Intergalactic Summit

Failure is immoral.

Upon my birth, I was bound to my State, because it accepted me. As I grew, I was bound to my family, because they raised me. As I studied, I was bound to my corporation, because it taught me. As I researched, I was bound to my investors, because they funded me. As I worked, I was bound to my kirjuun, because they trusted me. To fail is to fail them all, because we were not accepted, not raised, not taught, not funded, not trusted to fail. Contrary to stereotypes, the Caldari do show mercy, but we do not expect it. Failure is a river that must be crossed, not avoided. In this way I fell.

To capsuleers, failure is not as grave a sin. We do not die, we rise again. Failure is not a river, it is an ocean we swim atop. Loss is expected and prepared for.

Today, I have a duty to my State. I have a duty to my militia. I have a duty to my corporation. I have a duty to my fleet. I have a duty to my crew. I have a duty to my personal family. And finally, after all else is satisfied, I have a duty to myself to make myself a more capable and dutiful person, because I will fail, but I may fail less.

The short fire of life forges perfection or burns to ash.

Immorality makes compromise.

Morality rests in the lens that you view the world through.

Claiming it to be absolute is egoistic and myopic point of view.

HOW DARE YOU CALL THE GREATEST CALDARI HERO A DISRUPTION AND MENTION HIM IN THE SAME LINE WITH SUCH ABOMINATION AS SANSHA?!!!

Tibus Heth was the greatest thing that happened to our Cluster in the last 200 years!

For your insult to our Hero, I challenge you to fight to make you pay for your foul words!

William Danneskjold is obvious gallentean bootlicker. I see he is trolling here as well, I could recommend to block transmission coming from this person here as well.

The problem with an 'absolute' morality imposed by outside forces is that it does not make one 'moral'. One can say, 'but William, without a God, what's to stop us from murdering'? My answer would be, 'Why must you refrain from murder only because someone says so?' If a person says they cannot refrain from acts of harm towards others without someone governing them, watching over, to me, that is certainly the most self-damning thing.

You are saying, 'without external force, I have no self discipline, no moral, no self restraint'. I would say that those members of society are the ones that start our wars, are our serial killers, destroyers of lives, goods, and products. The people who say, 'I can refrain from destruction without the use of an external guiding morality', they are the guiding compasses that we should hold high, not those that merely follow laws. I would also argue that the majority of people and, certainly, capsuleers, are of the first type. They only do the 'right thing' for fear of retribution for committing crimes.

'Might makes right' does not help the human race advance as a species, nor does it help lift up our most destitute members. It only results in slaves, war, and death. If we truly want to move on and achieve greatness and apotheosis, we have to learn to cooperate not by force, but by choice. Cooperation by force, if you examine it closely, is merely a disguised belief in 'might makes right', and perpetuates war and hate and death.

It's funny you mention that very specific number. Because the Gallente-Caldari war began around 198 years ago. And I believe that the greatest hero of that time, and a much lauded one even in the present, is a far, far greater hero than even you can make Heth out to be.

Do you really, honestly believe that the man who helped plunge the cluster into a war it didn't need than the hero, Admiral Tovil-Toba, who expended his own life in pursuit of caldari liberation?

Strike Commander Kim, I think you have read too much into what Explorator Jenneth has said. For example, it is beyond a doubt that the resurrection of Jamyl Sarum was disruptive, and it was almost universally well received within the Empire. I do not share Explorator Jenneth's view that all disruption is dangerous, I will point to my example as to why.


.... I see while I was composing this response it has become unnecessary.

All human-created systems of morality are based on a great number of assumptions, about whether particular civilisations, cultures, or human species, must survive, and those assumptions shape what actions are considered moral or immoral.

Question 1:
Must this universe survive ?

It all hinges on that one answer.
And there are those that would argue that this universe does not necessarily need to endure.

Nonsense. The survival of this universe is, as Mr. Danneskjold has indicated, utterly irrelevant. The continuation of any particular civilization, culture, or even the human species is irrelevant. All that matters in the determination of the morality of an action is existence the moment you occupy. The idea that the universe will cease to exist in a minute doesn't alter the morality or immorality (or, for that matter, amorality) of murdering children during that minute. If an act is immoral, it remains immoral even if you're sure you can dodge the consequences by not existing. To say otherwise is to espouse the idea that a nihilist can claim nothing he does it immoral, so long as he kills himself afterwards (or during the act).

Oh, this is SUCH a big question. It's probably the most important question to ask about the way ANY group of people acts. I don't even know how I can answer this, but I'm going to try. Because it is THAT important.

I think! Wait, no, back up a bit. I mean I do think, but.

Sorry. Ahem.

I am a faithful Amarr citizen, so naturally I'm very sympathetic to the idea of moral absolutes--though please don't ask me to defend God as the source of morality and natural laws, because I'm only a faithful layperson and there are actual theologians here and anyway that's not really what we're talking about. We're talking about moral absolutes! They're comforting, no? They promise that with the right information, you can know if you're doing good. And you can know if you're doing evil. The subtleties of context and degree become a matter of mathematics, with a defined result. We DO have maths capable of dealing with conditions, subsets, impossibly tiny forces, and unknowns, after all. So it's just a matter of finding the right parameters to apply. And then you can know!

We love knowing things for sure. Humans, I mean. And capsuleers too, if there's anybody here inclined to think we're not. It's so nice when you can stop searching and stop worrying! You can relax, then. Or you can search and worry about something else!

Which is why I think humans--not God--made absolute morality. So we can know. So we can narrow down the infinity of experience. God doesn't need to do this. We do. We need to limit ourselves and our understanding of this unfathomably immense experience so we can satisfy our own need to examine something and know if it's right or wrong. Harmful or pleasant. Poisonous or delicious. A threat or a comfort. It's very primal, isn't it? We're built with a need to make God's creation simple enough to survive in, to be righteous and to love in. It's really very beautiful.

And our craving for moral absolutes, their seductiveness, is not wrong. It's not! It's different from how God, who is the Universe itself, deals with things, but we are tiny limited creatures and we do what we can! We approximate His laws, we endeavor to mimic His perspective, and we do these things because we ought, because we want to know and to be right. Because we're meant to!

I mean to say, in short, that there is no reason to choose between absolute and relative morality as opposites. Both are necessary. We inhabit both frames of reference constantly. I hope you, Vlad, and everyone who reads my little message here, will take a bit of comfort from it and be reassured that mostly, we're all trying to do our best.

Thank you for reading! <3