Are you referring to Angry Concord Man?
I will neither confirm nor deny that.
I do not recall Burn Jita being ever “justified” in any way beyond “Hey, we can so let’s do it”. The origins of that event are actually quite political, tied to the reputation of back-then CFC, Goonswarm and today - The Imperium.
It started with the release of The Mittani following a scandal involving a lot of alcohol and a public speech (and a funny hat). Part of it was a celebration of his return, part - a reminder to the folks hiding behind CONCORD that we are still very much around and kicking.
Over time the event tended to pick up gimmicks that mocked our enemies. Like that time slapping a charity on dubious activity was all the rage - Burn Jita was spontaneously named one to poke at the double-standard and twisted morality of our enemies.
I guess nowadays it’s not really a terror event anymore - people broadcast their freighter losses live, cheering the swarm of ships as it blows them up.
For the Capsuleers, I’m assuming you mean? Because I’m moderately positive that baseliners probably see it less positively, no? Do you think that maybe there’s a better way to poke fun of someone’s morality that doesn’t involve killing hundreds of thousands of people? Just… maybe?
“Please don’t be afraid, it’s not a terror, we’ll just kill this thousand of industrial workers on that freighter for shits and giggles”
In any way, cheering these losses is same as cheering Mr. Nauplius when he was blowing up his own freighter with slaves. Absolutely same thing.
Though I don’t understand how someone claiming about this cheering dares to blame their enemies in
I feel a desire to buy a huge mirror in Jita and send them as a present.
thousand of industrial workers… on a capsuleer-piloted freighter?
It’s a box with engines. Full of other boxes. And automated conveyors and freight lifts. Sure, the Quafe Obelisks illegally destroyed by Caldari Customs had close to 1200 people on each ship, but those were baseliner ships. For capsuleer hulls, you’re probably looking at closer to 1/3 that number.
Really. It’s not rocket surgery. Given how long freighter ganking has been going on in New Eden, if pilots aren’t training their crews properly for that eventuality, that’s on them. Especially during a Burn, we make sure they have time to get out.
Not nearly as many as you seem to think. And they have lifeboats.
Getting back to the original topic.
I’m not sure how much it really matters to try and debate the morality behind what we do. Ultimately it is impossible to create any type of universal morality, which means that all morality is purely subjective.
It is nothing more than a way to justify your own actions to yourself and condemn the actions of others. But since it is unlikely that they share your morality, such condemnations are meaningless.
Once you understand that, the entire concept of trying to find a moral justification for anything becomes pointless. We do things because we want to do them. If we later end up regretting those choices, then we deal with the consequences at that time. Anything other is simply trying to dodge responsibility for our actions.
In relation to killing. Yeah, I do it, quite a lot of it actually, at least it feels that way sometimes. Doesn’t bother me much though. They made their choices, I made mine, theirs left them on the wrong end of my guns and between me and my goals. Sucks for them.
As for the crew who die on my ships. I do my best to have it happen as rarely as possible. But they know the risks.
This feels like exactly the kind of justification you accuse others of undertaking. "We do things because we want to do them. There’s no point in attempting to find a consistent morality. So whatever I want to do is ok, as long as I can get away with it. "
It’s an excuse to wallow in self-indulgence and nihilism. The society that brought you forth has a claim on you as well—it birthed you, provided the framework that allowed you to grow, thrive, and receive pod training. That debt means that the kind of self-indulgent ‘do what I want to do’ you’re espousing is itself an attempt to dodge responsibility. And society’s claim is one of the lenses through which we can view ‘morality’: actions which achieve the most good for the most people while inflicting the least suffering, depredation, and oppression.
Is that really how it is these days? Way back during the first burns it certainly wasn’t, the casualties in people were much higher. Crews on bumped freighters would simply panic and didn’t know what to do, running for it when the freighter itself was hit, which is way too late.
It was, you know, one of the selling points of the event - the panic, the reactions of everyone when they realized that this is really happening. The conspiracies they came up with to justify why it is happening were glorious.
A lot of people did not accept that we were doing it to just do it. They had to slap a label on it - it was a crusade against HiSec. It was to manipulate the markets so the Cabal would get filthy rich.
Your right, it is exactly the same justification, my sense of morality is subject to the exact same failings as any other, I simply recognize and acknowledge that fact.
You also provided me with some fairly good examples of why a universal morality cannot possibly exist.
You claim that the society that birthed me has some sort of claim on me, or that some obligation is owed. while I dispute that fact, since while you are correct that I am who I am today as a result of the society I was raised in, for every person who turned out like me, there are billions who did not.
This means that, assuming for a moment that some obligation may exist. Either I am an intentional consequence of society, in which case it is also terrifyingly ineffecient at achieving those goals, and my obligation should be to continue exactly as I am doing in order to not waste whatever conflux of events created me.
Or I am an unintended consequence of society, in which case why should I hold any obligation if I came about by pure accident.
As for your other point, i never said that we are motivated by pure self-indulgence, or that the wellbeing of others can never factor into our decisions. Simply that morality should not be used to create an obligation to behave in a certain way. If an evil act committed under duress does not make you an evil person, then how can a good act done out of obligation ever make you a good person? This means that any system of morality that forces you to behave in a prescribed manner can only strip away the meaning from anything beneficial, and create room for atrocities to be committed and justified.
I advocate for choice, as free from moral constraints as possible, yes I do good things but I do them because I choose to, not because I need to. I’ve also done some pretty horrible things as well, but those where also my choice, I was not compelled to do them, and I am responsible for whatever consequences may come from those.
yes, that is a moral stance, yes it has all the same failings as any other, and yes I recognize that it can never be applied universally, which makes it ultimately exactly as pointless as any other.
So, if we leave aside the little stuff, it seems like you’re not wrong, Mr. Tyrson.
So, I guess, welcome to the abyss. Most cultures and even individual people try very hard to stay out of it. And, it’s hard to blame them: it’s not a very pleasant place to be, is it?
A couple of questions to maybe ask:
“Do I want to suffer?”
“How can I avoid suffering?”
(@Diana_Kim I did notice who you were addressing your remarks to, mostly, and I’m not ignoring you. Mr. Tyrson’s comments just make a good jumping-off point.)
If there were a war, a great war, a war so great that only 100 humans were left alive at the end of it, then that war would be the most positively moral thing in all of history — if only all of those 100 people were Amarr and all subhumans everywhere were wiped off the universe. God’s will, perfectly triumphant; evil, utterly defeated.
There is only one moral compass, and that is the will of God. Body count by itself means nothing.
and then those 100 who remain would quickly fracture into various sects, and wage war upon each other for being less righteous than them, until in the end only 1 would remain. but I suppose, when all other life in the universe has been extinguished, the last remaining being could claim to have the one and only true morality.
It’s a function of time, Trii. These things have been going on for the better part of a decade. Miniluv uses the exact same ‘Mach-bumper to keep the freighter from escaping while the fleet forms’ tactics all year 'round.
If, by now, freighter crews aren’t being trained to GTFO when the bumping starts… that’s not on us.
That’s true, billions didn’t. So what? Those billions were influenced in different ways by subtly different conditions, including ‘are they genetically compatible?’ To think that you weren’t formed by your environment just because other people were formed differently by their subtly different environment (example: YOU didn’t have a you in your environment. The people around you did) is just more self-serving arrogance—insisting that you have to be different and special because you’re you.
If we are an intentional consequence of society, we’re certainly not the only consequence society intends. To say that it’s terrifyingly inefficient at achieving… us… would imply that producing us is what the whole rest of society exists to do. That’s just patently absurd. Society, like life, primarily exists to continue its own existence. And most of society’s efforts go in that direction. We are just one of countless additional potential ‘intentions’. So why should society be striving for efficiency in producing what amounts to disposable trash?
And even if we’re not intentional, if we’re an unintended consequence… that doesn’t mean you were any less dependent upon society for your existence. Everything you were came from them. It’d be like saying a child was conceived without the parents expressly trying somehow doesn’t owe those parents for its very existence. Just because they weren’t specifically trying to have a child doesn’t mean they didn’t bear that child, rear that child, provide for that child.
Yeah, you did. You maybe just don’t realize that that is exactly what ‘We do things because we want to do them’ means when you follow it down. Why do you do ‘selfless’ things? Because you want to do them. You’re indulging your desire to maintain a positive self-image. It’s all self-indulgence. You do good things because you choose to… which means doing them is an inherently self-serving action. You’re doing it because you want something. You want to like you.
You still have to choose to follow that system, each and every time you do. That choice, then, carries all of the weight and meaning that you choose to ascribe to it. There is no greater meaning, no higher purpose. And atrocities happen more readily when the only system you acknowledge is ‘I do things because I want to do them’.
I love this thread.
I sort of consider it in the Capsuleer era that humans are just ants to us. Everyday in real life, you probably walk to your mailbox and who knows how many creatures you stepped on in your way. Maybe you notice the one or two and you’re either the guy that goes out of his way to step on it or go around but you might inadvertently crush insects along the way.
Walk tall my fellow immortals.
I would caution against looking down at our fellow man simply because they lack our aftermarket hardware. Our technology may make us feel as God to baseline men and women, but that is all it is, technology. We are not bettered as men and women by it, if anything, we have lost by its implantation.
Elsewhere in the cluster, trillions upon trillions go about their daily lives. Children are born, the old inevitably die, couples love and separate, work is done, work is avoided, and sometimes no further than the very town in which they were born. Yet theirs is often a vibrancy of life we can forget when we begin to think of our lives as a renewable resource. Perhaps they are not blessed with our perceived immortality, but our society as capsuleers actively erodes that love of life which we were blessed with on our birth.
I would not pity them so completely, certainly I would not ignore them. I would walk among them, and though some might call that an incredible risk, through them we regain the sense of what makes us human to begin with, and recall with humility our fragility. How piteous we would be, to feel we had ascended to godhood when we are naught but more efficient and durable processors hiding from ‘ants’ in the lonely shells of our ships.
To be clear, Mr. Tyrson, I am actually interested in your answer to those questions I asked. They’re not rhetorical in the traditional sense, though of course I do have some answers in mind.