Morailty in gaming poll

[tenshu 43]

You don't need to point out that it's a simulation and you haven't actually killed him?  - I think you need to know it is.

 

Because if you don't know it's a simulation then you HAVE killed him

 

And if you play a simulation according to the rules, how can that be immoral?

 

xx

It's not immoral, I never said it was. 

I'm not sure why you find it so difficult to grasp the concept of making a moral choice IN the game, no it's not a real moral choice, which is the whole point of the poll, to see if your simulated morality matches up to your real life morality. 

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

Yes, and for your first point you would be making a subjective moral decision for the good, I'm interested if you would make moral choices in games that you feel subjectively are morally wrong.

For your 2nd point, I think some value systems are so wrong that we have to point that out, and in some cases do something about it. Should we just say, oh them Nazi's are different to us, we should respect their value system though and not say anything? The same goes for all immoral value systems that are currently in place, there are some things that we cannot tolerate. For example certain countries assert that homosexuality is wrong and punish it by stoning to death, I refuse to just keep quiet and put it down to a difference in values. 

Mentalities do not change overnight. And we have a lot of cleaning to do on our own doorstep before we can even begin to pretend to have the moral high ground.

 

As for tolerating them or not, well what do you want to do? Invade their country? Arrest their leaders and try them under rules they where never bound to? and then expect the people to just take your own flawed value system as their own? It doesn't work that way. What good is your "superior value system" if you have to force feed it to them?

[pilgrim* 3514]

It's not immoral, I never said it was. 

I'm not sure why you find it so difficult to grasp the concept of making a moral choice IN the game, no it's not a real moral choice, which is the whole point of the poll, to see if your simulated morality matches up to your real life morality. 

 

OK lets' go through this anyway -

1) as you say " no it's not a real moral choice " ok we agree on that, it is NOT a moral choice - lets agree it's something 'like' a moral choice maybe? It "seems" like a moral chioce to the player. OK we can agree on that - its a game where we play at making 'moral choices'

 

2) OK - so what kind of simulated moral choices can we make? Well, this is the problem, because the simulated moral choices you can make and can not make depend on the GAME.. they don't depend on the player. (dont get mad, think about it) The player can only follow the rules.

There are many games that involve 'lying' or 'bluffing' or players joining forces to make 'unfair' combinations against other players.. Poker, Monopoly... and yes, those are classic win/loose games, where the AIM is to defeat the other player.

So

3) here we have an "open-world" game where you do not HAVE to defeat another player, you can trick, you can lie, you can bluff, you can attack you can help another player (ya can in poker and monopoly too.. but put that aside) so you do not HAVE to 'attack' other players because there is no WIN in the game (except maybe objectives you invent yourself, from time to time). Still - you can only do what the Rules state and you cannot play outside the Rules.

 

4) So the choices which are 'simulated moral' choices- hmm, the only choices you can make depend on the Rules. For instance, to make it plain, there is a ton of "simulated moral" stuff you can't do in DayZ because it is outside the rules, you cant help or cure zombies, you can't lock people in jail, you can't become rich (no profiteering) you cant escape, there is no way out... plenty of sensible real life stuff you can't do because it is not in the rules. A Hockey player can't pick up the puck and run with it.. ya know, thats not in the rules.. So he plays according to his rules, the Poker players use their rules, DayZ uses DayZ rules, and the Rules decide what you can do and cannot do.. the Rules decide what could be LIKE a 'moral' choice or a simulated "immoral choice" and the Rules decide what 'simulated moral choices' you can't make because there's no way of making them. If there were different rules you would have a different <simulated morality> to choose from. So the rules for this one game give you the choices for this one game.

 

5) So to say, for instance: "you act like in real life",  is - excuse me - ridiculous.. perhaps this is more like some kind of dice throw from the first Dungeons and Dragons board game where we decide if we are Good, Bad or Unaligned and then we get different powers? If I'm bad I can shoot people in the leg and if I'm Good I can't.. but oh wait, the 'Good' CAN too.. and I can change my mind about being "bad", or I can do "good" by mistake..etc.. but - I'm still playing inside the rules NOTHING has changed. If Im a Black Elf and I tripe a Hobbit because I hate the naffers, am I doing bad? No I'm doing Good! (but this distinction is meaningless).

 

So please dont say that hiding in the forest and not bothering any player is Moral, and shooting down freshspawns is Immoral... I'm using the same rules, I'm playing the same game. As you say "simulated moral choices" is what's happening. Not real moral choices. This is clear because these game choices have no 'real world' consequences. If you play rugby you might get your nose broken, but everyone knows that - you dont want to risk it you don't play - getting your nose broken in a rugby game is not "moral" or "immoral"

 

6) Now IF you want to have your own FANTASY inside this game and say "Im the Lone Ranger" then go right ahead. The rules say you can do that. But you can't rob cash from the rich, and you can't sew up the wound of a poor sick zombie, and you can't shoot the handcuffs off a prisoner..Look close and you see there's NO WAY you can act ANYTHING like in "real life", and if somehow this game could be "very realistic" then it wouldn't be a fun game at all. But this game can never be that.

 

7) When you turn of the PC the game vanishes, its an illusion, it has no consequences in itself, it doesn't exist anymore, the gameplay has no consequences in the world (hey, maybe in the real world you stayed up too late and maybe you promised not to, that's immoral I guess, but that's not in-game) The game is an illusion. it has "no real moral choices" in it - as you said. I agree.

Cool

If your poll said "What kind of fantasy do you act out in DayZ" it would maybe make more sense - but you can't link a game to reality in this simplistic way, because that un-link between games and reality that's the REASON for games.

 

I made my point 3 times, you made your point 3 times. I answered your poll the 'logical' way you wanted me to. I gave you Beans.

What more do you want from me?

Let's call it quits.

 

Enjoy

xx pilgrim

Edited May 1, 2014 by pilgrim

[gannon46 788]

in reality I think most folks that went around shooting people would end up hanging from a tall tree or worse. zeds would be a threat and folks would have to work together because most people do well to tie there shoes let alone hunt or farm. once food runs out most would starve probably while carrying there phones complaining of the lack of facebook. buildings and cars would burn and morons would rob banks and steal money thinking that when its over they would be rich. dayzs is a game and for one I can't act like I would in a real life scenario because folks in this community are fucking brain-dead killers so I treat this game as an extermination simulator. theres no humanity or morals in this game I mean folks make posts about killing FS's and KOS and forcing folks to do ridiculous things more or less just to piss off everyone nothing but a community of trolls. why do I put up with it I don't know why do I post nonsense shit I'm stupid just like the rest I guess. I mean most cats play on empty servers what does that say about the player base most would rather play with no-one than even speak to another player who is in-game.hell when I play I stay away from other players and major cities and if I do see another player I murder him so I'm no better than the scum and I do it out of rage and hatred not out of any survival tactic. so is this a simulator of a zombie apocalypse no it is not its a death-match game with perma death and that's all it ever will be. oh they are adding hunting big deal no-ones even going to bother except the neck beards.only thing folks want are cars,heli's and more fucking guns and flashy camo's. I wonder how many gold guns you would see if they added gold paint ugh pointless reply end.

[gannon46 788]

Perhaps he is referring to the people that are vocalizing mock rape, and sexual acts on people who are restrained, or incapacitated. Force feeding toxins, maiming people. I could care less about KoSers..I do not like them, but there is nothing wrong with that play style, but when you do not kill, and go through a series of "Clockwork Orange" on someone...that's a flag to me. It could mean nothing, but I could also mean that person is disturbed.  It also comes out more in groups, whereas an individual alone may not have done that. 

ever read lord of the flies yep gang mentality boys get bigger balls when in numbers.

[makomachine 263]

Only Dean can judge me...

[TheDoctorInDayz 26]

ever read lord of the flies yep gang mentality boys get bigger balls when in numbers.

 

lol yep! I almost through that movie into that post, but figured one movie reference was enough.

[tenshu 43]

 

I made my point 3 times, you made your point 3 times. I answered your poll the 'logical' way you wanted me to. I gave you Beans.

What more do you want from me?

Let's call it quits.

 

Enjoy

xx pilgrim

Please let us!

You seem to be struggling with this concept when everyone else can understand it. 

[IamDinner 28]

lol yep! I almost through that movie into that post, but figured one movie reference was enough.

 

I think the book should really be the reference point for that story. The guy won a Nobel prize at some point in his life. This book is important fiction for our time. There have been warnings by authors like this for years and we are walking right into the trap they defined for us again and again.

 

1954 written by William Golding. There were also two movies. Which one are you refering to? the 1963 or the 1990 version?

 

Sorry to be that guy but I hate that movies over shadow valued works of written art. Having to picture a lot of these dystopian nightmares in your own imagination really brings them out in our minds.

 

 

Would you have crushed piggy?

[tenshu 43]

Updated First post, comparing results from study, thanks everyone!

[pilgrim* 3514]

..//..pilgrim continued...

Please let us!
You seem to be struggling with this concept when everyone else can understand it. 

 

Hahahaha - ok I understand you're trolling me.

As for "struggling with a concept" - I followed up your Sam Harris reference.

I think he has almost understood something that was said before 300 BC:

"Self is the lord of self, who else could be the lord?"

Dhammapada Chapter XII

Looks like the "way" Sam Harris has chosen, is to make money from it. But what else can he do? What's the point of saving the world if it doesn't make you a living? I hope he doesn't get too stressed.

 

xx

[IamDinner 28]

OK lets' go through this anyway -

1) as you say " no it's not a real moral choice " ok we agree on that, it is NOT a moral choice - lets agree it's something 'like' a moral choice maybe? It "seems" like a moral chioce to the player. OK we can agree on that - its a game where we play at making 'moral choices'

 

2) OK - so what kind of simulated moral choices can we make? Well, this is the problem, because the simulated moral choices you can make and can not make depend on the GAME.. they don't depend on the player. (dont get mad, think about it) The player can only follow the rules.

There are many games that involve 'lying' or 'bluffing' or players joining forces to make 'unfair' combinations against other players.. Poker, Monopoly... and yes, those are classic win/loose games, where the AIM is to defeat the other player.

So

3) here we have an "open-world" game where you do not HAVE to defeat another player, you can trick, you can lie, you can bluff, you can attack you can help another player (ya can in poker and monopoly too.. but put that aside) so you do not HAVE to 'attack' other players because there is no WIN in the game (except maybe objectives you invent yourself, from time to time). Still - you can only do what the Rules state and you cannot play outside the Rules.

 

4) So the choices which are 'simulated moral' choices- hmm, the only choices you can make depend on the Rules. For instance, to make it plain, there is a ton of "simulated moral" stuff you can't do in DayZ because it is outside the rules, you cant help or cure zombies, you can't lock people in jail, you can't become rich (no profiteering) you cant escape, there is no way out... plenty of sensible real life stuff you can't do because it is not in the rules. A Hockey player can't pick up the puck and run with it.. ya know, thats not in the rules.. So he plays according to his rules, the Poker players use their rules, DayZ uses DayZ rules, and the Rules decide what you can do and cannot do.. the Rules decide what could be LIKE a 'moral' choice or a simulated "immoral choice" and the Rules decide what 'simulated moral choices' you can't make because there's no way of making them. If there were different rules you would have a different <simulated morality> to choose from. So the rules for this one game give you the choices for this one game.

 

5) So to say, for instance: "you act like in real life",  is - excuse me - ridiculous.. perhaps this is more like some kind of dice throw from the first Dungeons and Dragons board game where we decide if we are Good, Bad or Unaligned and then we get different powers? If I'm bad I can shoot people in the leg and if I'm Good I can't.. but oh wait, the 'Good' CAN too.. and I can change my mind about being "bad", or I can do "good" by mistake..etc.. but - I'm still playing inside the rules NOTHING has changed. If Im a Black Elf and I tripe a Hobbit because I hate the naffers, am I doing bad? No I'm doing Good! (but this distinction is meaningless).

 

So please dont say that hiding in the forest and not bothering any player is Moral, and shooting down freshspawns is Immoral... I'm using the same rules, I'm playing the same game. As you say "simulated moral choices" is what's happening. Not real moral choices. This is clear because these game choices have no 'real world' consequences. If you play rugby you might get your nose broken, but everyone knows that - you dont want to risk it you don't play - getting your nose broken in a rugby game is not "moral" or "immoral"

 

6) Now IF you want to have your own FANTASY inside this game and say "Im the Lone Ranger" then go right ahead. The rules say you can do that. But you can't rob cash from the rich, and you can't sew up the wound of a poor sick zombie, and you can't shoot the handcuffs off a prisoner..Look close and you see there's NO WAY you can act ANYTHING like in "real life", and if somehow this game could be "very realistic" then it wouldn't be a fun game at all. But this game can never be that.

 

7) When you turn of the PC the game vanishes, its an illusion, it has no consequences in itself, it doesn't exist anymore, the gameplay has no consequences in the world (hey, maybe in the real world you stayed up too late and maybe you promised not to, that's immoral I guess, but that's not in-game) The game is an illusion. it has "no real moral choices" in it - as you said. I agree.

Cool

If your poll said "What kind of fantasy do you act out in DayZ" it would maybe make more sense - but you can't link a game to reality in this simplistic way, because that un-link between games and reality that's the REASON for games.

 

I made my point 3 times, you made your point 3 times. I answered your poll the 'logical' way you wanted me to. I gave you Beans.

What more do you want from me?

Let's call it quits.

 

Enjoy

xx pilgrim

 

Are you the type of person who calls your sense of "morality" the valid sense of it? And by that thought invalidate others sense of it?

 

Morality is subjective in real life. There is enough freedom in this game that it is pretty subjective in here as well.

 

Personally I deal in ethics and morality can burn.

 

 

Really I deal in logic. Ethics and morality make a mess of our world. Although ethics can be more closely tied to logic over morality which in our world is most often formed from religious beliefs.

 

 

Can we stop calling it simulated morality and call it "dayz morality"?

[tenshu 43]

 

Looks like the "way" Sam Harris has chosen, is to make money from it. But what else can he do? What's the point of saving the world if it doesn't make you a living? I hope he doesn't get too stressed.

 

xx

I have no idea what you're talking about any more, the link I provided was free, as are many Sam Harris lectures and articles. 

I thought we were finished? 

[IamDinner 28]

..//..pilgrim continued...

 

Hahahaha - ok I understand you're trolling me.

As for "struggling with a concept" - I followed up your Sam Harris reference.

I think he has almost understood something that was said before 300 BC:

"Self is the lord of self, who else could be the lord?"

Dhammapada Chapter XII

Looks like the "way" Sam Harris has chosen, is to make money from it. But what else can he do? What's the point of saving the world if it doesn't make you a living? I hope he doesn't get too stressed.

 

xx

 

 

Saving it from what exactly? Us?

[tenshu 43]

 

Morality is subjective in real life. There is enough freedom in this game that it is pretty subjective in here as well.

This person seems incapable of grasping these concepts.

 

 

Can we stop calling it simulated morality and call it "dayz morality"?

I only called it that once to try and explain what this poll was about to this person, he/she is finding it hard to separate reality with a persona in game.

Edited May 2, 2014 by tenshu

[Demonio (DayZ) 19]

Stop talking and all log in servers, i need some players to kill FAST!!!

[pilgrim* 3514]

Are you the type of person who calls your sense of "morality" the valid sense of it? And by that thought invalidate others sense of it?

 

Morality is subjective in real life. There is enough freedom in this game that it is pretty subjective in here as well.

 

Personally I deal in ethics and morality can burn.

 

 

Really I deal in logic. Ethics and morality make a mess of our world. Although ethics can be more closely tied to logic over morality which in our world is most often formed from religious beliefs.

 

 

Can we stop calling it simulated morality and call it "dayz morality"?

 

Using the term "ethics" puts you IMO into the same 'philosophical group' (excuse my slack terminology here, for speed) as Harris. You are supposing (and I have no objection to that line of thought) that there is an objectively correct way for human beings to act faced with 'moral' decisions, and that this can be discovered.

This is a fascinating subject. I come at it from a very different direction.Briefly, in my life I have found it necessary and interesting to construct (by trial and error, and by analysis) a personal morality which does not correspond deeply to any codified or popularly a-priori accepted morality, be it religious, popular, political..To do this (if any person wished to do so) one has to firstly consider very carefully ones "own" received ideas and exactly those concepts which one personally takes for granted. There must be a reason for the presence of these ideas, they came from somewhere external, however personal and evident one assumes them to be. Of course, these are the concepts which are NOT normally considered, and their acceptance renders civilised (and localised) human interaction "easy" and fluid. We are social beings as well as (at the same time, combined with being) "individuals". Individual and social existance cannot be seperated. However, my own moral code is quite rigorous, I assure you.

My problem with, for instance "christians" (excuse the generic) is that I can understand their acting according to their own moral code, but they think it is neccessary to invalidate mine, and force their morality on me (which is logically impossible). I do not understand this need. This perhaps corresponds to "ethics", but in these terms leaves no place for "moral free-will". Historically such activity has not lead to peace and happiness, I believe.

Just to throw the discussion completely off course, here is a suggestion: A hawk eats meat, it cannot have moral qualms about eating meat, this is a meaningless concept for this animal. A cow eats grass, a cow would not consider eating meat. Neither of these two creatures can have a moral or ethical problem about its own nature. However human beings are dentally equipped as omnivores, hence since 'the dawn of time' humanity has been able to choose to eat meat or to eat plants. This decision can and perhaps must be made every day, individually and depending on circumstances. Hence we (humans) can easily envisage a moral choice, to kill or not. It is the choice itself which creates the concept "moral" not vice-versa. This is built into our natures along with our jawbones. 

 

As for OP - I politely filled in his poll after he asked me to, and did it 'correctly' according to his desires. And I gave him beans.

Have I in someway acted badly?

 

I suggested that anyone interested could look up games and role-playing. There are perfectly sound articles on wikipedia on these subjects. We have been role-playing since neolithic times. There are definitions of 'what is a game'. Even Wittgenstein was interested. An often agreed element is that the player must know it is a game.

 

I dont want to subvert this thread anymore so I'll just go play a while. See ya in the unreal.

 

xx pilgrim

 

edit: In case you are interested in logic and have not already looked at Wittgenstein (who is difficult and interesting in his thought and personal history) then check him out:

 

"He was of the opinion... that his ideas were generally misunderstood and distorted even by those who professed to be his disciples. He doubted he would be better understood in the future. He once said he felt as though he were writing for people who would think in a different way, breathe a different air of life, from that of present-day men."

Edited May 2, 2014 by pilgrim

[IamDinner 28]

This person seems incapable of grasping these concepts.

 

I only called it that once to try and explain what this poll was about to this person, he/she is finding it hard to separate reality with a persona in game.

 

Not sure if you meant to be insulting but your pretty certain that your views are the correct views and those of us who have a differing view must just be ignorant sods.

 

Morality is subjective.

 

I

[Steak and Potatoes 13480]

I always follow the good side unless I am achievement whoring in a game in which case I'll dabble in the dark side.

[IamDinner 28]

Using the term "ethics" puts you IMO into the same 'philosophical group' (excuse my slack terminology here, for speed) as Harris. You are supposing (and I have no objection to that line of thought) that there is an objectively correct way for human beings to act faced with 'moral' decisions, and that this can be discovered.

This is a fascinating subject. I come at it from a very different direction.Briefly, in my life I have found it necessary and interesting to construct (by trial and error, and by analysis) a personal morality which does not correspond deeply to any codified or popularly a-priori accepted morality, be it religious, popular, political..To do this (if any person wished to do so) one has to firstly consider very carefully ones "own" received ideas and exactly those concepts which one personally takes for granted. There must be a reason for the presence of these ideas, they came from somewhere external, however personal and evident one assumes them to be. Of course, these are the concepts which are NOT normally considered, and their acceptance renders civilised (and localised) human interaction "easy" and fluid. We are social beings as well as (at the same time, combined with being) "individuals". Individual and social existance cannot be seperated. However, my own moral code is quite rigorous, I assure you.

My problem with, for instance "christians" (excuse the generic) is that I can understand their acting according to their own moral code, but they think it is neccessary to invalidate mine, and force their morality on me (which is logically impossible). I do not understand this need. This perhaps corresponds to "ethics", but in these terms leaves no place for "moral free-will". Historically such activity has not lead to peace and happiness, I believe.

Just to throw the discussion completely off course, here is a suggestion: A hawk eats meat, it cannot have moral qualms about eating meat, this is a meaningless concept for this animal. A cow eats grass, a cow would not consider eating meat. Neither of these two creatures can have a moral or ethical problem about its own nature. However human beings are dentally equipped as omnivores, hence since 'the dawn of time' humanity has been able to choose to eat meat or to eat plants. This decision can and perhaps must be made every day, individually and depending on circumstances. Hence we (humans) can easily envisage a moral choice, to kill or not. It is the choice itself which creates the concept "moral" not vice-versa. This is built into our natures along with our jawbones. 

 

As for OP - I politely filled in his poll after he asked me to, and did it 'correctly' according to his desires. And I gave him beans.

Have I in someway acted badly?

 

I suggested that anyone interested could look up games and role-playing. There are perfectly sound articles on wikipedia on these subjects. We have been role-playing since neolithic times. There are definitions of 'what is a game'. Even Wittgenstein was interested. An often agreed element is that the player must know it is a game.

 

I dont want to subvert this thread anymore so I'll just go play a while. See ya in the unreal.

 

xx pilgrim

 

edit: In case you are interested in logic and have not already looked at Wittgenstein (who is difficult and interesting in his thought and personal history) then check him out:

 

"He was of the opinion... that his ideas were generally misunderstood and distorted even by those who professed to be his disciples. He doubted he would be better understood in the future. He once said he felt as though he were writing for people who would think in a different way, breathe a different air of life, from that of present-day men."

 

 

I don't follow anything.

 

I use the world around me and the actions taken by the people I see, hear about and interact with to make my own determinations about how I feel over things.

 

I "feel" that morality is subjective and can lay out some pretty good argument along those lines. That is for a different forum and discussion though I think.

 

No one is asking you to agree with my opinions.

 

I am not sure who this Harris is you mentioned?

 

 

I feel like you are trying to invalidate my thoughts and opinions here in the same way you talk about in your response.

 

I will never push anything on you. The only real creed I live by is live and let live. If you don't step on me I will go out of my way to make sure I don't step on you and even help you if I can with whatever I am capable of and you may need or want.

 

I agree completely with your take on most christians as well. Some are really great people who simply live in a way they would like you too and let their life be their message. Could use more of those ones.

 

 

EDIT:

 

I reread what you posted. I agree with a large portion but be careful you are not mistaking ethics for what christians do to others over their moral code. Ethics allow for logic to help make decisions with available data based on the needs of the many (this is my view on it not some text book definition) and take into account human emotion but in a lesser way that most moral issues seem to.

 

It is logical and ethical for a woman to have an abortion to save her own life if that is the only way it can be. Many groups at least in the US would rather see her and maybe her baby die than commit that act. They are moral according to their own views. They are also unethical based on what I see as the logic that if she lives she can try and have another child. If she dies and the child lives it would be without its protection until it was mature enough to protect itself, from a purely scientific outlook. Morality doesn't care about logic. Sometimes it seems to but in reality it is hard to change morality when logic dictates another action would bring a larger advantage.

 

 

Again these are just opinions. I can prove nothing and could care less if I could. I just like discussions that are not just piles of insults and I thank you for providing real thoughts not just internet tough guy stuff. It makes it worth participating in.

Edited May 2, 2014 by IamDinner

[pilgrim* 3514]

Well I was brought up to be a Sith and I never had any problems with my dad about what to do with the Force.

 

I follow the Gaffer Tape theory:

"It has a light side and a dark side and it holds the universe together"