Values/Ethics in WC

[Nemesis]

Even tough they are not the exactly the same, they have similarities.

Not any that matter to this discussion, and not any that justify you’re using them as synonyms or otherwise suggesting that one implies the other. Please don’t do that.

Moral relativism claims there are no moral rules correct for everyone, since each one have their own set of rules, which is right for them.

There are many “schools” on relativism (and so it is naive–and “evil”!–to try to associate it with a specific normative claim like nihilism). Moreover, it’s principally a pragmatic, not a metaphysical (let alone hysterical), theory or program.

Nihilism claim there's no moral rules at all.

Wrong. Nihilism’s thesis is that the human endeavor to perceive/conceive an objective moral system is useless, and so senseless. But the futility can derive from any number of different reasons. There is no such thing as objectivity. The human brain is not powerful enough. Metaphysics in general is bunk. And so on. (Personally, I find the arguments rife with non sequiturs.)

Both claim there's no objective set of moral rules.

That can be true for nihilism (depending on the “source” of the claimed futility). However, relativism–despite what the occasional “materialist” or “mysterian” respectively wants to believe or denounce–is generally neutral on the question.

Both maintain there's no good or evil for everyone.

False (for reasons already stated). But I must say I sense a kind of desperation here that borders on paranoia. Who’s afraid of nihilism? You seem to be arguing that everyone should be. Yet it’s hard to take it as a real threat. Certainly there’s nothing to prevent a “madman” from using it as a facade for social revolution (which is certainly not to say that the attempt at revolution wouldn’t happen otherwise; oh, it would), but as for nihilism itself “catching fire” as a practical/political ideology, you’re dreaming, very much like the so-called deconstructivists were.

In short, relax, humanity’s safe on that score. (However, there is an “n-word” you would do much better to be worried about. Neuroscience.)

Both positions simply cannot classify the Kilrathi as evil. Nihilists can't because they don't believe "evil" exists, and Relativists because the Kilrathi were not evil by their own standards.

Wrong (ditto for prior comments). Nihilists won’t (not can’t). Relativists, on the other hand, never tire of studying and trying to understand what a given person or culture or state (or world or galaxy or universe) regards as good or evil, and would certainly not hesitate to confirm how Confed sees the Kilrathi, and vice versa (taking the fictional WCU at face value).

But I want to ask again: what’s the point of pegging “something” as truly evil (as opposed to the lesser “bad” or “wrong” or “threatening")? I can see the attraction, as in puzzle-solving, of a philosophical, and in turn historical, analysis. Otherwise, I don’t get why it should be an all-important question. How would pegging “something” with the ultimate metaphysical condemnation amount to a real difference in the real world? I don’t see that it would. (Nor does it, if history is any guide.) So I suspect that the “concern” is just a slippery slope argument that if we don’t make the effort to “find” or “see” genuine evil in the world, then we’ll stop caring about morality and ethics altogether. And to that I say (largely for the reasons below), rubbish!

There can be no shades of gray, plural, if there's no good and evil. Gray is composed of both good AND evil on different proportions.

Mostly wrong. Grey (as others have pointed out) is composed of black and white, which can be any number of distinct dualistic extremes–life and death, good and evil, right and wrong, benefit and detriment, pleasure and pain, love and hate, honor and betrayal, etc., etc., etc. If there is no “good and evil” as such, there will still, and always, be shades of grey to invoke or challenge our decision making. And I would also contend to much the same result.

Without black and white, there ain't no gray.

True, but which came first? This is the same fight Plato and Aristotle had, and it’s even mirrored today in science, where particle physicists have faith that there is a “theory of everything”, and many solid-state physicists suspect instead that reality will only ever yield to lots of theories about different things. But in terms of human morality, and in particular considering evolution, I have a hard time seeing how “black and white” could have come first. (And we know it certainly didn’t for Adam and Eve..)

 

[Mekt-Hakkikt]

Hi! Just popping in to give my two cents:

We don't see the Kilrathi do ánything that mankind hasn't done, thus I don't think we can consider the Kilrathi to be more evil than humans.

I think WC tries to be moral but with varied success.

WC1 is a somewhat realistic depiction: it's a "us or them" in my eyes plus the stress of the war (Maniac).
WC2 already is a bit more complicated and shows more sides (Hobbes/Downtown, Bear)
WC3 is really simple black&white (the game, not so much the novel).
WC4 also is quite simple. The "good" path is clear.
WCP doesn't bother at all with moral.
Priv is as realistic as WC1 and 2 in my eyes - there are different sides with its own interests.

The same scheme applies for me to the novels though they tend to be a bit less extreme.

I don't know why but I had that urge to answer to that post. I thank you for your attention and I'll be off again.

 

[Delance]

Not any that matter to this discussion, and not any that justify you’re using them as synonyms or otherwise suggesting that one implies the other. Please don’t do that.

Actually, it's the other way around.

I said: "or that all concepts of "good" and "evil" are subjective, hence, perhaps, meaningless."

You said: "Please don’t confuse relativism with nihilism."

However, as demonstrated, I was talking about MR. You brought nihilism into the discussion - cofusing it with MR.

I did not say they are the same, I noted that they have similarities, and demonstrated it.

False (for reasons already stated). But I must say I sense a kind of desperation here that borders on paranoia. Who’s afraid of nihilism? You seem to be arguing that everyone should be.

When did I argue that? Have I even said anything against nihilism? This is a abstract debate on moral views. I merely described nihilism and Moral Relativism for what they are. If you think you should be afraid of them, hey, that's your call.

Mostly wrong. Grey (as others have pointed out) is composed of black and white, which can be any number of distinct dualistic extremes–life and death, good and evil, right and wrong, benefit and detriment, pleasure and pain, love and hate, honor and betrayal, etc., etc., etc. If there is no “good and evil” as such, there will still, and always, be shades of grey to invoke or challenge our decision making. And I would also contend to much the same result.

This semantical approach is not really convicing. It's the same as arguing that gray is composed of two colors, so all you need is some paint.

We were talking about "shades of gray" on the morality scale. Good is one color, evil is another color, and shades of gray stands for the area between pure good and pure evil. Unless good and evil exists, there is no such area. Something cannot be part good and part evil if said elements don't exist.

Simply put, it doesn't make sense to argue there are shades of gray on the moarlity area, and at the same time that morality doesn't exist.

Now if you want to talk about the pragmatic aspects, we could star wondering if some MR defenders advocate tolerance and are intolerant themselves, or if they conveniently identify evil only on cultures they don't like for ideological reasons. But that would be an entirely different discussions.

 

[Delance]

Delance, you always seem too paranoid with this relativismVSnihilism thing... And your mix up lots of different stuff, like "there's no hierarchy between cultures" and "everything goes"

Where does this come from? I simply described moral relativism and nihilism as they are. I even used a link as a source of someone defending moral relativism. I didn't even criticize it directly, for crying out loud.

Since when is describing a theory paranoia?

And I didn't claim there was a hierarchy between cultures, did I? You know I don't buy that theory at all.

 

[Delance]

And to make something clear, when I say "moral relativists" or "nihilists", I am NOT referring to anyone specifically on this thread.

Just like "The Kiralthi nuked Hawk's homeworld with proton bombs!" is not an accusation of someone on a thread either being a Kilrathi or having nuked Hawk's homeworld.

 

[Quarto]

True, but which came first? This is the same fight Plato and Aristotle had, and it’s even mirrored today in science, where particle physicists have faith that there is a “theory of everything”, and many solid-state physicists suspect instead that reality will only ever yield to lots of theories about different things. But in terms of human morality, and in particular considering evolution, I have a hard time seeing how “black and white” could have come first. (And we know it certainly didn’t for Adam and Eve..)

Eh, Nemesis, most of the time your posts are really intelligent... unfortunately, then there are times like this .
1. Which came first? I never bothered to read enough Plato or Aristotle to understand their points of view, but I can tell you that black and white, definitely came before gray did, simply because black and white are the components that make up gray, and neither can be made up of gray alone (i.e., it wouldn't make sense to claim that black is really dark gray, because 'dark' actually means 'closer to black', and therefore you need to have black first).
2. Particle physicists... ehh, what? What's that got to do with anything?
3. Adam and Eve... what? The first thing Adam and Eve knew, obviously, was God, and God is pure good - pure white, if you prefer. Moving on, they knew it was completely wrong - black - to eat the apple. Only then, once they knew that, could Satan persuade them that eating the apple isn't that bad - gray. Had they not known that it's wrong to eat the apple, why would Satan need to tempt them to eat it?

Let me put it another way. Black = evil. White = good. Gray = less wrong than evil, more wrong than good. That last sentence - can it make sense if you haven't previously defined the words that come after the "than" bit?

(on a sidenote, since Delance says he didn't say it, I guess I'll say it - everyone should be scared to death of nihilism, and when I say everyone, I mean even nihilists. I can't think of anything more frightening than the guy that sees no good or bad in putting a bullet in my head; he might be nice to me one day, and he might kill me the next, and there is no way to predict it - even people who think it's good to kill me are less scary, since at least I know what to expect from them)

 

[Nemesis]

I said: "or that all concepts of "good" and "evil" are subjective, hence, perhaps, meaningless."

You said: "Please don’’t confuse relativism with nihilism."

However, as demonstrated, I was talking about MR.

But you said “meaningless”. Relativism neither espouses nor entails meaninglessness. If you truly think it does, then you are confusing it with nihilism.

When did I argue that? Have I even said anything against nihilism?

To the extent you’ve been confusing it with relativism, you have.

This is a abstract debate on moral views. I merely described nihilism and Moral Relativism for what they are.

Actually, you introduced them into this thread, and you clearly did so either to criticize or lament that anyone should suggest we take account of Kilrathi culture in assessing the morality of that race’s beliefs and actions.

If you think you should be afraid of them, hey, that's your call.

Ah, no, I was arguing the opposite.

This semantical approach is not really convicing. It's the same as arguing that gray is composed of two colors, so all you need is some paint.

No, not semantical. Empirical. And material. And I think you do get my point.

We were talking about "shades of gray" on the morality scale. Good is one color, evil is another color, and shades of gray stands for the area between pure good and pure evil. Unless good and evil exists, there is no such area. Something cannot be part good and part evil if said elements don't exist.

Alright, just in case you really didn’t take my point, let me put it this way: a subjective “good and evil” will do just as well to create shades of grey, as will countless other “colors” of things positive and things negative (as I listed). In sum, objectivity (or some metaphysical formula to determine “good and evil") may for you stand as a prerequisite to a “good” or “valid” moral system (including “real” shades of grey), but not for a relativist, and indeed not in fact for the vast majority of people in the daily hustle of modern culture. (Morality will out! One way or another.)

Now if you want to talk about the pragmatic aspects, we could star wondering if some MR defenders advocate tolerance and are intolerant themselves, or if they conveniently identify evil only on cultures they don't like for ideological reasons.

A true moral relativist has but one aim: engagement. (Resistance is futile! But no guarantees on assimilation.) It’s all about intercourse and discourse, memes and paradigm-shifts. We are our minds. That’s all we can be.

Let me put it another way. Black = evil. White = good. Gray = less wrong than evil, more wrong than good. That last sentence - can it make sense if you haven't previously defined the words that come after the "than" bit?

Sorry if I left you scratching your head. I used the physics example for two reasons: first, it does interestingly parallel the issue of whether morality is absolute or relative, but second, it also serves to mock your and Delance’s use of the color metaphor; I mean, you’ve both seemed to take it very, very seriously, as if morality really does work exactly like color. (At the least, I hoped to score some chuckles out of all that, and I think, your comments aside, that I did, since you’re clearly being facetious now re: Adam and Eve.)

Yes, your “last sentence” can make sense since it conforms to and confirms our general experience of life (the gray) as comprising various opposites whose essences can nonetheless prove elusive. And really, as you look around today and back on history, can you tell me that the meanings of those words “good” and “evil” have been nailed down for all time? Be honest–we’re still at it, aren’t we? And why is that? Could it be that “good and evil” does not exist beyond us as a metaphysical truth, but only on the basis of the meanings “we” choose to impose on it?

. . . I can't think of anything more frightening than the guy that sees no good or bad in putting a bullet in my head; he might be nice to me one day, and he might kill me the next, and there is no way to predict it . . .

Yes, psychopaths are a problem, but fortunately they are relatively rare and the problem looks to be much more with their brains than with any philosophy. (So snicker at nihilism, but keep a wary eye on neuroscience!)

 

[Quarto]

Sorry if I left you scratching your head. I used the physics example for two reasons: first, it does interestingly parallel the issue of whether morality is absolute or relative, but second, it also serves to mock your and Delance’s use of the color metaphor; I mean, you’ve both seemed to take it very, very seriously, as if morality really does work exactly like color.

Eh, metaphors are useful only insofar as they make sense . In the case of good and evil, I think colours make great sense... but I still can't seem to figure out what the heck your physics metaphor is supposed to mean, even though you've tried to explain it .

Yes, your “last sentence” can make sense since it conforms to and confirms our general experience of life (the gray) as comprising various opposites whose essences can nonetheless prove elusive.

Again, no. Think about it - without the concept of good and evil, what you end up with, in that sentence, is a statement that a given action is less <blank> than <blank> and more <blank> than <blank>. Such a statement defines absolutely nothing. The only way it can make sense is if you fill in the blanks. And in that context, it's absolutely irrelevant whether you fill the blanks in with constants or placeholder variables like X and Y - the action in question will still be defined by its relationship with whatever we've filled in the blanks with.

So, your point about the shifting nature of human definitions of good and evil has been duly noted, but is entirely irrelevant .

...Oh, another thing. No matter how the definition of good and evil changes, both values are still absolute, because at any given time, they still only hold one value to anyone. If I claim that X = 2, and you claim that X = 7, this does not mean that the value of X is relative - it just means that one of us is wrong.

 

[Delance]

But you said “meaningless”. Relativism neither espouses nor entails meaninglessness. If you truly think it does, then you are confusing it with nihilism.

I said "and, perhaps, meaningless”.

Moral Relativism claims there is no true good and evil. So if it denies existence of something, aren't they making it devoid of meaning?

The only morally objective truth moral relativism accept is itself, i.e., that there is no morally objective truth. It's a self-refuting argument.

If Moral Relativism is true, than there's no truth, so it can't be true, or it would be a paradox.

To the extent you’ve been confusing it with relativism, you have.

You was confusing it. The similarities were demonstrated, and acknowledged even by academic defenders of moral relativism.

Actually, you introduced them into this thread, and you clearly did so either to criticize or lament that anyone should suggest we take account of Kilrathi culture in assessing the morality of that race’s beliefs and actions.

Taking in account to understand is one thing. Using it to justify claiming good and evil doesn't exist is different.

Confusing both things is the game of moral relativism, which rarely play by its own rules. They tend to forget their own theories when they are bashing something they don't like.

No, not semantical. Empirical. And material. And I think you do get my point.

I didn't.

Alright, just in case you really didn’t take my point, let me put it this way: a subjective “good and evil” will do just as well to create shades of grey, as will countless other “colors” of things positive and things negative (as I listed).

We were talking about good and evil, not "good things" and "bad things". And you basically claimed black and white don't exist because there are other colors.

A true moral relativist has but one aim: engagement. (Resistance is futile! But no guarantees on assimilation.) It’s all about intercourse and discourse, memes and paradigm-shifts. We are our minds. That’s all we can be.

That's reductionism. The last part is closer to nihilism. If you mean that a MR is willing to lie to archive his objectives because truth is relative, you have a point.

Sorry if I left you scratching your head. I used the physics example for two reasons: first, it does interestingly parallel the issue of whether morality is absolute or relative, but second, it also serves to mock your and Delance’s use of the color metaphor; I mean, you’ve both seemed to take it very, very seriously, as if morality really does work exactly like color. (At the least, I hoped to score some chuckles out of all that, and I think, your comments aside, that I did, since you’re clearly being facetious now re: Adam and Eve.)

The problem with your example is that it didn't make any sense. No, morality doesn't work like colors, but that's why it was a metaphor. But since it was a source of confusion, let's put it plainy.

There is good, and there's evil, and there's somewhere in between. There can be no place in between two positions if they don't exist. That's not even about morality; it's just a logic point.

 

[Delance]

...Oh, another thing. No matter how the definition of good and evil changes, both values are still absolute, because at any given time, they still only hold one value to anyone. If I claim that X = 2, and you claim that X = 7, this does not mean that the value of X is relative - it just means that one of us is wrong.

Or both. But that's sounds rights. Very well put.

 

[Nemesis]

I said "and, perhaps, meaningless””.

Moral Relativism claims there is no true good and evil. So if it denies existence of something, aren't they making it devoid of meaning?

Whoa there! What you actually said–your first, original, unedited quote–was: “Either one believes there is an objective "good" and "evil", or that all concepts of "good" and "evil" are subjective, hence, perhaps, meaningless.”

As written, your “hence” isn’t referring back to the initial clause, only the second. And we know for a fact that is what you intended, because in a later post, quoting yourself regarding that first quote, you stated in full: ”I said: ‘or that all concepts of "good" and "evil" are subjective, hence, perhaps, meaningless.’”

So I think it’s a little late now to edit your “meaning”. But I do take it as a hopeful sign.

Subjective beliefs have meaning (whether you’re a relativist or not). If X believes the sky is falling even when it isn’t, that will still have meaning for X and for anyone else who takes him at his word, together with any others who know it’s false but have to contend with X and his chaos.

Same for what one believes, rightly or wrongly, about good and evil. Including if one believes good and evil do not exist; that belief carries meaning too.

The only morally objective truth moral relativism accept is itself, i.e., that there is no morally objective truth. It's a self-refuting argument.

If Moral Relativism is true, than there's no truth, so it can't be true, or it would be a paradox.

Sophistry. I prefer this one: “The only subjective belief that objectivity allows is that objectivity exists.” (In addition, that even qualifies as a fair paraphrase of the first part of your own quote that we argued about above–“Either one believes there is an objective 'good' and 'evil' . . .")

You really want to go down these roads? They are only going to lead to issues of semantics and whether all truths are equal or of the same kind (much like mathematicians who love to talk about different kinds of infinities). I get that you don’t like relativism (or nihilism), but I’m not interested here in defending its “truths” any more than I’m interested in proving absolutism’s “falsities”.

You was confusing it. The similarities were demonstrated, and acknowledged even by academic defenders of moral relativism.

Is that like the claim by “four out of five doctors”? Relativism does not entail nihilism; they are different. Indeed, nihilism is an absolutist thesis and would be paired with objectivity on a “good/evil” or “positive/negative” spectrum.

Taking in account to understand is one thing. Using it to justify claiming good and evil doesn't exist is different.

Yeah, that’s only nihilism. Relativism, on the other hand, is obsessed with understanding what is “good” and what is “evil”.

Confusing both things is the game of moral relativism, which rarely play by its own rules. They tend to forget their own theories when they are bashing something they don't like.

Taking cheap shots is a petty tactic. Again, we all get that you don’t like relativism, but bemoaning its existence here will not persuade academia to “excommunicate” it.

We were talking about good and evil, not "good things" and "bad things". And you basically claimed black and white don't exist because there are other colors.

I guess you’re still missing my point. But take a look at my posts below regarding Quarto’s comments.

That's reductionism. The last part is closer to nihilism. If you mean that a MR is willing to lie to archive his objectives because truth is relative, you have a point.

Respectively: No, that’s reality (to a relativist, materialist, and several other “-ists"). No, has nothing to do with nihilism (what paranoia!). No, again with the pointless pettiness.

No, morality doesn't work like colors, but that's why it was a metaphor.

Good point!

But since it was a source of confusion, let's put it plainy.

There is good, and there's evil, and there's somewhere in between. There can be no place in between two positions if they don't exist.

Again, your comment applies only to nihilism. But see my post below regarding Quarto’s one point that you particularly liked.

 

[Nemesis]

Sorry for the double posts.

Eh, metaphors are useful only insofar as they make sense. In the case of good and evil, I think colours make great sense...

An absolutist would think that, because for him “black” and “white” are the equivalent of Platonic forms, are immutable, and of course are what always mix to form “grey”.

But, as you say, metaphors have to make sense. And for a relativist, it’s a poor metaphor, because he would have to posit a different physics for color if he wanted it to mirror what he contends is the reality of morality. He would require a color scheme that would allow him to say that “black” and “white” are clearly not like Platonic forms, for they are not separable, more fundamental elements of “grey”, they can only derive from and evolve out of the grey. Indeed, grey would be the mother of all colors, and so in addition to “black and white”, would yield “red and green”, “blue and yellow”, and so on, at different times or in different circumstances.

. . .but I still can't seem to figure out what the heck your physics metaphor is supposed to mean, even though you've tried to explain it.

Alright, we’ll take the time for a quick diversion within the diversion.

Many particle physicists believe that everything that makes up the universe can be explained on the basis of a fundamental, all-inclusive force and law–hence, there must be a “theory of everything”. But some solid-state physicists believe, based on their work with superconductors for example, that the behavior of certain kinds of matter cannot be accounted for by more fundamental particle interactions. They are drawn to the view that subatomic particles and the like are but the emergent properties of the initial conditions of the universe following the Big Bang–hence, there can’t be a theory of everything, for “reality” will turn out to be a number of discrete realities respectively governed by unique and incommensurable sets of laws. Enough said. (Though I hope it now strikes a familiar chord.)

Again, no. Think about it - without the concept of good and evil, what you end up with, in that sentence, is a statement that a given action is less <blank> than <blank> and more <blank> than <blank>. Such a statement defines absolutely nothing. The only way it can make sense is if you fill in the blanks. And in that context, it's absolutely irrelevant whether you fill the blanks in with constants or placeholder variables like X and Y - the action in question will still be defined by its relationship with whatever we've filled in the blanks with.

Again, yes, because your color metaphor is false according to relativism, and your further association of meanings and morality with numbers and mathematics is, at best, imprecise. But getting past all the metaphors, I don’t see that our empirical perspectives are mutually exclusive; it’s just that we’re emphasizing aspects of morality through different lenses–synchrony and diachrony.

So, your point about the shifting nature of human definitions of good and evil has been duly noted, but is entirely irrelevant.

But for relativism, both empirically and normatively, it’s wholly relevant.

...Oh, another thing. No matter how the definition of good and evil changes, both values are still absolute, because at any given time, they still only hold one value to anyone.

Wow, that’s stretching empiricism (not to mention credulity), even from a synchronous point of view. Though I suppose it could hold true, to a point, for certain kinds of isolated communities (for example, the Amish).

If I claim that X = 2, and you claim that X = 7, this does not mean that the value of X is relative - it just means that one of us is wrong.

Yes, something like this is what an absolutist would say (though again, your analogy to mathematics is pretty flimsy given what we’re talking about). But a relativist would say the values most certainly are relative because they derive from (and so are relative to) our particular culture(s) and respective perceptions.

So given that, how does the disagreement get resolved? Depends on the context. If you and I are candidates for president of the U.S., it gets resolved, for now, in just over a week from now. If you and I are opposing parties in a lawsuit, it gets resolved by a judge or jury. If you and I are members of an Internet forum, it gets resolved when one of us dies. (Or, probably more likely, when one of the Admins cries “I . . . have had . . . enough of this!” Click!)

Fortunately, I don’t see that you, Delance, and I have any further disagreement worth arguing over. I respect your and Delance’s views on absolutism and objectivity, and have been out only to make sure that relativism is not misrepresented in the process.

Which brings me to an issue in “Privateer” (were those sighs of relief?) that’s always bugged me. What does it say about humanity in 2669 that slavery exists? (I doubt anyone would demur at calling that “evil”.) And what does it say about Gemini Sector that while slavery is supposedly “not legal”, only the commodity exchanges at Perry Naval Base, New Constantinople, and Oxford actually forbid it?

 

[Delance]

Apparently having a point and demonstrating it is a petty tactic. Having no point and rambling about nothing is what is considered good. That's relativism IN ACTION.

 

[Delance]

Well, we could just consider slavery wrong regardless of date, even on Gemini. Mankind struggle against this kind of thing has been long and not always successful. Perhaps the price for establishing new societies on far away places is the risk of having activities that would be considered unnaceptable closer to central areas. That speaks of how similar mankind can be, even with all the advanced tech.

Or we could ask why having slaves on the Gemini Sector is any more wrong the intolerance of petty cultural imperialists who try to impose moral views on others. It's just an excuse for Confed to impose military rule. If those confed patrols spent more time burning Kilrathi villages as they do enforcing the corporate rule, perhaps Gemini would be safer. But Confed don't accept anyone outside their sphere of influence, so they just to want to neutralize all opposing forces, using laws created with the purpose of criminalizing them.

 

[Quarto]

Fortunately, I don’t see that you, Delance, and I have any further disagreement worth arguing over. I respect your and Delance’s views on absolutism and objectivity, and have been out only to make sure that relativism is not misrepresented in the process.

Hehe - in this particular thread, I don't respect your views, but I guess you already noticed that .

Which brings me to an issue in “Privateer” (were those sighs of relief?) that’s always bugged me. What does it say about humanity in 2669 that slavery exists? (I doubt anyone would demur at calling that “evil”.) And what does it say about Gemini Sector that while slavery is supposedly “not legal”, only the commodity exchanges at Perry Naval Base, New Constantinople, and Oxford actually forbid it?

Sigh of relief is right . Anyway, I don't think it says much at all about humanity. Slavery is not something that's ever gonna go away - it's an institution that constantly mutates, but is always with us. The fact that it's depicted in Privateer is to me, if anything, a relief - it simply means that my favourite game series is willing to choose realism over political correctness.

As for the presence of slavery specifically in Gemini, that's also not much of a surprise - slavery has always preferred places where there's a lot of unskilled hard work to be done and little possibility of automatisation, and Gemini's various mining and agricultural bases undoubtedly provide plenty of room for that.

Finally, about the possibility of selling slaves at Perry and other such places. This, I've always discounted as a pure gameplay limitation. If any random Stiletto can scan your cargo, I fail to see any other reason why Perry couldn't do so - ergo, you couldn't actually sell slaves in Perry, even if you do in the game. And the fact that you sell them at the commodity exchange is also a pure gameplay limitation - the commodity exchange is a gameplay device designed to reduce trading to a single interface, but I would expect that, had the game allowed for it, illegal cargo exchanges would take place at a different, less official location.

 

[Nemesis]

And the fact that you sell them at the commodity exchange is also a pure gameplay limitation - the commodity exchange is a gameplay device designed to reduce trading to a single interface, but I would expect that, had the game allowed for it, illegal cargo exchanges would take place at a different, less official location.

That would certainly make more sense. And I think we are forced to that conclusion to explain why when you tractor in a merchant and he is not initially deemed contraband by any militia or Confed scans, the very next time you land (your first and last chance to have done with him before he is considered contraband) the given commodity exchange still labels him a slave. The reality should be that you receive a reward from the Guild or whatever for the rescue.

 

[criticalmass]

Now, we could construe a different explanation by understanding "slavery" in Privateer in a sense of "Indenture" - so that any individual who has lost his means to add to the greater benefit (pilots having lost their ships, unemployed planet natives...) can be considered as slaves in the sense of a forcibly relocated workforce. That might fit into the frontier culture of Gemini, and might explain the non-legal status in the more civilized bases...... - but it might also just strectch the point a bit too much (sound of wild theory folding).

I don't really think* that slavery being illegal can be explained by Confed imposing a moral value on it. Trading in slaves is profitable, as there is a demand for cheap labor. But I do not think that any of the cultures in the game would accept the loss of freedom of choice and basic dignity as being ethically neutral.




*Comic relief moment - time for a joke:
Descartes sits in a bar and finishes his drink. The barkeeper asks him: "Another one?" Descartes says: "I really don't think.." - and pooof, he's gone.

 

[Edfilho]

Well... Slavery being a bad thing is a recent inovation in humanity's history. who know what may happen in the next 600 years. And mind you, we only see it happening in the fringe areas of confed. There are some farms in brazil who unofficially enslave their workers, people never change.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

We see slaves on the frontier sold to Kilrathi merchants in Action Stations -- that's probably where the slaves traded in Privateer end up.

The Privateer manual has an interesting reference to the idea that human slavery is a historical constant. Of the Pirate Bases it claims they "continue to trade slaves as if we were living in the 23rd century."

 

[Fenris Ulven]

Confed cant have controll on everthing, anywere.,,,,