RPG

>Most choices boil down to "do thing you want to do" or "do thing for greater good"
Try playing NV where you can easily farm good Karma which in turn lets you be a dick to everyone and be the good guy

Attached: desire.png (560x622, 309K)

Putting aside whether the golden rule is specifically good for you or not, you realize that morality isn't considered to be about what benefits you

Morality is subjective. Ethics is the thing that is supposed to be objective. That's why games have morality systems and not ethics systems.

>me saving the world
>morality goes down when I steal things
FUCK YOU! The ends justify the means!

>moral principles are objective but morals are subjective

No, you're a faggot

I'm not hated..
What if they don't realize it was me? I also live in city of millions so most are strangers and they will forget anyways.
What do you mean?

Attached: 1565856174136.jpg (803x720, 144K)

>Why do people act like this makes sense?
It's probably one of the most widespread ideas of what the "right" thing to do is, pretty much every religion in the world has some form of the golden rule. So if you're trying to make a morality system that will be intuitive for most people playing then it makes perfect sense to go with this basis.

>Why do people act like this makes sense?

Because it does. If you don't want people doing X to you, how can you justify doIng X to other people? What gives YOU, and ONLY you the right to do X?

>>moral principles
Ethics are not moral principles. Morals are values drives. Ethics are outcomes driven. This is why often things considered morally objectionable are ethically sound and vice versa.

You do not know the meanings or proper use of the following terms:
Ethics
Morals
Objective
Subjective

And clearly you have never played any game with half-decent worldbuilding either.

Did you learn that in philosophy class fagit

>want to have sex with someone
>get arrest for “rape”
WTF I was following the golden rule

>how can you justify doIng X to other people?
I want to do it.
Do you also justify when you decide what to eat for dinner?

Attached: 1550022012515.png (371x353, 148K)

>Ethics are not moral principles. Morals are values drives. Ethics are outcomes driven.
Seriously:
WHO THE FUCK TOLD YOU THAT?!

What kind of asshole has bullshited you like this? That is... pretty fucking disturbing.
It's just plain wrong.

>I want to do it.
Are you 6?

>What if they don't realize it was me? I also live in city of millions so most are strangers and they will forget anyways.

You ever hear the phrase "character is what you are in the dark"? Nobody else will ever know what did... but you'll know. The real you comes out when no eyes are on you.

arch.b4k.co/v/search/text/"good morality systems"/type/op/

The people you're stealing from are ends in themselves.

>WHO THE FUCK TOLD YOU THAT?!
An ethics professor.

Haven't explained why this doesn't make sense.

Attached: 1518990724135.png (482x651, 137K)

i didn't know that most of reproducing normalfags are 6, i thought it's impossible to have kids at that age

morals are about how to play nicely with other people, not about how to minimize bad things happening to you (or maximize good things happening to you).

Choosing to do things that impact other people purely on how it benefits you with no regards to them is sociopathic behaviour.

So if someone raped you and said that they just wanted to rape someone would you go "fair enough"?

Would you want to be fucked by you?

Obviously no, but it's different since it's me.

Attached: 1561351318597.png (433x510, 148K)

This is the FOURTH TIME this stupid fucking thread has been made, AT LEAST, you dumbass fuckers
arch.b4k.co/v/thread/473480638
arch.b4k.co/v/thread/460096012
arch.b4k.co/v/thread/457247762
Holy shit why are you all biting AGAIN what the fuck is wrong with you

Attached: 1546652502614.jpg (500x552, 76K)

>An ethics professor.
Where?
I'm dead serious. What institution? Because if you paid for that... fuck me. That is... seriously bad enough to have whatever institution oversees acreditation for your school to be alarmed.

It's just straight up, completely, absolutely wrong. Check with literally any source from a peer review environment.

>he browses Yea Forums 24/7 to recognize niche shitposters

What's worse posting the threads or being the guy who is here so much he notices?

>I'm a sociopath

Morality isn't really something you quantify. Different people respect and abhor different things.

How is it different? How would it make sense to make a morality system based on "This thing is bad to do unless user does it"? Why would you expect anyone else to go along with that?

My guy has to focus on self-care between making the same Cyberpunk 2077 daylight thread 400 times a month.

Attached: 1512845117255.jpg (700x695, 99K)

>"don't eat that crab!"
>why it's tasty?
>"would you want a giant crab to eat you??"
How does this make any sense?

Attached: 1554125159036.jpg (548x548, 64K)

It does make sense, though. Just because others will not necesarily treat you how you want to be treated doesn't change your morals, it just displays theirs.

If someone is being a shit and you need to slap their shit, it shows you expect others to slap your shit when you're being a shit.

Would I want it to?
No.

Would I expect it to try?
Yes.

Therefore I can try to eat the smaller crab.

Yeah, see, the thing about that "it's okay when I do it" mindset is that there are plenty of people who agree with you. Every single one of them thinks that they alone have the right to do horrible things. Do you see what the problem is here?

Since April 2017 lmao.

Attached: hisautism.png (2508x1215, 1.65M)

Ask me again 2 hours from now when the thread is near bump limit and this piece of shit has been saying the same thing over and over again in slightly different ways the entire time.

Obviously no one wants a giant crab eating them, but if one decided to I'm not going to go "Why me?!?", I'm just going to accept that this is a doggy dog world.

Definitely the guy posting it. You can tell by his manner of writing that he probably cut/pastes the same response in every thread like this he makes. If these anons hadn't looked it up, I would've.

What if the giant crab comes at you with a pinch assault?

Playing through Kingmaker right now, the morality system is far from perfect but it's pretty neat how two opposite choices can both be considered good with the right justification, ie.
>die foul monster, you kill travelers
>okay I'll spare you and tell people to go the long way around, you're just defending your home
without shoe-horning you into 'you're good so you're good to a fault'

The worst thing about it though is that there are game mechanics tied to alignment and a few of the alignments like lawful neutral get very few choices which skew your alignment towards LN. If you find a person lying in the road injured, sometimes you only get
>Chaotic Good heal him
>Lawful Evil extort him
>Chaotic Neutral leave him to his fate
and either way you're fucked. Enough of these and you end up losing your alignment and everything you have with it

My following or non-following of the golden rule does not significantly impact the ratio of people around me who will follow it etc.
THis is why it doesn't make sense.

Attached: 1554245134523.jpg (850x1006, 184K)

You didn't really answer the question there, why would it be okay for you to do whatever you want to other people but not for them to do whatever they want with you?

Are you serious? Please tell me you're not.

I'd hit his weak point for massive damage

You reproduced? How? Is it even legal? You seem to act exclusively on impulses. The age of 6 is literally the absolute top limit where a person can get away with that, if you do not understand basic morals past that age, you are legally a burden of a state.

So what? It's a good thread. Better than many on Yea Forums

You can have morals concerning the golden rule while still not leaving yourself to be a vulnerable idiot, user.

You don't seem to understand what treating others the way you wish to be treated means.

>ITT
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

Except you are setting up a precedent: if more people stopped observing the golden rule, it would quickly spiral out and suddenly affect you gravely, you retard. The ONLY reason why you are alive is because people in vast majority adhere to golden rule, to a point where failure to adhere to it is at best punished by social pressure, at worse by straight up prison time.

>You don't seem to understand what treating others the way you wish to be treated means.
I know what it means literally but it doesn't make any sense.

You know what? I hope you run into someone who thinks just like you do. Who thinks that it's okay when they do horrible things to other people. And I hope that that person skins you alive for shits and giggles.

>Except you are setting up a precedent
No I'm not.
People have been breaking the golden rule forever and yet society continues.
Me doing something has little to no impact on the larger behavior of the people around me.

Attached: 1475007875501.png (640x876, 268K)

Nothing you will do in life will significantly impact those around you, kiddo. But if you want a bleak outlook on life instead of appreciating what little change you can do, you might as well stop eating and bathing now.

>You didn't really answer the question there
Of course he didn't He's probably barely even reading your posts and just posts replies he's already prepared.

He was part right. There's two schools of ethics, one which cares only for the actions and not the consequences and one which cares only with the consequences and not the actions. Applied ethics takes from both. Your alarmism is a little overblown.

So the problem isn't the golden rule, the problem is you're actually an autistic child.

>MUH JEWISH GOD HAS OBJECTIVE MORALS FUCK YOU STIRNER YOU ANTI SEMITE
snip snip prototranny

Attached: 1481488996639.jpg (842x673, 656K)

Is it though? Nothing that will be said here will have any impact on OP's stance, and yours likely won't be changed either. This is just a pointless tirade devoid of actual discourse. No less than a normal Yea Forums thread, but at least most Yea Forums threads are GAMES.

user, it's quite simple. You should just dox yourself right here, right now.
By your logic, nobody is going to send you a dozen pizzas.

>the remake of this will never get TL'd

Your idea of a "good thread" is repeatedly getting baited by a shitposter that continuously pretends to be having a discussion, but in reality is nothing more than a brick wall

He is not even remotely right. You are talking about consequentialism and deontological moral systems (we should also add virtue ethics, pragmatic ethics and utilitarian ethics on that list), but that has FUCK ALL to do with the distinction between "ethics" and "morals".

>What gives YOU, and ONLY you the right to do X?
Because I am so strong that nobody would dare to do it back to me

Attached: hype.png (1920x1080, 1.63M)

>People have been breaking the golden rule forever and yet society continues.
Far more people are upholding it than breaking it, which is why you are still alive and not someone's cock-sleeve. And you never know what kind of impact YOUR SPECIFIC action may or may not have. Not to mention that again: most of golden-rule expectations are straight-up enforced you mongoloid. In reality, you'd end up in a prison very, very fast if you refuse to cooperate.

Alright OP, instead of going on about how the golden rule apparently doesn't make sense what do you suggest instead? You know so much better than almost every ethical tradition, enlighten us, what moral code would make sense?

Not to mention that your idea of a good thread apparently has nothing to do with fucking VIDEO GAMES

I'm reading every post and writing all my posts.
It's not like they're very long.
Describing morals/ethics as consequentialism/deontology(or virtue ethics?) is pretty wack.
I'm not autistic or shitposting.
It's not my fault nobody can explain how it makes sense.
>And you never know what kind of impact YOUR SPECIFIC action may or may not have
This is true of any action so are you arguing for complete non-action? We can think in probabilities and likely outcomes user.

Attached: 1541780861152.jpg (438x438, 20K)

He is just looking for a cheap excuse to act like a selfish cunt, that much has been made clear already. His argument is that he should be allowed to not adhere to golden rule because others had done it before, and because it won't change anything in the grand picture.
I think he might be legit 16 years old or something.

>This is true of any action so are you arguing for complete non-action?
Are you retarded? Where in the post have I ever suggested non-action?

It lost my post link of

>but that has FUCK ALL to do with the distinction between "ethics" and "morals".
It has everything to do with it if you believe ethics should be outcomes driven as he did. You're acting like such a belief is monstrous and he should be in jail for it. It's not that bad to believe the actual results of your actions are the most important part of the action.

I can put as much together. But I'm asking: what about my post suggests anything about non-action?

It doesn't make any sense.

Here is how every morality system should work in video games:

>was your character witnessed doing something evil?
>Did the witness report you to the authorities?
If and only if these two things are true, you get charged with a crime and your "favor" or "social standing" or whatever, essentially what the common folk think about you, Is decreased.
Because morality cannot exist without multiple people interacting.
Games need to knock it off with the "magic number go down = you a bad guy :(((((((" bullshit

Attached: consider the following.jpg (600x600, 50K)

>there are people
>people who are supposedly my equals
>people who are allegedly the same specied as me
>who literally believe
>LITERALLY
>that morality is objective
HA

HA

HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHGAHAGAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

You've mistaken a morality system for a judicial system. It's not moral to do "evil" things as long as you don't get caught.

>was your character witnessed doing something evil?
Yeah, God saw it.

You want to stick your penis in a woman but not have a woman stick her penis in you.

God, you're so immoral.

Don't put words in my mouth

Attached: 1484441114853.png (680x383, 374K)

Imagine being as fucking dumb as a normalfag.

Just imagine being this fucking low IQ.

No, it has nothing to do with it. The distinction/lack-of-threoff between morals and ethics have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what particular moral beliefs you hold.

And no, I have actually not said ANYTHING about the moral belifs themselves, merely the completely awful abuse of the terminology involved.

OK, I fucking spoonfeed you:
There is NO agreed upon distiontion between ethics and morals. VAST majority of all authors use them interchangeably. The closest to a tenative distinction we can get (more of an observation of convention than any form of actual delimination) is that "Morals" tend to refer to the particular set of behavioral normatives, where as "Ethics" are the philosophical sub-discipline studying morals ON TOP of also having the same meaning as morals.
As in: "When I was studying philosophy, I found the ethics class particularly boring". You would not say "Moral class" - that seems awkward.

But that is literally the end of the distinction. Some author may create his own terminology for the sake of his own work, but that distinction holds no relevance outside of his own specfic work, and he has to make it abundantly clear that he is not going to use the words "ethics" and "morals" in the commonly accepted fashion.

You said
>And you never know what kind of impact YOUR SPECIFIC action may or may not have.
But this is true for any thing you decide to do, if you appeal to the butterfly effect then you become paralyzed by the possible results of any action. For all I know if I whistle by this guy on the street he'll kill the president.
For any sensible reasoning we have to speak in estimated expectations of results.

Attached: 1550041952916.jpg (756x945, 118K)

If the woman doesn't want you sticking your dick in her then yes, you are.

>ethics is all wank
Good to know.

First of all, multiple games have a metaphysical morality model in place (a long-standing legacy of DnD and StarWars universes).
Second of all, you are clearly completely failing to appreciate the fact that in most games, the morality system has to make simplifications in execution. You know that people can infer that you have done something wrong even when they did not catch you red-handed in real life, right?
Like that maybe you were the last person to enter a house before something has gone missing? Real world people can make inferences, but simple A.I. in games can't. So they simplify the model. That is why so many games punish you even when you aren't being caught with your pants down.

You have a low IQ

Make sure you can actually read before you try to humiliate yourself in public like this.

>I'm reading every post
And yet you don't address having made this thread over 20 times

>Because I am so strong that nobody would dare to do it back to me

There's always a bigger fish.

>people can infer that you have done something wrong even when they did not catch you red-handed in real life
Not if you play as a white character

Attached: 1443281537715.jpg (500x440, 103K)

It's not relevant to the topic of the thread.

Attached: 1536805779792.jpg (550x650, 57K)

I prefer the silver rule desu.

Attached: ai.gif (250x250, 61K)

You apparently don't have enough IQ to understand what the golden rule actually means, it's not some role reversal shit of imagining other people being literally you with the same desires, it means imagine if you were this other person as they are and what you would want.

>But this is true for any thing you decide to do, if you appeal to the butterfly effect then you become paralyzed by the possible results of any action.
This may be some of the most moronic exaggeration ad absurdum I've seen in my life. Nobody is talking about butterfly effect you cretin. This is a basic fucking common sense: "Don't act like an asshole, even if you are unsure if you'll get punished for it, because A) you might be punished, and even small chance of punishment is worse than NO risk of punishment at all and B) because it has been proven by long term experience that such behavior pays out for people in the long run more, period."

Dissolution of golden rule is UNAVOIDABLY going to have far worse outcome than adherence. It's that fucking simple. Behavior inspires other behavior: refusing to adhere to golden rule can very logically and very pragmatically inspire other people to do the same, and with each individual who joins the "I'm a selfish asshole club", the likelyhood of the negative consequences directly hitting you grows EXPONENTIALLY.

It's just a bad fucking strategy. Most people who genuinely think like do end up in fucking prisons for good fucking reasons.

This thread isn't relevant to the topic of video games.

And yet it stays up anyway.

>you might be punished, and even small chance of punishment is worse than NO risk of punishment at all
Not if the gain outweighs the risk.
If you saw a gold bar fall of a truck you'd return it?
>Most people who genuinely think like do end up in fucking prisons for good fucking reasons.
Only the dumb ones.

Attached: 1536552320991.jpg (536x457, 48K)

Even if no one sees you do some bad shit, you still know you did it and that will have an effect on your mindset, you're cultivating a bad personality.

Then why not say that?

Also, I'm a masochist. I've cut my face open with a razor blade. How should I treat other people, retard?

>Any games with good morality systems?
Looks like video games to me?

Would you rather live in a world where the common morality is to return things that people see dropped, or one where everyone just thinks the golden rule is bullshit like yourself and just takes it?

I just explained in my post how you should, did you not fucking read it? The golden rule isn't "Hurr I'm a masochist so I should treat everyone else like one too" you should treat them according to what they are.

He'd rather live in a world where everything revolves around him.

Yea Forums is one of the stupidest boards on all of Yea Forums and it's stil not stupid enough to believe that.

Attached: 1560103451026.jpg (640x360, 46K)

>Not if the gain outweighs the risk.
Which you have no way of knowing, aside from the fact that statistically, the golden rule always prevailed meaning that it is - by sheer math - the most probable correct way of acting.

>If you saw a gold bar fall of a truck you'd return it?
Yes, and that is a terrible example by the way. Do you have any idea how easy to track are golden bars?

Anyway: your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that golden rule is being adhered to by vast majority of people in the first place. Literally your whole argument is "Golden rule does not make sense because in a world where golden rule allows people to function in EXTREME safety and prosperity, where pretty much every comfort and joy I experience is straight up predicated by it - there is a CHANCE that I might get away with breaking it - on isolated occassions, and with great risks involved."

That, my retarded friend, may be the most poorly concieved argument I've ever seen. You literally start by admitting that golden rule works out, and then you try to argue that it "does not make sense" because there are small seams through which small group of people MIGHT get away with exploiting it.

Are you brain damaged? What is the purpose of this whole fucking exercise? Are you seriously this desperate to justify being a selfish cunt to yourself?

What the fuck? Are you fucking retarded? This makes no sense.

The golden rule is for fucking tards. You have a faggot slave morality because you're a bitch.

It should be clear by now that OP, having posted this exact format dozens of times, has no intention to actually discuss games, and is only seeking to validate their belief. Even if the aforementioned accusations were baseless, the contents of this very thread posted by this very OP are proof enough.

What I want and what I do has no bearing on the world so why concern myself over such hypotheticals?
>Which you have no way of knowing
You can predict.
>aside from the fact that statistically, the golden rule always prevailed meaning that it is - by sheer math - the most probable correct way of acting.
Only in aggregate.

Attached: 1514711139441.jpg (706x951, 92K)

>Are you fucking retarded
Are you? I don't know how much simpler I could explain this.

>Yes, and that is a terrible example by the way. Do you have any idea how easy to track are golden bars?
You realize you can melt it down right...
why would you return it?

Attached: 1523248121189.jpg (511x553, 93K)

>so why concern myself over such hypotheticals?
Because the whole point of this thread was you saying the golden rule doesn't make sense as a basis for morality systems, but these kind of hypotheticals show that it makes perfect sense to base your society on this and not "fuck you, got mine".

>slave morality
I bet you don't actually know what that phrase means.

Doing something bad is in and of itself the punishment for doing the bad thing.

>You can predict.
Poorly.

>Only in aggregate.
That is to say: it works and makes perfect sense, you moron.

You do realize that virtually all markets for gold will require a proof of origin of said gold, right? It's not as easy to sell gold as you seem to think. Also, do you have a forge that can melt gold at home?
I'd return it because A) it's more trouble than it is worth and B) because I'm not an asshole and I realize that human moral guidelines exist for a good reason.

>Then why not say that?
Because the golden rule phrase everyone knows is this idea of morality boiled down to an easy to remember sentence that gets the general idea across and assumes most people won't be autistic and take it super literally, realizing that a single sentence will be lacking a little in specifics.

Maybe your morality is fucking moronic.

There's nothing wrong with hypocrisy btw. Get raped..

>You do realize that virtually all markets for gold will require a proof of origin of said gold
Not if you sell it piecemeal.
>Also, do you have a forge that can melt gold at home?
I could set one up for much less than the bar is worth.
>because I'm not an asshole and I realize that human moral guidelines exist for a good reason.
So you're a cuck?

>Maybe your morality is fucking moronic.
Or maybe you are. You're acting like the kind of person who sees the phrase "God is dead" and thinks it means we should all be edgy nihilists.

I hate how games reward the player for making "virtuous" choices by giving items and other benefits. There should be more material rewards for being greedy and selfish, while virtuous choices are done for their own sake.

>Not if you sell it piecemeal.
Then you'd sell it massively underprice.

>I could set one up for much less than the bar is worth.
Further diminishing the returns and wasting your time that you could spend on something far more useful?

>So you're a cuck?
Oh the fucking irony...

>Only the dumb ones.
>If a truck dropped a gold bar I'd melt it down
Yeah OP, only those other idiots end up in prison, not a genius like you.

Pathologic 2 may have the best treatment of morality I've ever seen in a game. Presenting it with all the complexity and nuance without ever falling into either preachiness or nihilism.

I think Witcher used to do a fairly good job of it too. Especially the first game - I can't say TW2 or 3 felt quite as well developed in that regard. Maybe because since TW3 concepts of morality in videogames have developed quite a lot and TW2/3 felt less novel.

Witcher 3 was nothing but good choices reward bad choices bad.

sauce

As a society we need to test for sociopathy and fix or remove these individuals. Our entire system assumes a certain level of empathy and falls apart when these animals participate in it. And yes they are animals, humanity requires empathy.

Morality systems suck. Individual characters should have individual reactions to your actions.

Retard. The golden rule isn't karma.

TW1 was mega pretentious in that regard, most of your choices had superficial results, Spec Ops The Line was where it's at

Sociopaths are the ones running society retard, it's you, the weak who need culling, for in this cruel world only the strong may survive, and only the strongest.

I don't think you know what the word "pretentious" means.
Spec Ops was a fun little game, but it I fail to see how it relates to anything. It does a very different thing than TW1.

That is adorable. It thinks it's people!

People around the world have a hard time agreeing whether something is right. There's things we generally all agree on, but nothing's universal and no two individuals or groups will agree on everything.

It's also one thing to say what the right thing to do is, and another to do it. When the situation is theoretical, your subconscious mind and emotions don't affect your decision as they would in reality.

In a real situation, most people wouldn't get involved by pulling the switch or pushing the fat man or whatver.

Attached: trolley problem.png (860x447, 153K)

I vaguely remember someone once writing something about the appropriate response to a long train of abuses and usurpations.

Again here's someone that misunderstands the trolley problem. The results of the thought experiment simply show that someone is more likely to kill someone to save five more people's lives if they're less physically involved, IE: pulling a switch instead of pushing someone in front of the tracks.

It tried to sell the idea of grey morality, that there really is no such thing as right or wrong just decisions with different outcomes, results being A) insignificant person lives, other insignificant person dies B) vice versa. Wew CDPR, you really made me think :O

Spec Ops was on a whole new level in this regard esp. concerning the part where the game tricks you into shooting into a crowd of civilians, when you could have just shot into the air to disperse the crowd.

i basically agree with you. idk if you really can't understand what they're saying, which would make you retarded, but your actual outlook is powerful either way and i wish i were more like you.

I wasn't saying that's what the trolley problem was about, I was just saying most people wouldn't pull the switch or push the fat man in real life, regardless what conclusion they come to when it's all theoretical.

Wow, you are a fucking retard. Not a single thing you said is right. That is quite an achievement.
Firstly, The Witcher 1 has a pretty clearly defined moral axis. Second of all, if you enter the whole experience determined not to give a fuck about anyone involved and measure relevance based purely on the sheer quantities of altered content, that is pretty fucking shitty attitude to begin with, and makes your judgement of it pretty fucking irrelevant.

Third, your own argument is self-defeating: you bitch about the lack of sufficient VOLUMES of changed content based on your choices in TW1 then proceed to praise SpecOps, a game notorious for having actually virtually no fucking agency what so ever.
I'm starting to suspect that you don't have any clue what made that game interesting either.

The real golden rule is that causing harm of any kind against someone's will is bad. And if you disagree you're probably a motherfucker trying to get away with exactly that.

So under the golden rule, how does crime and punishment work?

Cooperation is a symbol of strength.

>more likely
Not what the golden rule is about.

>autistic parasite NEETs try to argue about morality

Attached: 1497254407196.png (398x309, 161K)

>Create an edgy necromancer evil looking bastard
> take the the pure good / kind-hearted path
Welp, I cannot into role-play

What if someone's will involves fucking a dog?

Layers of Fear, maybe. I think morality played into that one, but I was high as fuck while playing it so...

At least Socrates and Plato were healthy and fit, we have a bunch of emotionally detached, personally detached people trying to argue about humanity like it's a game of logistics

Um, congratz for having started your period? I hope your boyfriend likes all-blowjob weeks.

I suppose that is one way to back out of an argument. I could have thought of more dignified ways, but judging from your posting record so far, I guess you have a thing for self-humiliation.

This is like the third time I've seen you post this exact thread and have these exact arguments
Fuck off

>why would it be okay
I don't know why universe works like it does, but I know it's possible for situations to be uneven and I want to be on getter side rather than giver

Not harm against the will itself, harm against someone who wishes not to be harmed in that way.

I see where you are going with ths dog example anyway, but this is getting into way muddier waters about whether more intelligent animals can 'actually' consent to sex acts with humans or whether it's always coerced/manipulated on principle.

>I'd return the gold
I agree with your point in general and the rest of what you have said, but the person who has a truck of gold doesn't deserve to get back this missing bar. They have enough already.

It's morality, we're always going to have to wade through muddy waters. You can't ignore the hard question.

>utilitarianism
Into the trash it goes.

>subjective
Piss off. Morality is all about giving Nash the middle finger. No matter where you go, no matter who you ask, no matter when.

That is not utilitarianism, for fuck sake why do you insist on using words you clearly do not know the meaning of.

>we should also add utilitarian ethics
Why? You weren't listing tautologies.

I'll regroup any and all forms of 'does it benefit me?' into the label utilitarianism without worrying about autistic arguments whether Bentham would have agreed.

That's not the relevant question though, all the stuff directly about dogfucking is just to establish it as an actual example of "something bad" or something that could be weaseled into a more ambiguous act. The stronger relevance is what to think about causing harm (by throwing the dogfucker in jail, etc) to those who are causing harm, e.g. punishment and justice. Here you get into a lot of more spooked out or more properly philosophical lines that I mostly cba to regurgitate. Kant says stuff like if you fail to put a murderer to death then you are committing an almost equal wrong because you have failed to satisfy justice, for instance.

Utilitaritanism is not a tautology. It also defiles common definitions of either virtue, deontologic, or consequentialist ethical models (though I am aware some people argue it is, in fact, a form of consequentialism).

It's fucking retarded, seriously one of the dumbest ethical models ever concieved by a human, but then again, virtue ethics aren't exactly stellar and we still list them.

Hi op

>what's best
>hurrrr whatever's best is best
>what would that be
>durrrrr

That is literally the fucking opposite of utilitarianism. Again: why do you use terms that you clearly don't understand?

Except utilitarianism has a very clearly defined criteria for what is best.
They are retarded, but they are clearly defined. Diminishing the amount of suffering among all those who can experience pain.
It's not ambiguous at all.
Moronoic, but not ambiguous.

That's rich, talking about dignity all the while having come at me like an uncouth stray dog high on rabies. I was criticizing TW1's chosen method of conveying ideas lacking in depth, which other games succeeded doing so much better. Yes, as a whole Witcher has a clear message, that people are petty evil idiots but certain quests try to force you into ambigious situations where my voiced qualms apply.

>Except utilitarianism has a very clearly defined criteria for what is best.
Yeah, whatever's best. First of all, it's not even a fucking moral system. It's a refusal to engage with them. Second of all it's a shitty fucking attempt to skirt the issue with a tautology they didn't even bother to veil thinly.

>food analogy

>Yeah, whatever's best.
Can you NOT READ? I've literally explained what Utilitarianism is about. It's a CLEAR moral system with very clear distinction of what is desirable or undesirable, and with a clear value hierarchy.
It's retarded, but none of what you are saying about it is not true.
I fucking WISH it was a refusal to engage with moral reasoning: that way we would not have to deal with Singer and his fucking INSANE fucking possy.
Utilitarianists today actively argue that it is our clear, unquestionable moral duty to alter entire biological species and eventually breed carnivorism out of existence, among other things.
That is a fucking clear statement and fucking clear agency.

Again: some fucking dignity would help you. I've made a clear argument. And you continuing to completely miss key elements of TW's narrative is not my problem either.

And I want to eat mackerel because I want to eat mackerel. That's a 'clear statement and fucking clear agency'.
It's not a moral system. 'If it works, it works' isn't an answer to anything. Appending
>well, pain is bad, yeah?
when pressed for specifics doesn't make it something more.

>And I want to eat mackerel because I want to eat mackerel. That's a 'clear statement and fucking clear agency'.
What part of "utilitarianism specifically and clearly states that a moral action is one that leads to reduced suffering" do you not understand, you fucking retard?
No, according to Utilitarianism, it's actually FACTUALLY AND CLEARLY not acceptable to eat a macrel, no matter how much you crave one, because no amount of satisfaction you'd get from eating it outweighs the infringement on the macrel's right to existential self-determination, and more importantly, the suffering that the macrel experiences in the process of being turned into food.

It's COMPLETELY FUCKING CLEAR. It's a fucking algebra: right to existential self-determination trumps everything else, suffering always outweighs joy.

You don't eat meat because that increases suffering in the world. You don't kill others because that infringes on their right for self determination. You should probably kill yourself because every element of your existence is likely predicated on some form of suffering of someone or something, so ultimately the most moral path will require us to engage in trans-humanism, world-wide genetic alteration of entire ecosystem, and/or voluntary suicide of entire human population

It's fucking idiotic, but but that is how it works. If you did not know this, why the FUCK would you even start talking about this?

That's pretty much what morals are tho, problem solving heuristics on a societal level. Moses gives his people the Ten Commandments containing the law not to kill, and then the Jews happily go on to massacre the "contemporary residents" of Judea and it's a done deal.