What the fuck just happened?

We never got the choice to get the fuck up and call reinforcements, which would have been the first thing to do after finding out you just kill the CIA agent.

Why was it the wrong thing to use the napalm? Why is killing another human being wrong? What is right and wrong and who decides on it? Objective morality is a sham.

>imfuckingplying
You're supposed to turn back and report literally immediately, you never should have met the Banehunter in the first place.

ahahah you were the bad guy all long get it so clever ahahahahah

fuck off with that nihilistic bullshit, you know damn well that you dont have to clearly define "objective morality" to classify killing innocent people as being objectively immoral

No, you fuck off with your presuppositions. Prove why it's "wrong" to kill "innocent" people or eat shit.

i define "wrong" or "right" by what i would want or not want to happen to me (i would assume most do)
i dont want to die, therefore its wrong to kill other people

theres special cases obviously, like self defense etc, but without additional information, there is nothing "right" about killing a person, but something "wrong"

Fog of war. The main character thinks he's making the right decision every step of the way, but his actions are based on incomplete information, and keep harming others.

So is it wrong for a soldier to kill another soldier? And in what scenario. Is it wrong for a sniper to kill a soldier that is not directly engaging him? Is it wrong to for a soldier to bomb a weapons factory which employs non-combatants? Is it wrong to kill non-combatants that supply combatants with resources that will help them kill you? At what point do you draw the line between "right" and "wrong"?

>theres special cases obviously
probably should have clarified: war in general is a special case. both your examples are arguably "moral" (even though i personally would say that killing non-combatants is immoral), but killing people who are not related to anything like that all is obviously immoral. thats where you can draw a thick line no matter how you look at it
and if youre gonna argue that the wife of the soldier sucks his dick, lowers stress levels, makes him fight better and therefore aids him in trying to kill you then youre a fucking retard

What I'm arguing and what you clearly missed in the last post is what I stated earlier, that "objective morality" is a sham. If your moral system is riddled with exceptions then it isn't all that objective to begin with, especially when other people have other special cases which you don't agree with and may not think your special cases are justifiable in turn. Where you think killing someone in self-defense is moral, others may not and thus consider your actions immoral in said situation. Either your system can be applied to all instances or it is worthless.

what im arguing and what you clearly missed is what i stated earlier, that you dont need to define "objective morality" to know killing random ass people is wrong

also if you want a system that fits on every situation: categoric imperative. not my favourite model, but better than walking around with no moral compass at all and it keeps you from randomly murdering people. how about that

Not really, you weren't... at first, you just fuck up really badly, and fuck even harder trying to prove you didn't.

>that you dont need to define "objective morality" to know killing random ass people is wrong
How do I know this if it has no basis? Are you basing your argument on how you feel? Because emotions are incredibly subjective. Why should I trust your emotional impulses? Why shouldn't I trust a murderer's emotions who says that killing others is fine?

>play game
>game: why you play game? game make you do bad thing!

Attached: 1522767898005.png (540x406, 358K)

basing basic morals on the feelings of the overwhelming majority of the population makes sense, contrary to basing them on murderers (a very small minority of the population) feelings
also:
>categoric imperative

You should have had the option of turning back at any point during the first mission. Then the game could have justifiably blamed everything on you. Instead you're not left with any choice but to do the wrong thing. And no, not playing the game isn't a good enough excuse. This isn't a game, it's a movie with interactive segments, but the game wants to blame YOU, and it really falls flat.
Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty cool game with some great story telling moments, but this whole overarching idea of "It's your fault because you could have just not played" is really silly.

The vast majority of the population are capable of horrific acts upon their fellow man as long as there is no repercussions (Stanford prison experiment for example). People with power and no risk of being punished have done horrible shit throughout all of history. If we're going to go into ad populum territory, we may as well consider just how horrible people can be to one another once the risks are removed.

It's Heart of Darkness: Iraq Edition

But it's still good. The central idea is that Walker (as you) could have turned back right at very start. His only objective was to confirm the signal from Konrad. That's it. After that he could have turned around and went home. But he disobeyed orders and went in after him, partly for wanting to live up to his "mentor" and partly for his own obessive mind. It's clear as you continue that Walker has underlying mental problems that clearly make him unfit to be a delta operator. The halucinations, the fake radio transmissions, etc etc. And it's also said in the lore that he had these issues way before he got to Dubai

You are the demons and then John was oh for fucks sake

>implying the stanford prison experiment actually says anything about the human psyche
fucking lmao dude, the whole thing was fucking stupid, they did a single run with 24 people, that alone makes the results useless. reproducability is the opposite of a given and the "guards" afterwards reported that they were just trying to imitate a cliche prison situation and even that the instructor pushed them to do more fucked up shit. the whole thing was a fucking circus.
if guarantee that the average person in the same situation wouldnt do anything thats bad. and yes, i base that assumption of my feeling of being a relatively average person and not wanting to kill or hurt random ass people in my free time

also:
>categoric imperative

konrad goes to dubai to save the day because his reputation was damaged in afghanistan. the whole city is enveloped in a magic sandstorm wall. konrad tries to evac his men and the emiratis but the sandstorm kills just about everyone. konrad's men go CUHARYZEEEEEEE and split into two factions: damned and exiles; exiles still wanna try to help, damned are the crazy ones and they start committing war atrocities to keep order. konrad records his message, the sandstorm lets the signal out because reasons.
enter walker and gang. they go in to see what happened. little do they know so did the cia. the cia wants to clean up all evidence of american activity by killing everyone and pit the surviving emiratis against the damned so they arm them to kill the exiles but also the emiratis. when you get to "that part" you run into the exiles trying to evac the eimratis but they mistake you for cia assassins and start shooting you. in a case of mistaken identity you kill them with WP.