237 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Because maintaining cooperation is vitally important for the individual. While a single act of selfishness can benefit the  individual, it is worth FAR more to be able to predict with strong accuracy the behavior of others in most social settings. Whether that is being able to trade valueless money for valuable goods, not physically attacking so own because hey have something you desire or helping an old lady cross the street, it is all a common thread of overall moral code. The majority of humans share and believe in these things, to the point where laws are passed to enforce them, religions are founded to teach them and identification is obtained by those who share similar viewpoints.

But, again, those justifications aren't moral.  That's just selfishness combined with forethought.  That's just being smart.

By recognising that people behave selfishly all of the time (indeed, I've previously argued that this is a necessary consequence of free will), we've neatly eliminated the need for the very idea of morality.  Any argument we can make in an attempt to influence behaviour can be an appeal to self-interest (being a good person will ultimately benefit you) rather than an appeal to some ill-defined or foundationless moral code.

And, of course, there is additionally a not-insignificant body of evidence that would also suggest that the human brain is hard-wired for both acts of altruism, as well as what could be called spiritual activity. If we are hard wired to crave, if not even enjoy, doing good, then choosing to engage in such behaviors would be beneficial to any given human "for its own reward," which would, of course, be selfish in nature.

Which, again, rewards selfishness.

[Jorji Costava]

EDIT: Double post

Modifié par osbornep, 25 septembre 2013 - 12:31 .

[Jorji Costava]

Some quick bullet points:

EntropicAngel wrote...

Yeah. Thus diverting the switch savesfive lives at the expense of one life, for a total of four lives saved. That's what I said.

I was just being nitpicky. The people you save/kill aren't actually in the trolleys. More importantly, what you do (throwing a switch vs. throwing the man off the overpass) is regarded as morally significant by many ethicists. If you endorse thedoctrine of double effect, for instance, you'll hold that throwing the switch is justifiable but throwing the man off the overpass is not.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And, of course, there is additionally a not-insignificant body of evidence that would also suggest that the human brain is hard-wired for both acts of altruism, as well as whatcould be called spiritual activity. If we are hard wired to crave, if not even enjoy, doing good, then choosing to engage in such behaviorswould be beneficial to any given human "for its own reward," which would, of course, be selfish in nature.

This looks like a variation on the old“Everyone does what they want, therefore everyone acts in their own
interests” argument. Isn't precisely what makes an action unselfish is that one does it out of a desire to help others? If not, what could possibly count as evidence against the thesis that everyone only acts in their own interests? One runs the risk of simply defining selfless action out of existence.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

By recognising that people behave selfishly all of the time (indeed, I've previously argued that thisis a necessary consequence of free will), we've neatly eliminated theneed for the very idea of morality.  Any argument we can make inan attempt to influence behaviour can be an appeal to self-interest(being a good person will ultimately benefit you) rather than anappeal to some ill-defined or foundationless moral code.

Two quick points: First off, free will entails psychological egoism? That's … odd. Second, it's not clear to me that an appeal to self-interest could do more than convince one to effect the appearance of being just, rather than actually be just.

To say something about the original topic of this thread, I'll just make a brief suggestion for how consequences could be handled in DA:I. Let's try to resolve the consequences of the major decisions within the game itself, even if only in epilogues. I kinda don't want to have some decision like the Dark Ritual whose consequences are left to be resolved in a later game; that would only add to the headaches induced by the save import system.

EDIT: Fixed major formatting issues. Can never seem to get my posts to come out right the first time.

[Sylvius the Mad]

osbornep wrote...

One runs the risk of simply defining selfless action out of existence.

That is, in fact, exactly what free will does.

[Fast Jimmy]

osbornep wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And, of course, there is additionally a not-insignificant body of evidence that would also suggest that the human brain is hard-wired for both acts of altruism, as well as whatcould be called spiritual activity. If we are hard wired to crave, if not even enjoy, doing good, then choosing to engage in such behaviorswould be beneficial to any given human "for its own reward," which would, of course, be selfish in nature.

This looks like a variation on the old“Everyone does what they want, therefore everyone acts in their own
interests” argument. Isn't precisely what makes an action unselfish is that one does it out of a desire to help others? If not, what could possibly count as evidence against the thesis that everyone only acts in their own interests? One runs the risk of simply defining selfless action out of existence.

If that desire to help others is because of the feeling of satisfaction and soothing of the conscience that often accompanies such endeavours, is it not also a selfish action? Granted, a selfish action that helps more than oneself, but a selfish action nonetheless.

And I think the idea of a selfless action SHOULDN'T exist. The only conceptual selfless act is one where the person doing it gained no benefit at all, including the recipient of the generosity does not know about the act, where no one is able to witness the act or see it as a benefit (and, hence, praise or reward the benefactor) and where the selfless actor gained no sense of "feeling good" or of moral entitlement for doing this selfless act for no credit to themselves. 

This like a very unlikely and ridgid set of circumstances. Coupled with the research that I mentioned that asserts that humans are hard wired to like being altruistic, at least on some level, and it appears that it may even be impossible. So, given that set of requirements, there is no such thing a purely selfless act. There is only levels of how much the selfless person is sacrificing as well as how much good it benefits others that is the true determiner of how "good" the act is. But it is never truly sefless.

[Fast Jimmy]

I should mention, of course, that none of this precludes having a moral system, nor such systems having worth. It simply acknowledges that every action a person can make is always going to be rooted in their own self-awareness. Which, inherently, makes it selfish.

[Swoopdogg]

 I know it gets brought up a lot, but I think we need to look a bit at the Witcher 2. Depending on your choices, you're sent to entirely different regions. A whole area of the game is denied to you depending on who you side with.

That's just an example of what I'd like to see. The PAX demo seems promising. You can go the golden route where you save everyone (the village and the keep), but it actually requires effort and quite a bit of resources, not to mention time management. If this is any indication of how it will be in the actual game, I'm not worried.

[Jorji Costava]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

osbornep wrote...

One runs the risk of simply defining selfless action out of existence.

That is, in fact, exactly what free will does.

How does it do that?

@Fast Jimmy:

We may be talking past each other a bit. I understand psychological egoism as the thesis that all of our ultimate (as opposed to merely instrumental) desires are self-regarding. Given this understanding, an act can be selfless even if one receives a substantial reward for that action, provided that receipt of the reward was not one's sole or primary motivation. And it's hardly a conceptual truth that if you get a benefit X from doing Y, then your sole motivation for doing Y was to obtain X. I also don't see how the research suggesting we're hard-wired to enjoy altruistic action increases the likelihood that our ultimate desires are all self-regarding.

@Swoopdogg:

Another good example (although it's probably been mentioned already; too lazy to look upthread) is Alpha Protocol. It was pretty easy to lock yourself out of content without realizing it, and the choice and consequence system is complicated enough that even the Wiki page is a bit fuzzy on some of the details. The drawback, though, is that it's super-short. Probably not practical to implement a system like that in DA:I. Still, one thing I think DA could learn from Alpha Protocol would be to have a reputation system with NPC's who aren't companions, just as a way of emphasizing the fact that there are people who make a difference to both the PC and the overall game world besides the folks who spend all day following the PC around.

[Vicious]

Many people complain about Harrowmont and Bhelen, mostly because neither character is likeable nor are their endings ever completely "happy." Which is why I love the choice.

For Skyrim, Ulfric Stormcloak vs The Empire is still debated like crazy. It's not hard to make a difficult choice for players. Just don't give any perfect options, but ALLOW THEM THE CHOICE anyway. And don't make it so obvious as in Redcliffe.

Even if you threw "go to the circle!" out the window in Redcliffe, you still had one awful (but amazingly done and well written) choice - murder brave little connor, or a much more palatable (and forgettable) choice - sacrifice his annoying mother. They need to make them more equal for sure. 

Modifié par Vicious, 25 septembre 2013 - 04:24 .

[Ravensword]

I like how you posted four times in a row.

[Fast Jimmy]

We may be talking past each other a bit. I understand psychological egoism as the thesis that all of our ultimate (as opposed to merely instrumental) desires are self-regarding. Given this understanding, an act can be selfless even if one receives a substantial reward for that action, provided that receipt of the reward was not one's sole or primary motivation. And it's hardly a conceptual truth that if you get a benefit X from doing Y, then your sole motivation for doing Y was to obtain X. I also don't see how the research suggesting we're hard-wired to enjoy altruistic action increases the likelihood that our ultimate desires are all self-regarding.

I agree we may be talking past each other.

You are asserting that any form of selflessness in an act would make it selfless in nature. While I am saying that the presence of any selfish motive or benefit would inherently make it selfish, regardless of the amount of selfless intent.

So it is a matter of interpretation. Does being selfless for selfish reasons make it selfless? Does being selfish, regardless of any benefit to others, selfish? I agree more with the later than the former, but I don't begrudge those who identify with the former.

[maliluka]

Vicious wrote...

Many people complain about Harrowmont and Bhelen, mostly because neither character is likeable nor are their endings ever completely "happy." Which is why I love the choice.

For Skyrim, Ulfric Stormcloak vs The Empire is still debated like crazy. It's not hard to make a difficult choice for players. Just don't give any perfect options, but ALLOW THEM THE CHOICE anyway. And don't make it so obvious as in Redcliffe.

Even if you threw "go to the circle!" out the window in Redcliffe, you still had one awful (but amazingly done and well written) choice - murder brave little connor, or a much more palatable (and forgettable) choice - sacrifice his annoying mother. They need to make them more equal for sure. 

This one to me is always an interesting choice, and depending on what character I play the outcome varies. If you try and think logically, Connor has already made one deal with a demon, do you really want him to live hasn't he already technically failed his harrowing? Isolde put this whole disaster in motion by hiding Connors ability, should she be the one to sacrifice herself to set things right or go on the good faith that you can make it to the circle and back without any further trouble. 

Even at the end if you talk save Connor and you talk to Eamon, he mentions something is not right with Connor so is saving him still the right thing to do...

[maliluka]

EntropicAngel wrote...

But by the same token, the times you encounter Conner and he's lucid he is terrified. It's safe to say he isn't enjoying it. It's not a huge leap to say he'll avoid any such contact in the future.

He is lucid, and playing or looking at book. He will say " you saved me, mother (or is it father) always taught me to thank those who do nice things for me" , you get a passing comment from Isolde if she is still alive " I can scarsely believe Connor is the same child he once was" Teagan will say that Connor remembers nothing...

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I believe the argument is that while there is no material difference, there really is an effective difference. Potential.

Immaterial difference is immaterial.

EntropicAngel wrote...

I think "kill an innocent woman in a blood magic ritual" and "kill an abomination in the form of a child" are pretty equal choices.

The innocent woman volunteered.  That seems like a pretty big difference.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If that desire to help others is because of the feeling of satisfaction and soothing of the conscience that often accompanies such endeavours, is it not also a selfish action? Granted, a selfish action that helps more than oneself, but a selfish action nonetheless.

I don't agree that this is always the case.

I'm trying to think of a good example, but i never can on a moment's notice. Suffice to say that I DO believe there are selfless actions.

Had any chance to mull this one over? I'd be interested to see what one could come up with as a selfless act that has zero aspect of self-interest.

Even sacrificing your life for another gives the benefit of knowing (of at least believing) that your death has extended the life of someone you care about. That belief that you have done something good for someone you value has lots of selfless aspects to it... but they ultiamtely also has elements tied to self reward and self interests. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sorry, I really haven't. I'll devote some thought to it.

Suffice to say that if you're deriving no pleasure from the action, I would call that an argument for selflessness.

Be sure to count as a selfish benefit the avoidance of future feelings of guilt.  If you do things because you'll feel bad if you don't, that's a selfish motive.

So, the best candidates for selfless action are probably the Tranquil.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sorry, I really haven't. I'll devote some thought to it.

Suffice to say that if you're deriving no pleasure from the action, I would call that an argument for selflessness.

Be sure to count as a selfish benefit the avoidance of future feelings of guilt.  If you do things because you'll feel bad if you don't, that's a selfish motive.

So, the best candidates for selfless action are probably the Tranquil.

I'd still say they disqualify, mainly because they make statements about how doing certain things brings them pleasure of contentment. For example, Owain from DA:O said he would rather stay in the stock room cleaning than retreat to the safety of where the other Mages and Tenplars were, simply because he'd rather clean the stockroom.

I'd say that means the Tranquil are just as likely to have irrational desires and to act in ways that are self serving, which means they are not immune from the same influences of "normal" humans. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Vicious wrote...

Many people complain about Harrowmont and Bhelen, mostly because neither character is likeable nor are their endings ever completely "happy." Which is why I love the choice.

For Skyrim, Ulfric Stormcloak vs The Empire is still debated like crazy. It's not hard to make a difficult choice for players. Just don't give any perfect options, but ALLOW THEM THE CHOICE anyway. 

I'd agree, though, that Skyrim does a good job of not making one side of the Civil War "better" than another. My problem is the real lack of impact either way. Sure, the yarl of differnet cities will be different (and the old yarl will be all gathered in a sitting room, doing nothing but occassionally curisng you), but the game does not change at all depending on this choice. 

So, in keeping with this thread's title, that is offering next to no consequences. Ulfric is a racist agent of the Thalamor, yes, and the Empire is nothing but a bunch of corrupt bureacrats serving their own self interests... but what does it matter who I choose? The land of Skyrim is completely the same, regardless. So, in that light, I find the choice rather pointless.

Now... contrast that with the choice of Bhelen vs. Harrowmont. Neither one is a saint and, while many "good" players chose Harrowmont's sense of honor over Bhelen's political machinations, it is still a debated choice because of the consequences provided by the game. Granted, they were primarily in the game's epilogue, but that's hardly saying they didn't exist.

I would prefer difficult choices that result in things playing out differently, not difficult choices made easy because everyone involved is a slimeball and there is no difference whatsoever to how things play out.