Ethics

[disorganizer]

we could then maybe have an "age of razing" if it is politically wanted by a department leader. if citizens get fed up with it, they could start a poll and if he does not comply, then impeach him. or just vote the opposition (which will jump onto this issue during elections).

[Papa Chubby]

I know that much of the issues talked about here have not and probably will not be addressed quickly nor quietly, but haven´t we already made a start to this code of ethics. Have we not already agreed upon that nuclear weapons should only be used if used first upon us or agreed upon by 2/3rd´s of the senate (Us).

As for the pop-rushing I never use it, not because of morality, but because I would rather have that extra worker and pop-point. I raze cities alot, mostly because I dislike the positions that the AI chooses for its cities and it doesn´t conform with my own city-planning. Though if we are not going to do it because of an ethics code, then it must be voted on.

[Captain]

Hmm, I wish I saw this thread earlier. Great discussion and very civilized. There were well-thought out posts going through it in depth before the one, and only one moronic post on page 4.

We must have a very well-educated citizenry here at Apolytonia!

Duddha said it well when we pointed out that in the game, there is no moral weight. But we are not playing just the game, we're playing the Demo game. And as he said, we're role-playing and thus we can make morality/ethics count. (Now there is a distinction between morality and ethics, but let's leave it for now)

I too would be very interested to see how a multi demo PTW game with the machiavellians vs the humanists would turn out. But we'll just have to wait for that. Until then, we may as well 'build up our moral currency' in this game.

Simply because it is a game does not make morals or ethics invalid. There are rules governing the mechanics of sports such as football (soccer), hockey, cricket, polo, pool, basketball, baseball, rugby, etc... but there are also rules regarding sportsmanship. Those rules aren't always written in stone, but may just be conventions. Just because it doesn't affect game mechanics doesn't mean it doesn't matter. (uh...awkward sentence but I think you know what I mean)

Trip also pointed out that we already have a certain level of ethics that we use, such as no playing ahead. It is not win at all costs as some would say. Even in an SP game, we each have our own level of what we consider acceptable. The game does not distinguish between a turn played for the first time and a reloaded turn, yet many of us would consider such reloading 'cheating'. Others do not, citing "fun" over "honour". We can each choose in our own game since we only affect ourselves, but in a large demo game like this, we affect each other's experience of the game. Any time there is a gathering of more than one individual, we have entered into a social contract, written or unwritten.

At this level of the game, I admit I'm just concerned with surviving past the jungle. I'm not an emperor level player and my 'humanitarian wins' have always been on regent. Given the harder difficulty level, I'm not averse to using more extreme measures to ensure our survival. If we're wiped out, how can we enlighten the other nations History is written by the victors.

Still, I think it's a good idea to add it in. It will add another dimension to our game, just as making it into a democracy game added a dimension to succession games, and succession games added a dimension to regular sp games.

I also thought it would be a good idea to have people role-play being citizens in certain towns, adding another dimension to the game. Then you'd have people arguing over which city should get given the cash to rush that cathedral, and people arguing over which cities should provide citizens for the draft, which city to protect most from an invading force, and so on...

But seeing as we've only got 2 cities now, that's a moot point. Perhaps in a few months when (and if) we make it to ten productive cities, we can have people role-play as citizens more.

In the same way, I suspect that as our game moves on and more options open up for us, we'll have more ethical questions to debate. A code of ethics may not be necessary now but it is still a good idea to look into one. I like the idea of developing our 'moral conscience' as we go.

Remember that the concept of universal human rights and the brotherhood of all people came from the liberal experiments of the 1600s. Prior to that, kinship and tribal allegiance were all that secured the individuals rights within a group and all that obligated one person to another. But Locke & others changed that concept. Starting with blindness to religious creed when it came to political power and judicial rights (as long as it was Christian, you were white, male, and propertied), the language of universal rights was created - and later adopted as excluded parties used that language against itself to force inclusion. In a few centuries, blindess before the law was extended to gender, then property, then race...

Modern western civilization was a gradual movement from tribal loyalties and ethnic justice to the assertion that all are individuals first and members of a collective second. Justice and power were to be blind to the group association by religion, colour, wealth, and gender. It is an imperfect experiment, full of hypocrisy and tragedy, but it is a beacon of hope in comparison to the tribal justice of Rwanda, Bosnia, Afghanistan,... or the justice of idealogues in Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea, Russia, and China.

oops... got off track. But if anyone is interested, have a look at Michael Ignatieff's The Warrior's Honour where he examines ethnic war and the modern conscience. There are some good rebuttals to Huntingdon's assumptions in The Clash of Civilizations.

[Captain]

Re: A difficult choice

Originally posted by GePap
I would make a few suggesions here for a simple moral code:

All ministers must agree for a city to be razed.

And 2/3 of citizens must agree if it is a metropolis, 50% if a city, just ministers if a town.

We also need a policy or agreements on whether or not starving a city down to a manageable level is acceptable. A size 4 town isn't going to rebel as much as a size 15 metro, but is that ethical?

We would only pop. rush in cases where defensive units are immidiately needed for defense (after all, if the city falls and is razed, what good did we do?)

Same for the draft. Only for defense when imminent. Considering the low hp of conscripts, we should avoid it and stick to a professional army of veterans. Peacenik I may be, but the cause of peace is best served by maintaining a strong, modern, and veteran standing army - rather than conscripting or pop-rushing in an emergency.

Slave policy shoul be voted on with each new gov.(whether we use them, disband the workers captured, or incorporate them into cities as new population points)

Yes, a general policy should be voted on at each new govt formation, but the specific execution depends on the minister of PW. He/she can folow policy or not, to his/her electoral consequence.

Avoid totalitarian goverments, swith to Communism must have 2/3 vote approval.

All government switches should have 2/3 approval. think of it as having a solid majority to carry the revolution. If it was only 50% or some minister, that wouldn't necessarily be enough to overthrow the current form of government.

Limit bombardment of terrain to vital strategic targets: Squares with resources, vital roads for the enemy.

Disagree. This should be up to the President and SMC with advice from other ministers as to whether we should keep it or pillage it. No citizens die from bombarding terrain tiles, so that should be ok. Tiles are valid military-industrial targets.

Allow bombardment of cities if the Defense minster thinks it wise (if you want to keep it low, vote for a minister that says in campaign they wont).

Agree. Should be the President's and SMC's choice, with input from other ministers.

Maintain all signed agreements as best we can: Never take advantage of a right of Passage agreement to move troop into position.

Disagree. This should be general policy but in case of emergency, there should be a 2/3 majority poll to determine if we permit using an RoP for sneak attack if advisable by SMC.

Use of nuclear weapons must be unanimously approved by all ministers.

Agreed. And approved by 2/3 of the public. Or we can vote on a policy of MAD, where retaliation is a must (otherwise there is no creidble deterrant... not that we can indicate that to the ai anyways....)

[Papa Chubby]

If we intend to be a moral and ethical society ruling *our* citizens with justice and righteousness. Then respecting all agreements must be a big concern, and certainly not exploiting treaty´s and simply unethically blitzing the enemy in worst Hitler style.

If we intend to be moral and ethical then one of the first must certainly be that our word is our bond. Not our word is our bond until the temptations are to big or the SMC advices against it.

[jdjdjd]

Captain,

While interesting analysis above, we must remember we are talking about an ethical code, a code which can not be violated, or else the violator is ousted. Consider it a set of game rules, even though the computer allows these actions, they are actions we will not do.

The point is to challenge us beyond the normal game. The code can be added to over time, but once in the code, it has to be followed without exception. We can make laws or amend the constitution as you indicate to impose restrictions which is a very good idea, especially if the ethical code is voted against, but the ethical code needs to be followed without exception.

Its a very interesting concept, one that could make the game very difficult, but then again we have some of the best and most knowledgeable players, who else could win at it.

And in the immortal words of panag, "have a nice day".

[Captain]

I suppose I was thinking more of an informal code of ethics, perhaps more like an "honour" system.

I am not sure how I feel about an official Constitution enshrining such a code. I think that if we do such a thing, we should wait at least a few months for debate before concluding anything.

I am a Constitutionalist IRL, so I advocate it. But I also advocate caution and patience so that the laws we make are well-thought out and well-understood by all. No reason to rush into anything.

Have an ethical day!

[Robber Baron]

Sorry I'm coming in late to this thread. Provocative stuff. Reviewing the list of civilizations the game offers players as choices, it occurs to me none of them "played" ethically in real life.
If they had, I guess they'd all be classified as "goody huts" in the game: they got squashed in history, just like they get squashed in the game.
Building a "civilization" is dirty work, it seems.
Personally, I think the game's structural algorithims factor all this stuff in (culture; citizen discontent) to my satisfaction. You have to have balance, and (being a pragmatist), my ethics tend to be "situational" anyway.
In any event, Civ III remains essentially a role-playing game. You play a style reflecting your personality. Here we're trying to play with a collective personality. In those kind of situations, the survival instinct and opportunism are going to rule the masses. Particularly if one's starting position is as geopolitically unenviable as ours is. War by any means, and slavery, and whatever else we can scheme up, are the only way we're going to be able to grow our struggling little civ to the point where (eventually) afford to be ethical.
(Just like history, by the way.)
If you want to play a "p.c." game (as in politically correct, not personal computer), you're better off playing by yourself.
Peace.
(or war, as the case may be.)

[Robber Baron]

By the way, aren't we all already in trouble, since we're hacking rainforest?

[UnOrthOdOx]

(Public service announcement: the oppinions expressed herein do not neccessarily represent the views of UnOrthOdOx or the Hawk Party)

Rainforest?

What about those poor whales!!!

The point was being made, however, that it says something about us - our collective personality, as you say - when we play barbarically. Sure, nothing in the game is stopping us from enslaving, destroying, and otherwise eliminating the other civ's, but what does that say about us? Yes, no one in history has 'played nice', but does that really mean that we cannot at least attempt it? You say the game can simulate these things? When was the last time your citizens became outraged that you had enslaved 30 workers or slaughtered thousands cause you didn't want to leave a large enough garrison in that town to prevent it from revolting?

If we play and win using any means, is it truly a victory? We have argued that the AI does not consider such things, are we no better? Are we, the humans, who have learned from history, to be held to no higher standard?

In those kind of situations, the survival instinct and opportunism are going to rule the masses.

If we give in to our instincts, are we truly any better than the monkeys that populate this jungle?

It is easy to stand and say it can't be done, is that what we truly want? If a win is truly all we seek, why not go ahead and cheat? Play ahead a bit?

[mmtt]

Alright, first of all, this is one of the most interesting thread I ever read on internet. Thanks you Eewolf

Eewolf asked about ethics, what should we think when we are raizing, killing or using slaves for our profit?
This is a question humanity had to ask herself during the Renaissance with the humanist movement. The reply was, as show history, let be as"human" as possible. Well, officially we have no slave, shouldn't have war and raizing town is consider as an "inhuman act" (holocaust can remind).

Well, as I read, we are all citizens of Apolytonia.
But wait, what is it a citizen?
It appears, if I'm not wrong, in Greece in these little city/state. It was an inhabitant in x city who could vote, say what he thought in an assembly. Some other citizens had higher "ranks": generals or artistocratics etc. Yeah, like always, riches have power.

Here, on apolyton, we can speak and say what we want/think/propose/ask.

Then I'm one these rich guys?

------------------
Let's imagine us wandering in this Apolytonia, covered of jungles, with savage beasts, in these huts from the antic ages. We hear rumours about people called the French, who own large, abundant lands beyond those high moutains.
Indeed, this vision seems strange and quite fantastic.

If we go on, we must survive and we can't in this treacherous jungle. Only one choice we got: rush the French. If this case, the govnerment will try to convince people to enlist in this war for "survival" and "integrity of our state" by exemple. We will fight a war for what?? To survive... alright if it is so let kill these frenchies.

But what will these frenchies think about us? We are ferocious gorillas, praying bananas, rushing their land, pillaging, murdering. etc...
Have we the right and the duty to kill people who try to live as good as us? They have got problems too, shouldn't we help them?

------------
No! No because it is a game. And in this game, the "IA"(the bunch of people across those moutains) wants to win as badly as most of us want. Gosh!
Then we are going to have the bad job on our hands. It is a game and no remorse. We need to win at all cost! A majority of us want to win! Win this game for fun, to share our fun with other humans trying to make these little apolytonians to stay and stand proud.
We are a hundred or more, in front of us, a computer in difficulty mode "Emperor". One human can defeat "Emperor" alone, but the challenge here, is to make it together. Sharing ideas, telling stories and tales, waging war with different strategies, different way to win! The most rich Civ3 Game ever!

---------------------
Conclusion:
Then we got:
A roleplay movement started by this govnerment. Eewolf proposed to go one, one step further. One step further into immersion, into a deep world of imagination. In a world we control from far, in front of our screen, and in another world we are a bunch of crappy people, in the dawn of the world. Isn't fascinating?

I hope I didn't get it wrong, I hope this ethics code will allow us to have more fun.
Personally my goal is to discover, discover the limit of this. I think it is an experience, rarely done. And I would like to congratulate all the guys or girls who make it on.
Now it's up to us to go further!

Or maybe this will be for another game. It is too ambitious and we need to get our hand at it before getting a step deeper in the unknown. =)

---------------
Sorry from my English, I'm French. And yeah I would like to have to kill my ancestors if I follow and roleplay in and during this game.

Thanks you for reading me. Sorry if it has already been said, I haven't read all the topics.
----------------
Proud citizen of Apolytonia, ready to serve his country in the dark hours that are coming!

[JMarks]

Originally posted by Captain

Remember that the concept of universal human rights and the brotherhood of all people came from the liberal experiments of the 1600s. Prior to that, kinship and tribal allegiance were all that secured the individuals rights within a group and all that obligated one person to another. But Locke & others changed that concept. Starting with blindness to religious creed when it came to political power and judicial rights (as long as it was Christian, you were white, male, and propertied), the language of universal rights was created - and later adopted as excluded parties used that language against itself to force inclusion. In a few centuries, blindess before the law was extended to gender, then property, then race...

Hmmm, Never before has mankind thought of brotherhood of all people? What about Alexander the Great? Sure, he was ahead of his time, and sure, he was in favor of a brotherhood of man as long as it was all under him, but still. To think we're still apes because we haven't even discovered formal 'philosophy' is kinda silly, and backward. Furthermore, all we citizens are philosophers and whatnot already, and since we ARE discussing ethics, then we already have some rough code of ethics. Slavery was seen as alright, if not the order of things in the ancient world, and didn't bother their ethics system, because it was accounted for! So by all means lets have an ethics system, but it should be prone to change. If we're saying slavery is wrong now, then we can either be hypocrites, or not have slaves. But frankly, the order of the holy Banana, from what I overheard, sees slavery as part of the natural order.

[GoodFella]

Don't think for one instant that the French aren't think of killing us and taking our beloved bananas right now.

[minos]

While I agree with the policies of allowing ethics to play a major role in our gameplay (no razing, slavery, pop rushing, and especially NO FIRST STRIKE NUKES!!!), I don't think that the it should be officially placed in the constitution that such acts are banned. Constricting ourselves in this fashion can and will crush our government.

As I see it there are then two possibilities. The first one is to continue this and similar threads and have a sort of informal code. The president would have to be knowledgeable of what was being said in this thread by the people and would play as such. If we were to disagree with him then we would merely vote him out of office in the next election.

The second option concerns if the 'yes' vote wins in the vote for a constitutional amendment. If we do have an official code of ethics, the code should be VERY vague. A code of ethics would be very similar to the addition to the US Constitution demanded by the anti-federalists in the debates over the ratification of the Constitution. Namely, it would be a sort of Bill of Rights (for the AI). The Code of Ethics should be vague and open to interpretation so that our leaders can make rapid decisions in a crisis. For example, an outright ban of pop rushing would prevent our leaders from saving a city from the French if they were to attack and kill the defenders. So the Code of Ethics would have to say something like "Pop Rushing will be banned unless needed desperately to protect citizens of Apolytonia." If we feel that the Prez violated this we could impeach him and let the people decide.

So, in summary, don't lock us into ethics without any options, because it's the decisions and debates that make civ fun!

[notyoueither]

Our ethics will display themselves in the ethics we vote for as evidenced in polls about particular actions throughout the game.

To have one group of players, at one point in time determine the possible courses of action for all players over the course of the game slaps the concept of democracy in the face.

Do you want Apolytonia to be a moral beacon for the next 4000 years? Stick around and convince everyone that the high road is the road to travel.