Ethics

[eewolf]

i have some questions for the citizens of apolytonia.

what is your goal(s)? to win? to win at any cost? you can each do that on your own. should you have larger goals in a game of this size? what about ethical guidelines? you have a constitution but it is long on structure and short on depth of character.

if you achieve a "game win" with no higher standards, what have you achieved?

i bring these to your attention before your first war because it will be too late afterward.

just a couple examples:

slavery: who decided you should use captured workers as slaves? did you vote on it? if your empire is built on the backs of slaves, what does that say for your character as a people?

pop rushing: i have seen no talk of this so perhaps this has been banned. if not, why not? a democracy that votes for torture and slavery must have a serious class structure. does apolytonia?

city razing: should cities ever be razed? should there be a city size limit here? who decides?

civilian deaths: should bombardment of cities be allowed at all? this is a moral question. should there be limits for bombardment units? military unit and strategic resources only? is it ok to pillage and thus starve populations?

reputation: should your keep your word? even if it means a lost opportunity? if you are always opportunistic, what does being an apolytonian mean?

so, is winning everything? shouldn't you be striving for something larger here?

if these things have been addressed then my apologies and please point me to the relevent documents.

thank you for your time.

"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
Sophocles

[Spiffor]

Currently, no moral concern has been adressed, or only to be ridiculed (we laughed about the idea of an environment minister )
Our concern, for the time being, is not to win at all costs. It's to get out of this jungle at all costs. As long as our very survival is jeopardized by our starting position, morals will not be a concern. When we become a stable power (in a long time), we'll probably make ethical choices.

[eewolf]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Currently, no moral concern has been adressed, or only to be ridiculed (we laughed about the idea of an environment minister )
Our concern, for the time being, is not to win at all costs. It's to get out of this jungle at all costs. As long as our very survival is jeopardized by our starting position, morals will not be a concern. When we become a stable power (in a long time), we'll probably make ethical choices.

so, apolyton puts survival above its moral code? slavery is ok until you are out of the jungle? did you check with the slaves on that one? what makes you think that those prospering by slavery will want to give it up later? ethics comes with a price. and you cannot buy in later. do you speak for apolytonia when you say "morals will not be a concern?"

it seems to me that you would like ethics to be convenient. but, they are not. instead, they are a challenge. is that not what this is about?

i will leave you again with the same quote:

"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
Sophocles

[Spiffor]

Your questions aren't easy to answer, and I fear very few Apolytonians will answer to you.
I'm pretty sure I speak for a huge majority of Apolytonians when I say moral is currently not a concern. In fact, you're the first one to even raise the question.

I don't know if we'll have moral concerns in the future, once we'll be a stable power. But I'm almost sure we won't adress moral at all until then. Only once we'll be a stable power, we'll have the opportunity to discuss morals. Whether we'll take it or not, I can't say.


(BTW, were you once concerned about your very survival in real life ? In these times, instinct takes over civilization, and nothing matters more than survival itself)

edit : typo

[Switch]

Originally posted by Spiffor
"BTW, were you once concerned about your very survival in real life ? In these times, instinct takes over civilization, and nothing matters more than survival itself)

It depends on who you ask. Regarding most people, you'd most probably be right. However, regarding those of us who follow a major religion, namely Christianity or similarly ethical religions, and aren't just a part of it by name but actually a part of it by their actions, then the opposite would be true: self sacrifice for the good of anyone else. IE, put yourself last.

This kind of goes to the question: would you jump in front of a bullet aimed at someone else?

[UnOrthOdOx]

what makes you think that those prospering by slavery will want to give it up later? ethics comes with a price. and you cannot buy in later.

Alot of what you say is true. In some sense. I do not speak for all of Apolytania, only for myself. I really expect that what will happen here will likely follow the history of the world.

Can you name me a civilization that at some time did not use a form of slavery? If you want to get right down to it, isn't the very starting government imposed by the game unethical? The game is meant to simulate our journey from stone age barbarians to modern day "enlightened" people. I say let it be played as so.

It is nice to say how things could be done. And in a ideal situation that may be so. You are right saying that ethics come at a price. At what point does that price become too high? Is it ethical to ever even declare a war? You ask if bombardment of cities should be allowed. Even taking a city, razed or not, results in the lost lives of the innocent. Shall we even be allowed to go to war? On what grounds?

I CAN tell you what we ARE here for, however. We are here to PLAY the GAME. We are here to HAVE FUN. If there are those who find enjoyment in moral and ethical debates, they will occur. Win or lose, our goal here is to have fun, as a group. To come together, as a group. And to learn, have fun, and play, as a group.

[Duddha]

so, apolyton puts survival above its moral code? slavery is ok until you are out of the jungle? did you check with the slaves on that one? what makes you think that those prospering by slavery will want to give it up later? ethics comes with a price. and you cannot buy in later. do you speak for apolytonia when you say "morals will not be a concern?"

He does speak for us in saying that morals are not a concern not only because our suvival is at stake but also because moral corruption has no weight in the game. It does not matter if we take slaves, the computer doesn't care. The computer also doesn't care if we're nice. It will kill us all the same and if we are destroyed I don't think any of us will be satisfied that we died with honor. We want to win.

[eewolf]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Your questions aren't easy to answer, and I fear very few Apolytonians will answer to you.
I'm pretty sure I speak for a huge majority of Apolytonians when I say moral is currently not a concern. In fact, you're the first one to even raise the question.

I don't know if we'll have moral concerns in the future, once we'll be a stable power. But I'm almost sure we won't adress moral at all until then. Only once we'll be a stable power, we'll have the opportunity to discuss morals. Whether we'll take it or not, I can't say.

you cannot address the moral issues later. it does not matter if it is inconvenient now. if you build your civilization on slavery, torture, larceny, etc., you will always be tainted. i didn't mean to inconvenience the powers that be with such trivia, i just wondered if this was or could be more than a game. seems like it should be.

Originally posted by Spiffor
"BTW, were you once concerned about your very survival in real life ? In these times, instinct takes over civilization, and nothing matters more than survival itself)

i have been in situations where my life was in jeopardy. i have not had to make ethical decisions for my survival, though. i like to believe that i could rise above pure survival if the situation arose, as many have over the ages. and you are wrong about instinct. that is an overused tool, an excuse for the masses. critcal thought and ethics combined are more powerful than instinct. it is the ability to see and act beyond instinct that raises us above the natural darwinian world.

to say "nothing matters more than survival itself" is to lose before taking your first step. it will become the continuous battlecry of the strong persecuting the weak.

my examples stand. if apolytonia uses slavery, torture, and kills civilians for territory, than apolytonia is nothing and never will be, even in "victory". but if apolytonia has standards and lives (and dies) by them, then you have glory, even if you do not survive.

why strive for less?

[Panag]

hi ,

its almost impossible to use and keep "ethics" , the AI does not use them , ...... so why should we start to do so , .........

if the AI would take them in account , yes , but here its not the case , ....

have a nice day

[eewolf]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


Can you name me a civilization that at some time did not use a form of slavery?

what does that matter? if this "democracy game" is an exercise in reliving history, it means little. if, however, it is an exercise in striving for goals from what history has taught, then maybe it serves a higher goal. and i believe would be more fun in the long run.

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
If you want to get right down to it, isn't the very starting government imposed by the game unethical?

of course. and you have a strange duality going on with your democratic form of decision making and your current form of government in the game. but who is driving?

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx The game is meant to simulate our journey from stone age barbarians to modern day "enlightened" people. I say let it be played as so.

the game by firaxis was designed with that in mind (and more, maybe). but you aren't playing that game. that game is a minor part of what is happening here.

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
It is nice to say how things could be done. And in a ideal situation that may be so.

isn't that what you have created here. an ideal situation where a large group of players can all contribute to the whole. why are you so quick to give in to the easiest road?

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx You are right saying that ethics come at a price. At what point does that price become too high?

ah, people have been asking that since before history. and answering, too. some say that no price is too high. some say there are limits. i was just wondering why apolytonia doesn't ask or answer it.

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Is it ethical to ever even declare a war? You ask if bombardment of cities should be allowed. Even taking a city, razed or not, results in the lost lives of the innocent. Shall we even be allowed to go to war? On what grounds?

these are wonderful questions that should be asked and answered in your democracy game. but by what standard are the answers given?

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I CAN tell you what we ARE here for, however. We are here to PLAY the GAME. We are here to HAVE FUN. If there are those who find enjoyment in moral and ethical debates, they will occur. Win or lose, our goal here is to have fun, as a group. To come together, as a group. And to learn, have fun, and play, as a group.

great! i do not see where standards will lessen the fun or dillute the game. in fact, it will make it more challenging. in fact, i congratulate everyone participating in the game.

[UnOrthOdOx]

In all honesty, I hope you stick around for quite some time, I enjoy debates. All debates. I must leave work now, however, and my home computer is down at the moment. I will return tomorrow to continue this, however, and hopefully more in the future. Untill then.

[Duddha]

Well, if we want to role play about this then our moral corruption is all the fault of Tyrant Trip. Damn this despotism! How much longer until Republic?

[eewolf]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

its almost impossible to use and keep "ethics" , the AI does not use them , ...... so why should we start to do so , .........

if the AI would take them in account , yes , but here its not the case , ....

have a nice day

spoken like a true despot. is that your standard? i am only as evil as the next guy. not much of a standard.

try this: i do not want to have standards because that would make things more difficult. doesn't really rally the troops, does it?

you have the minds of dozens of living, breathing, thinking people behind you. all i am saying is that maybe you should have a code beyond, let's beat those subroutines.

[Inverse Icarus]

i'm very pro pop rushing.

[Panag]

Originally posted by eewolf


spoken like a true despot. is that your standard? i am only as evil as the next guy. not much of a standard.

try this: i do not want to have standards because that would make things more difficult. doesn't really rally the troops, does it?

you have the minds of dozens of living, breathing, thinking people behind you. all i am saying is that maybe you should have a code beyond, let's beat those subroutines.

hi ,

, we are talking about the game , .... right , ....

the day the comp is able to count it in , yes , ....
but since its not in , no , not on all point , but on most ; NO

have a nice day

[Inverse Icarus]

slavery: who decided you should use captured workers as slaves? did you vote on it? if your empire is built on the backs of slaves, what does that say for your character as a people?

i am pro slavery.

pop rushing: i have seen no talk of this so perhaps this has been banned. if not, why not? a democracy that votes for torture and slavery must have a serious class structure. does apolytonia?

i am pro pop rushing

city razing: should cities ever be razed? should there be a city size limit here? who decides?

i am pro razing (abandoning after capture)

civilian deaths: should bombardment of cities be allowed at all? this is a moral question. should there be limits for bombardment units? military unit and strategic resources only? is it ok to pillage and thus starve populations?

i am pro bombardment of pop points

reputation: should your keep your word? even if it means a lost opportunity? if you are always opportunistic, what does being an apolytonian mean?

i am pro a good reputation.

so, is winning everything? shouldn't you be striving for something larger here?

it's really for fun, but i'd like to win

[eewolf]

Originally posted by UberKruX
i'm very pro pop rushing.

excellent. i assume you have one vote like everyone else in this democracy.

my point was that a code of ethics should have been created from the start. and voted on. and then lived by. it is not too late.

btw, i disagree with you on the pop rushing. democracy. so it goes.

[Sheik]

This is only a game and for now I agree with UberKrux. Unless someone has another goal for this game then we should do everything to win after all we are not playing the game to lose and then say, well at least we didn't hurt any citizens or use slaves.

Though I do think that a moral code would be interesting. Perhaps it would make the game more realistic.

[Duddha]

eewolf, welcome to Unified Front Coalition politics.

[eewolf]

Originally posted by UberKruX
i am pro slavery.
i am pro pop rushing
i am pro razing (abandoning after capture)
i am pro bombardment of pop points
i am pro a good reputation.

it's really for fun, but i'd like to win

even better. this citizen has answered all of my example questions on ethics. and he has given his reasons, i think.

i believe he is part of the elected power structure, too. is he a servant of the people in this democracy or does he speak for all? at least he has made his views clear.

but, is winning all there is here?

[eewolf]

Originally posted by Sheik
This is only a game

is it? what a shame.

Originally posted by Sheik
Unless someone has another goal for this game then we should do everything to win after all we are not playing the game to lose and then say, well at least we didn't hurt any citizens or use slaves.

this is how people are controlled. they are given two choices when there are many others. it is not "play to win" vs. "play to lose". how about "play to win with a code of standards". and there are doubtless many other reasons people are participating.

Originally posted by Sheik
Though I do think that a moral code would be interesting. Perhaps it would make the game more realistic.

ah, "interesting" and "realistic". maybe. could be worth exploring?

[ManicStarSeed]

I like this thread... It is outside of "the box...."

Ethics... what a concept.

Truth is that there is not a culture in this world without a dark past. Slavery was acceptable to many cultures through time. Most used slaves at some point, most banned it eventually. Only with the development of understanding and learning did the perception change to that of overwhealmingly negative. If in the ADs, we are in the position for abolishing slaves without maiming ourselves, I say do it. They can join our cities and our culture. Hooray there are more of "us"!!


When I play my own games, I enjoy the ethical play that transpires during play. Sometimes I have entire slave armies of workers sometimes only a few. I enjoy the ethic play as it unfolds. If I am in the position, I will rarely ever build the manhattan project for ethical reasons, I leave it to the AI who has no problems with polluting an entire planet with nukes.

If you want ethics, that is outside the scope of the game, but not outside of our Civ 3 Democracy. We do have the power to decide for it or not. It puts more of role-playing aspect to it. I support it.

Ethics can and should be a part of it, but as a civ, we have not even begun to ponder philisophy and the nature of exisiance. Ethics are a long way off.


We as Apolytoinans are little more than apes right now. We just got the idea of stringing sinew to a yew stick to shoot another stick with a point in order to protect ourselves and call itr archery. Ethics can not come before philisophy.

If you are going to Role play, then role play and wait untill the right time before raising ethical questions. Ethics will be an issue as long as there is corruption in any of our cities. Corruption is an ethical problem is it not? So lets have ethical problems, after all we are led by a despot. Can you say "Machiavellian Ethics"? Who are you to judge that they are not correct with out creating another moral qurestion?

I say play by ethics but keep it in context.

Peace ...err I mean

WAR!!!
kill the french take them all as slaves build us up! down with them

Mss

[Sheik]

Maybe we should get a code of standards. But what would be the penalty if a ruler doesn't follow the code? Anyone have any ideas?

[eewolf]

Originally posted by Duddha
eewolf, welcome to Unified Front Coalition politics.

thanks for the welcome, but your civilization is foundering, not just because you are in a jungle, but because you have no ethical rudder. all of the fronts, coalitions and parties won't change that.

[OPD]

Centuarys later as archiologists discover the scattered and beaten down remnants of the once vibrant and flourishing civilization of apolytonia they will find a small plaque which reads

"at least we didnt raze or pop rush."

we cant afford morals

[civman2000]

slavery ...easy workers
I don't like poprushing, but if not used to the extreme it is good
I don't like razing
Pop bombardment is ok, though that should never be top priority in bombarding.
Pro good reputation

Face it, civ is a realpolitik game

[ManicStarSeed]

Originally posted by civman2000

Face it, civ is a realpolitik game

I am not sure I understand? What do you mean by realpolitik?

[Panag]

hi ,

it looks that UberKruX and some others are going to a nightmare , ......

, some people are maniacs , but then only for the "good" side , ...

panag > starts to give banana's to the secret police , call's uber , evacuates the president , and starts to use banana's on anayoe who is not agreeing , ....

this type of revolt is unacceptable , ....

uber > starts to load banana's in the big banana gun , just in case , ...

the AI is not using ethics on us , so , lets teach him for his evil crime , ...

have a nice day

[eewolf]

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed
I like this thread... It is outside of "the box...."

Ethics... what a concept.

Truth is that there is not a culture in this world without a dark past. Slavery was acceptable to many cultures through time. Most used slaves at some point, most banned it eventually. Only with the development of understanding and learning did the perception change to that of overwhealmingly negative. If in the ADs, we are in the position for abolishing slaves without maiming ourselves, I say do it. They can join our cities and our culture. Hooray there are more of "us"!!

why wait. to use the "game" is just a crutch. everyone playing this game is 21st century (well, most i hope). you are not restricted to the historical record. you can achieve more. which is a better goal: to win? or win with honor?

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed
If you want ethics, that is outside the scope of the game, but not outside of our Civ 3 Democracy. We do have the power to decide for it or not. It puts more of role-playing aspect to it. I support it.

Ethics can and should be a part of it, but as a civ, we have not even begun to ponder philisophy and the nature of exisiance. Ethics are a long way off.

it is only as far off as you want it. and you are wrong about history. there have been voices since the beginning shouting against tyranny. they have mostly gone unheeded (and that continues). here you can listen and make a choice. in fact, since the issue has been raised, you must choose. and live with the answer.

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed
We as Apolytoinans are little more than apes right now. We just got the idea of stringing sinew to a yew stick to shoot another stick with a point in order to protect ourselves and call itr archery. Ethics can not come before philisophy.

again, no such luck in history. in 4000bc, people were not much different than today. they were not close to being apes. their brains were the same writings indicate that their thinking was the same. however, even if this is so in the "civ game" it is not so in the apolytonia population here. you have philosophy. you have ideas, you have set yourselves above it.

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed
Can you say "Machiavellian Ethics"? Who are you to judge that they are not correct with out creating another moral qurestion?

i am not judging. i am pointing out a missing rudder on your ship of state.

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed
I say play by ethics but keep it in context.

letting the context be decided by the game is: easy and convenient. what happened to courageous?

[eewolf]

Originally posted by OPD
we cant afford morals

is this the your national motto?