Archon Delaine--Symbol of Eudaimonia.

[GluttonyFang]

My property is what I own. Possession is 90% of the law after all, the other 10% are proving it and enforcing it. You want it, you better be prepared to give me something I want in return. That's called trade.

"I'll refrain from killing you" isn't a service, it's coercion. Not killing me should be a default state of interaction, and the only thing I should have to provide you for the "service" of not killing me is that I will refrain from killing you in return. If you refuse those terms, you can't complain when society decides it would be prudent to kill you on sight as a preemptive measure.

The problem is that if we cannot prevent coercion completely in a society. From birth are you coerced to believe in certain morality and norms. Therefore if we strip that away even slightly, there is no reason for one person to spare or even cherish another person's life other than a morality put in place that coerced people into believing in that. Therefore I would say the sparing of one's life is an appropriate return/trade for cargo.

Also if the prey party does not have the mean to fight back, then the initiative conditions are not equal to begin with.

Sometimes diplomacy is war continued by other means. At any rate, the Federation's laws make it crystal clear where the piracy-free zones are: anywhere in Federation space. We of course understand that just how piracy-free they will be is limited by our ability to enforce those laws, but that doesn't mean we have to be happy about it nor does it prevent us from enforcing as much as our resources will allow. And if you make no attempt to control piracy within your own borders, well then I suppose there's no reason for us to make any attempt to trade with you.

Then that's fine, stay out of one another's way as much as possible and there's no major conflict to be had.

There is no utility to slavery: it's grossly inefficient. Enslaved workers are less motivated to work, they require more resources and additional manpower dedicated to replacing that lost motivation. And then you've got to police for rebellion, escape attempts, sabotage, you'll spend twice as much labor keeping your slaves in line as you'll get out of them, especially with how easy it is to manufacture personal weapons with current technology. You're better off just buying their loyalty with some decent wages.

To top it off one good machine can do the work of a hundred slaves for less than 5% of the price. There's no reason to send a slave to do a machine's job.

Again, please read R.M Hare's Utilitarian defense for Slavery, it seems like you did not read or grasped certain aspect of it.

And preferring that I don't get killed isn't "moral high-ground taking", it's basic survival. Or are you saying that if I decided that my culture demanded I kill you, you'd respect my culture and let me do so? I think it's safe to say there, common sense should trump "tolerance".

Preferring that you don't get killed is a part of the human nature of avoiding punishment and seeking pleasure. If your culture demands that you kill someone in order to maintain that culture, then go ahead. It doesn't mean that person won't preserve one's own life and fight back. The common sense you speak of is nothing but an over-celebrated societal norm that you take for granted. There is no "common" sense, as far as I'm concerned. Only coerced societal norm.

Why do we allow ourselves to get to the point of needing to kill off people of diverse culture, is my question.

As I laid out, carrying out piracy in Federation territory would be an act of war. However, at the moment we have no reason to commit our own resources when our enemies are killing each other just fine. We're quite content to let you and the Empire slug it out, it takes pressure off our own border with the Empire, who we're at war with whether we'd like it or not anyway. I'm just saying it would be beneficial for you to keep it that way. Think of it as a polite suggestion.

Again, no one ever suggested war with the Federation. Also with our non international-aggression history, it's obvious that we don't start wars.

Well I would expect them to fall because they're not going to do that. They're too attached to their nostalgia for a second-century system that was failing as soon as it was created. Though of course I am also aware that they're protected by plot-armor. They exist as long as the devs want them to exist, regardless of any merits or lack thereof.

I would love to see the situation with the Emperor's death spark a succession war though. The drama would be delicious.

Though another thing that's amusing, although I know this is just game mechanics: despite your insistence that crime shouldn't really exist as a concept, loitering is a crime punishable by death even in Delaine space.

Well, FD has insane Empire bias, we all know that. If anything FD will kill us off just to stroke its ego even more. I don't trust the FD for making any "relatively fair" design decisions, at all. They lost my respect in that aspect a long time ago, and they don't seem to be interested in earning it back.

You misinterpreted my claim of crime's relativity. What is criminal in one state sometimes is not in another. That doesn't mean that there can't be similarities.

 

[GluttonyFang]

You know, this debate is kind of academic. By your standards, there is no morality, so it doesn't really matter if we all get together and decide you need to die. By our standards, you have rejected morality and presented yourselves as a credible threat, so we are morally justified in doing same. Either way, we all kill you.

It may be fun to be a lion, but if you come out into the open and provoke your "prey" into stampeding in your direction, your claws won't save you.

It's been academic on my part. Morality exists, but is regional. I don't reject morality, I see it functions similar to Cartwright's idea of patch-work of law.

If you do get together and decide that someone needs to die, then you have no right to appeal to some sort of inherent higher-cause other than suffering the same human condition as anyone else.

The only justification at that point is that you have more people that agree with you, which... doesn't really convince anyone if one contemplates just for a second.

 

[Mikalus]

How about, you admit you're murderers for destroying our Transports with legitimate goods in them because you want to 'free' your systems. Leave us alone to our pirating and we'll remain a small thorn that occassionally draws blood but never causes the Empire to use half of its resources to simply try and control us

 

[ROSS-128]

The problem is that if we cannot prevent coercion completely in a society. From birth are you coerced to believe in certain morality and norms. Therefore if we strip that away even slightly, there is no reason for one person to spare or even cherish another person's life other than a morality put in place that coerced people into believing in that. Therefore I would say the sparing of one's life is an appropriate return/trade for cargo.

Also if the prey party does not have the mean to fight back, then the initiative conditions are not equal to begin with.

So basically: "Might makes right, unless I'm not the mighty party in which case hold on we should talk about this."

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see that attitude coming from a pirate.

As a precaution I would like to clarify of course that I'm mostly speaking in a roleplay context, just some well-intentioned faction ribbing.

And a little bit trying to encourage the Delaine vs Empire rivalry, because it's good for business over here. Popcorn sales are through the roof.

 

[GluttonyFang]

So basically: "Might makes right, unless I'm not the mighty party in which case hold on we should talk about this."

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see that attitude coming from a pirate.

As a precaution I would like to clarify of course that I'm mostly speaking in a roleplay context, just some well-intentioned faction ribbing.

And a little bit trying to encourage the Delaine vs Empire rivalry, because it's good for business over here. Popcorn sales are through the roof.

The problem is that the one in power should have consideration and understand that if it wasn't the one holding more power, it would wish for a more diplomatic approach.

Frankly, the one holding the most power is always the minority in that sense.

Without this mutual consideration, all we have is praying to the gods that we were born with a silver spoon in our mouths and exploit that to oppress people. Which I certainly hope is not what the Empire is looking to do.

 

[ROSS-128]

The problem is that the one in power should have consideration and understand that if it wasn't the one holding more power, it would wish for a more diplomatic approach.

Frankly, the one holding the most power is always the minority in that sense.

Without this mutual consideration, all we have is praying to the gods that we were born with a silver spoon in our mouths and exploit that to oppress people. Which I certainly hope is not what the Empire is looking to do.

They're ruled by a hereditary line of succession. What do you think they're looking to do?

 

[Seon]

Without this mutual consideration, all we have is praying to the gods that we were born with a silver spoon in our mouths and exploit that to oppress people. Which I certainly hope is not what the Empire is looking to do.

Well, in the Empire, lottery of birth determines whether you are next in line for the head of state, or soon-to-be-sold-to-slavery, so I wouldn't hedge my bets.

 

[Mikalus]

Well, in the Empire, lottery of birth determines whether you are next in line for the head of state, or soon-to-be-sold-to-slavery, so I wouldn't hedge my bets.

Those soon to be sold into slavery should head to the Pegasus sector for true freedom.

 

[the100thmonkey]

I think that from a Platonic/Socratic perspective, the idea of Delain representing eudaimonia involves some pretty spine-breaking ethical gymnastics at best, given that justice is a central concept in Socratic/Platonic systems.

I'd suggest that Nietzche's Übermensch is closer to Delain (or at least his lack of attachment to any moral system) and less open to charges of hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, from the way Delain is characterised in-game (and therefore in-canon) the truth is that he's basically just a bit of a turd.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I think that from a Platonic/Socratic perspective, the idea of Delain representing eudaimonia involves some pretty spine-breaking ethical gymnastics at best, given that justice is a central concept in Socratic/Platonic systems.

I'd suggest that Nietzche's Übermensch is closer to Delain (or at least his lack of attachment to any moral system) and less open to charges of hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, from the way Delain is characterised in-game (and therefore in-canon) the truth is that he's basically just a bit of a turd.

I agree with the comparison with Nietzche. Socratic though, not so sure. Since the system he proposes centers around putting people in their places and even censoring certain aspects of culture. Aristotle, on the other hand, implicitly expresses a point that no one really knows what is best for another person other than himself/herself/itself, while it also contests with the gregarious nature of human as a species and the need of collaboration. Therefore compromises are to be had there.

And well, FD is FD.

- - - Updated - - -

They're ruled by a hereditary line of succession. What do you think they're looking to do?

Oppress people, yep. Thus there is no higher-cause or inherent justice in the Empire, unlike some would like to claim.

 

[the100thmonkey]

I agree with the comparison with Nietzche. Socratic though, not so sure. Since the system he proposes centers around putting people in their places and even censoring certain aspects of culture.

But slavery? Murder? I don't recall him (via Plato) proposing that in his ethics - going from eudaimon as a basic concept in Greek philosophy.

Aristotle, on the other hand, implicitly expresses a point that no one really knows what is best for another person other than himself/herself/itself, while it also contests with the gregarious nature of human as a species and the need of collaboration. Therefore compromises are to be had there.

True, but the uncertainty in who knows what's best for a person does not make a sufficiently strong premise to propose that Delain is a symbol of eudaimon - he either lacks a moral centre (which would therefore prima facie exclude him from representing eudaimon) or is positively post-moral, which would place him close to the overman.

Neither is sufficiently supported in the canon, imo, so...

And well, FD is FD.

... about sums it up. Their whole take on anachy is cringe-inducingly simplistic, especially when they plaster "RISE UP! NEVER SURRENDER!" on the entrances to anarchy coriolis stations!

 

[GluttonyFang]

But slavery? Murder? I don't recall him (via Plato) proposing that in his ethics - going from eudaimon as a basic concept in Greek philosophy.

Taking the theory literally won't help you understand the concept. We still cannot classify and unify what is actually the human good by just appealing to the current mainstream morals and norms.

Slavery and murder as it stands is deviant in most societies, but that doesn't disqualify it from being a part of culture, or something that a culture centers around and still being beneficial.

True, but the uncertainty in who knows what's best for a person does not make a sufficiently strong premise to propose that Delain is a symbol of eudaimon - he either lacks a moral centre (which would therefore prima facie exclude him from representing eudaimon) or is positively post-moral, which would place him close to the overman.

The problem here is that you are clinging to the idea that the current morals being the standardized universal scale used to pass judgement on everything. What we need to do is avoid that coercion provided to us by birth and examine the issue relatively objectively.

Neither is sufficiently supported in the canon, imo, so...... about sums it up. Their whole take on anachy is cringe-inducingly simplistic, especially when they plaster "RISE UP! NEVER SURRENDER!" on the entrances to anarchy coriolis stations!

Lol I don't expect FD to hold up a philosophy degree to show its competency in anthropology anytime soon.

 

[Mikalus]

But slavery? Murder? I don't recall him (via Plato) proposing that in his ethics - going from eudaimon as a basic concept in Greek philosophy.

It has, admittedly, been a few years since I studied Aristotle thoroughly, but my understanding is that his culture practiced wide use of slavery against which he did not speak out since he and Plato both believed it part of a necessary hierarchy? Slavery as a form of punishment I am certain he never spoke out again. As for murder, well perhaps you have something there, except he did mentor Alexander the Great and we all know how that went.

 

[ROSS-128]

To be fair though, it is quite difficult to portray an anarchy that is both functional and stable without resorting to plot armor.

Mostly because such a thing cannot exist. After all, if there are no laws, then there's no law against me writing some laws, and getting a bunch of minions together to enforce them. And then the anarchy is gone.

Although it's not terribly relevant because Delaine is a dictator (specifically, a warlord) anyway.

 

[Apos]

Lol the moral highground is high indeed.

As far as RP goes, which I think you are a person capable of understanding.

You guys have created hours of gameplay for me in the past after all and I'm pretty sure that won't change in the future.

Who knows, if anarchy wasn't depicted in such a chaotic way in-game, under other circumstances I might have been by your side. But I'm having quite a lot of fun either way. Also would love to posses your eloquence.

Well, that's that, back to my high moral ground and abolishing slavery.

 

[GluttonyFang]

It has, admittedly, been a few years since I studied Aristotle thoroughly, but my understanding is that his culture practiced wide use of slavery against which he did not speak out since he and Plato both believed it part of a necessary hierarchy?

This is pretty accurate.

- - - Updated - - -

As far as RP goes, which I think you are a person capable of understanding.

You guys have created hours of gameplay for me in the past after all and I'm pretty sure that won't change in the future.

Who knows, if anarchy wasn't depicted in such a chaotic way in-game, under other circumstances I might have been by your side. But I'm having quite a lot of fun either way. Also would love to posses your eloquence.

Well, that's that, back to my high moral ground and abolishing slavery.

Lol of course.