NOT automatically punished for doing amoral things. This alone proves that morality is a social construct. Consider a hypothetical situation where there are only two men. Only two. One day, one of the men kills the other. The reason is unimportant, because the fact remains that nobody, and nothing, can punish that killer for what he has done. "God" isn't going to strike him down with lightning. He isn't going to suddenly "lose his mind" and start talking to himself and running around uncontrollably. In fact, there's a good chance that he may not even feel bad about what he did.

Now consider the same situation, but instead of two men, there are three. Suddenly, one can't just kill another (even if he wants to), because the third party will witness his actions - and consequences may ensue.

Therefore, morality is the equivalent of human beings avoiding the consequences of actions that other humans would not like.

And this is where DayZ comes into the picture. DayZ aims to do pretty much one thing, and that is to place us in a harsh environment that is not governed by the same laws and ethics that we live by in the real world.

Punishment alone has litte to do with morality. Morality is not avoiding things that you specifically get punished and doing things that get you rewarded. The base of morality is in evolution and genetics. Altruistic behavior, care for your offspring, teamwork are all consepts that in the course of evolution have enabled species to survive. These patterns are present and lodged in our genetic makeup even today. Society will impose it own moral codes upon you but it does not erase the basis of moral behavior that is in biology. Same basic behaviour patterns are observed in animals and in all human societies.

Now in Dayz the emphasis should be on survival. Teamwork is the key for individuals survival in apocalyptic scenario. The game does not at present model the hard and near impossible task of surviving alone in this type of setting. Time and energy used to gather food versus the gained nutritional value, effects of even minor injuries to your daily operational level, need for sleep and rest, limitations of how much weight you can carry and for how long, very long time and difficulty to heal from even a "normal" bullet wound including infections, difficulty how you should master skills and knowledge of sniper, hunter, gunsmith, mechanic, doctor, pilot, farmer and engineer just by yourself and difficulty to create, move and maintain shelter alone.

Now these things are something that in the real world make teamwork near essential to survival. Lone wolves would be culled in time and surviving teams would band together to survive better. The somewhat romantic notion of lone wolf survivor is false and short lived. That the game does not impose full realistic and immersive difficulties of this type of playstyle is part of the reason the playstyle is more prominent than it would be. The reason for not implementing these could be technical or by design intent.

[Hetstaine 10852]

When we encounter another player in DayZ, a very simple piece of arithmetic takes place. Only a few things can actually happen.

1: he kills me for my stuff. And he lives. Pretty problematic for my character.

2: I kill him for his stuff. And I live. Problematic for his character.

3: We team up and shit rainbows together.

4. Meet, be wary of each other , move on.

Happened to me heaps.

No conflict and no teaming up, just a tip of the hat and move of to wherever we were both going.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Punishment alone has litte to do with morality. Morality is not avoiding things that you specifically get punished and doing things that get you rewarded. The base of morality is in evolution and genetics. Altruistic behavior, care for your offspring, teamwork are all consepts that in the course of evolution have enabled species to survive. These patterns are present and lodged in our genetic makeup even today. Society will impose it own moral codes upon you but it does not erase the basis of moral behavior that is in biology. Same basic behaviour patterns are observed in animals and in all human societies.

Now in Dayz the emphasis should be on survival. Teamwork is the key for individuals survival in apocalyptic scenario. The game does not at present model the hard and near impossible task of surviving alone in this type of setting. Time and energy used to gather food versus the gained nutritional value, effects of even minor injuries to your daily operational level, need for sleep and rest, limitations of how much weight you can carry and for how long, very long time and difficulty to heal from even a "normal" bullet wound including infections, difficulty how you should master skills and knowledge of sniper, hunter, gunsmith, mechanic, doctor, pilot, farmer and engineer just by yourself and difficulty to create, move and maintain shelter alone.

Now these things are something that in the real world make teamwork near essential to survival. Lone wolves would be culled in time and surviving teams would band together to survive better. The somewhat romantic notion of lone wolf survivor is false and short lived. That the game does not impose full realistic and immersive difficulties of this type of playstyle is part of the reason the playstyle is more prominent than it would be. The reason for not implementing these could be technical or by design intent.

I agree. That's why I said at the end of the post that teamwork needs to have incentives. I think character limitations and a very challenging environment are the best, and fairest methods for getting players to team up. I'm not in any way saying that KoS between individuals is "realistic" or anything like that. All I'm trying to point out is that our behavior as players is a natural adaptation to the game world. We, as a player base, have formed a common moral code within the game, based on the most rational and efficient means of survival. When I say "moral," what I'm really talking about is the standard mode of operation within a group of people. I think the most authentic balance of gameplay is for small groups to cluster together, and then compete for territory and resources. That's really just basic human nature in a microcosm - but obviously it's something that the game still isn't able to provoke very well. It's just too easy to be a loner at the moment.

4. Meet, be wary of each other , move on.

Happened to me heaps.

No conflict and no teaming up, just a tip of the hat and move of to wherever we were both going.

You're right, that has happened to me a few times. A few. I would say that in my experience, those types of interactions are pretty rare unless we are both relatively unarmed. Once a working gun is brought into the equation, things tend to change quickly. That's just based on my experience. More often, I see other players, but stay hidden and avoid them completely. Most of the time I'd just rather not fight.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Sure, let players play Barbie doll with their character, as long as murderers get their head wrapped in a towel.

Only reason I don't kill EVERYBODY on sight is because if they're not in a bandit skin, I might take a humanity hit, get myself a bandit skin, and become a target myself.

I was playing the game actively when the bandit skin was removed. It didn't change my play style at all, and when they brought them back, my play style still didn't change at all. My modus operandi has evolved over a long time. I simply observe other people's actions, and infer their intentions by them. If I feel like they are a threat, I kill them, or avoid them completely - their skin makes no difference to me. I treat all players with equal suspicion, since I've been killed by just as many "survivors" as I have by "bandits."

Edited July 9, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[shnoogy 30]

TLDR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Thats basically DayZ in a nutshell.

[TripleCripple 2]

Interesting read OP.

I must admit I never liked the idea of skins based on "good" / "bad" actions. I allways expect other players to try harm me. Makes it so much more special when they don't.

[WBK 176]

It's a reasonably good dissertation, and it was interesting learning about the difference between descriptive and normative morality. However, I disagree with some things you say.

Morality isn't necessarily fear of consequences. I agree, societal morals (laws) are imposed, enforced and obeyed partly because people fear repercussion. However, absolute - or normative - morals that exist regardless of culture or circumstance are obeyed because it is in the collective human species' best interests to do so. Absolute morals are inextricably interconnected with the human survival instinct. They aren't obeyed because people feel obliged to do so, or because they fear the consequences. True morality is based around the continuation of the human race. There is a reason that every recorded civilisation has some form of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. Every single one. Sure, there are exceptions to that rule, and I'm not doubting that. But the statement that morality equates to fear of consequences is wrong.

So I offer this as a definition for normative morality: normative reality is the code by which humans treat other humans in kind, and in doing so protect the advancement of humanity. Within an apocalypse, a person's normative morals do not change. Do not kill is still the default behaviour for any normal, mentally stable human. Morality is not the issue. Trust is the issue. Do I trust someone? Do they trust me? Can we trust each other? When the advancement of humanity is threatened, be it a threat to personal life or societal annihilation, morals do not apply. Why? Because the situation is beyond the reach of morality. People view morality as something by which we are bound, but it is not. Morals can be temporarily discarded when the situation calls for it. However someone's morals do not change.

NOTE: I'm going to be making a lot of assumptions in this next section.

With regards to trust being the issue, it's the perfect application of the Nash Equilibrium (NE); specifically, the 'Prisoner's Dilemma' - a key component of interactive decision making. Essentially, it says that people only make decisions after taking into account the decision they think the other party will take.

When it comes to DayZ, assume two people spot each other across a field. Let's remove running away as an option - the only choices are to fight or join forces. Also, assume there is a scale of 0 to 150, 0 being certain death, 50 being 50/50 chance at life/death, 100 being certain life for one player, and 150 being certain life for two players (this final option is because two people working together are better than one) Another assumption: Ignore factors like who shot first, is one person unarmed, etc. Everything is equal.

If both players decide to join forces, assume the outcome for both players to be 150: they work together, and both are more likely to survive when working together. And if both players decide to fight, then the outcome would be 50 for both players - assuming equal skill. One will die, and one will live.

However, where this gets tricky is if Player A wants to be friends and the Player B wants to kill, the outcome is 0 for A and 100 for B, and vice versa. So the minimum returns for a player wanting to be friendly are 0%, and the minimum returns for fighting are 50%. Despite it being in both players' best interests to join forces, the addition of trust and greed into the factors is what makes people KoS. Why should I be friendly when they could easily kill me? LOOK AT ALL THE PHANCY LEWT! It is the human case of going to the lowest common denominator: you will always have a chance of living if you fight the other player, whereas if the other player gets greedy and you're friendly, you will die.

So what I'm saying is this: morality or lack thereof is not what gets people killed, contrary to what OP said. Killing is an issue of automatically heading to the lowest common denominator due to lack of trust.

There's every chance I explained that poorly and/or it's hard to comprehend, but for the crux of it all, head to the wiki. It's a pretty interesting concept, and quite intuitive and easy to grasp.

Edited July 9, 2013 by WBK

[Trizzo 632]

why walk to the north if everything you need for survive is south?

exploration and a sense of wonder and fun outside of waiting in electro to kill the 10th respawn in a row

[wild_man 4442]

exploration and a sense of wonder and fun outside of waiting in electro to kill the 10th respawn in a row

maybe. but for me life is too quik to walk around looking for players to shoot when I can hide by the hospital in elektro and shoot 6 in 20 minutes sometimes.

[Trizzo 632]

maybe. but for me life is too quik to walk around looking for players to shoot when I can hide by the hospital in elektro and shoot 6 in 20 minutes sometimes.

yay wee pewpew i camp hospital lol :thumbsup:

Edited July 9, 2013 by Trizzo

[wild_man 4442]

LOLOLOLLOL :D :D :D

genius B)

can someone explain me how I make this sound in direct chat after I kill a player please??? pm me if you know how

Edited July 9, 2013 by KoS

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

It's a reasonably good dissertation, and it was interesting learning about the difference between descriptive and normative morality. However, I disagree with some things you say.

Morality isn't necessarily fear of consequences. I agree, societal morals (laws) are imposed, enforced and obeyed partly because people fear repercussion. However, absolute - or normative - morals that exist regardless of culture or circumstance are obeyed because it is in the collective human species' best interests to do so. Absolute morals are inextricably interconnected with the human survival instinct. They aren't obeyed because people feel obliged to do so, or because they fear the consequences. True morality is based around the continuation of the human race. There is a reason that every recorded civilisation has some form of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. Every single one. Sure, there are exceptions to that rule, and I'm not doubting that. But the statement that morality equates to fear of consequences is wrong.

So I offer this as a definition for normative morality: normative reality is the code by which humans treat other humans in kind, and in doing so protect the advancement of humanity. Within an apocalypse, a person's normative morals do not change. Do not kill is still the default behaviour for any normal, mentally stable human. Morality is not the issue. Trust is the issue. Do I trust someone? Do they trust me? Can we trust each other? When the advancement of humanity is threatened, be it a threat to personal life or societal annihilation, morals do not apply. Why? Because the situation is beyond the reach of morality. People view morality as something by which we are bound, but it is not. Morals can be temporarily discarded when the situation calls for it. However someone's morals do not change.

NOTE: I'm going to be making a lot of assumptions in this next section.

With regards to trust being the issue, it's the perfect application of the Nash Equilibrium (NE); specifically, the 'Prisoner's Dilemma' - a key component of interactive decision making. Essentially, it says that people only make decisions after taking into account the decision they think the other party will take.

When it comes to DayZ, assume two people spot each other across a field. Let's remove running away as an option - the only choices are to fight or join forces. Also, assume there is a scale of 0 to 150, 0 being certain death, 50 being 50/50 chance at life/death, 100 being certain life for one player, and 150 being certain life for two players (this final option is because two people working together are better than one) Another assumption: Ignore factors like who shot first, is one person unarmed, etc. Everything is equal.

If both players decide to join forces, assume the outcome for both players to be 150: they work together, and both are more likely to survive when working together. And if both players decide to fight, then the outcome would be 50 for both players - assuming equal skill. One will die, and one will live.

However, where this gets tricky is if Player A wants to be friends and the Player B wants to kill, the outcome is 0 for A and 100 for B, and vice versa. So the minimum returns for a player wanting to be friendly are 0%, and the minimum returns for fighting are 50%. Despite it being in both players' best interests to join forces, the addition of trust and greed into the factors is what makes people KoS. Why should I be friendly when they could easily kill me? LOOK AT ALL THE PHANCY LEWT! It is the human case of going to the lowest common denominator: you will always have a chance of living if you fight the other player, whereas if the other player gets greedy and you're friendly, you will die.

So what I'm saying is this: morality or lack thereof is not what gets people killed, contrary to what OP said. Killing is an issue of automatically heading to the lowest common denominator due to lack of trust.

I think morals in Dayz and morals in reality are very different. Again, when it comes to DayZ, what I mean by "morality" is the most accepted or most rational course of action for a given situation. Since we're talking about a video game here, it's pretty much impossible to equate DayZ morals to real morals in any tangible way. You don't feel physical pain. Death is not permanent, since you can just respawn. The continuation of the human race is not a priority here. Therefore, things like empathy and mutual survival are not factors taken into account in a player interaction. I don't feel bad when I kill another player. I feel good.

As it stands, It's just as easy, if not easier to succeed in DayZ as a loner. In my experience, the more people I have in my group, the more danger I'm actually in. There's always the chance that whoever you happen to be with will be completely incompetent. Just teaming up with one other player doubles your risk of being spotted by a bandit, or making some critical mistake (like firing his gun off in the middle of goddamn Elektro and attracting everyone in earshot). It means that you need twice as many medical supplies, food, and weapons. The only thing I can't do for myself is use a blood bag.

There is a reason that every recorded civilisation has some form of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.

Yes. Every civilization. DayZ is not simulating a "civilization" - it's simulating anarchy. There is no civilization to enforce those rules. People are not working towards "collective human survival" in this game. People are working towards individual survival, or small group survival. So when your group's goal is to survive, and you see an armed man who could - and probably will - kill you, what is the moral decision?

Neutralize the threat to your survival.

So we MUST therefore concede that killing other players is often times the moral (being the RIGHT, and rational) thing to do, in the environment of DayZ. I consider it moral to protect the players I trust, by killing the players I don't. This protects MY survival, and my group. I even admit that when other players kill me, they are making the moral decision, because there's a good chance I would do the same to them. There is no collective survival of the human race in this game. We are all more or less, in competition.

Killing is an issue of automatically heading to the lowest common denominator due to lack of trust.

I concur. Like I just said, I kill people because I don't trust them. Because trusting them is the WRONG thing to do.

Mor·al

Adjective

Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

What I'm saying is that when killing is the right choice (in the context of the situation), it is the moral choice. Why do you think it's LEGAL to kill someone in self-defense? Because it is the morally correct choice. It is a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

I agree with a lot of what you say, I just think maybe I'm not explaining properly. My definition of "moral" is context specific. It goes beyond "killing people is bad! :(" and "helping people is good! :)"

Also I have to disagree with you on one thing in particular. People's morals can change, based on their prior experiences. We constantly ask ourselves "is this the right thing to do?" = "Is this the moral thing to do?" Well, when we do the right thing, and experience an unpleasant result, (such as death due to trusting another player in DayZ) we learn that it is, in fact, the wrong thing to do. Your idea of right and wrong has changed - therefore your morality has changed.

Edited July 10, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[Vicco 123]

Hey, maybe it's time to lighten up.

[Rekli 995]

4. Meet, be wary of each other , move on.

Happened to me heaps.

No conflict and no teaming up, just a tip of the hat and move of to wherever we were both going.

maybe the occasional "there's a lee just back in that house btw"...followed by running the fuck away in case he gets any ideas

[wild_man 4442]

maybe the occasional "there's a lee just back in that house btw"...followed by running the fuck away in case he gets any ideas

I remember one time i meet a player in the shop after fresh spawn. He say to me friendly, I say 'me too' but I keep my fingers cross for no lie. B)

He ask if I see map I say no map sorry he say it's ok, there is a makarov in the back. I go straight for it and when I come back he is swapping his bag for a check pack. I shot him 3 times in the head and he is killed. B)

I am sure he never say again where there is gun to players lol :D

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

I certainly don't intend to imply that my beliefs are the only correct ones, or anything like that. I've been reading novels like The Sea Wolf, With the Old Breed, Hellhounds on his Trail, Heart of Darkness, and Crime and Punishment lately, which has prompted me to start a discussion about this interesting and infinitely nuanced subject we call "morality." I don't mean to offend anyone or discount their arguments. Thanks for all the feedback guys.

[Cap'n (DayZ) 1827]

Man, why be such a downer. Why ruin someones day or potentially yours, when you can come to Utes and hang with us. We'll eat lemon squares and sip iced tea, and watch the sunset while the brigands on the mainland club each other to death over a can of beans.

[WBK 176]

Sorry I took a while to reply to this, it's an interesting conversation and a good dissertation. I just had a couple of months off from DayZ though. When you made this argument I was trying to look at it from a real world perspective, as opposed to the DayZ perspective, so that accounts for a lot of differences in our opinion.

 

 

I think morals in Dayz and morals in reality are very different. Again, when it comes to DayZ, what I mean by "morality" is the most accepted or most rational course of action for a given situation. Since we're talking about a video game here, it's pretty much impossible to equate DayZ morals to real morals in any tangible way. You don't feel physical pain. Death is not permanent, since you can just respawn. The continuation of the human race is not a priority here. Therefore, things like empathy and mutual survival are not factors taken into account in a player interaction. I don't feel bad when I kill another player. I feel good.

 

Based around that definition of morality, I agree with pretty much everything that follows. While I agree with what you say when you make it from your POV, I can't take empathy and mutual survival out of the equation in a real world scenario. Also, continuation of the human race is ingrained in us, like it is every living species, so that is always a factor. But seeing as you were talking about it from a DayZ scenario rather than real world, I'll let that argument go haha.

 

 

As it stands, It's just as easy, if not easier to succeed in DayZ as a loner. In my experience, the more people I have in my group, the more danger I'm actually in. There's always the chance that whoever you happen to be with will be completely incompetent. Just teaming up with one other player doubles your risk of being spotted by a bandit, or making some critical mistake (like firing his gun off in the middle of goddamn Elektro and attracting everyone in earshot). It means that you need twice as many medical supplies, food, and weapons. The only thing I can't do for myself is use a blood bag.

 

Yeah no arguments here. As a lone wolf it is better to stay a lone wolf. Baggage is baggage.

 

 

There is a reason that every recorded civilisation has some form of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.

Yes. Every civilization. DayZ is not simulating a "civilization" - it's simulating anarchy. There is no civilization to enforce those rules. People are not working towards "collective human survival" in this game. People are working towards individual survival, or small group survival. So when your group's goal is to survive, and you see an armed man who could - and probably will - kill you, what is the moral decision?

 

The point I was making was that there is no coincidence that every civilisation - and by proxy every human - feels that there is something deeply wrong with killing another human. There doesn't need to be a civilisation to enforce those rules, people will not kill people without provocation. It's as simple as that. Rules get thrown out the window during an apocalypse because it is completely unlike anything experienced IRL. But morals do not. People will still feel bad for killing another person. It will take time to adjust to killing people, and the repetetive act of doing so will only numb the persons emotional response as a defense mechanism. People don't kill other people easily, and they feel horrible for doing it. That will never change. Admittedly, this is a case of a real-world argument vs. a DayZ argument but I felt that this was a large enough part of what I was saying to justify it.

 

 

So we MUST therefore concede that killing other players is often times the moral (being the RIGHT, and rational) thing to do, in the environment of DayZ. I consider it moral to protect the players I trust, by killing the players I don't. This protects MY survival, and my group. I even admit that when other players kill me, they are making the moral decision, because there's a good chance I would do the same to them. There is no collective survival of the human race in this game. We are all more or less, in competition.

 

I agree it is the right and rational thing to do because it ensures your survival, but that doesn't make it morally sound. Obviously we have slightly differing views on the definition of morality but it's where most of our disagreement lies! As far as I can tell, you define morals as 'what is the most logical thing to do in a given situation?' whereas I define it more as 'a code that humans live by'. Your way defines morals as absolute and unbreakable. Mine allows for morals to be broken in terms of behaviour, but someone will kill someone and still feel bad, because their morals tell them it's wrong. It's a wonky argument but I hope it's clear enough :)

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

I agree it is the right and rational thing to do because it ensures your survival, but that doesn't make it morally sound. Obviously we have slightly differing views on the definition of morality but it's where most of our disagreement lies! As far as I can tell, you define morals as 'what is the most logical thing to do in a given situation?' whereas I define it more as 'a code that humans live by'. Your way defines morals as absolute and unbreakable. Mine allows for morals to be broken in terms of behaviour, but someone will kill someone and still feel bad, because their morals tell them it's wrong. It's a wonky argument but I hope it's clear enough :)

 

Well I only need mention a fellow like Jeffrey Dahmer, or H.H. Holmes, Albert Fish, Andrei Chikatilo, or John Haigh, or Ted Bundy, to find someone who would not fit into the model of "people will not kill without provocation." They knew other people thought it was wrong, but they clearly didn't agree or didn't care either way.

 

But otherwise, what you say is mostly true. I would personally find murder reprehensible. It would take time, serious motivation, and repetition for me as a human being to get used to killing other people. It has in DayZ. Why? Because I think it's basically wrong, but in certain context, it can be right. Not that it is morally correct, but that it is the correct or necessary course of action in that context. Consider this; why is it acceptable to kill cattle in the millions for human consumption? Some people would argue that it is immoral towards the animal; others would argue that it is moral to the human race. So what is "moral?"

 

I am simply defining "moral" as "the difference between right and wrong." My point is that an individual's definition of "right" and "wrong" behavior can change, or be alternate to your own. If you look at morality as a code of "right and wrong" conduct (which people live by), then that would indicate that their view of morality can change. In DayZ, you could say "it's wrong to kill other players." But often times the context of the situation has changed the individuals opinion to to the inverse. My version of morality is exactly the opposite unbreakable or absolute. My definition of morality allows for morals to change in terms of context and experience, and also for morality to be an individualized construct which is actually dependent on integrity.

 

"A code that humans live by-" Precisely. If I live by a moral code of conduct that allows me to kill people in certain situations (like for self-defense), then clearly my morality - the code that I live by - has adapted to that context. Just because I feel bad about it doesn't change the fact that I did it. But that's a strictly semantic argument, and it really only applies to DayZ, because DayZ is a congruent situation.

 

What I'm basically trying to say is that as players we all live by two divergent moral codes - real-life morality, and DayZ morality.

Edited October 5, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[Etherimp 1323]

 

These suggestions are all rooted in one rule: morality. Now, in our every day reality, we have to follow rules. We have to be "moral" citizens, because (most of us) live in a large, populated society with easy access to food and medicine. Our society imposes laws based on ethics. I think most people like to believe that there is some sort of "universal ethos" that governs us all. These people would contend that actions like killing, or stealing, are inherently wrong, regardless of the presence of society.

 

You think it's the large, populated cultures with easy access to food and medicine that act the most morally? There's empirical evidence to show otherwise. Small tribes of people between 80-150 population tend to have virtually zero crime and are mostly violence free. Large populated cultures tend to be more violent, as it's easier to be anonymous and easier to become emotionally disconnected from your peers. In a tribe/group of 150 people who all know one another, one person can't kill another without knowing them rather intimately, which would (in non-sociopaths) cause a deep emotional reaction. This emotional reaction to taking the life of someone you know and rely upon for your own survival is indication enough that human beings inherently know the difference between "right" and "wrong". It's not a religious issue, or a legal issue. It's called "Humanity" for a reason. Humans are mammals and mammals are creatures with feelings/emotions.

 

Well guess what moaners - there isn't. How can I say this so certainly? Because human beings are NOT automatically punished for doing amoral things. This alone proves that morality is a social construct. Consider a hypothetical situation where there are only two men. Only two. One day, one of the men kills the other. The reason is unimportant, because the fact remains that nobody, and nothing, can punish that killer for what he has done. "God" isn't going to strike him down with lightning. He isn't going to suddenly "lose his mind" and start talking to himself and running around uncontrollably. In fact, there's a good chance that he may not even feel bad about what he did.

 

Let's take your scenario where there's only 2 men.. And now place them in a survival situation. If you, 1 man, kill your "friend" in this survival situation, you have literally cut the odds of your own survival in half. That's punishment enough. See, the problem with people like you is not that you are immoral or "wrong". It's that you're short sighted and stupid.

 

Yeah, you may gain a weapon or two, or some night vision goggles, or a better back-pack, or a vehicle, or WHATEVER.. But in the long run, you have lost another set of eyes, another set of hands, and overall a resource which simply doesn't respawn every 15 minutes at hundreds of locations around the map: A FRIEND. Someone who you can trust to cover your ass.

 

So, yes, you ARE punished. You punish yourself.

 

The apocalypse is the specified condition. We are the rational persons. Therefore, we put forward a very simple code of conduct: neutralize any threat to our own existence. This is the only moral action we can take, since any rational being would do the exact same thing. When we encounter another player in DayZ, a very simple piece of arithmetic takes place. Only a few things can actually happen.

1: he kills me for my stuff. And he lives. Pretty problematic for my character.

2: I kill him for his stuff. And I live. Problematic for his character.

3: We team up and shit rainbows together.

According to the NOOBS, 3 is the only moral option. HOWEVER, it's a little problematic, since it only works if both players are observing the same moral code. The one who disobeys morality first is instantly the winner, since that person gets to keep all the loot.

 

What do you win, exactly? You've preemptively killed someone who may in the long run kill you, and.. what? You got their gear and lost a potential friend and teammate? 

 

 

Backpacks, guns, vehicles, tents, and everything else can all be replaced in a few hours. I can fully gear my character rather quickly. How quickly can you earn the trust of a friend? That takes days, and sometimes weeks. In the long run, it's more beneficial for both parties to be trustworthy and treat one another with respect so that you may double your effectiveness.

 

That said, I agree that the game should not arbitrarily punish people for being assholes. You punish yourselves badly enough.

[Cap'n (DayZ) 1827]

Damn, how did this creep back from the dead. Ah, nostalgia. It was a time when people thought k0s was just a simple troll... Ah, how we've changed.

[Bludy 324]

videogames have no morality..or at least it's different from the person's one..take gta..since i'm like 10y i'm killing people ingame..

 

in games you have only roles.