DeletedUser35162
i dont have anything constructive to say except sorry you are getting robbed daily.
Algona, since plundering, or even attacking, is not required in this game, a player must make a choice to do so. If that choice affects others, then it is a moral/ethical decision that must be made. Rules and laws do not, necessarily, have anything to do with ethics or morals.
I'd argue that it's not even an ethical question in a game like this. It's just strategy. Else it's kind of like saying stealing a base in baseball involves a moral or ethical question. It doesn't.
I like that analogy, works well. I usually use a boxing one, that is, if you step into the ring you shouldn't be surprised to get hit. However I think there's always room to question via moral philosophy the presence of such things in our life experience.
So I think there is much to be said actually on the questions of what ought be as it pertains to plunder. Just as we can also question stealing bases in baseball or whether boxing is something we ought be doing at all.
Everything can, and should be looked at with an ethical (or moral) lens. So I outright disagree with everyone who attempts to dismiss the ethical argument due to 'strategy', 'it's just a game', etc. That's cowardice, in my book, because it looks like the person is running away from the debate by throwing up a big hand-wave of 'No, I don't value and/or will not talk about ethics in this sacrosanct area of mine'.
i dont have anything constructive to say except sorry you are getting robbed daily.
I completely disagree with this statement. Not that I value a digital "person", but because your scenario is the type of thing that does speak to the person's moral character. I have never played any of the "Sims" games, but it seems to me that that type of game is much more relevant to a person's character, because it could be viewed as literally acting out what's in your head in a digital real life type setting, which means the consequences for "bad" behavior are eliminated.Not many of us will value the ethical question of "Is it wrong for player X to torture their Sims?", because none of us value the lives of a digitally produced, non-sentient being known as "That's player's Sim" and don't view it as a transgression in society.
I'll ignore being called a coward by stressing that there is no ethical debate to be had in this context.
Graviton said:To have an ethical debate one must first have a situation where the definitions of "right" and "wrong" are unclear. In the case of baseball, stealing a base is not "wrong" in any way, shape, or form. It's not only within the rules of the game but specifically spoken of and defined in the rules. It's not a gray area, it's not on the shady edge of immorality, it's simply a strategy to be employed. It is as much and as legitimate a part of the game as is throwing a pitch.
Graviton said:The same can be said of plundering in this game. Where people make a mistake, where people try to conjure an ethical question out of thin air, is when they equate this game with real-world plundering. In the real world, attacking one's neighbor and taking his stuff is indeed unethical and immoral. In this game it is not, it's part and parcel of the experience. It is specifically allowed and defined by the rules, and even encouraged by elements of game play. There is no ethical debate to be had, it's over before it's begun.
Graviton said:There is no comparison between plundering in this game or stealing in baseball, with the same activities in the real world. To attempt to conflate these things is nonsense. It's drawing a comparison that does not and should not exist.
Graviton said:I'm open to debate ethics and morals in situations where they are applicable. Plundering in FoE ain't one of them.
I completely disagree with this statement. Not that I value a digital "person", but because your scenario is the type of thing that does speak to the person's moral character. I have never played any of the "Sims" games, but it seems to me that that type of game is much more relevant to a person's character, because it could be viewed as literally acting out what's in your head in a digital real life type setting, which means the consequences for "bad" behavior are eliminated.
FoE and similar games, however, are escapes from our reality. We literally enter a different world and our actions, for the most part, don't necessarily reflect our real life actions/values. I can only speak for myself, but I would never mount an unprovoked attack on my real life neighbors. I would never unfriend a real life friend simply because they haven't benefited me in a tangible way lately. I would never go around taking other people's stuff simply because they haven't protected it sufficiently. I would never deliberately sabotage another person's undertakings in real life. Here, in the make-believe and non-realistic world of FoE, I would and have done all of these things. And the fact that I have done these things here in this game says nothing about my moral character or ethics.
Ahhh, if only Aristotle were here to show us our follies. I love moral philosophy so I think the exercise alone in this discussion is worthwhile. Many take "moral" arguments as a personal judgement upon them, they can't divorce themselves from the situation like a doctor operating. Like my first philosopher professor taught me, Moral Philosophy i.e. Ethics is "the science of ought", love that phrasing because that is the true and proper definition. So that's all this is, the science what ought be as it pertains to plundering in a game where there are real life consequences of one sentient human being's actions upon another sentient human being.
Your statement is that we would not value it as an ethical question because we don't value the life of a digital character. My point is that the fact that it's a digital character is irrelevant to whether it's an ethical question. Imagine a child who takes glee in disfiguring a baby doll. I don't care about the doll, but the actions of the child are nonetheless disturbing.I'm confused on how you completely disagree with my statement, immediately highlight how you do agree with it and then make the argument that personal character can, but doesn't in your FoE case, be reflected in how a person plays a game.
Yes, context matters, which is why i explained how the difference in the character of the games is crucial to the difference in whether gameplay reflects moral character/ethics. You seem to skip right over that and treat the games as exactly the same.If we assume that torturing a Sim is reflective of a player's moral character, when the game allows for it, then we must also judge the person in a similar manner who plays FoE. Like everything, context matters.
Nothing outside a person makes them bad. Evil comes from within.Regardless, you make the argument I would make if someone was making an ethical argument that video games create bad people
Ignoring would require not making the first half of your statement.
Doubling down that 'there is no ethical debate here' doesn't rebuke my initial argument.
To be fair, coward was a bit aggressive of a word to use. Retreat & dismissal may more appropriate.
We agree. My baseball point was to point out the conflation of language that many connect with right/wrong (Stealing, Bad! Win, Good!) with a rule sanctioned action (Taking a base under X circumstances).
I may have needed to delve deeper on why 'official strategy' does not exempt something from ethical debate.
Thus connecting all the way back to your baseball example, just because it is a strategy does not mean we cannot question the ethics. To be fair, I believe I forgot to point out that stealing a base in baseball has minimal 'harm' done to everyone involved, which is why the ethical value of looking at 'stealing a base' has little to no value.
If you want your analogy to work, you need to realize that the real world does specifically allow us to take our neighbors stuff.
Like FoE, we have the ability to attack and plunder our neighbors. Unlike FoE, we are much more vulnerable to retribution in real life because we have created a guild (government, law enforcement) that will exact life-crippling penalties to us if we routinely pillage.
You say attacking and taking one's stuff is unethical and immoral, so I assume you haven't heard of the sick man's wife who must decide to steal medicine to save her?
When the analogy is framed to have the ethical debate 'over before it has begun', then I assume the person is either being dishonest or the analogy has bias towards their argument. I'm assuming the later in this case.
Hopefully, I've illustrated reasons why your statement is false.
Algona, if what I've said has made you feel bad, it's likely because you recognize that you're on shaky moral/ethical ground
oh, you were doing so well, Subjectivism is a moral framework yes, so ethics CAN be so but it is not so that ethics ARE so. You know soon we'll get one of these anyway and all of this will be moot;
View attachment 10058
Your statement is that we would not value it as an ethical question because we don't value the life of a digital character. My point is that the fact that it's a digital character is irrelevant to whether it's an ethical question. Imagine a child who takes glee in disfiguring a baby doll. I don't care about the doll, but the actions of the child are nonetheless disturbing.
Yes, context matters, which is why i explained how the difference in the character of the games is crucial to the difference in whether gameplay reflects moral character/ethics. You seem to skip right over that and treat the games as exactly the same.
Nothing outside a person makes them bad. Evil comes from within.
Why this kind of thread never get old? Plunders gonna take your stuff away if you are weak. and if you are weak, you get plundered. That's how this game works. stick with it or be gone.
Analogies with baseball, boxing, and the other games cited are flawed in that all those games/sports have definite objectives, which, in general, are to win the contests. This game has no particular objective, each player makes one of his/her own. There are no winners or losers in this game except in reference to the objective of an individual or group of individuals with similar goals. However, most of the objectives require the acquisition of coins, supplies, goods, or forge points. Hence, when one removes any of these from another player without consent, one has made a moral/ethical choice. (Please note that I've not said that is always wrong to do so. There are cogent arguments for plundering, e.g., in another thread, I think, someone -- sorry, don't remember who -- said that he donated plundered goods to his guild treasury, which is the beginning of a moral/ethical argument in favor of plundering.) Like Titus, I'm saying that the decision to plunder should not be taken lightly.
That was a an acknowledgement that I was called a coward, and to let you know I wasn't going to dwell on it. Call it passive-aggressive if you must label it.
When you try to talk to a whiner with logic, you lost. Better just mark them on the ignore list and move onI was sniped on a GB reward today and someone offered a better deal in the market than I had posted. This is wrong, immoral and unethical also. Do you people think you can play as you wish and make me have to adjust for your game preferences?
Seriously, such a whiney post, I am surprised the responses sparked a debate.