A light dissertation on Morality in DayZ

[wild_man 4442]

There you go again, belittling anyone who doesn't want to shoot EVERY SINGLE PERSON. Just because I see no reason to shoot someone who is no threat to me doesn't mean that I don't want there to be threats out there. I like people like you in the game but I don't want a game that is all you. Why? because all you is boring as hell. There is MORE tension and excitement to approaching someone who may be friendly or might not be than simply raising your gun and firing. 

You have one type of interaction with other players and it can be summed up with, "Bang". I have a lot more and the game is richer for it. 

The bandits won't rule... the evidence is in modern society. If survival was more likely in a lawless situation... that is what we would be surrounded with today or we would have died off as a species for caring for each other and making governments and laws. Guess what, people live because they get regular food, health care, have shelter and society aids in that. The bandits might rule for a short time but some organization will form and it will deal with them, the proof is part of history. 

 

 

we have this now :D

 

is guys who don't KoS in game, I meet all the time, I kill most time this guys :P

 

my point is morality in OP

 

is bullshit because

 

a - is game, no reflect on real life :thumbsup:

 

b - is suggest guys who bandit are immoral, is not true, for sure is some but that is society problem, not dayz problem

 

c - no KoS, no roleplay guys be the bad man murderer = no real apocalypse experience :thumbsup:

 

we have all type of player, you just notice KoS player more because he announce presence with full auto to head :D

 

how many time guy see you and don't shoot???? you never know, maybe hundreds times :rolleyes:

 

also history show when order is finish violence rule sometime for centuries

 

look dark ages, look Italy after barbarian crush roman empire

 

dayz is in time just after start of apocalypse, no army, no police trust me the bad guys and psychopaths coming out from hide and make murder and rapes everywhere for sure

 

maybe after 20 year or more society fix but in beginning hell is on earth

 

in dayz the bndits are messenger from HELL :thumbsup:  :ph34r:

Edited October 9, 2013 by KoS

[mercules 1290]

we have this now :D

 

is guys who don't KoS in game, I meet all the time, I kill most time this guys :P

 

my point is morality in OP

 

is bullshit because

 

a) is game, no reflect on real life :thumbsup:

 

B) is suggest guys who bandit are immoral, is not true, for sure is some but that is society problem, not dayz problem

 

c) no KoS, no roleplay guys be the bad man murderer = no real apocalypse experience :thumbsup:

 

we have all type of player, you just notice KoS player more because he announce presence with full auto to head :D

 

hoew many time guy see you and don't shoot???? you never know, maybe hundreds times :rolleyes:

 

I don't think you comprehend this.

KOS = Kill on Sight

Right?

 

This means, literally, that you shoot as soon as you see someone. Now I don't believe that all of the KOS guys really are but I know there are a few I have WATCHED running through Elktro/Cherno, see a guy, turn and shoot him, and then die to the swarm of zombies that just came their way. Those truly are the KOS morons some of us are talking about. I was actually upset by that one because I was looking to put a bullet into him for killing the weaponless newspawn but he ran into a building and was killed by zombies. 

Most of us are hoping the Stand Alone is difficult enough that these type of guys grow frustrated and quit. We are hoping that the difficulty level brings about a bit of the morality at least in the form of, "I don't have a lot of bullets and this guy might be handy to have around. Maybe I'll try and make contact with him and see if we can clear out these zombies and split the loot." Instead of the logical decision simply being, "Shoot them." and "Shoot them some more." 

I can have fun shooting people and for that I go to a game built for it instead of trying to force that game style into a game built for a slightly different style of play. That is what you are not getting. 

 

[wild_man 4442]

I don't think you comprehend this.

KOS = Kill on Sight

Right?

 

This means, literally, that you shoot as soon as you see someone. Now I don't believe that all of the KOS guys really are but I know there are a few I have WATCHED running through Elktro/Cherno, see a guy, turn and shoot him, and then die to the swarm of zombies that just came their way. Those truly are the KOS morons some of us are talking about. I was actually upset by that one because I was looking to put a bullet into him for killing the weaponless newspawn but he ran into a building and was killed by zombies. 

Most of us are hoping the Stand Alone is difficult enough that these type of guys grow frustrated and quit. We are hoping that the difficulty level brings about a bit of the morality at least in the form of, "I don't have a lot of bullets and this guy might be handy to have around. Maybe I'll try and make contact with him and see if we can clear out these zombies and split the loot." Instead of the logical decision simply being, "Shoot them." and "Shoot them some more." 

I can have fun shooting people and for that I go to a game built for it instead of trying to force that game style into a game built for a slightly different style of play. That is what you are not getting. 

 

 

 

you miss point :huh:

 

if apocalypse happen there will be guys who KILL ON SIGHT!!!

 

they will be psychopath escape convict murder gangs everywhere with guns

 

is fact ;)

 

i roleplay this guy, the killer, the bastard who don't think before shoot

 

 

morality??? :D

 

you don't make game difficult to change what guys doing, they do what they want is point of open world game

 

murder is part of normal life, everyday guys murder in civilize world

 

after apocalypse this is x 1000 +, is point of apocalypse game, is hell on earth

 

and most evil dangerous animal on planet is some human with gun :thumbsup:  :P

 

you dream if you think we going away because we need to work for survive, is just motivate us more to kill guys who invest more in character

 

is game for fun, for me is fun to shoot guy in face and listen after direct rage

 

that never change

 

i am KoS :thumbsup: :ph34r:

[mercules 1290]

if apocalypse happen there will be guys who KILL ON SIGHT!!!

 

No there won't... or at least they won't last very long. In reality, unlike the game, these guys have to sleep sometime and that is when they will die while all the little, "Let's group up and not shoot each other." people will have a few others to keep watch while they rest. It is much harder to survive something like that alone than it is in the game. ;)

[wild_man 4442]

No there won't... or at least they won't last very long. In reality, unlike the game, these guys have to sleep sometime and that is when they will die while all the little, "Let's group up and not shoot each other." people will have a few others to keep watch while they rest. It is much harder to survive something like that alone than it is in the game. ;)

 

 

again

 

denial :huh:

 

keep dream, enjoy fantasy and good luck for you if apocalypse coming :D

 

you in for shock :o

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

You realize you are arguing as if that comment you quoted was addressed to you.

 

 

Since you brought it up I'll address it. 

Ehem... No shit I think I stated that. Morality comes from logic. No thought, no logic. Thus the whole discussion about Kant's Categorical Imperative. Who's punching the strawman? :)

 

Alright, not a big deal. Actually, I see my mistake, I was tired this morn.

 

But still, you agree logic is thought. So then, I'm not really arguing against you. If we agree that logic is thought, and morals are a product of logic, then transitively we can say that morals are the product of thought. I'm not denying that, and neither are you. A lot of people who say morals are "objective" are actually trying to imply that morals exist objectively (a.k.a separate from thought, in the outside world). That's why I said we have a semantic problem when we start debating the issue of objectivity vs. subjectivity of morals. Because by one definition, morals are completely subjective, in that they occur within the mind. They don't exist objectively in this case because they don't exist outside of your consciousness. Morals are not physical things or binding laws (clearly, since people break their morals all the time).

 

However, we can also use objective and subjective to talk about the way we are thinking. Subjective being emotional and personal, objective being logical and completely free of bias or personal opinion. Absolute raw logic. But again, humans are not 100% objective creatures. We have natural biases which will always effect our decisions. The survival bias is one of these. Why is it better to be alive than dead? Because we know this state is temporary, and death (as far as we know) is permanent. Therefore it makes logical sense to keep yourself alive to the absolute best of your ability. So why does morality say that putting yourself in danger for the good of others (just one example, not a blanket statement) is a morally righteous thing to do? Because you are protecting others from that same permanent state of death. We see it as noble. This is all very logical, but again, it is still reliant on the observing mind, the existing consciousness, to even be a reality. So in this aspect, morals are clearly both objective and subjective. It really just depends on how you rationalize them.

 

 

P.s. Jexter. I really don't see why you feel so entitled to come in here and say "I am right! You are wrong! Discussion over!" And simply not address the true debate at hand. We're just having a discussion. This is not "science," it's just a discussion. The fact that you are behaving in such a putrid way demonstrates to me that you really aren't that interested in thinking about what people are saying, but rather just proving the OP wrong. This is the behavior of a troll. If you don't like my points, then why don't you find a more polite way of addressing them, instead of barging into a months' old thread shouting "BOLLOCKS!" Maybe if you had a better approach, I would debate your argument with more respect. Otherwise, what is the point? I don't have all day to argue with assholes.

Edited October 9, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[mercules 1290]

Alright, not a big deal.

 

But still, you agree logic is thought. So then, I'm not really arguing against you. If we agree that logic is thought, and morals are a product of logic, then transitively we can say that morals are the product of thought. I'm not denying that, and neither are you. A lot of people who say morals are "objective" are actually trying to imply that morals exist objectively (a.k.a separate from thought, in the outside world). That's why I said we have a semantic problem when we start debating the issue of objectivity vs. subjectivity of morals. Because by one definition, morals are completely subjective, in that they occur within the mind. They don't exist objectively in this case because they don't exist outside of your consciousness. Morals are not physical things or binding laws (clearly, since people break their morals all the time).

 

However, we can also use objective and subjective to talk about the way we are thinking. Subjective being emotional and personal, objective being logical and completely free of bias or personal opinion. Absolute raw logic. But again, humans are not 100% objective creatures. We have natural biases which will always effect our decisions. The survival bias is one of these. Why is it better to be alive than dead? Because we know this state is temporary, and death (as far as we know) is permanent. Therefore it makes logical sense to keep yourself alive to the absolute best of your ability. So why does morality say that putting yourself in danger for the good of others (just one example, not a blanket statement) is a morally righteous thing to do? Because you are protecting others from that same permanent state of death. We see it as noble. This is all very logical, but again, it is still reliant on the observing mind, the existing consciousness, to even be a reality. So in this aspect, morals are clearly both objective and subjective. It really just depends on how you rationalize them.

 

Please read Kant. Seriously, you look like you might enjoy it. 

One of the first principles of his theory he put forth is that there are "Duties" that are "Perfect" and "Imperfect". The main difference, and I am paraphrasing from memory is that Perfect Duty is a duty you must morally meet consistently while Imperfect Duty is one that you should be praised for accomplishing. 

A perfect duty would be to not kill others. An Imperfect Duty would be to rescue a person from a burning building. 

[con635 16]

Dayz has broken me already...

I've only been playing a few weeks now and before I bought the game and pc I watched lots of yt videos, I loved the thought of being the hero, helping fellow man survive and rebuild. At first, constantly being killed became really annoying but I just thought right not go back there then just push more into the wild, then just yesterday I was so close to getting my very own first vehicle all I needed was one wheel and I got it from a building on N/E coast. Full of joy I decided to hit berizino for some general supplies and make my first ever trip to the big airfield, bang out of nowhere on the outskirts I get killed, in a rage I respawned near there not out for revenge but just to get my wheel/hatchet back, bang killed again :(

So that was it, another kos player is born, I found an enfield on the way back and came in from west where I was sure I was shot from and there he was (I think) I shot him low and he went down, I watched from distance, the side chat read 'just finish me man, I dont want a 2hr blood hunt', I walked away and left him didnt even reply, worse than death imo esp for the cod style spawn run gun player he was (if it was 'him' who shot me lol)

Point of story, morality degrades dependant on circumstance, lord of the flies style. The 'nice guy' who is sensitive, good to women, doesnt kill etc if poked hard enough often enough will evolve backwards and animal insticts will take over. Dayz is a really harsh environment so I'm not surprised my veiws and style have changed so quickly, in fact shooting that guy was my first and it felt good so I'd say a blood lust will come to me soon and I'll be just another a**hole very soon.......

[NagsterTheGangster 388]

Lets team up and go shit rainbows together! Im using that from now on.

[pilgrim* 3514]

Ignore KoS, I'm almost certain he's a troll.

 

No he's not a troll.

I suggested to BI they should award him a gold-plated AKM

 

xx

Edited May 3, 2014 by pilgrim

[wild_man 4442]

No he's not a troll.

I suggested to BI they should award him a gold-plated AKM

 

xx

 

I want als gold bullet and if they putting shit and piss mechanic make this also gold with diamond for sparkle when I doing on dead noob corpse :thumbsup:  :ph34r: