Quote:

Yes, I mean the card carrying members. Not the average German in the street.

Card carrying members WERE the average German citizen...just like card carrying republicans and demicrats are average americans. The leadership were the ones perpetrating most things. Also I'm not trying to DEFEND germany i'm trying to put things into perspective. I DO NOT and NEVER HAVE approved of anything that happened in WW2, I am merely trying to discuss the concept of painting the whole of the members with the brush that was caused by the leaders.

Quote:

Original post by Gyrthok -The point i'm trying to make is that Ethics and Morality is Relative, and subject to change. As such, a game being labeled "Politically Incorrect" or reprehensible is a matter of perspective, or ones opinion.

Then why are you even here arguing the point? If we can all do what is right in our own eyes, if it's all OK as long as we don't get caught....

What rubbish! Ethics and morality ARE absolutes. They have to be. I agree with you that society determines what types of actions are punishable, but just because society decides that an action is permissible doesn't necessarily make it ethical or moral. And likewise, just because society decides that an action is NOT permissible doesn't guarantee that it's immoral or unethical.

So where do we go to find the absolutes? Outside of ourselves, obviously, because if it was up to us we'd each do what we felt was right in our own eyes.

I personally don't mind a game that allows you to do immoral or unethical things, AS LONG AS IT ALLOWS YOU TO DO EQUALLY MORAL AND ETHICAL THINGS. GTA for example was fun for a while, until the fact that you can only choose a path that is unethical and immoral began to hammer itself into your brain. Oh yeah, you can be a cop, a fireman, drive an ambulance, etc., but nothing to further the plot. What if I wanted to CLEAN UP Vice City instead of capitalize off of it's immoralities? Not only should I be able to drive a cop car, an ambulance, deliver pizzas, etc., but I should be able to...oh for example...become a preacher, handing out tracts and preaching on the corners. Heh. Or do something else where I could have a postive (read "moral" and "ethical") impact on the inhabitants of the game world.

But alas, it seems every dev is focusing on the negative with no moral or ethical recourse. Just a sign of the times, I guess.

Take care.

Quote:

Original post by Warsong Why not has a game like a movie in how the main focus of the game is to hunt gay people?

That is quite possible one of the sickest and fascist ideas for a game I have ever heard. Very rarely do I comment on such things but that was just too large to pass by. No personal offence intended – I’m not trying to start a heated pro/anti-gay discussion. :P

Seriously though, I’d like to see a game that includes discrimination as such in a way that demotes it and actually convinces the player how wrong it is. I’d like to see a game that makes a point about the unfavourable aspects of society. Most games promote killing people as a fun and enjoyable thing to do – why not show the player how bad it really is? This is done in the film industry all the time (a good example is Apocalypse Now), and occasionally in video games here and there (“We are now boarding the first-class and far-superior passengers” – Tony Hawks 3). The difficultly exists in making the game enjoyable to play yet making the politically incorrect elements come over as a sad, depressing thing.

Jackson Allan

Quote:

What rubbish! Ethics and morality ARE absolutes

100% wrong. This is evidenced by different cultures and even changes in our own culter as we go through history.

Examples. In some muslim countries it is Immoral, and unnacceptable for women to go outside showing any part of thier body. In some parts of america it is not immoral or unethical to be a prostitue (see Nevada).

Today it is common practice to loan money with an annual percentage rate of 5%-19%. However if you go back to when the country was founded this act was considered very immoral and only the most evil of people would do it.

If you look at Christian culture you are only allowed one wife. If you look at muslim, and even some Mormon cultures polygamy is acceptable.

Look at the number of states that are trying to legalize Marajuana. Some people consider this moral, while others consider it Immoral. The same can be said about Abortion some believe that it is immoral to kill an unborn child, while others believe it is immoral to force a woman to go through an unwanted pregancy providing a terrible life for both mother and child.

The civil war was fought over the Ethics and Morality of Slavery.

ETHICS AND MORALS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE, they are influenced by factors such as religion, society, friends, reletives etc.

Quote:

Original post by robert4818 Quote: Yes, I mean the card carrying members. Not the average German in the street. Card carrying members WERE the average German citizen...just like card carrying republicans and demicrats are average americans. The leadership were the ones perpetrating most things. Also I'm not trying to DEFEND germany i'm trying to put things into perspective. I DO NOT and NEVER HAVE approved of anything that happened in WW2, I am merely trying to discuss the concept of painting the whole of the members with the brush that was caused by the leaders.

No, the average German may have voted pro-Nazi in the election that brought Hitler to power (indirectly), but the party by no means consisted of anywhere NEAR a majority of Germans via direct membership. A majority of Germans may have SUPPORTED it or been SYMPATHETIC to it, but I am only referring to actual party members, not how many voted for them in 1930. I don't dispute that some Nazis joined the party for simply pragmatic reasons of getting ahead or what have you. The same happened in Soviet Russia. However, the Nazis were Hitler's power base. Without them, he could not have done the things he did. Therefore, many who supported him but did not know of his crimes against the Jews (for one example out of many crimes), still were criminals. I am not talking people who were forced to support them, for whatever reasons, as one previous poster had invoked.

Quote:

Original post by robert4818 Quote: What rubbish! Ethics and morality ARE absolutes 100% wrong. This is evidenced by different cultures and even changes in our own culter as we go through history. Examples. In some muslim countries it is Immoral, and unnacceptable for women to go outside showing any part of thier body. In some parts of america it is not immoral or unethical to be a prostitue (see Nevada). Today it is common practice to loan money with an annual percentage rate of 5%-19%. However if you go back to when the country was founded this act was considered very immoral and only the most evil of people would do it. If you look at Christian culture you are only allowed one wife. If you look at muslim, and even some Mormon cultures polygamy is acceptable. Look at the number of states that are trying to legalize Marajuana. Some people consider this moral, while others consider it Immoral. The same can be said about Abortion some believe that it is immoral to kill an unborn child, while others believe it is immoral to force a woman to go through an unwanted pregancy providing a terrible life for both mother and child. The civil war was fought over the Ethics and Morality of Slavery. ETHICS AND MORALS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE, they are influenced by factors such as religion, society, friends, reletives etc.

Some are relative, some are absolute. Just because some society feels that sacrificing children to their god is ok, doesn't make it right. As a civilization, we learn. A million years ago, some pre-historic person may have thought that killing his neighbor across the cave was acceptable because he wanted his newly dead antelope for dinner. Today, that's just wrong. In almost ALL modern societies. That is not relative. And I have no problem casting judgment on people living in MODERN CIVILIZATION who do certain things.

Post modernism and 100% moral relativism are bankrupt theories for guiding human action. And hey, I'm an atheist lefty who has been exposed to a zillion hours of Marxist, post modernist rantings for years. I recognize, however, when a theory is wrong. To say everything is relative and nothing is right or wrong, is WRONG. Period.

You muddy the waters by bringing in certain issues which really ARE relative, and then draw the incorrect conclusion that EVERYTHING is morally or ethically relative. You are wrong.

To a serial killer, murdering your family or mine is no big deal. In fact, he or she WANTS to do it for its positive effect on him or her. Does that make it a morally relative issue? Of course not. Wrong is wrong.


Edit add: How many times DID I use the word "wrong" in this post? Heh. Funny on a second read.

Errr, wrong isnt wrong. wrong is wrong by your standards and by the "Ruling" cultures standards. Let us take your murder example and remove population growth as a factor. 100000 serial killers are put on an island to co-exist. They have just formed a "Culture". in this culture it is ok to murder multiple people, that makes it moraly "Right". So in this example a cultures morals are created by the contents of that cultures average moral belief system. I hope this in some way ilistrates why I am "Right" and you are "Wrong" but that is just my cultures average viewpoint.

Quote:

Original post by Ned_K Quote: Original post by robert4818 Quote: What rubbish! Ethics and morality ARE absolutes 100% wrong. This is evidenced by different cultures and even changes in our own culter as we go through history. Examples. In some muslim countries it is Immoral, and unnacceptable for women to go outside showing any part of thier body. In some parts of america it is not immoral or unethical to be a prostitue (see Nevada). Today it is common practice to loan money with an annual percentage rate of 5%-19%. However if you go back to when the country was founded this act was considered very immoral and only the most evil of people would do it. If you look at Christian culture you are only allowed one wife. If you look at muslim, and even some Mormon cultures polygamy is acceptable. Look at the number of states that are trying to legalize Marajuana. Some people consider this moral, while others consider it Immoral. The same can be said about Abortion some believe that it is immoral to kill an unborn child, while others believe it is immoral to force a woman to go through an unwanted pregancy providing a terrible life for both mother and child. The civil war was fought over the Ethics and Morality of Slavery. ETHICS AND MORALS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE, they are influenced by factors such as religion, society, friends, reletives etc. Some are relative, some are absolute. Just because some society feels that sacrificing children to their god is ok, doesn't make it right. As a civilization, we learn. A million years ago, some pre-historic person may have thought that killing his neighbor across the cave was acceptable because he wanted his newly dead antelope for dinner. Today, that's just wrong. In almost ALL modern societies. That is not relative. And I have no problem casting judgment on people living in MODERN CIVILIZATION who do certain things. Post modernism and 100% moral relativism are bankrupt theories for guiding human action. And hey, I'm an atheist lefty who has been exposed to a zillion hours of Marxist, post modernist rantings for years. I recognize, however, when a theory is wrong. To say everything is relative and nothing is right or wrong, is WRONG. Period. You muddy the waters by bringing in certain issues which really ARE relative, and then draw the incorrect conclusion that EVERYTHING is morally or ethically relative. You are wrong. To a serial killer, murdering your family or mine is no big deal. In fact, he or she WANTS to do it for its positive effect on him or her. Does that make it a morally relative issue? Of course not. Wrong is wrong. Edit add: How many times DID I use the word "wrong" in this post? Heh. Funny on a second read.

Ah this is where you again are getting confused. Ethics and morals are a sense of personal and societal right and wrong, not a measure of good and evil. Do you consider public stoning a woman for adltery to be Ethical and Moral? Some Muslims belive this to be true. Though by US standards, and standards of most of the world this is wrong and uncivillized.

Quote:

Original post by HippieHunter Errr, wrong isnt wrong. wrong is wrong by your standards and by the "Ruling" cultures standards. Let us take your murder example and remove population growth as a factor. 100000 serial killers are put on an island to co-exist. They have just formed a "Culture". in this culture it is ok to murder multiple people, that makes it moraly "Right". So in this example a cultures morals are created by the contents of that cultures average moral belief system. I hope this in some way ilistrates why I am "Right" and you are "Wrong" but that is just my cultures average viewpoint.

Nope, you aren't even close. Did you even read what I said? Let me try a question to you: Are you willing to condemn the type of society you just illustrated? Not based on simply CURRENT societal values, but in an absolute and long-term sense? Do you feel such a society, where mass murder is an accepted part of day-to-day life, is really nothing more than a RELATIVE manifestation of morality and is above judgment simply based on the general concept of moral relativism?

Quote:

Original post by robert4818 Ah this is where you again are getting confused. Ethics and morals are a sense of personal and societal right and wrong, not a measure of good and evil. Do you consider public stoning a woman for adltery to be Ethical and Moral? Some Muslims belive this to be true. Though by US standards, and standards of most of the world this is wrong and uncivillized.

Absolutely it's wrong. Do you feel that in any situation it would be right? I am perfectly willing to condemn any group that stones women for adultery in the modern world. I'm not going to go back 2000 years and do so because my point has been that human society evolves and advances over time. Some things that are NOT absolutes over time have almost become absolutes, i.e. through most (but not all) of the world, child molestation is wrong.

If you are willing to tolerate the stoning of women then it will go on. Do you see? If people aren't willing to judge an action simply because "everything is relative," nothing changes.

What is your position? That there shouldn't be any moral absolutes?