A light dissertation on Morality in DayZ

[broguenz 333]

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.

 

 

Now I don't think anyone wants to feel responsible if he stroll over the reality / fantasy line one day and go KoS styles on society just because someones on the Interwebs said he was a full of shit troll.

 

Not that he would.. he seems like a lovely young man...

 

hehe

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

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.

 

Lol, I dunno. WBK replied.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

First of all, I would just like to point out that this is not generally my personal modus operandi in-game. I typically don't go around killing other players. I attempt to be as friendly as possible, but more often than not other players kill me when I give them too much trust. That's the major flaw in your argument. You're making the assumption that having another person with you is always good. What if you try to be friends with someone and they kill you? Or they tend to attract lots of zombies or other players by doing stupid things? What if they put you in jeopardy? 

 

For the mot part, I agree with you. In terms of reality, I agree with you, because in reality humans experience pain, hunger, hot, cold, and other physical limitations which necessitate teamwork. Killing other potential friendlies is it's own consequence, in real life. However, I think currently characters are simply not valuable enough in terms of cooperative gameplay. Unfortunately, the reality of this game is that having another person with you is generally more of a liability than a benefit. I'm simply pointing out that morality applies differently to games (especially this one) than it does to real life, so clearly the game needs to provide less motivations to kill other players and more motivations to work together. Nobody should be "punished" for pvp. The punishment should be the absence of that other human being. But as of right now, that absence is not very debilitating. In fact, I survive the longest as a lone wolf. That in itself tells you something about the gameplay dynamics currently at work in DayZ.

[Jex 1104]

The term “morality” can be used either

• descriptively, to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
  • some other group, such as a religion, or
  • accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
• normatively, to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

I've seen users on this forum beat the same dead fucking horse for over a year. Our suggestion section, and especially this section of the forum, are completely overrun with posts complaining about the Kill on Sight "problem." A common suggestion that I see on almost a daily basis is to make lone wolf players or bandits "go insane" and see hallucinations, lose control of their mouse and keyboard, or talk to themselves, or any other trash they can think of. I've EVEN seen players suggest that there should be moral ramifications for killing non-agro zombies.

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.

 

 

I stopped reading after this once I realised what a complete load of bollocks you just spouted. Obviously the scientific method is lost on you, I would say mathematics as well as that is the domain of "proofs".

 

There's also evolutionary evidence for morality (do you want me to go find some peer reviewed papers for you? :rolleyes: ) aside from the blatant fact that we got here didn't we? We are a more moral and enlightened society than we were 500 years ago, a 1000 years ago, etc.

 

This "might" have something to do with the fact that we're social animals and can work out the difference between something that is bad for us over something that is better. It's quite possible your failure to see this means you're one of "those" people.

 

Your lack of psychology skills is written all over that last paragraph. So we have two people left in the world and one man kills another - how many times have we seen how mad a person can go with no human interaction. Tom Hanks' movie "castaway" portrays this rather well.

 

People KOS because it's fun - because we're playing a game and it has nothing to do with how the human race works or survives, that would be anthropology. People also kos because they get pissed off when they're KOS'd all the time. Some people are just dicks, others are scared of losing their gear. It's certainly got nothing to do with your rather educationally challenged opinion above ;)

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

I stopped reading after this once I realised what a complete load of bollocks you just spouted. Obviously the scientific method is lost on you, I would say mathematics as well as that is the domain of "proofs".

 

There's also evolutionary evidence for morality (do you want me to go find some peer reviewed papers for you? :rolleyes: ) aside from the blatant fact that we got here didn't we? We are a more moral and enlightened society than we were 500 years ago, a 1000 years ago, etc.

 

This "might" have something to do with the fact that we're social animals and can work out the difference between something that is bad for us over something that is better. It's quite possible your failure to see this means you're one of "those" people.

 

Your lack of psychology skills is written all over that last paragraph. So we have two people left in the world and one man kills another - how many times have we seen how mad a person can go with no human interaction. Tom Hanks' movie "castaway" portrays this rather well.

 

People KOS because it's fun - because we're playing a game and it has nothing to do with how the human race works or survives, that would be anthropology. People also kos because they get pissed off when they're KOS'd all the time. Some people are just dicks, others are scared of losing their gear. It's certainly got nothing to do with your rather educationally challenged opinion above ;)

 

Okay I don't know what it is that makes you want to try to "disprove" me. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about because if you would have read my posts you would realize that I recognize the expansion of human understanding and that morality is a flexible, changing concept. I even argue for an evolutionary view of morality. I'm talking about two distinctly seperate moral codes. The way we behave in games does tell us something about human nature. Clearly once the rules of death, pain, and physical experience are removed, people "KoS because it's fun." That's exactly my point. We behave divergently in a video game than we would in real life. You're arguing the exact same point I am. I'm talking about morality within the construct of a video game. Not in real life.

 

I would say the scientific method is in fact lost on you. The scientific method is an open-minded way of producing theories and ideas based on observation and evidence, and then testing those theories through experimentation. Just because I have a theory based on the evidence that I have observed, does not mean that I don't understand the scientific method. In fact, it proves quite the opposite. Obviously you are just producing straw man arguments and trying to defeat them to prove your idiotic little ad hominem attack. If you really understood what I was saying, then you would realize that we're actually in agreement and you are just a fucking troll. There's nothing scientific about the droll you just posted.  ;)

 

For example, you use a fictional film as evidence that all human beings "need" social interaction or else they'll "go insane like Tom Hanks in Cast Away." Yet I can google names and biographies of literally thousands of ruthless psychopaths who committed horrible streaks of murders; given the same situation, they would just beat any companion they had over the head for their meat. Your anecdote "proves" nothing. 

Edited October 7, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[broguenz 333]

 

 

For the mot part, I agree with you. In terms of reality, I agree with you, because in reality humans experience pain, hunger, hot, cold, and other physical limitations which necessitate teamwork. Killing other potential friendlies is it's own consequence, in real life. However, I think currently characters are simply not valuable enough in terms of cooperative gameplay. Unfortunately, the reality of this game is that having another person with you is generally more of a liability than a benefit. 

 

Agree. New players are a lot more willing or wanting to team up with someone, but as you say, it places you in a vulnerable state either because they attract unwanted attention, have a different idea about they interact with other players and different goals in 'life'.

 

As in life, you meet friendly people everyday but only a few will be compatible with your personality and in the game world  your play style. 

 

I seek to meet others much like myself, lone wolves who happen to cross paths occasionally either intentionally for medical purposes or just random encounters. Its a passive engagement then both us make ourselves scarce afterward.

I don't feel the need to be surrounded by people in game, or in life for that matter so I guess its no surprise that the people I get along best with are the same.

I find that amusing sometimes. Making friends with people who don't need friends.

[mercules 1290]

There is a reason why after shooting someone a police officer is required to be evaluated for fitness for duty. Killing another human being is often a traumatic experience. War veterans, police, and others who encounter trauma, and I am not talking about being shot at but being forced to shoot others often experience PTSD. 

There is an underlying human morality that goes beyond the definition above and societal norms. Biologically we come from primate social groups where a family of primates would band together for mutual protection. It is bred into us to group up in social clumps and protect those that are close to us. From there we moved to a situation that would more readily promote smaller groups. We moved out of the protection of the trees to what was likely a hunting situation where pair bonding was more likely than larger families. Where partners and their juvenile children might form a small group. Still a social group where we protect the members form outsiders.

 

In video games you find the same thing. Many players seek to belong to a social group within the game, Clans/Guilds. 

On top of that we are genetically programed to aid others of our species, and this is where the PTSD comes from for those that shoot others in the line of duty.

During war time the military specifically works to dehumanize the enemy soldiers. This is why they often have nicknames for enemy soldiers that lets you lump them all together; "Charlie", "Gerry", "Japs" and such; or derogatory names, "Towelhead", "Chink", "Commies", and such. They do not want you to identify with the enemy because if you suddenly come to realize that your situation is more or less mirrored on the other side with only minor philosophical or political differences that really only matter further up the chain of command you might hesitate to shoot. As long as your opponent seems distant from you and you fail to identify with them you can shoot them freely without any morality kicking in and causing you stress.

 

For a soldier to shoot you need to make it "Us" and "Them" and keep anything they have in common to a minimum but that also leads to atrocities again the opposing forces because when the other side is not human many people don't care what happens to them. This is what happens in games. You do not empathize with your opponents in the game because they are not a person but a game object/construct and they get to come right back into it. You don't empathise with the time and effort someone put into making it up to the NWAF. 

This is why "easy" game play makes people shoot other players more. When you struggle and then come to the enlightened realization that the other player also struggled to get there, you empathise with them and occasionally will hold off on shooting. Of course if there is no real struggle then there will never be that connection. This is where personalities and such separate because there is a subset of humanity that will empathise with how hard the other player had it and giggle as they pull the trigger and realize they just undid all that hard work. 

 

------------------------------

Okay, outside all that the game really doesn't reward you for grouping up. Were this situation more real it would because having multiple people means some can sleep while others keep watch. It means if you are hurt someone can help you get back into functional condition. Multiple people, while having more mouths to feed, can employ tactics that make gathering/hunting food more effective. Mutual defense is also a huge thing. Yes, the game doesn't capture them... yet. Lets hope someday it can capture some of this and make grouping up more rewarding. 

[mercules 1290]

 

I find that amusing sometimes. Making friends with people who don't need friends.

 

 

What is funny is that I am an INTP according to the Meyer's Briggs which means I really don't need others for socialization. At the same time I am very unlikely to just shoot other players "for fun" despite not wanting to interact with them in any way. ;)

[mercules 1290]

 That's exactly my point. We behave divergently in a video game than we would in real life. You're arguing the exact same point I am. I'm talking about morality within the construct of a video game. Not in real life.

 

They are related. You can't really play the video game without being alive and experiencing life. 

In the video game it isn't the lack of punishment that drives the KOS mentality. In fact punishment very often doesn't stop people who kill outside the game, if it did there would be fewer prisons. What does cause KOS is lack of empathy or connection with those other players. We look at them as another game obstacle and not people who are experiencing the same things we are. We have a level of disconnection with them because of the filters of the game and we no longer associate their struggle with our own. This is why a more difficult game might just bring some people around to less KOS mentality, they might come to realize that the other player struggled like they did to get where they are. 

[Jex 1104]

Okay I don't know what it is that makes you want to try to "disprove" me. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about because if you would have read my posts you would realize that I recognize the expansion of human understanding and that morality is a flexible, changing concept. I even argue for an evolutionary view of morality. I'm talking about two distinctly seperate moral codes. The way we behave in games does tell us something about human nature. Clearly once the rules of death, pain, and physical experience are removed, people "KoS because it's fun." That's exactly my point. We behave divergently in a video game than we would in real life. You're arguing the exact same point I am. I'm talking about morality within the construct of a video game. Not in real life.

 

I would say the scientific method is in fact lost on you. The scientific method is an open-minded way of producing theories and ideas based on observation and evidence, and then testing those theories through experimentation. Just because I have a theory based on the evidence that I have observed, does not mean that I don't understand the scientific method. In fact, it proves quite the opposite. Obviously you are just producing straw man arguments and trying to defeat them to prove your idiotic little ad hominem attack. If you really understood what I was saying, then you would realize that we're actually in agreement and you are just a fucking troll. There's nothing scientific about the droll you just posted.  ;)

 

For example, you use a fictional film as evidence that all human beings "need" social interaction or else they'll "go insane like Tom Hanks in Cast Away." Yet I can google names and biographies of literally thousands of ruthless psychopaths who committed horrible streaks of murders; given the same situation, they would just beat any companion they had over the head for their meat. Your anecdote "proves" nothing. 

 

Science "proves" nothing, you keep using the word...everything in the paragraphs I posted was utter tosh so I stopped reading. It wasn't an anecdote either , jeeze do I have to educate you on terminology - it was an example to illustrate a point. You counter with nutjobs - rare personalities in human nature which, if it was the dominant personality it's unlikely we'd be here to talk about it.

 

So I say how being on your own can cause you to go mad, I give a tom hanks film that's well known as an example so people can picture the point i'm making and then you turn around and say, "Aah but I can take a couple of psycho's that are rare, so not a good basis to go on in the first place, and "prove" your argument wrong."

 

You're talking utter rubbish and you still fail to understand there's no "proofs" in science. Go look it up.

 

Just because I have a theory based on the evidence that I have observed, does not mean that I don't understand the scientific method.

 

LMAO!!! Oh yes I'm sure your laboratory experiment is entirely scientific. I can't wait to see your paper on it and no doubt, I'll be there when you receive your nobel prize.

 

BTW folks, that is NOT the way to conduct science. You don't start with a conclusion and then find the facts to fit it. Also, a theory in scientific terms means a body of evidence, not a hunch you have. Your also mistaking a few encounters you've had as "evidence" whilst ignoring your obvious bias. Where's your data? Where's the notes you've made on every encounter that you've based this "theory" of yours on. Where's your test data? Sorry but I'm not going to let you get away with staining the meaning of science with this nonsense and fitting "theory", "observed" and "evidence" into a sentence to try and show that you think you know the meaning of the scientific method doesn't cut it either.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Jexter

[Jex 1104]

They are related. You can't really play the video game without being alive and experiencing life. 

In the video game it isn't the lack of punishment that drives the KOS mentality. In fact punishment very often doesn't stop people who kill outside the game, if it did there would be fewer prisons. What does cause KOS is lack of empathy or connection with those other players. We look at them as another game obstacle and not people who are experiencing the same things we are. We have a level of disconnection with them because of the filters of the game and we no longer associate their struggle with our own. This is why a more difficult game might just bring some people around to less KOS mentality, they might come to realize that the other player struggled like they did to get where they are. 

 

Yes this I think has some merit, more struggle means there's a chance people would cooperate more but... without conflict in a game there's no fun. AI only go so far and AI don't make your adrenaline rush - only another player does that and that on it's own can be addicting. I would guess it's the same argument "why do people cheat", "why do people KOS" - I can actually understand KOS mentality, but not cheating. If dayz right now had no pvp, I wouldn't play it at all. I don't generally KOS - to me shooting a guy climbing up a ladder as a fresh spawn isn't rewarding at all. I did it the other day at Bolota. I didn't have to kill him but having been killed a few times by KOS over the space of an hour, I let my frustration get the better of me and thought "fuck it"

 

I however am not the issue. My KOS stats are trivial. On the whole I let people go passed me, especially fresh spawns. Only difference is at NWAF - maybe stary - some places are just too dangerous and you go there knowing you'll be KOS'd so it's fair game in my book.

 

Killing that guy on the ladder was pointless. Even if he was a complete KOS dick I wouldn't know it and what difference would it make anyway. Personally, I want a firefight. Shooting a guy in the back over getting into a good gun battle there's no comparison

[Ozelot (DayZ) 394]

Basically, anything you think about morality in this game is bullshit because it's all subjective.

 

One thing right to one person, is wrong to another and vice versa.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

BTW folks, that is NOT the way to conduct science. You don't start with a conclusion and then find the facts to fit it.

 

I did exactly the opposite. You're arguing against yourself. I never claimed to be "doing science." What, and you do have a lab? As if you're better than me? Fuck off troll. You aren't providing constructively to this discussion. You don't have any real data to back up your claims, either. You used a film to make a blanket statement about human nature, that's called starting with a conclusion and then finding evidence to fit it. Then I point out obvious exceptions to your conclusion, and you call me "unscientific." Good job contradicting yourself at every turn. My view of morality allows for exceptions, which is why I'll be keeping my view, thanks.

 

 

They are related. You can't really play the video game without being alive and experiencing life. 

In the video game it isn't the lack of punishment that drives the KOS mentality. In fact punishment very often doesn't stop people who kill outside the game, if it did there would be fewer prisons. What does cause KOS is lack of empathy or connection with those other players. We look at them as another game obstacle and not people who are experiencing the same things we are. We have a level of disconnection with them because of the filters of the game and we no longer associate their struggle with our own. This is why a more difficult game might just bring some people around to less KOS mentality, they might come to realize that the other player struggled like they did to get where they are. 

 

 

I acknowledge that they are related. "punishment very often doesn't stop people who kill outside the game, if it did there would be fewer prisons"  Of course it doesn't stop them, but the fact that prisons exist are proof that morality is a socially constructed and enforced concept, which people can choose to not follow. You must admit, social pressure (law) probably does prevent some people from killing. I'm not saying that human beings are constant killing machines. However, people do get angry. Some people, if it weren't for the presence of society and punishment, would murder. Out of anger, greed, jealousy, fear. All I'm saying is that human beings have the capacity, as you so eloquently pointed out. A lot of people find this hard to swallow, because it is a reflection of themselves and others that they don't want to admit to. If we were suddenly thrown into an apocalyptic situation like DayZ, we would behave differently than we do now. We might do things that we would normally consider "wrong."

 

I also acknowledge that players kill other players out of a lack of empathy, due to necessity. I also agree that making the game more difficult would help reduce KoS, by encouraging team work. That's actually one of the major points of this thread, but people got sort of hung up on the morality argument...

 

"A game without conflict would be no fun." Exactly. So make the environment provide more of that conflict, so the players don't have to constantly create it themselves.

 

 

Basically, anything you think about morality in this game is bullshit because it's all subjective.

 

One thing right to one person, is wrong to another and vice versa.

 

 

You know, Ozelot. I agree with a lot of people. I'm simply stating my ideas. If you want to debate me, or add to the discussion, that is your prerogative. If not, then why are you posting in this thread? This is just how advanced apes (humans) worry when we learn to worry with words. Shooting down debate simply because "it's subjective" is not constructive.

Edited October 7, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[mercules 1290]

Basically, anything you think about morality in this game is bullshit because it's all subjective.

 

One thing right to one person, is wrong to another and vice versa.

 

Morality is not subjective. For more information please take a college level Ethics class. ;)

[mercules 1290]

 All I'm saying is that human beings have the capacity, as you so eloquently pointed out. A lot of people find this hard to swallow, because it is a reflection of themselves and others that they don't want to admit to. If we were suddenly thrown into an apocalyptic situation like DayZ, we would behave differently than we do now. We might do things that we would normally consider "wrong."

 

I also acknowledge that players kill other players out of a lack of empathy, due to necessity. I also agree that making the game more difficult would help reduce KoS, by encouraging team work. That's actually one of the major points of this thread, but people got sort of hung up on the morality argument...

 

"A game without conflict would be no fun." Exactly. So make the environment provide more of that conflict, so the players don't have to constantly create it themselves.

 

 

As a NORM people do not kill other people. In a video game where people kill others for fun it could be considered a norm but we are attempting to create some form of simulation of a zombie apocalypse so it would be good if the game offered some sort of reason or reward for not shooting others. I doubt I would behave any differently than I currently do if dropped into a DayZ reality except be extremely careful. I would probably shoot a zombie chasing another player or shoot someone I just saw murder someone else. I probably wouldn't shoot a random person I saw but would move away from them. 

[Ozelot (DayZ) 394]

Morality is not subjective. For more information please take a college level Ethics class. ;)

Morality is based on opinion, not fact. I doubt you've taken any college classes at all. I have a 3.9 GPA at a private Chicago university.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

As a NORM people do not kill other people. In a video game where people kill others for fun it could be considered a norm but we are attempting to create some form of simulation of a zombie apocalypse so it would be good if the game offered some sort of reason or reward for not shooting others. I doubt I would behave any differently than I currently do if dropped into a DayZ reality except be extremely careful. I would probably shoot a zombie chasing another player or shoot someone I just saw murder someone else. I probably wouldn't shoot a random person I saw but would move away from them. 

 

I can't argue about norms in DayZ. I try my best not to murder, but in my experience, the "norm" is that other players try to kill me and I am forced to defend myself. I think cooperation should be rewarded with safety and capability. The more people you have, the more you can accomplish (this is true in life). I think that's the most elegant way to go about it in DayZ. Undoubtedly, groups of people will fight each other, probably for resources or territory. To me, that is the most authentic gameplay balance DayZ should try to strike; possible to survive on your own, but capable of doing so much more with the cooperation of others. Right now it seems to me that the game simply needs more map content, team oriented objectives, a more dangerous environment, non-lethal methods of subduing opponents, ect. All that content and gameplay functionality will undoubtedly affect the way we behave in the game.

 

 

Morality is based on opinion, not fact. I doubt you've taken any college classes at all. I have a 3.9 GPA at a private Chicago university.

 

 

Let's not get into objective vs subjective morality right now. That kind of argument makes my head hurt... You start having to talk about God, and it's all downhill from there.

 

For the record I agree that morality is subjective. However, I think certain moral codes of conduct are highly logical, which means they become highly accepted, and then people call them "objective." Because humans are generally emphatic beings, we tend to try to align our morals with people around us, and so the assumption is that everyone accepts these "objective" moral codes.

Edited October 7, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[mercules 1290]

Morality is based on opinion, not fact. I doubt you've taken any college classes at all. I have a 3.9 GPA at a private Chicago university.

 

Kant approachs Morality from the Categorical Imperative which I think is one of the better models of thought on the subject. Summing the ideas up in my own words he believes that morality is and should be based off of logical reasoning. Since such a thing is not subjective neither is morality.

 

 

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.

In other words for something to be moral it needs to apply to all and everything. It needs to specifically not be subjective or determined by events or individuals. 

 

 

Look, I am talking to a customer on the phone right now and covering philosophy right now is not going to be possible while I am talking to them. Just go read, "The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" and "The Critique of Practical Reason". I have recently started rereading the later and have found that college was so long ago that I have forgotten a good deal of the concepts that were common knowledge for myself back then, some of which are necessary to understand Kant. I'm finding it a fascinating refresher.

Now, if you want a GPA or degree you won't find that I have one. I took college courses to learn... not for a GPA. I didn't put together courses to build a degree so I don't have one. Instead I took courses that were of intellectual interest to me and continued on interesting subjects long after I left college. A GPA doesn't build a well rounded or thoughtful individual.

[Ozelot (DayZ) 394]

Kant approachs Morality from the Categorical Imperative which I think is one of the better models of thought on the subject. Summing the ideas up in my own words he believes that morality is and should be based off of logical reasoning. Since such a thing is not subjective neither is morality.

 

In other words for something to be moral it needs to apply to all and everything. It needs to specifically not be subjective or determined by events or individuals. 

 

 

Look, I am talking to a customer on the phone right now and covering philosophy right now is not going to be possible while I am talking to them. Just go read, "The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" and "The Critique of Practical Reason". I have recently started rereading the later and have found that college was so long ago that I have forgotten a good deal of the concepts that were common knowledge for myself back then, some of which are necessary to understand Kant. I'm finding it a fascinating refresher.

Now, if you want a GPA or degree you won't find that I have one. I took college courses to learn... not for a GPA. I didn't put together courses to build a degree so I don't have one. Instead I took courses that were of intellectual interest to me and continued on interesting subjects long after I left college. A GPA doesn't build a well rounded or thoughtful individual.

You speak as if logic always gives a direct, infallable, objective answer. As if someone like you could have all the answers.

 

In fact, morality cannot be defined with logic alone, and rarely is. Unless you ACTUALLY believe something like the bible or the koran is 'logical.'

[mercules 1290]

You speak as if logic always gives a direct, infallable, objective answer. As if someone like you could have all the answers.

 

In fact, morality cannot be defined with logic alone, and rarely is. Unless you ACTUALLY believe something like the bible or the koran is 'logical

 

Logic is fallible. For one thing we might not have enough evidence to come to a valid conclusion. However it is still the right basis for morality.

I don't understand your second point. Oh.. you think morality comes from a book of allegorical morality anecdotes that has been heavily edited and incorrectly translated over the years and has no bearing on modern forms of thought? Those are prime examples of why morality should and can not be subjective. "It's okay for members of religion X to kill, it says so in their holy works."  <_<

[Ozelot (DayZ) 394]

Logic is fallible. For one thing we might not have enough evidence to come to a valid conclusion. However it is still the right basis for morality.

I don't understand your second point. Oh.. you think morality comes from a book of allegorical morality anecdotes that has been heavily edited and incorrectly translated over the years and has no bearing on modern forms of thought? Those are prime examples of why morality should and can not be subjective. "It's okay for members of religion X to kill, it says so in their holy works."  <_<

The point is that morality has traditionally been derived from such sources. The bible and texts like it, are in fact treatises on morality.

 

Morality IS subjective and has varied between time and place. Hitler thought it was moral and just to commit genocide and prevent racial mixing. Was he wrong? From a moral perspective he was to everyone OUTSIDE his regime. But the people on the inside...

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Logic is fallible. For one thing we might not have enough evidence to come to a valid conclusion. However it is still the right basis for morality.

I don't understand your second point. Oh.. you think morality comes from a book of allegorical morality anecdotes that has been heavily edited and incorrectly translated over the years and has no bearing on modern forms of thought? Those are prime examples of why morality should and can not be subjective. "It's okay for members of religion X to kill, it says so in their holy works."  <_<

 

Actually one could argue that your point about religion demonstrates morality is subjective, because those documents claimed to be morally educational documents of the time. We can use our "reason" today to look at those documents and say "well actually what character a or b of the bible or the Qu'ran did here is actually not moral." Well then that means that the common morality of the day has advanced.

 

Let me just ask you this. Who was the first person who told you that killing was wrong? Your mother. Why does it make sense for a mother to tell her offspring not to kill other people? Because violence begets violence - so it makes sense to be non-aggressive so that other members of your family and tribe will be non-aggressive towards you. That's logical. However, as you said, logic is fallible. Sometimes it is necessary and even acceptable to kill another human being, in certain contexts. If we look at morality as an extension of logic and reasoning, and we concede that logic is fallible (indicating that it is influenced by subjective thought and human error), then we must concede that morality is fallible and also subject to human error.

 

Assuming you are like most people, you have never murdered anyone. So how can you know that it's a bad thing to do? You have no practical empirical evidence to form that conclusion. Same reason you don't jump off a building - because common knowledge (a.k.a your mother), and logic, tell you not to. Since other people have murdered in the past, we can learn from that experience and pass it down via oral and written communication to future generations. It is possible to not know what you are missing. Human understanding has increased over time. We used to be unaware that the world was round, or that matter was composed of super-tiny particles. We used to not know how humans came into existence. It stands to reason that our values have changed as our understanding of the world has increased.

Edited October 7, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[mercules 1290]

The point is that morality has traditionally been derived from such sources. The bible and texts like it, are in fact treatises on morality.

 

Morality IS subjective and has varied between time and place. Hitler thought it was moral and just to commit genocide and prevent racial mixing. Was he wrong? From a moral perspective he was to everyone OUTSIDE his regime. But the people on the inside...

 

... were still morally wrong. Why do you think the Nazi regime specifically dehumanized the Jewish people? It was because they understood that any empathy towards them would force the people under their rule to morally object to what was being done to them. Part of Kant's universalism is the very simple concept of, "Would I want this done to me?" If the answer is no, then you probably shouldn't be doing it to others. That is Categorical Imperative broken down into layman's understanding level. 

 

Religous texts and well oral traditions were not specifically treatises on morality but more so instructional manuals on how to live your life if you wanted to belong to that social structure. There is NOTHING immoral about shaving your beard but the old testament forbids it.

 

 

True morality is not subjective.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

... were still morally wrong. Why do you think the Nazi regime specifically dehumanized the Jewish people? It was because they understood that any empathy towards them would force the people under their rule to morally object to what was being done to them. Part of Kant's universalism is the very simple concept of, "Would I want this done to me?" If the answer is no, then you probably shouldn't be doing it to others.

 

 

Matthew 7:12. In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

 

Luke 6:31. Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.

 

"If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye." - The Code of Hammurabi (dramatically predates the Bible)

 

 

These ideas pre-date the ones you are sourcing, and they were around even before that. The point is that this is a very simple, logical conclusion that most human beings agree with, and yet continue to break. So either all human beings are all hypocrites, or capital punishment for murderers and child rapists is objectively justifiable. You can't have it both ways. Those are the logical problems presented by an objective view of morality.

 

Subjective morality, on the other hand, allows for contextual exceptions and alterations over time to moral codes. You can clearly see which view fits reality. People learn morals from other people. That is one of the main pillars of society. It's logical to cooperate with your fellow man most of the time. But sometimes context creates moral exceptions and dilemmas. That's because we are constantly learning and there is no "one moral truth." The right or wrong decision in any given situation depend on the deeper context and realistic implications of your actions.

 

 

 

 

 

On another note, I think we have a major semantic issue when it comes to "objective" and "subjective." We can "objective" it to talk about the way we are thinking(without emotion or personal bias), but we also tend to use it in a way that has come to mean "exists on it's own."

 

Morals are the product of both objective and subjective thought. They are driven by both logic and emotion. However, they do not exist without consciousness. You cannot have moral law in the absence of intelligent consciousness. Asteroids don't avoid planets because hitting them would be "wrong." Since morality takes place in the mind of a conscious being, then it is a subjective construct. It is "taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world." (taken from the free dictionary) Another issue with the idea of a perpetually existent moral code is that it doesn't leave room for amorality. You constantly are wondering "is this moral" or "is this immoral," when really there's no such thing. For example, is eating a hamburger "moral?"

 

Well to a vegetarian, they would say it is immoral (against their morals). But many other people would disagree. The reality that eating a hamburger is amoral until you as a conscious being associate a value judgement to it and examine cause and effect. The act of eating a burger itself could never be logically immoral to most human beings. Even if it means a cow died at some point, you didn't personally kill the cow, so the action itself has no moral value whatsoever. This means that the morality of that action does not objectively exist on it's own - it only exists within the conscious mind.

Edited October 7, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[mercules 1290]

Actually one could argue that religion proves morality is subjective, because those documents claimed to be morally educational documents of the time. We can use our "reason" today to look at those documents and say "well actually what character a or b of the bible or the Qu'ran did here is actually not moral." Well then that means that the common morality of the day has advanced.

 

Let me just ask you this. Who was the first person who told you that killing was wrong? Your mother. Why does it make sense for a mother to tell her offspring not to kill other people? Because violence begets violence - so it makes sense to be non-aggressive so that other members of your family and tribe will be non-aggressive towards you. That's logical. However, as you said, logic is fallible. Sometimes it is necessary and even acceptable to kill another human being, in certain contexts. If we look at morality as an extension of logic and reasoning, and we concede that logic is fallible (indicating that it is influenced by subjective thought and human error), then we must concede that morality is fallible and also subject to human error.

 

Assuming you are like most people, you have never murdered anyone. So how can you know that it's a bad thing to do? You have no practical empirical evidence to form that conclusion. Same reason you don't jump off a building - because common knowledge (a.k.a your mother), and logic, tell you not to. Since other people have murdered in the past, we can learn from that experience and pass it down via oral and written communication to future generations. It is possible to not know what you are missing. Human understanding has increased over time. We used to be unaware that the world was round, that matter was composed of super-tiny particles. We used to not know how humans came into existence. It stands to reason that our values have changed as our understanding of the world has increased.

 

You can't know, but bringing my mother into any discussion and stating I learned morals from her is a laughable concept. It may apply that most people learn their initial concepts of morality from their primary caregiver or society in general but that is not true morality. That falls under the category of Social Mores or Taboos.

Morality is not subjective.

 

The circumstances around the killing of one person by another are not relevant to the discussion of, "Is killing morally right or wrong?" It is wrong. That doesn't mean I should not defend myself if attacked. If attacked by someone with the intent to kill me they have already tossed morality aside. I am not morally bound to allow them to end my life by being a pacifist. In fact that in itself would be immoral as by not preventing them from taking my life and am allowing them to kill another. Instead I should do what is necessary, and only what is necessary to prevent them from taking another human life. It would not mean that had I stopped them from killing me by knocking them unconscious I should kill them to be certain they can not kill me. In fact the moral choice is to prudently render first aid to them in such a manner that neither myself nor anyone else is brought into danger. 

Just like I don't have a moral obligation to put myself at risk for another human being. I will lend aid where and when I can but not at the cost of my or anyone else's health and well being. It is, however, in everyone's best interest to aid others instead of harming them. It actually increases the chances that each individual will survive and lead a healthier and happier life. Work division and specialization of skills can go a long way towards improving an individual's life.

[mercules 1290]

Matthew 7:12. In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

 

Luke 6:31. Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.

 

"If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye." - The Code of Hammurabi (dramatically predates the Bible)

 

 

These ideas pre-date the ones you are sourcing, and they were around even before that. The point is that this is a very simple, logical conclusion that most human beings agree with, and yet continue to break. So either all human beings are all hypocrites, or capital punishment for murderers and child rapists is objectively justifiable. You can't have it both ways. Those are the logical problems presented by an objective view of morality.

 

Subjective morality, on the other hand, allows for contextual exceptions and alterations over time to moral codes. You can clearly see which view fits reality. People learn morals from other people. That is one of the main pillars of society. It's logical to cooperate with your fellow man most of the time. But sometimes context creates moral exceptions and dilemmas. That's because we are constantly learning and there is no "one moral truth." The right or wrong decision in any given situation depend on the deeper context and realistic implications of your actions.

 

I think you missed the point. I broke Kant's actual discussion on morality into a paraphrased one liner for the masses. Of course it matches doctrine from books and codes written to give the masses rules to live by. Also, "A Broken clock is correct twice a day." that doesn't mean it keeps time. Coming to the same conclusion as another method of thought does not mean those two methods are equally valid. The bible and Hammurabi's code both approach morality from the point of punishment. In the case of the bible it is "Act as such or you will not get a reward and might be punished in the future." with Hammurabi it is a law of equal reprisal. People follow those codes not out of morality but fear of punitive measures. That is NOT morality. 

You also act as if Categorical Imperative Morality can not change which is untrue. New evidence can alter a logical conclusion and thus could alter morality. For example, if we discovered tomorrow that chickens have the same cognitive ability as mankind or possibly even more would it still be morally right to eat them? Logic would dictate that it is not right to eat sentient intelligent beings so no it wouldn't. However at this time we have no data to even imply such a thing so they are still  morally acceptable to eat although I could state some evidence that we still need to treat them a bit more ethically than we currently do.

However, given all the evidence is the same it is not morally correct for one person to act in manner A in a situation and in manner B in a different situation.