quote:
Original post by MadKeithV
Well then you should definately learn to read more closely:
I meant that apes (they are not monkeys) do NOT fight because it''s not worth the hassle. The SilverBack ape is the one that through past evolution has been decided to have the best set of genes for species survival. The only way to assert that set is through physical dominance (because physical strength was an important factor in ape survival the past few million years). The other apes instinctively "know" this to be true (well they actually don''t know diddley, but they won''t challenge the view because they have hereditarily accepted the order).
This, is what "morality" is in the context of apes. A set of rules to live by that make life easier or easiest for species-survival. Unfortunately for apes, their morality is based on genetics, and they are therefore not quite quick enough to adapt to new circumstances (i.e. us).

I am at a disadvantage here, not knowing the exact difference betwen apes and monkeys and not knowing their exact habits. But I do know that no specie has ruled out competition. Their "moralities" are more like rules of engagement than peace treaties. From the information presented here I understand that for the SilverBack apes the monkeys dont challenge the position of the leader. I agree that this is their moral code, basicly, they dont fight all the time because fighting too much would weaken the whole group.

But that doesnt mean that they dont want to be the leader and they wouldnt try to be if they felt they stood a chance. Nor that they are perfectly content with their position in the group.

quote:
Your argument about antibiotics is completely off.

Thats what I keep telling myself

quote:
By claiming that you discard the last few thousand years of human growth: we''ve gone way beyond physical strength in the human race. Physical strength is no longer a measure of how "good" you are for the survival of the species. The one thing that sets us apart most widely from all other species is our brain. That particular brain is perfectly good even if the rest of your body is perfectly worthless (Stephen Hawking). That''s why human morals have adapted to include such things as "the right to live", "social security", a nice pension, etc etc. Many physically less-able people, including most scientists, would never be able to assert themselves in a mostly physical society, and therefore their genetic material would be lost.
The species does not want to lose this material at all (and humans are actually smart enough to realise it).

Although we may disagree a bit about how important physical strength is (not really brute muscle force, but resistance to diseases, to polutants, to fast food is still very usefull), I agree that the mind is very important too. In some cases, like you mentioned, it completely outweighs the physical part.

What I''ll argue is that human morals are not based on such simple logic as "everyone has a right to live, because he may turn out to be a genious and help society". It''s plain wrong to base moral belief on top of a logic foundation, when it should be the other way around. I can always come up with logic reasons for highly imoral decisions, especially when the rules of evolution come into play. It is simple obvious logic that killing retarded people and freeing the place for new, potentialy smart and healthy people will improve our chances of survival. The problem with logic is it can be flawed, even when it seems obviously true. I can rely on my morals to say "Yeah, this looks like the truth. So what ? I dont like it and thats the way it will stay !" and throw away such horrible ideas.

It is not a crime to be mistaken. It is a crime to not follow your moral code. Ie. believing in conspiracy theories is acceptable, blowing people up with bombs is not.


Well, actually, as history proved, there is a logic reason why eugenics do not improve chances of survival. If a system that is allowed to take life and death decisions would be created, that system will soon take decisions that will increase its own chances of survival (like wiping out other races, etc.), and these in turn may lead to war and devastation way beyond the so called benefits of the system.

Morals are actually a pretty big factor in computer games.

At least, people who claim to be moral want to have a pretty big saying in what computer games should be like.

Computer games are already blamed for corrupting the minds of children, and of course incidents like the Columbine shooting are happening because kids are playing ''Doom'' etc.

Let''s not forget that children see their parents fight, see bad things happen on television, see bad things happen in their neighbourhood. And they see this all without parental guidance.

I was surprised that in the US, a country that I thought would actually have stricter measures for what''s on tv than back in Holland -where I grew up- I saw people slain on the street on the 6 pm news. I''m not sure I ever saw images like that on the Dutch television. Not sure what exactly this will do to a child''s mind, but it causes me to wonder why certain things aren''t allowed on network broadcasting, while others, perhaps much worse to a child''s mind, are.

I don''t think that there''s a programmer out there who will consciously choose to create a game that will teach the wrong morals. I''m not even too sure that computer games teach morals at all. Same for television shows. Do they really teach morals? Did you follow Superman''s footsteps after reading his comics? Did you stand up for the weak, defend the innocent? Or did you get your morals and standards elsewhere?

Should you as a programmer even stop to think about including the right morals in your game? Or at least avoid putting ''bad'' morals into a game? And who decides what''s good and bad? In Holland, sex was treated much more liberal than it is here in the States. Is that good or is that bad? What does it do to a society? Marijuana is another highly debated subject. It''s okay to use in Holland, but what does it really do to a society? If your main hero in your game smokes pot, will the children who play the game try it, even though it''s illegal? Will you educate them about it, or will you tempt them?

Think of the last game you played and see if you can find some type of moral, be it in plain sight or hidden. Was it about good fighting evil? Or maybe it was about the strong defeating the weak. Are children, or even adults, affected by these somewhat obscure messages?

Wow, this topic has gone a long way since I started it. Well, nobody has mentioned meme theory yet, so I guess I''ll start there.

C-Junkie asks, "Why compare innate ape behavior to morals?" Ape behaviors evolve to keep ape societies alive. Human morals evolve to keep human societies alive. Ape behaviors are determined mostly by genetics and human behaviors have large social overlays that in some ways cooperate with, and in some ways contradict, our own innate ape behavior. These social overlays are made out of ideas (called memes, from the Greek mimeme meaning an act of mimicry). Memes are transmitted through stories (e.g. those told by computer games) and observed behavior (e.g. what your parens and friends do). Humans are constantly exposed to new memes, and they can choose (more or less) which ones to believe in. Generally they choose those memes that seem to make their believers happy and prosperous. The non-genetic nature of memes allows a memetic system of morals to evolve much faster than a genetic system of morals. And faster evolution is by definition more effective. FMI read Blackmore''s _The Meme Machine_

Okay, enough lecture. My reason for asking this question in the first place is that it seems to me that stories which have a primordial moral seem to be more popular and enduring than stories that don''t. (E.g. Dr. Seuss) And I thought we should take this into account in our computer game design.

I posted a few messages back that this thread would have to get on topic or be moved to the lounge - this is not the place to discuss morals generally, but only in the context of game design.

It''s not a bad discussion, but it doesn''t really belong here the way it''s going.


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

quote:
Original post by sunandshadow
Okay, enough lecture. My reason for asking this question in the first place is that it seems to me that stories which have a primordial moral seem to be more popular and enduring than stories that don''t. (E.g. Dr. Seuss) And I thought we should take this into account in our computer game design.

I disagree that the stories that are so obviously created to justify one moral or another can be entertaining. As soon as you realise who the good guys are, the story gets too predictable. The best stories raise moral questions, or even shatter old morals altogether. My example of such story is the Dune series. Those books have some absolutely chilling moral conclusions. And they were so popular.


Coming back to games, I feel the vast majority of them try to put the player in situations where one moral or another do not apply. The moral story in the background is just a cover-up.

Indeed, the purpose of each moral is to stop individuals from doing things they _wanted_ to do but would hurt others. Games are here to remove such interdictions. Thats why so many games revolve around killing, stealing, war, gaining power, playing god, using NPC people as toys, etc. Noone pays attention to the moral story behind the game. They just use it to justify the breaking of morals involved by the gameplay. "I killed 1000 goblins, but I did it for saving the world" bah

Perhaps some of the previous posts have come close to the point I want to make, but I''d like to put it in red, bold lettering (well bold lettering at least) so that it stands out.

Perhaps a good game that hinges on morality, would be one that makes you question your morals.

What about games that seem to present easy moral choices that go completely wrong? One that doesn''t try to teach you morals, but tries to teach you to think for yourself instead of relying blindly on the morality imposed on you by society and religion?


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.