eRepulik Morality: How We Approach the Game
•
by MaryamQ
A long time ago, in a land far away, a certain young eHungarian citizen who shall remain nameless became familiar with the work of French developmental psychologist Piaget. Piaget observed that ecitizens tend to go through predictable stages as they grow and learn about the eWorld. While his work in cognitive development is better known, he also posited stages of moral development, which were later revised and expanded upon by Kohlberg and his student, feminist eHungarian, Gilligan (not to be confused with a certain hapless sailor in the mythical realm of Real Life TV). While each of these theorists has critics and detractors, it seems intuitive to believe that the moral reason of a baby is not the same as that of an older child, which in turn is different from that of an adult. We will also acknowledge that not all adults reason in the same way when it comes to moral questions - for evidence of that, see the excellent series from Free University, which is, incidentally, the best free education available in the New World.
Ceci n'est pas un Piaget.
The question today is, where is eRepublik and where are eRepublikans in moral development? For simplicity's sake, let us stay with the original 3 stages named by Piaget, i.e., premoral judgment, moral realism and moral relativity.
Piaget supposed that the very young were incapable of moral reasoning. Morality, for them, is merely a matter of conditioning - avoiding punishment because it is unpleasant. There is no real consciousness of others' feelings or reasoning and no understanding of rules. At this stage, whatever gives a player pleasure is “good” and whatever does not is “bad”.
The second stage, that of the somewhat older child, is the time when obedience to rules is the supreme measure of what is “good” or “bad”. Cheating is anathema, and consequences of actions carry more weight in moral judgment than the intentions behind an act.
The final stage in Piaget's model is that where actions are based on principles and not either simple self-interest or blind obedience. eCitizens in this stage do not all hold the same principles and may choose different paths in acting on them. Gilligan also believed that men and women may differ in this stage, with women tending more to a caring approach and men leaning more toward justice. In either case, intention carries greater weight in judgment of what is right or wrong. The danger in this stage, however, is that rebellion against the rules ostensibly on the basis of principle (evading taxes or creating multis in the name of helping weaker players, for example), may actually throw a player back into the premoral stage, where anything goes as long as you get what you want.
This is NOT the Gilligan we are talking about.
So, the question is, where are we? Examples of all of these forms of reasoning can be found among players young and old and arguably among the administrators, as well. Are we happy as long as we get what we want? Do we believe the end justifies the means? Is blind obedience to rules always a good thing? Or should we sometimes bend the rules, even if we know there will be negative consequences for ourselves, in order to help others? Talk amongst yourselves, and while you are thinking about this, take a look at some of these articles by people who propose different ways to approach the game we call eRepublik.
Christmas truce in eRepublic
Looking for Ostrich Droppings
Roleplaying/Real Playin, Let's Discuss
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Great article, V+S.
"So, the question is, where are we?" is indeed the perpetual question for those who are self aware.
Well done. V&S
*blush*
"Ceci n'est pas un Piaget." What a big pipe he has! *giggle*
Voted ~
I've always considered myself a good guy in this game, looking for the honorable fight to fight, not just blindly going along with what a given government or alliance expects of me, but acting on my own sense of right and wrong. Unfortunately, for many in this world, they surrender their moral judgment for the sake of the "lulz", and as such they become part of events considered loathesome in the real world. Concepts like empathy fade away, because players refuse to put themselves in the shoes of others. A PTO, therefore, is simply a tactic for political manipulation if you buy into the rhetoric of a superalliance or a large country, but if you're the target, you like in a small country that gets decimated by such acts, it's true evil.
Hence, if we're looking for a model, a philosophy this world seems to bind itself by, it's Social Darwinism. The big fish not only can and do feed on the small fish, they feel they have the right and even the duty to do so.
As such, eRepublik is at the first stage, where citizens act mainly on how pleasant or unpleasant the consequence of an action is. The problem is, the consequences of one's actions in this game are fairly light, if consequences are applied at all to the breaking of a law.
Awesome article. It has inspired me to write one in response 🙂
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/an-other-view-on-personal-balance-and-morality--1605858/1/20
nice!
Thanks for the kind comments, and particularly to PQ and mitte for linking back to this article.
Arjay, thank you for your actual discussion of the question. I agree that there are a great many playing this game at stage one, and they are often encouraged to do so by game mechanics. The fact remains, however, that there are some like yourself who see other possibilities and play in a chivalrous way. Although I have deplored the tendency to bring RL nationalism and hatreds into the game, the possibilities are there to create a New World order, largely played out outside the actual game mechanics, and there are a valiant few who continue to try to do this. May you never abandon your quest!
I thank you very much, Maryam. I've always believed, in the neverending debate over whether eRepublik should be played via game mechanics, which implies being able to "win" it and that inherently means winning at all costs, or played via roleplay, which means this is a world in and of itself and we are to construct a new order of our own making. Entering this game, I wanted to be noble, just, fighting the honorable fights, supporting the underdog, standing up to injustice. I still see myself as that, I never caved into the notion that there's no place for honor and dignity in this game.
Unfortunately, while there is a place for folks like me in this game, I think I'm seen more as an oddity, a clown, someone for a few to cheer on as they read my newspaper and follow my exploits, yet never come follow me on my traves, and the rest to jeer as the oddball, the fly in the ointment, wrecking the "lulz" by reminding them they have a conscience. At once, it all encourages me, but it also makes me wonder if it's all futile.
You'll be hearing more from me, my friend. eRepublik is a great game to psychoanalyze. There is indeed more than one way to play this game, and those of us who have taken the road less travelled, like you and me and Phoenix Quinn and others who have e-souls, we've praised and cried together for this world that is so damn similar to the real one in the very harsh yet obvious truth, that it's a lot easier to destroy than to build, that theft is considered kosher if there's no one to prevent it, and that the have's will see the have-not's as chattel.
Voted!
excellente