Relative Morality

[sir_schwick]

I think we can all admit that nations usually do not impose restrictions on their power unless some force causes them to do this. These forces can include self-preservation, MAD, prosperity, and popular opposition. Our current set of ideals about international law, domestic law, and many other aspects of morality and ethics have evolved out of circumstances where questions needed to be answered or were asked. No you must be wondering what I am babbling about, wait no more.

My proposal is that all civs independently define their own morality. To be simple, morality in Civ would be a statement with certain modifiers.

(Violating Borders) is immoral (if) (a Peace Treaty exists) (unless) (the other party) (is not of similar culture to ours).

In this example the () things are various modifiers you can add to the statement. Your civ has a policy that will excuse neighbors for attacking non-neighbors. Think of the Pope not caring about Catholics attacking Muslims, but caring when Catholics war against each other. Each civ would have a list of these conditions of what things are immoral, so you would know if a civ thinks x or y is right or wrong. This would allow large civs to impose ridiculous rules on the rest of the world, allowing them to commit murder but others to be killed for a sneeze. A real world example:

US Statement - (Developing Nuclear Weapons)(Building Nuclear Weapons) is immoral (unless) (you are Civ; Russia, China, France, Israel, US, India)
Russia Statement - (Developing Nuclear Weapons)(Building Nuclear Weapons) is immoral (unless) (you are Civ; Russia, China, France, US, Pakistan, Iran)


What are the practical applications of believing you are right and someone else is wrong and them thinking different?

WW - If you are doing things that are immoral to your own people, expect increased unhappiness. If you are at war with an enemy, the more 'immoral' they are to your standards, the more anti-WW you get. People of different cultures react to your actions differently.

Selective Relations - Your actions will likely offend someone, but they may not make you get a rep hit with the nations that matter.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

well there are (at least) two different issues here

1. 'Player' Human or AI reaction to diplomatic 'events'.
Here I think the basic "morality" is instead a trust assessment, ie how good is Civ X's credit to uphold their deals. It is a substitute for AI ruthlessness, and a way for Players to justify upholding alliances (if I don't I'll lose diplomatic possibilities with others.) This is smart gameplay from a Prisoner's Dilemma point of view and can be seen as basic good AI if done right.

2. Reaction of the 'people of the civ' to diplomatic 'events'.
This has the opportunity for more 'realism' to be applied, but I think could be even simpler

Basically any increase in the power (ie acquiring nuclear weapons) of those who are likely to threaten us (ie those we have bad relations with for cultural or diplomatic reasons) is 'immoral'.. reaction can range from
1. outrage
to
2. resignation
depending on relative power levels

For example, the the reason the US tolerated nuclear weapons in the USSR is because they have no choice. Once a country has a decent nuclear arsenal, they get to keep it, not because anyone thinks it's moral or good for international order but because there is nothing anyone can do about it. The same thing applies if a country has a powerful conventional army or powerful allies. Now an ally becoming more powerful may be actually encouraged (US / UK nuclear weapons)

Generally I'd say that 'popular reaction' morality should be based on the "this could happen to me" principle. Possibly changing with some social techs or based on government where things that happen to other people make them unhappy. If so I'd hope for some mixed reaction, ie the population doesn't revolt because you don't go to war agains a massive and oppressive neighbor (the 'this could happen to me' outweighs the 'this is happening to them' factor)...(although they might revolt if you didn't join a dogpile on said neighbor)

So the popular reaction should be somewhat less realpolitik than the smart player reaction (although the realpolitick of the populace may demand...my government is doing X to that other country, whats to stop them doing X to us in this city)

where X is breaking agreements, secretly assembling power, wiping out cities, etc.

what could stop your government from doing that to you is any difference between the others and you (so Indian culture cities would be the ones most upset by any government that razed indian culture cities, or violated treaties with indian dominated Civs, but all cities would have some effect based on government type , etc.)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

In a previous thread, I have proposed something along these lines. The underlying premise was that, as you aquired certain cultural and sociological technologies, your 'morality level' increases. This makes it easier to arrange diplomatic and trade agreements with other nations-particularly if they are of the same culture group as you. However, as your morality increases, the bar for what counts as a 'crime' and/or 'attrocity' becomes lower, meaning that you have to increasingly keep your nose clean to avoid hurting your short term reputation. Basically, 'Morality Level' is a Semi-permanent marker point, wheras your atrocity level is a point based system which can rise and fall over time. If your atrocity points reach a certain level, then your morality level will fall-harming your chances of gaining a moral victory at games end.
As Sir_Schwick said, your 'relative morality levels', along with relative atrocity point levels, will also impact on how likely your people are to feel about a war with another nation (in terms of WW).
Anyway, hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

Actually i was proposing that morality only be affected by what nations decide it is. THat means it may never evolve, or be hyper-sensitive. Techs only present questions that need to be answered or can be asked.This means if you control the world, you make rules allowing you to commit murder but everyone else to give you money.