Morals in RL vs morals in a small, contained environment

[ramen07]

I've been pondering this:

[spoiler]

il say it again,

I'm still with Clarkey at this point and always will be, i have never been scammed, i know its a very real risk, and i'm naturally cautious. If i was silly enough to not to get (at least 5) references from a trader and do my in depth background check, and then pay half now half after i have the stuff for example and got scammed, i would not trade with the scammer again, however i would NOT scam my stuff back from him/her i would simply write it off as a bad debt. If someone was to offer my stuff back for free after i had written it off i would share it with my alliance (as i had already written it off it wouldn't cause a shortfall in my accounts to ignore it and share it with alliance mates).

In the real world business's have an account called allowance for doubtful debt, this account is sort of a safeguard, your know you wont get all of your creditors to pay you so you put some aside for the inevitable bad debt that you will suffer at some point. NO one that i know of does this in this game bar myself, and i don't really trade much.....

Scamming someone bad for a good cause is never that simple, there are always repercussions eg. If i was to steal for a nasty Dictator and give the money to charity, he will go on a killing spree. If i was to steal money from a big corporation that was exploiting child labor and give to charity, well the company might go down, thousands of people would lose their jobs, homes, their children would be hungry and homeless.

My point is this, who are we to take these things into our own hands when we wont ever know the full extent of the damage it will do, robin hood got people killed...

If you want scamming to stop, do it the right way, have we tried signing a petition, creating a union, going on strike, if all active accounts hit vac for a week, i'm sure mods would be more willing to implement ideas for anti-scamming measures that people have suggested.

A "he stole so its ok for me to steal back" mindset is just down and out wrong, its at this time i quote the bible, "thou shalt not steal" tho religion might not be for everyone, the 10 commandments, no mater if your christian or not, guide a better way for life.

The only thing i have learnt from this thread is that more people are morally ambiguous than i originally thought.

[/spoiler]

In RL, this is one of the dominant ideas of "cultured" society for a number of reasons.
1. real crimes -> real consequences
2. lack of morals -> possible loss of life -> crossing into relatively unknown (but widely speculated and prophesied about) territory
3. small actions -> HUGE, potentially terrible repercussions, usually unforeseen in the long run

Any unlawful action has the potential to be morally wrong. Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor, but also indirectly caused deaths. The core of Christianity revolves around a man who defied common religious tenets of the day, indirectly causing both the social alienation of those that followed him and directly causing his death. But the Christian doctrine also teaches that that man, while doing these things on Earth, gives the opportunity for eternal life after bodily death. Depending on which religion a person practices (not to mention their personal morals), either of these are wrong, right, both wrong or both right.

Now this isn't a religion debate topic, PLEASE don't turn this into a religion debate. I'm just bringing up familiar cases of apparent moral ambiguity.

Let's bring it back to the "common trader scamming a scammer" discussion. There is a very obvious moral ambiguity present here. He very clearly did it with good intentions, but "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions". The big questions?

1. Do morals outside of the game ALWAYS apply ingame, due to much less severe repercussions and different situations?
2. Is this matter a "big deal"? Should the community chuckle and move on, or blacklist/continue blacklisting him as a trader?
3. Are we as a community obligated to say what is wrong, and what is right?
3b. Are we as a community entitled to say what is wrong, and what is right?

Thoughts plz.

[Juliette]

1. No.
2. No. No. Yes.
3. Oh, hell no.
3b. Yes. (We are also entitled to disregard what others say.)

[Jack]

Morality is a **Filtered** notion.

[ramen07]

Morality is a **Filtered** notion.

Why?

Everyone has morals, even if it's "I don't have morals"

[Jack]

That was just plain stupid.

[Massacre]

1. Do morals outside of the game ALWAYS apply ingame, due to much less severe repercussions and different situations?
2. Is this matter a "big deal"? Should the community chuckle and move on, or blacklist/continue blacklisting him as a trader?
3. Are we as a community obligated to say what is wrong, and what is right?
3b. Are we as a community entitled to say what is wrong, and what is right?

Thoughts plz.

Morals, or more correctly, your moral attitude all boils down to ethics, culture of where you were raised, the way you were brought up...the life experiences that you have been through etc. Every aspect of your life changes your moral view on things

"of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong"

Therefore what you morally think wrong today, you could think morally ok or correct tomorrow.
These all boil down to the persons experiences, his thoughts, his memories, his opinions, his religious beliefs, and his upbringing. The sum of these create a persons "Morals".

Everyone has different morals, and some may make the distinction between right and wrong differently than you, or anyone else for that matter. Does that make them wrong?

No.

Everyone has the ability to speak in any manner they wish, to say what is on their mind, there are places where this type of behavior is discouraged, and most places you cannot simply say what you think. However these forums try to be as unbiased as possible (so it seems) however being unbiased against a clashing opinion is not human nature. To be completely unbiased would mean that you have no opinion, or no back bone whatsoever.

If you wish to speak your mind, let others speak their mind, listen and think about a clear response according to your own beliefs and opinions. Do not "flame" others for not having the same opinions as you. Offer advice, if you think your point is valid enough and do not get upset if the person does not take your advice if it clashes with his morals or his own personal selfishness.

If you really want more information, take a human psychology course...you will delve into a realm where these types of questions are asked, some are answered better than others, but these questions are just about human nature and the mind.

[ramen07]

That was just plain stupid.

In the same way that "I don't believe in anything" is still a belief system? That aside, why is it a **Filtered** notion?

Everyone has the ability to speak in any manner they wish, to say what is on their mind, there are places where this type of behavior is discouraged, and most places you cannot simply say what you think. However these forums try to be as unbiased as possible (so it seems) however being unbiased against a clashing opinion is not human nature. To be completely unbiased would mean that you have no opinion, or no back bone whatsoever.

Being completely unbiased would mean a decision or judgement would be made based only on rules, not emotions nor morals. Is that being morally ambiguous?

If you really want more information, take a human psychology course...you will delve into a realm where these types of questions are asked, some are answered better than others, but these questions are just about human nature and the mind.

I'll look for any courses in the fall.

[Psyko]

Everyone has the ability to speak in any manner they wish, to say what is on their mind, there are places where this type of behavior is discouraged, and most places you cannot simply say what you think. However these forums try to be as unbiased as possible (so it seems) however being unbiased against a clashing opinion is not human nature. To be completely unbiased would mean that you have no opinion, or no back bone whatsoever.

Being completely unbiased would mean a decision or judgement would be made based only on rules, not emotions nor morals. Is that being morally ambiguous?

Actually, having an unbiased opinion means that there is no personal motivation which might skew a decision in favor of a particular side.

Rules can be created in a biased manner, so simply going "based only on rules" could still illicit a biased decision. If the rules are created in a way which contains no bias or proclivity toward any one party/viewpoint/side, then they are the best things to use in a situation. Rules on a forum tend to be less biased than laws in a state/country, as they are fewer in number and less likely to contradict themselves. However, no rule can be applied to every situation, which is where the human factor applies, often based upon moral judgement as to what is fair. This happens more in a forum setting as there are less rules, and thus they cannot cover every possible situation.

Moral ambiguity is not the lack of bias, but the gray/grey line that separates right from wrong; those situations to which the rules do not directly apply. Ambiguity means that it is open to interpretation. Some things in certain societies are less ambiguous than others (ie killing a person in cold blood is wrong), while other actions/reactions are more ambiguous (ie stealing is okay/wrong when/even if it is done to save a life). Morally ambiguous situations are the ones where the rules/laws do not strictly apply; where it is up to a person or group of persons to come to a decision based upon the facts in a preferably unbiased manner.

The issue stated in the original post is one such morally ambiguous situation. One person's morals will say that it was wrong while another person's morals will say that it was right.

[MEZZANINE]

Morality is highly subjective depending on your point of view, the way you were raised, social pressure & educations, religious indoctrination....etc etc


Like most people I have my own personal 'code of conduct', my own sense of 'right and wrong' which has nothing to do with consequences to myself other than wanting to be treated the way I treat others. Not only does it govern my actions in RL ( and in game to a lesser degree since this is game where we kill by the billions without a 2nd thought lol ), but also directs my judgement of others.


On the situation that sparked this off..IMO

Scamming - bad

Recovering scammed goods from a scammer - OK my me so long as no profit it made, purely recovery of goods nothing more

For RL comparison,

If someone stole my car and I took it back, I would not be stealing anything

If someone stole my mates car, I saw it for sale, pretended I wanted to buy it, took it for a test drive and simply drove it back to my mates house to give it him without paying... again Im not stealing, Im recovering stolen goods for a friend

[jedi~tank]

Let's define morals, or your morality. The definition transcends the dictionary ( all sorts). Can you answer this ?

[ƒëmmë]

all I can say is I wouldn't assault kill(mass), rob(farm, take planets) or kidnap(raid) in reallife.. all things we do in this game ..

[ramen07]

Actually, having an unbiased opinion means that there is no personal motivation which might skew a decision in favor of a particular side.

Rules can be created in a biased manner, so simply going "based only on rules" could still illicit a biased decision. If the rules are created in a way which contains no bias or proclivity toward any one party/viewpoint/side, then they are the best things to use in a situation. Rules on a forum tend to be less biased than laws in a state/country, as they are fewer in number and less likely to contradict themselves. However, no rule can be applied to every situation, which is where the human factor applies, often based upon moral judgement as to what is fair. This happens more in a forum setting as there are less rules, and thus they cannot cover every possible situation.

Moral ambiguity is not the lack of bias, but the gray/grey line that separates right from wrong; those situations to which the rules do not directly apply. Ambiguity means that it is open to interpretation. Some things in certain societies are less ambiguous than others (ie killing a person in cold blood is wrong), while other actions/reactions are more ambiguous (ie stealing is okay/wrong when/even if it is done to save a life). Morally ambiguous situations are the ones where the rules/laws do not strictly apply; where it is up to a person or group of persons to come to a decision based upon the facts in a preferably unbiased manner.

The issue stated in the original post is one such morally ambiguous situation. One person's morals will say that it was wrong while another person's morals will say that it was right.

The issue in the original post was about an individual's moral ambiguity, not the situation itself- having ambiguous morals. Which is why I asked about morals being different in RL vs here.

Morality is highly subjective depending on your point of view, the way you were raised, social pressure & educations, religious indoctrination....etc etc


Like most people I have my own personal 'code of conduct', my own sense of 'right and wrong' which has nothing to do with consequences to myself other than wanting to be treated the way I treat others. Not only does it govern my actions in RL ( and in game to a lesser degree since this is game where we kill by the billions without a 2nd thought lol ), but also directs my judgement of others.


On the situation that sparked this off..IMO

Scamming - bad

Recovering scammed goods from a scammer - OK my me so long as no profit it made, purely recovery of goods nothing more

For RL comparison,

If someone stole my car and I took it back, I would not be stealing anything

If someone stole my mates car, I saw it for sale, pretended I wanted to buy it, took it for a test drive and simply drove it back to my mates house to give it him without paying... again Im not stealing, Im recovering stolen goods for a friend

So in that case, your RL morals are reflected in this environment. Assuming you held the opposite position in RL but still held the same position you do now in this environment, would that be morally ambiguous, or would that just..."be"? In other words, is that a problem?

Let's define morals, or your morality. The definition transcends the dictionary ( all sorts). Can you answer this ?

Morals as defined by Massacre:

"of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong"

The definition of morals itself does not transcend a set definition, but the morals themselves do.

all I can say is I wouldn't assault kill(mass), rob(farm, take planets) or kidnap(raid) in reallife.. all things we do in this game ..

Actual game mechanics aside

[Psyko]

Actually, having an unbiased opinion means that there is no personal motivation which might skew a decision in favor of a particular side.

Rules can be created in a biased manner, so simply going "based only on rules" could still illicit a biased decision. If the rules are created in a way which contains no bias or proclivity toward any one party/viewpoint/side, then they are the best things to use in a situation. Rules on a forum tend to be less biased than laws in a state/country, as they are fewer in number and less likely to contradict themselves. However, no rule can be applied to every situation, which is where the human factor applies, often based upon moral judgement as to what is fair. This happens more in a forum setting as there are less rules, and thus they cannot cover every possible situation.

Moral ambiguity is not the lack of bias, but the gray/grey line that separates right from wrong; those situations to which the rules do not directly apply. Ambiguity means that it is open to interpretation. Some things in certain societies are less ambiguous than others (ie killing a person in cold blood is wrong), while other actions/reactions are more ambiguous (ie stealing is okay/wrong when/even if it is done to save a life). Morally ambiguous situations are the ones where the rules/laws do not strictly apply; where it is up to a person or group of persons to come to a decision based upon the facts in a preferably unbiased manner.

The issue stated in the original post is one such morally ambiguous situation. One person's morals will say that it was wrong while another person's morals will say that it was right.

The issue in the original post was about an individual's moral ambiguity, not the situation itself- having ambiguous morals. Which is why I asked about morals being different in RL vs here.

As morality is an individual thing (see Mezz and Massacre's comments as to morality), it is up to the individual person whether or not morals translate from RL to a forum community. Some see this as a place where they are anonymous and beyond reproach and will act in a way far different from how they may act in RL. They are able to throw morality out the window because "It's just a game" or any number of reasons.

I, personally, do not think these people should be labeled as "morally ambiguous". Few people are actually indifferent to morals; those who are ambiguous are literal sociopaths, and honestly I've yet to see any of those in this particular community.

Online people are able to be someone different from who they are in RL. They can act impulsively, or derisively, or they can create all new personas (ie Zeratul); they can do whatever they wish. It is when RL merges with the online world where morality comes into play. Scamming people out of real money via the internet, making personal threats on a community member, or stalking someone and tracking down their RL name/address/etc.

[jedi~tank]

I am not trying to be a smart ass or anything, but the title and question of this thread might ought to be "ethics"

[ramen07]

I am not trying to be a smart ass or anything, but the title and question of this thread might ought to be "ethics"

morals are beliefs based on practices or teachings regarding how people conduct themselves in personal relationships and in society, while ethics refers to a set or system of principles, or a philosophy or theory behind them

So morals being the beliefs themselves and ethics being the theory behind the morals, I disagree with you

Psyko- I have nothing to say, kudos for covering all of the bases

thanks everyone for the great responses. always fun to pick y'all's brains