Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[orange]

I threw out a pretty standard line.   

[Mithfindel]

On Insorum: All the private dealings are naturally private, but I do believe we know that Zainou (which at least used to be an Ishukone subsidiary) developed it. So that card could be used. Since no one else knows how to make it (and the Republic hasn't, as far as I know, claimed that they can manufacture Insorum, which would be a pretty big propaganda issue for them if they had reverse engineered the drug), it should be kind of written between the lines where it comes from. At what cost, of course, is not known to anyone, unless you somehow managed to hack into Ishukone accounts. (I assume Republic account logs do not show anything, since otherwise it would've been pretty damn hard to fund the Elder fleets out of Gallentean development kredits - of course that's one more fact we don't know about, though.)

[Lyn Farel]

If people knew how to create insorum, they would already use it as a bioweapon of mass destruction anyway.

Good points, you all.

I'm still new to the rough-and-tumble RP style of EVE. I'm trying to figure out how I can spin the TCRC argument.

The best I have so far is that Ishukone simply doesn't give a damn about the slavery issue. They had a product to sell, and wanted to sell in bulk. Holders were the most likely to buy in bulk, so Ishukone offered a discount to encourage that. I figure that's not going to go over well with Matar blues (of which color we have few left from any faction), but the only other alternatives are denial or confirming we're evil slaver enablers on purpose.

From a PF point of view, Caldari liberals are not good guys nor idealistic guys in the sense they would be in the Federation, and I-Red have perfectly understood that. Caldari liberals just happen to think that "economical bliss" can only be achieved through total free trade and the bolstering of economical relation between factions. So, basically, they go lick the feet of everyone with that in mind, and they just can not understand why someone would hold them responsible for a specific kind of trade they have with someone else. A trade agreements is a trade agreement and they just do not confuse them all together. Also, they are Caldari. They may prohibit slavery, but they do not generally hold a particularily hostile view regarding it, especially not idealistic. They just happen to think it to be inefficient. After all, the way they treat their own workforce is not that different (cf Heth BG). So, for them, selling stuff to slavers is perfectly normal.

Some characters working for Ishukone or I-Red might not agree or have specific issues with slavery, but that does not mean that Ishukone does. The Caldari are maybe the most amoral faction of all. That does not mean that they are, but morals are rarely taken into consideration when it comes to business and diplomatic relations. The only morals they have are more cultural and traditions-centered, to my eye (the tea ceremony, honor, duty, value, meritocracy, etc). This is precisely why from the 3 other factions, they are the ones that got along "okay" with the Amarr Empire. This is why they did not hesitate to conclude business lucrative agreements with the Ammatar to get a hold on the ore of the border regions, where the Ammatar were happy to fight their old brothers and enslave them in the process.

[Ulphus]

70% of the way through TEA as I am, if it were public knowledge what Otro Gariushi did for the Minmatar, then Ishukone would get a lot more time from Ulf, and I suspect many other Matari RPers. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything obviously public that would make them more attractive as business partners or allies.

[Aria Jenneth]

Lyn: Well said. I actually think that, in most of the State, ruthlessness is regarded as a moral (or, at least, ethical) strength: the willingness to make hard choices that advance the general good. It's just a pity it's so hard to tell ruthlessness for the public good from ruthlessness for the private ambition, even with an army of psychologists and a polygraph.

It does seem that the Caldari favor "honor" over "morality," the former being the firm, reasoned guiding hand that leads to right action, the latter being the squishy instinctive reaction that leads to error. From this angle, the Gallente can regard the Caldari as "cold and calculating," and be generally correct from their own point of view, and the Caldari can regard the Gallente as "squeamish and irrational," and also be generally correct from their own point of view.

As a side note, there was a study a while back into the function of the human brain when confronted with a moral choice, such as, "Murder this baby, and you'll save ten thousand people." Now, humans have certain brain structures very much in common with other species, such as chimpanzees, and certain bits that are unique to humans. The bit that immediately lights up in response to "murder a baby" is the bit that we have in common with chimps, and its function is to scream, "NO!"

The bit that lights up thereafter to say, "Wait a minute! There may be some merit to murdering this baby," is the bit that is unique to humans.

I get the definite impression that the Caldari have done more than a few studies like this (see, "Methods of Torture: the Caldari"), and that they find the results to be a strong validation of their way of life and rebuttal to Gallentean claims of greater sophistication:

"We live through reason, as humans, and only humans, do. You, like our simian ancestors, simply follow your gut, and then claim that the universe agrees with you."

[Mithfindel]

Morals are just applied ethics. And Caldari ethics are not 20th century western ethics. They're not amoral, but their norms differ from our norms. Yes, they do live in a corporate state and the bottom line does matter, but they still aren't Teladi from X-Universe (i.e. getting credits isn't an end to itself, but at least in the propaganda it is very likely handled as a tool).

For example, I am a strong believer of Caldari having very strong division between in-group and out-group: Different moral codes apply to dealings with an individual's in-group and out-group. I understand this has some basis in Japanese culture, though it is rather inverted with Caldari. Which may be Finnish influence, there's an anecdotal story about a (bronze age? iron age?) man who traveled into the woods and built a log cabin on a peaceful spot in the middle of the wood by a stream. When he was done, he rested - but then noticed that the stream brought a chip of wood with it, a sign that someone else was building another cabin upstream. According the story, the man took his axe and went to meet the "stranger who dared to violate his peace and quiet". (Yes, this is an overexaggerated stereotype.)

Of course, even if the Caldari were territorial of old, the exile from their home planet would have caused things to mix up, and any kind of territorialism would likely have been channeled to some other matter. (And contrary to the ancient Finn of the story, their in-groups are considerably larger.)

[Bastian Valoron]

It does seem that the Caldari favor "honor" over "morality," the former being the firm, reasoned guiding hand that leads to right action, the latter being the squishy instinctive reaction that leads to error. From this angle, the Gallente can regard the Caldari as "cold and calculating," and be generally correct from their own point of view, and the Caldari can regard the Gallente as "squeamish and irrational," and also be generally correct from their own point of view.

Not sure why so much this sort of mary sue stuff has been spouted out lately. Morality is something the Gallente might use for public opinion management but when it comes to actions, they and the Caldari are quite equal in ruthlessness. As much as some people would like their characters to be viewed as "calculating and cool" people and their IC enemies as "irrational and squeamish" folks, it doesn't make any sense and as far as I know, it's not either supported by PF.

[BloodBird]

It does seem that the Caldari favor "honor" over "morality," the former being the firm, reasoned guiding hand that leads to right action, the latter being the squishy instinctive reaction that leads to error. From this angle, the Gallente can regard the Caldari as "cold and calculating," and be generally correct from their own point of view, and the Caldari can regard the Gallente as "squeamish and irrational," and also be generally correct from their own point of view.

Not sure why so much this sort of mary sue stuff has been spouted out lately. Morality is something the Gallente might use for public opinion management but when it comes to actions, they and the Caldari are quite equal in ruthlessness. As much as some people would like their characters to be viewed as "calculating and cool" people and their IC enemies as "irrational and squeamish" folks, it doesn't make any sense and as far as I know, it's not either supported by PF.

It isn't. But in the viewpoint of different characters vilifying or ridiculing (or both) your enemy is par for the course. Can something be miss-represented and miss-used? Do it. Can something be spun as dirt on those you don't like? Go ahead, use it.

Player's think in similar veins as well. Most who RP have quite the grasp of their own faction or toon or affiliation - they have to to present a believable personality. Beyond that they don't absolutely fully understand other factions or even miss-understand their own or their opponent. Or perhaps their understanding of both is different due to very different interpretations and view-points.

...and now I realize this might not be an answer to what you asked even, but I'm to sleepy to think straight. Gonna go off to bed and reply more tomorrow, leaving this here only because it might just be helpful/an answer.

[Aria Jenneth]

Morals are just applied ethics.

Speaking as a criminal defense attorney, I absolutely can't agree.

Morals, in my understanding (backed up, as I understand it, by the research), are intuitive; they're genetically-dictated codes of behavior arising for the most part from the group dynamics that contribute to better odds of survival for a given genetic line (humans being social entities). Morals can be shaped and shifted by social programming, but they remain a gut reaction. It's my morals that instinctively cringe each time I read about yet another cover-up of some incident of priestly child-rape in the Catholic church.

Ethics, on the other hand, are consciously-generated codes of conduct. Take an incident of a love affair between a student and a teacher (an incident likely to get the teacher fired, at absolute minimum). This is not necessarily an immoral affair: it's entirely possible that the teacher and student are entirely and genuinely in love with each other and that their passion is mutual and heartfelt. There may be nothing morally "wrong" in what the teacher is doing, and my heart may even go out to a professor whose ass is in a sling because s/he fell in love with the wrong person. However, it is unethical: the power dynamics at play are such that there is no way an institution should be able to tolerate that kind of behavior. If it can, that reflects a corruption of the institution.

A teacher MUST NOT give in to temptation to become romantically involved with a student, even if the relationship results in no prickling of the moral conscience, assuming the teacher has one. If the teacher does give in, the institution MUST sack the teacher involved when the affair comes to light. To do otherwise is to presume all is well when it very likely is not, and there is no good way to tell the difference before years have passed, if ever.

Morally, I find those who prey on the innocent, especially children, repellent. Ethically, I understand that I have a responsibility to defend even those who I believe to be guilty, and who their victims allegedly were is irrelevant to that responsibility. Morally, I wish nothing but ill upon such people as judges who sell children to for-profit jails. http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/22/judge_convicted_in_pennsylvania_kids_for. Ethically, I understand full well that if I am the defense attorney for such a person, and I abdicate my role based on my belief that this is an unconscionable person, then I can no longer trust that the system will function properly. After all, if the "obviously guilty" are without defenders, what defense can any of us expect if accused of a heinous crime?

I have a role to play, so I set my moral outrage aside and play it. THAT is my idea of ethics.

I do not mean to suggest that the Caldari are amoral, more that they have, as a culture, placed a stronger emphasis on an ethic of honor. For some of the fun effects this can have, check out the recent stories on honor killings in rural Afghanistan.

"Sister! You had a cell phone! You could have used it to talk to ... a BOY! From another family!

"You have dishonored us all....

"This is your last dinner. Enjoy it, for we will kill you when it is done."

I don't think that the Caldari do this, mind you; I just think they've put an ethic of community survival ahead of the gut reluctance to abandon, for instance, unproductive members of society.

[Ghost Hunter]

Morals are just applied ethics.

Speaking as a criminal defense attorney, I absolutely can't agree.

Morals, in my understanding (backed up, as I understand it, by the research), are intuitive; they're genetically-dictated codes of behavior arising for the most part from the group dynamics that contribute to better odds of survival for a given genetic line (humans being social entities). Morals can be shaped and shifted by social programming, but they remain a gut reaction. It's my morals that instinctively cringe each time I read about yet another cover-up of some incident of priestly child-rape in the Catholic church.

Tangentially, I'm extremely interested in the research you've read because this tickles me in all kinds of funny places.

[Aria Jenneth]

Not sure why so much this sort of mary sue stuff has been spouted out lately.

"Mary Sue?"

... I'm not quite clear on why you think this term applies. A Mary Sue is an overly-perfect, usually avatar character inserted by someone who wants to create a character everybody will love/admire. It rarely works as intended, but not everyone views their use 100% unsympathetically. http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20051212

From where I sit, they're just ... kind of sad, reflecting a mind that longs for a little more swirl and dazzle in the world, and, ideally, to be at the center of that swirl and dazzle.

The Gallente appear to believe in some sort of universal human rights; the Caldari apparently don't. This does not mean that the Gallente cannot be ruthless; it means that they are, perhaps, less inclined to make a virtue out of it. When the Gallente go overboard, it seems to be from an excess of passion-- publicly mutating people to death after a cursory trial as punishment for treason, for example. http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=25-12-08-a. The Caldari can certainly be passionate, but they tend to at least approach conquest practically. http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=27-07-09

Well, mostly. http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=07-09-09

I don't care all that much for Tony G; his grasp of canonical niceties is slippery, at best, but I did like his portrayal of Caldari cultural values in "Ruthless." Otherwise, I tend to ignore his work: he apparently developed a taste for melodrama around TEA, which I view as unforgivable in anyone who claims to be writing historical backstory for a "real-ish" world. Combined with his inability to keep track of which bit of history applies to which ship ... well, let's just say that if he's your source, we may as well be arguing from different universes.

Much of what I say is extrapolation, based on certain bits of fic and tidbits found in canon. Some bits are highly canonical, such as the Caldari ideal of death before dishonor-- or failure. http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=30-11-09; http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=aug01. Some bits are more tentative: there's little in canon connecting Caldari Prime's cold climate directly to Caldari culture, but there are indications. http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=28-04-06.

A particularly powerful thread in canonical Caldari culture is simply this: a desire not to be Gallentean, or to resemble them. One of the key historical dates mentioned on the Caldari timeline is 22631 AD, the year the Cultural Deliverance Society arrived on Caldari Prime, presumably to "help" the poor, primative Caldari. http://community.eveonline.com/races/caldari_timeline.asp

The Caldari were uplifted by the Gallente. You can kinda see how the Caldari would never quite have lived that down in their own proud minds.

So-- the Caldari were (1) inhabitants of a chilly-ass world (2) uplifted by their more temperate-clime neighbors who (3) believe in universal human rights, a concept the Caldari are not precisely down with (http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=21-04-08), and (4) saw (and see) the Caldari as barbarians. Queue massive, entrenched inferiority complex, an itch that the Caldari collectively choose to scratch most any time they can.

Ergo, the Caldari like to see themselves as realistic, practical, and emphatically NOT Gallente while the Gallente tend to see them as cold-blooded, barbaric, and treacherous (and, from what I can tell, tend not to measure themselves against the Caldari). "Cold and calculating" versus "squeamish and irrational" is a gross overgeneralization, but also, I think, an accurate summation of the ways the two societies tend to see one another. An irony I particularly enjoy is that there's every indication that the Caldari mostly want the Gallente not to meddle in their internal affairs while simultaneously being, themselves, arguably the most meddlesome of the four empires (a fact my character likes to ignore/forget).

Finally, my analysis of "honor" versus "morality" is intentionally from the perspective of someone valuing "honor" more highly. That is, after all, the perspective of my character, whose cultural viewpoint I was looking to establish.

Ah-- and, as a last note, there's a definite difference in tone between the missions for the Federation and the State. As a Caldari mission runner, I went for years without getting a single "rescue the damsel" mission, but I got to assassinate lots of DED informants. That sort of thing will kind of color your perspective on who you are and who you work for.

That enough to satisfy? Or would you like me to dig up some more of my old sources? (Some of my points of reference come from in-game descriptions, which my expired account might not let me access; fair warning.)

[Aria Jenneth]

Tangentially, I'm extremely interested in the research you've read because this tickles me in all kinds of funny places.

Absolutely. Let me see ... um ...

Thank you, Google.

Short article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4632069/Morality-may-have-roots-in-our-primate-ancestors.html

[Valdezi]

Small nitpick. Morals and Ethics are the exact same thing. One word comes from Latin and the other from Greek. But they mean the same thing, philosophically speaking.

[Aria Jenneth]

Origins do not dictate modern usage. According to "dictionary.com," definitions of "ethic" consistently deal with "systems," "principles," and "rules," while the definition of morals (as a noun) that applies refers to "principles or habits"-- some overlap, but not 100%, and consistent with the distinction I drew above.

You hear about professional morals somewhere between rarely and never, and for good reason. You hear all the time about professional ethics.

Also, I'd need to hear which branch of philosophy you're talking about. If it's standard Western moral philosophy, "act utilitarianism" and that, I'd argue that the reason the field thinks that ethics and morals are the same thing is that it's never understood that morals aren't rational, which is why the whole field has been in a dead end for decades: it's dedicated itself to squaring the circle.

[Valdezi]

Ethics is actually my field. But, whatever, I'm not derailing this thread with an argument.