That's your mistake. I don't. I answer in kind. If one kills it's ok to kill, not to torture, and vice versa. Always in kind. The definition of "in kind" (using the same knife, another one, another weapon...) can vary, but your example is wrong. When someone shoots at me, he tries to kill or hurt me, so I can do the same, try to kill/hurt, to him, period.
|
LDiCesare, I would not think it was good to simply pull a gun and fire in retaliation myself. I would instead look for a way to end the conflict with both sides unharmed. Failing that I would attempt to remove his ability to harm me without killing him. Finally the only time I would resort to killing someone is in the defense of someone elses life. This comes from my own ethical and moral standpoint. Not everyone sees morality the same way. To me, it is not moral to research something that could be used in an evil manner. Why? Because many things that could be used in an evil manner, could also be used in a good manner. Pharmaceutecals are the same technology used in biological warfare. There is no difference. Likewise, nuclear weapons use the same exact technology that power many major cities, treat cancer victems, etc. It was not evil to research nuclear technology, it is just evil to use it without right or proper reason. The same can be said of cloning issues. On one hand it can save many lives, and cure many diseases. On the other hand some methods involve the loss of pre-born life, it could be used to create "supersoldiers" (although this is really infeasable), and some people worry about people "stealing" their unique genetic code (which is rediculous because it's like having an identical twin.) Is the research of any of these things "evil" or is it that certain applications of them are evil depending on the circumstances.
The problem comes from coding a game to recognize this right or reason, so programmers try to simplify morality and ethics to something more black and white. Unfortunately this ends up with some actions being good while some see them as evil, and others being evil while some would see them as good. It is far from perfect. What would be interesting though is to see the morality of different empires being shown in game to be different. Such that by their own standards, every species considers themselves to be "good" (maybe with an exception or two) Also each race has their own ideas of what makes something morally acceptable, and what doesn't. An example is, one race takes all life to be sacred, while another race believes that they are the chosen ones, and all others must bow to them or die. For the former, they would be opposed to war at all costs, and any war would be evil, while the latter would not care about war, they would fight wars at all costs (but their own lives) and wouldn't have any moral penalties from using terror stars on their enemies. Clearly, the former would consider the latter evil for it's blatent disregard of life, and the latter would believe that the former was evil for refusing to serve them. Thrown in a few that believe in revenge, honor, greed, and other morality types, and you have a more flavorful game. This would also make the "fundy" event as I heard it describe easier to survive, as you only have to be "good" by your own race's morality. It would also make alliances possible between 2 nations that share similar ideals, no matter how evil everyone else considers them, and maybe force players into making a choice between alliances between 2 other nations that believe each other evil, while they are both acceptable by your standards.
Finally, I'd like to state, that 99% of the time, any discussion of morality ends up in a fight which is never resolved, and no oppinions are changed, except of the opponent. This is because everyone's views are different, and based on different experiences, so it is usually better to accept that someone believes differently than to try to force them to think like you. In fact usually, the latter is futile, so please try to keep it friendly in here.
