TTI Forums

[I'm bringing into public my article from private corners of our forums. - Oleksandr]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to offer my philosophical defense for my positive answer to the following question.

Is Objectivism Right for Eve Online?

One will correctly observe that Eve is not the real world. It has different rules, different environment, even different death. However, the important question is: "Are these difference essential or are they merely minute difference?"

I've heard that in its early days Eve was more suited for mature players who were interested in building rather then destroying everything. I've heard that Eve has been moving towards PvP.

I do not know if those are true. I do not have the direct knowledge beyond my six months in the game. But, it is irrelevant for the topic of this post. I'm concerned with the way Eve has been for the past six month and the way it is NOW.

I've heard only of one real problem in Eve that may cause one to reconsider Objectivism in Eve. This problem is PvP.

Let's look at it. What does one mean by "PvP is a problem for Objectivists"?

As near as I can tell, it means that Objectivists suffer from lack of fighting for their assets. However, this can't be true. Objectivism states that retaliation and self-defense is morally right and good. So, any resulting problems here can only come from the enemy possessing a larger force. This has nothing to do with Objectivism, however.

Let's analyze another possible objection to Objectivism in Eve.

In Eve one cannot die. One will always have a clone to jump into. Does this mean that entire hierarchy of values of Objectivism fall apart? No, Objectivist values do not rest on the fact that one can be killed. A player in Eve can loose a lot. The worst possible loss is probably being podded without a clone that covers your millions of skill points. (Maybe CCP will take pity on such player, maybe not.) Other losses can be just or nearly as big: losing a titan, losing a freighter, losing any kind of ship, asset, isk, etc. All those things had to acquired first by somebody who had to spend their time, and thus real world money into Eve monthly fees. Thus, even though, one cannot die in Eve completely, one can still lose months or even years of work (this time is real world time, btw, keep that in mind). Since these products took time and effort to acquire, one is right to keep them, and one is right to defend them. Objectivism stands here just as it does in real world.

In Eve there are large gangs of fools running around killing and destroying everything that they can. Does this mean Objectivism is to be tossed aside? Consider this parallel: There was a time when in real world humanity was in such a state without an island of sanity as the modern world has. Is it proper to say then that at that time, Objectivism was useless for rational humans? No. Just the same, Objectivism only becomes more necessary for Eve players playing in a tough world of Eve.

So, in conclusion, Objectivism is Right for Eve. And that is my viewpoint.

Would you then consider the Fools amoral?

-playing devils advocate to see where it goes. ( I may have something interesting I may not )

Satis Tyr wrote:Would you then consider the Fools amoral?

-playing devils advocate to see where it goes. ( I may have something interesting I may not )

In the context I used for "fools", they are definitely immoral. They are those who choose to destroy and steal. They do it because they chose so, not because they lack intelligence to think about their own choices.

So, no, I do not consider them amoral, they are definitely immoral.

Do you differinciate between morals within the game world and morals IRL?

Is there a difference between the rights of the players and the rights of the Characters?

Satis Tyr wrote:Do you differinciate between morals within the game world and morals IRL?

Is there a difference between the rights of the players and the rights of the Characters?

Does one differentiate between morals in a racing game and RL?

No. In fact, there is only one real life. This one. Eve is just another activity that we chose to play. In fact, you only need to take a look at EULA to see that Eve has a serious "RL" consequences. I overheard once Goons having problems with not paying taxes in "RL".

Now, characters are a fictional creation. There are nothing beyond ideas. So, if you were to ask me which person is moral and which one is not among two people where one was an industrialist who made billions, and another who sat on a gate all day waiting for somebody to shoot to make himself feel better in RL, I would say the latter was immoral in both RL and Eve.

In the end, fictional game morals follow game settings. Eve is constructed like a sci-fi future life. Thus, due to its settings, it can and does have morals - that's why you can call somebody a pirate and another a producer.

P.S. And rights are just a part of morals anyway. You can't have morals without rights in a social context.

So does that mean that morals conflict with Role Playing?

good question Raaz.

also what is the moral purpose of playing EVE?

what if the industrialist you described was the one who wanted to spend his free time gate camping?

Satis Tyr wrote:also what is the moral purpose of playing EVE?

My own enjoyment.

Satis Tyr wrote:what if the industrialist you described was the one who wanted to spend his free time gate camping?

Assuming you mean pirate gate camping, my question would be then: why?

Raaz Satik wrote:So does that mean that morals conflict with Role Playing?

I'm really not sure what your question means. Could you clarify how they conflict and what exactly is Role Playing in your context?

Assuming you mean pirate gate camping, my question would be then: why?

his own enjoyment.

Could you clarify how they conflict and what exactly is Role Playing in your context?

Roll playing is a form of story telling in wich players act out one or more characters thus writing the story. EVE is a roll playing situation whether we as players are loosly involved in the "story" of eve or deeply immerced in it. Those players who choose to immerse themselves may choose to play villians who have moral codes different from their own thus creating the conflict that is central to making this story and game of EVE interesting.

In some sense, role playing is a projection of yourself. However, the role that you are playing can be equally judged by the morals that role consists of, or lack thereof, which is what changes things up and makes them more interesting at times. Most people role play as something different but still containing similarities to themselves, some role play as entirely different people.

However there are some out there who are what they play, such as the Goons (from what I have heard anyways). Either way, it is, in my opinion, it is proper to judge whatever actions those people may have on you, but to go so far as to condemn them without knowing their personal motives doesn't work out so well.

And another thing that would be interesting is the day that we find ourselves at peace with one another and live based on freedom and reason (Capitalism seems the best bet, but we may find something to improve upon), I wonder if anyone would consider role playing then..

My question is a simple one, what of the RL police officer (or insert another moral profession) that role-plays the pirate in EvE, not because he is morally corrupt, but because in the world of EvE, he can...?

Riasoje wrote:My question is a simple one, what of the RL police officer (or insert another moral profession) that role-plays the pirate in EvE, not because he is morally corrupt, but because in the world of EvE, he can...?

Since that person likely views EvE as just a game to be played for the thrill and challenge, they could easily become something they are not. I use to Role Play by Email, sometimes just for fun I would play a character that was not like me. I did this for the challenge. Nothing to do with what my personal morals were. I am also the type that when having to write a paper for college I often choose to take the side I disagree with and support that. To me this creates a bigger challenge and the reward for getting an A is for myself. So in answer to your question in my opinion is you can still be a moral person in RL, even if you do not play one in game. Just that I do not find it happening often and as you get to talk with these people you learn more about them and slowly get to see the other side of them.

Samual_Hunting wrote:

Riasoje wrote:My question is a simple one, what of the RL police officer (or insert another moral profession) that role-plays the pirate in EvE, not because he is morally corrupt, but because in the world of EvE, he can...?

Since that person likely views EvE as just a game to be played for the thrill and challenge, they could easily become something they are not. I use to Role Play by Email, sometimes just for fun I would play a character that was not like me. I did this for the challenge. Nothing to do with what my personal morals were. I am also the type that when having to write a paper for college I often choose to take the side I disagree with and support that. To me this creates a bigger challenge and the reward for getting an A is for myself. So in answer to your question in my opinion is you can still be a moral person in RL, even if you do not play one in game. Just that I do not find it happening often and as you get to talk with these people you learn more about them and slowly get to see the other side of them.

While I can see the roleplaying aspect of playing a character with a different philosophy than you in a game... (in my D&D days I was a Lawful Evil Wizard or Chaotic Neutral Rogue most of the time and enjoyed using my party members to achieve my own ends) but it was generally considered to be part of the game to do this; ie - we all played evil characters or had that option. I don't understand the college paper thing, (unless you were doing that to make fun of your teachers who must have been fairly bad).

When you write an expository paper, you are arguing a position with the purpose of convincing others that your position is the correct one. If you purposefully take the position which you believe to be incorrect, then you either doom your argument to failure (as it is not based on reality) or set up a cognitive dissonance within yourself that over time can actually damage your mind. You might become a relativist or start reading Kant or Chomsky for fun... or even own a pet other than a cat or tropical fish. Wasn't it Ellsworth Toohey who once boasted of having successfully argued both sides of a position in a college debate team?

I like writing papers arguing in favor of things I disagree with. For the simple reason of "know your enemy." To really have a chance of deconstructing their arguments - and actually convincing them they are wrong - you need to know their arguments better than they do. And in general, it's not even the arguments with these people - their arguments are subjective, anyway. You need to understand what makes them think a certain way, rational or not. What excites them, angers them, turns them off, turns them on.

Incidentally, I derive a perverse pleasure from writing a paper to make someone think I totally agree with them, then argue them into the ground ;]

In the vein of retaliation and self defense, I do see a major issue here. In RL when violence escalates, eventually someone will die given enough time. While however sad it is to lose a life that may have at least had some chance at worth, when someone dies IRL the argument ends at the end of a weapon. In EVE though, the paradigm becomes who can hold a grudge the longest - I'm not that experienced but I'm willing to be that there have been some long ones, whether between individuals or corporations. Instead of having an end all 'final solution' if a dispute reaches that level, we end up instead with an vicious cycle that has no obvious way of reaching a conclusion besides an IRL death.

I'm not sure exactly where this is leading beyond what I've stated but some food for thought nonetheless.

Lhowon2 wrote:In the vein of retaliation and self defense, I do see a major issue here. In RL when violence escalates, eventually someone will die given enough time. While however sad it is to lose a life that may have at least had some chance at worth, when someone dies IRL the argument ends at the end of a weapon. In EVE though, the paradigm becomes who can hold a grudge the longest - I'm not that experienced but I'm willing to be that there have been some long ones, whether between individuals or corporations. Instead of having an end all 'final solution' if a dispute reaches that level, we end up instead with an vicious cycle that has no obvious way of reaching a conclusion besides an IRL death.

I'm not sure exactly where this is leading beyond what I've stated but some food for thought nonetheless.

please forgive my inexperienced stab at philosophy here...

but couldnt we take this train of thought to an even more extreme conclusion? it was mentioned before that resources and items in eve have a real value because in most cases someone had to put real time and effort into creating them (time is money and all that).

If someone in eve , say the aforementioned police officer playing pirate, is behaving in a manner that is otherwise irrational, ie random violence for its own sake within the game, then he is personally mounting an attack on things which, to the player whose billion isk titan he just blew up (forgive my wide ballpark estimates), have real value.

Now, we can generally state that we have a right to defend our property/items of value. In game terms, we have no real way of stopping this police officer/part-time-pirate from continuing his rampage. Yes we could escort our ships and whatnot, but he couldnt be stopped in any real sense.

So to continue that train of thought... if the only way to stop this cycle of irrational behavor is death in real life, does an extreme response out of the context of game then become justified?

I certainly dont think so personally... but wouldnt be entirely surprised if someone could be inclined to go that far.

Kinda scary.

((am i way off base here? at least in the ballpark?))

Tsarias Kalil wrote: In game terms, we have no real way of stopping this police officer/part-time-pirate from continuing his rampage. Yes we could escort our ships and whatnot, but he couldnt be stopped in any real sense.

Hrm, I would have to disagree. There are several different ways to "stop" him: 1) A person or corp that has suffered a loss can group in a combined effort to kill said toon, 2) they can hire a merc company to kill said toon, 3) Ignore it- after all players can make far and away more isk in 1 week in wh's than any suicide ganker could and the risk/reward ratio for "honest" isk is greater, 4) Player can quit game (this option doesn't work out well in RL )

The aggressor can create a new character, but they now have to spend their RL time training it to a level that can suicide gank once again. You can consider that span of time to be "jail time" as the person cannot resume normal activities until after skills have been trained.

As for the original question put forth: "Is objectivism right for EVE..." the short answer is yes. Objectivism is right in all aspects of life, whether you live alone on a desert island or in a large city with other people which includes all activities including games. Objectivity to me means rational actions are used in all aspects of human existence.

Hrm, I would have to disagree. There are several different ways to "stop" him: 1) A person or corp that has suffered a loss can group in a combined effort to kill said toon, 2) they can hire a merc company to kill said toon, 3) Ignore it- after all players can make far and away more isk in 1 week in wh's than any suicide ganker could and the risk/reward ratio for "honest" isk is greater, 4) Player can quit game (this option doesn't work out well in RL )

The aggressor can create a new character, but they now have to spend their RL time training it to a level that can suicide gank once again. You can consider that span of time to be "jail time" as the person cannot resume normal activities until after skills have been trained.

true. those under the heel of our pirates behaviour do have these options available to them. but we must also consider that our pirate also has similar options available. up to this point we've been assuming our irrational pirate has been working solely by himself. but as we have seen in eve, this is not always the case. the are certainly whole gangs of individuals acting out whatever rash fantasies they have about bloodthirsty pirates floating around the eve universe.

so under your proposal the victims of our original pirate may opt to gang up and eradicate our original pirate. after he respawns, he has time at his disposal to being accumulating a hoard of like-minded wack-os who then descend on the area. upon which the victims feel inclined to gather more help... This goes back to the cycle of violence mentioned before.

now at this point i'm working under the (admittedly possible flawed) assumption that a rational person doesnt exalt in this type of neverending escalation of hostilities, as well as the assumption that all parties involved would just get borede and move elsewhere, which in all honestly in likely, but this is really jsut for arguments sake.

so where does it go from there? is there a certain point at which a rational person, feeling his value and enjoyment within the game so sorely threatened, could find himself feeling justified in taking RL action against the instigator for lack of any other option?

...

Ozeeba wrote:Now, here's where the wrench gets thrown into the works. When someone chooses a life of piracy, regardless of whether someone does so in or out of game, they've chosen to ignore all mainstream codes of morals AND ethics and adopt a new set...(i.e. Pirate's Code, Honor Among Thieves...call it what you will.)...so essentially they're not really immoral or unethical, their morality and code of ethics are simply contrary to what you or I would choose to uphold.

This presupposes moral relativism. Objectivism rejects this notion and posits a deontological morality (Many Libertarians also hold a deontological moral framework based on the self-ownership principal). Therefore it doesn't matter what a pirate holds as a belief, they are acting immorally. However it is a role-playing game, and I believe it is perfectly acceptable to act immorally in a role-playing game. It would be far less interesting without them.

As to the conflation of morality and ethics, it really happens all the time. I think this is especially true when you are dealing with people with teleological moral frameworks. I think most people would have a hard time explaining the difference. If you even just check Wikipedia, you will find more confusion between the two. The simplest explanation I have heard is that morals are those actions which are right and wrong. While ethics are the actions in which a moral person will engage some of which may not have a moral component. It is a fine distinction and as I said before, most peope use the terms interchangeably.

...

It's a game, it's a voluntary simulation with given set of rules and mechanics. No force is being initiated when data changes on the screen in front of you.

I equivicate EVE to entering a paintball course. A really big, deep, vast, and pretty paintball course.

...

OK, I'm VERY new and not even accepted yet, but I wanted to comment anyway. Specifically concerning the role of pirates in eve, I would like to argue that they do not act objectively because they do not profit as much as those who would instead choose to build something greater.

They do, however, act to stabilize the Eve economy and are a positive addition to the game because they make obtaining a higher isk/hour conversion more difficult. If it weren't for pirates EVERYONE would be in null sec chaining faction spawns. If I choose to take the risk and pit my wits against theirs, I may get the higher reward despite their best intentions to circumvent that. If I loose, it's my fault and no-one else's.

Finally, my favorite movie quote "you kill one you're a murderer, you kill a million and you're a conquerer." What is the difference between the one man pirate and the NBSI alliance? Why shouldn't one be able to go into the alliances space and take an R64 moon without fear of repercussions and how is that scenario ethically different than the lone gate camper who has less to gain?