Ethics in gaming

[NichG]

Yes, I know that. That's exactly what I'm talking about!
But just because a game doesn't have an alignment system doesn't mean that the question of meta-ethics is irrelevant. We still need to have answers to those questions.

"Alignment" is not the original point of this thread - the title is "ETHICS in gaming". Sure, the most famous RPG uses alignment to record ethics, but if I wanted to just talk about alignments, I'd have used a different title - or maybe just lain down somewhere and pondered my dumb and pointless life, or something else more productive.

I guess what I'd assert is, the questions of meta-ethics may or may not be relevant depending on whether the game designer (or DM) chooses to elevate those questions to the level of cosmological forces. That doesn't mean that the questions don't exist if it isn't done, but it does mean that in that case the DM shouldn't actually provide absolute answers to the questions to the players. "Who knows?" should be the default answer in those cases, otherwise you're actually creating a system in which there is an objective truth and more to the point the objective truth is specifically and only the DM's chosen truth.

E.g. in Call of Cthulhu, magical texts are dangerous. They don't have to be good or evil, consequentialist or absolute, or whatever, because the underlying game mechanics say: when you read a magical text, you permanently lose a little bit of yourself. That's the game system's solution to that particular Gordian knot.

On the other hand, in Call of Cthulhu, if the DM answers questions about something like 'is all magic evil?' they're actually changing the game. Previously, that would have been a grey area - perhaps magic is self-destructive but can be used in a sacrificial manner to help others, or perhaps it just universally makes the world a crappier place, but the characters don't know the answer automatically, and finding that answer (or if there even is an objective answer) is something they have to deal with themselves. If the DM says 'the answer is X', then thats not explaining the rules, its actually changing the rules (because the rules had no definitive answer beforehand).

In that sense I think it's the DM's job to be impartial on meta-ethical questions that are not baked into the system.

[NWA]

Because moral behaviors do have objective results, such that following them tends to elevate the overall well-being of the collection of individuals which does so, there is objective morality.

This does not follows. How do you measure the "result" of a moral judgement anyway?

If that morality changes based on the group of people, then you have likely conflated situational things with your model of morality. But to reject the notion of objective morality, it is necessary to show that the morality of one society and the morality of another is entirely mutually exclusive, and that each society is equally successful.

Why do I need to show that moral views of two societies are mutually exclusive? What if they are not? It does not mean that the truth-values of moral judgments are objective. What if two different societies belief that 2+2=5? Does that make it an objective fact?

Also, what does success has to do with it all?

[Segev]

This does not follows. How do you measure the "result" of a moral judgement anyway?

It isn't always trivial. But long-term observation can generally give an idea of whether a society is successful or not; whether it's thriving or stagnating or decaying.

Why do I need to show that moral views of two societies are mutually exclusive? What if they are not? It does not mean that the truth-values of moral judgments are objective. What if two different societies belief that 2+2=5? Does that make it an objective fact?

Also, what does success has to do with it all?

If a society believes 2+2=5 and always acts on it, it will have fundamental consequences for their technological and economic development. Because it is not true, it will cause defects in anything that relies on mathematics, which will adversely effect their ability to develop and use technology, to perform any sort of economic transaction, and to generally function in any field which involves math.

If they hold it as a "moral" rule, such that people who act differently are considered "bad," then bad actors who act on "2+2=4" will be more successful, and will result in corruption (from their perspective) being more successful. The society will fall apart if it adheres to their "moral," or everybody will violate it to such an extent that it will fade as a "moral rule."

This is, incidentally, why black markets form in just about any society which tries to deny the basic fundaments of trade and property and ownership. Such interactions are a natural optimum. And that's why "no stealing" is a generally good moral rule.

[dps]

The problem with alignment and other enforced morality systems is simply that they try to simplify and mechanize something that is complicated and lacks good hard-and-fast rules.

You think that's not also true of rules for combat, or barter, or magic?