Quote:

You see, I am willing to say certain things are right and wrong based on what I view as a set of values, morals, ethics, etc. inherited from thousands of years of philosophy and political thought and learning from our mistakes.

Ok ned. Where did you learn your values and morals? Its the fact that your values (and the fact that you see them are absolute) came from somewhere. I don't disagree with you that slavery is seen as an absolute evil...the problem is, that in a thousand years or so this argument could be made about something we today find absolutely moral. Just because Morals and Values are not absolute and universal does not mean that you abandon your morals and values.

Quote:

Question for you: Do you only follow the morals of society because it's what society says? Or do you have morals that exist independent of society? If America suddenly changed tomorrow and began rounding up Muslims for extermination and the majority of people went along, would you simply follow suit because that's how things work in a "relative" morality?

In answer to your question, I follow the societal values that were passed down to me by my parents, and the ones that I have made on my own as I observe society and make my own calls. However everything that I value and observe is biased due to the influence of my society and the environment that I grew up in. Growing up in rural Missouri, and then joining the military has led me to develop a generally conservative set of morals and values. However the fact that I recognize where my morals and values developed from does not mean that I simply go along with the status quo. If america Changed into a muslim country tomorrow, I would follow my current values. I would raise my kids up the best I could with those same moral values. However, my kids would also be brought up in a muslim society due to america being muslim. They would end up having muslim friends, and state run muslim schools. This would also influence thier values. As would the fact that as they grew up the world around them would be muslim. In the course of a few generations, my family's morals would shift and become muslim. Mine, no. My family's yes. Bear in mind that we try to raise our kids with our values, but we are not the sole source of those values, (otherwise we wouldn't worry about our kids hanging out with the "wrong crowd") they are influenced by society, friends, education, and personal experiences. This is what I mean by morals and ethics are reletive and not 100% absolute.

BTW have you noticed we completely hijacked this thread?

Quote:

Original post by robert4818 Ok ned. Where did you learn your values and morals? Its the fact that your values (and the fact that you see them are absolute) came from somewhere. I don't disagree with you that slavery is seen as an absolute evil...the problem is, that in a thousand years or so this argument could be made about something we today find absolutely moral. Just because Morals and Values are not absolute and universal does not mean that you abandon your morals and values.

I have stated several times that relativism plays a part in many of our day to day values. However, in certain cases, it should give way to more absolute values. Slavery is simply wrong. There is no configuration of circumstances (other than some sci-fi end of the world hyper-extreme scenario) where slavery should be condoned. Simply because a society now, or in the future, feels different, does not make it right from a HUMAN point of view.


Here's where I differ from you, perhaps. I feel we all belong to the human race. I feel that belonging to the human race is more important, especially for the big issues (like slavery, genocide, etc.) than loyalty to a particular society. By your measure, as long as a society in the future accepted it, genocide is a moral thing to do. Simply because all morality is relative and to THEM it is right. I say no. They should be condemned for their actions. Even if only one person 2000 years from now "gets it." The people partaking are immoral. They are immoral because Mankind has been down that route aand we know better. If all history is lost in some future cataclysm and we have to start over, then its a different matter. But again, I'm not talking sci-fi examples. I'm talking a continuously evolving and growing human civilization which has access to its past.

Correct me if I'm wrong. You say all morality is absolutely relative. Correct? If I have it wrong, then please say so.
If this is so, genocide can be considered moral under the correct circumstances. As can slavery. As can gang rape. Etc.
I say Humankind (all of it) does have the capacity to learn and to set guidelines for itself. These guidelines are as close to a moral "absolute" as we can get. Furthermore, Humankind has a right to condemn the "Island of Killers" example previously.

You dodge the issue of whether or not we SHOULD have moral absolutes. Should slavery be considered an absolute wrong? I say yes.

Quote:

Original post by robert4818 BTW have you noticed we completely hijacked this thread?

Yeah, I was beginning to notice that. LOL.

Quote:

Correct me if I'm wrong. You say all morality is absolutely relative. Correct? If I have it wrong, then please say so. If this is so, genocide can be considered moral under the correct circumstances. As can slavery. As can gang rape. Etc. I say Humankind (all of it) does have the capacity to learn and to set guidelines for itself. These guidelines are as close to a moral "absolute" as we can get. Furthermore, Humankind has a right to condemn the "Island of Killers" example previously. You dodge the issue of whether or not we SHOULD have moral absolutes. Should slavery be considered an absolute wrong? I say yes.

I belive there SHOULD be absolutes of wrong and right. The only thing that I'm saying is that in practicality there is NO absolute.

The fact that something CAN be considered moral by a persons standards does not in fact make it moral by my standards, nor does it means that it is moral by society's morals at large. However depending on the society, and the cultural influences the action may be considered moral by those around it. Does this mean I will not condem the act? No. It means that I belive thier morals are skewed and corrupted. But I do recognize that they do belive in fact that it is proper to do so.

Another example is the concept of spanking a child. Some people belive that this is abuse, and emotionally scars the child. Others, myself included, belive that spanking a child is infact a valid form of punishment and shows that there are negative consequences to actions. That other forms of punishment may not be as effective at correcting a behaviour. (though at the same time I am not for physically beating up a child)
The only thing that stays constant is that everything changes.



Oh and of course I see nothing wrong with hijacking THIS thread.

Quote:

I believe there SHOULD be absolutes of wrong and right. The only thing that I'm saying is that in practicality there is NO absolute.

Then we probably don’t disagree that much. I do agree that in a practical sense, relativism runs rampant. My concern is with people not willing to admit that there SHOULD BE some moral absolutes.

Quote:

The fact that something CAN be considered moral by a persons standards does not in fact make it moral by my standards, nor does it means that it is moral by society's morals at large. However depending on the society, and the cultural influences the action may be considered moral by those around it. Does this mean I will not condemn the act? No. It means that I believe their morals are skewed and corrupted. But I do recognize that they do believe in fact that it is proper to do so.

Yes, and my point has been that humanity as a WHOLE has the capacity to judge certain actions. The genocide in Rwanda is one example. In Rwanda, among those doing the killing, it was just fine. But among those on the outside with access to a broader point of view, it was not fine by any means. It was fundamentally wrong. And the word “fundamentally” is the key here.

Quote:

Another example is the concept of spanking a child. Some people believe that this is abuse, and emotionally scars the child. Others, myself included, believe that spanking a child is in fact a valid form of punishment and shows that there are negative consequences to actions. That other forms of punishment may not be as effective at correcting a behavior. (though at the same time I am not for physically beating up a child) The only thing that stays constant is that everything changes.

To me, the spanking example is a bad one. As the action in question becomes less and less extreme, it becomes more and more subject to a relative outlook. Notice, I don’t dismiss relativism, I simply feel that certain things should NOT be subject to it.

getting slightly back on topic.

Gameplay makes a game fun.

Let's take the standard first person shooting gun game. The current gungame fad is shooting zombies. There's duck hunt, deer hunter, one where you shoot planes, terrorists, thieves... What would happen if they were replaced with something politically incorrect [or even as this thread has suggested, offensive]?

The sprite of the target would change, and deep down the human mind doesn't care. A pattern is a pattern. When the player pattern matches something on the screen as "target" they'll point and shoot at it. A hit gives the little reward of success, a miss the opposite.

Now you might get a very different player if you're shooting zombies or cartoon ducks or stereotypical [hate target]... but the "fun" of it remains nearly the same.

[imo]

Who said you could get back on topic?


Back
Back i say
OUT this instant!

Yeah, what's your issue? We control this thread. We control the horizontal and the vertical....wait..um...

Anyway, I have to level my beta WoW Rogue from 9 to 10 before I hit the sack.

Quote:

Original post by Telastyn getting slightly back on topic.

Yeah, this thread got kind of off topic.

But, my question is that the poster seems to think that there haven't been too many games appealing to the specific niche of gamers that would like morally offensive (to some people) games.

Does anyone know of morally offensive games that had good sales?
I did a quick google search and I found that Acclaim released a bicycle motocross game called BMX XXX in 2002 (I think another poster had mentioned the game) which sold under 100,000 copies.

I believe that few publishers would market a game for less than 100,000 sales.