The standards by which all rules are judged

[Inevitable Droid]

OK.  This just hit me.  I've been thinking about rules, and the notion that life doesn't have any, or if it does, they're relative and local at best, or else strictly subjective.  So where besides life in general do we find rules?  Well, in games!  And when we learn a new game, we tend to evaluate the rules, and if the rules bug us, we either reject the game, or else, if we can, we change the rules.  Are there universal standards we all will apply to game rules when evaluating them?  I think there are.  I think all of us want game rules to (1) promote order; (2) promote steady progress; (3) be appropriately measured in reward and punishment, which means not too harsh, not too lenient, not too generous, and not too stingy; and (4) give everyone an equal opportunity to win.  Can we apply these standards outside the realm of games?

I think we can, in two ways.  First, we can apply these standards to any rules that society or any subset of society tries to impose on us or on anyone.  We can insist that social rules promote order, promote steady progress, be appropriately measured in reward and punishment, and give everyone an equal opportunity to win.  (Forcing women to wear burkas fails at least the third and fourth tests for sure, and maybe the second.)  Secondly - and this is the interesting point, for me - we can apply these standards to ourselves, on the basis that if all rules should meet these standards, then these are the meta-standards that are higher than any relative or local rules, which makes them good candidates (almost certainly the only candidates) to be elected as our universal standards for life in general.  Thus we could decide that we all should promote order, promote steady progress, be appropriately measured in reward and punishment, and give everyone an equal opportunity to win.  Interestingly, if we parented by these standards, our children would almost certainly respect and trust us.  If we governed a nation by these standards, our citizens would almost certainly respect and trust us.  I think these are the standards we instinctively want universally applied.  This might work.

[Inevitable Droid]

I'll name the OP concept Good Game Universalism, or GGU.  Might as well name it, after all.  It may be as plausible a candidate for universal morality as anything offered by anyone in the last three thousand years!  

[legs laney]

yeah, everything you said does seem plausible.  the only problem is, is that i happen to be a rebel and love to break the rules.  aren't rules made to be broken? heheheehe muah

[hackenslash]

Interesting, and I think we might be getting somewhere. I do have a few minor niggles with it, but Im going to give it a little thought before responding, not least because I have to go to work now, but I'll come back to this later.

[Ihateusernames]

You use the word "should" at the key point there.  Atheistically speaking I have no idea what that word means.

Should ought good bad, nope no meaning just preference.

[Matt]

I think all of us want game rules to (1) promote order; (2) promote steady progress; (3) be appropriately measured in reward and punishment, which means not too harsh, not too lenient, not too generous, and not too stingy; and (4) give everyone an equal opportunity to win.

I think that this philosophy fails because not all games are this way.
1.  There are some games which become progressively disorganized: Jenga is the first one that comes to mind.
2.  I can't think of a game where this doesn't apply, but I'm sure there's one out there.  Even if there isn't, I'd be willing to bet I could create one with some modicum of entertainment value.
3.  Sometimes extremely harsh or lenient rules are desired.  There are some games that are supposed to be extremely difficult (even unbeatable) or easy.
4.  Lots of fun games do not give everyone an equal opportunity to win.

The problem with attempting to designate universal moral rules is that there are so often exceptions which make it difficult to pin down anything better than "do good".

[The Magic Pudding]

Some people knowingly will take what they can, knowing they break rules of fairness, but don't care.
Others have an extreme bias and manage to justify to themselves twisting and breaking rules.

our children would almost certainly respect and trust us

Children can be very resistant to reasonable requests.
But your rules may be a way to minimise resentment.  
This may be the best you can expect from people who don't choose the rules.

[Inevitable Droid]

You use the word "should" at the key point there.  Atheistically speaking I have no idea what that word means.

Should ought good bad, nope no meaning just preference.

Even a universal behavioral preference wouldn't sway you?  If every sapient who ever lived had that behavioral preference, you still wouldn't concede that sapients should do as that preference suggests?  This would mean that even you had that preference.  Also everyone you respect, admire, idolize, has that preference.  Absolutely everyone.  Still you won't concede that you should do as that preference suggests?

[Inevitable Droid]

Some people knowingly will take what they can, knowing they break rules of fairness, but don't care.
Others have an extreme bias and manage to justify to themselves twisting and breaking rules.

Agreed. But the existence of a legitimate universal morality doesn't preclude immoral behavior.  I could strongly agree that I should do X and still do Y instead, because some other motivation overrides my will to be moral.  The will to be moral doesn't have to be omnipotent for morality to exist.  Other motivations might be stronger for me or you, in a given situation, than our will to be moral, despite our knowing and agreeing with a given moral code.  In such a case, we wouldn't be amoral, but merely immoral.

our children would almost certainly respect and trust us

Children can be very resistant to reasonable requests.
But your rules may be a way to minimise resentment.  
This may be the best you can expect from people who don't choose the rules.

Minimizing resentment would be a good outcome, then.  Achieving the best we can expect would be good, I think.

[Inevitable Droid]

I think all of us want game rules to (1) promote order; (2) promote steady progress; (3) be appropriately measured in reward and punishment, which means not too harsh, not too lenient, not too generous, and not too stingy; and (4) give everyone an equal opportunity to win.

I think that this philosophy fails because not all games are this way.

OK.  Let's discuss each point.

1.  There are some games which become progressively disorganized: Jenga is the first one that comes to mind.

Excellent point!  I would have to modify the wording to say, "promote order among the players."  You are absolutely correct that promoting order absolutely, even in the realm of inanimate matter, isn't required by game players.  Disorder in the realm of inanimate matter can be part of a game we consider good, for example Jenga.

2.  I can't think of a game where this doesn't apply, but I'm sure there's one out there.  Even if there isn't, I'd be willing to bet I could create one with some modicum of entertainment value.

This would be a game that theoretically would never end, or at least whose end point receded into the increasingly distant future.  One exemplary category would be a MUD - multi-user dungeon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-user_dungeon

I used to play a MUD named Threshold - http://www.thresholdrpg.com/

Even in a game like Threshold, the rules promote progress - but that progress isn't necessarily steady.  In fact there can be backsliding.  I would therefore have to modify the wording to say, "prevent endless standstill or endless backsliding."
 
Rules that promoted endless standstill or endless backsliding would be intolerable, I think.  Temporary standstill or temporarily backsliding can be tolerated.

3.  Sometimes extremely harsh or lenient rules are desired.  There are some games that are supposed to be extremely difficult (even unbeatable) or easy.

While I didn't say the rules couldn't be extremely harsh or extremely lenient - I said they couldn't be too harsh or too lenient - I nevertheless agree that the ambiguity is less than helpful.  But wait - there are games that are known to be unbeatable, absolutely unbeatable, and people play them any way?  Why do people play these games?  What do they get out of them?  A challenge more enjoyable than frustrating, I guess.  I'll have to modify the wording to say, "provide a challenge more enjoyable than frustrating."

4.  Lots of fun games do not give everyone an equal opportunity to win.

Even at the very start of the game?  Got any examples?  For now I'll modify the wording to say, "give everyone, at the very start, an equal opportunity to win."

The problem with attempting to designate universal moral rules is that there are so often exceptions which make it difficult to pin down anything better than "do good".

I think game designers must always have some sort of meta-rules in their heads when designing the rules of a new game, and I think we can parse out what those minimally would have to be.  My first attempt was imperfect, but we're getting closer, surely.  Here's the new wording:

All of us want game rules to (1) promote order among the players; (2) prevent endless standstill or endless backsliding; (3) provide a challenge more enjoyable than frustrating; and (4) give everyone, at the very start, an equal opportunity to win."  

What do you think?  Are we getting closer?

Your input has been very constructive.  Thank you!

[Matt]

1.  There are some games which become progressively disorganized: Jenga is the first one that comes to mind.

Excellent point!  I would have to modify the wording to say, "promote order among the players."  You are absolutely correct that promoting order absolutely, even in the realm of inanimate matter, isn't required by game players.  Disorder in the realm of inanimate matter can be part of a game we consider good, for example Jenga.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "order among the players", so I'll assume for now that you mean stuff like turns, structured moves, players getting better at the game, relationships between players, etc.  The only thing I can't think of is a game in which players remain at the same skill level or get worse.  There is one game I can think of that is specifically designed to promote disorder among players: Paranoia.  Players have very little knowledge about the game and what is going on, plus they are made to distrust all the other players.  Despite the sound of that description, it's actually a lot of fun.

2.  I can't think of a game where this doesn't apply, but I'm sure there's one out there.  Even if there isn't, I'd be willing to bet I could create one with some modicum of entertainment value.

This would be a game that theoretically would never end, or at least whose end point receded into the increasingly distant future.  One exemplary category would be a MUD - multi-user dungeon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-user_dungeon

I used to play a MUD named Threshold - http://www.thresholdrpg.com/

Even in a game like Threshold, the rules promote progress - but that progress isn't necessarily steady.  In fact there can be backsliding.  I would therefore have to modify the wording to say, "prevent endless standstill or endless backsliding."
 
Rules that promoted endless standstill or endless backsliding would be intolerable, I think.  Temporary standstill or temporarily backsliding can be tolerated.

Hm.  I can't think of any games that don't involve any progress at all.  There is Call of Cthulhu, where players become steadily more insane.  I guess you could call that progress if you wanted to, though.

3.  Sometimes extremely harsh or lenient rules are desired.  There are some games that are supposed to be extremely difficult (even unbeatable) or easy.

While I didn't say the rules couldn't be extremely harsh or extremely lenient - I said they couldn't be too harsh or too lenient - I nevertheless agree that the ambiguity is less than helpful.  But wait - there are games that are known to be unbeatable, absolutely unbeatable, and people play them any way?  Why do people play these games?  What do they get out of them?  A challenge more enjoyable than frustrating, I guess.  I'll have to modify the wording to say, "provide a challenge more enjoyable than frustrating."

Well, there's Nethack, which, while not actually unbeatable, can be functionally unbeatable for some players.  I've played it on and off for over a year and still not gotten even close to winning, but still find it enjoyable.  There's also every sandbox/open-ended game.

4.  Lots of fun games do not give everyone an equal opportunity to win.

Even at the very start of the game?  Got any examples?  For now I'll modify the wording to say, "give everyone, at the very start, an equal opportunity to win."

Yeah, games with turns, for example.  Often one position or another will grant an advantage.  Games with starting configurations that are chosen by players, like RPGs (in which players build a character which may be more or less powerful than another's) and strategy games like Risk.

I think game designers must always have some sort of meta-rules in their heads when designing the rules of a new game, and I think we can parse out what those minimally would have to be.  My first attempt was imperfect, but we're getting closer, surely.  Here's the new wording:

All of us want game rules to (1) promote order among the players; (2) prevent endless standstill or endless backsliding; (3) provide a challenge more enjoyable than frustrating; and (4) give everyone, at the very start, an equal opportunity to win."  

What do you think?  Are we getting closer?

I think it might be helpful to have at least a loose definition of game to help with this.  I propose: "An activity governed by artificial rules designed for the purpose of advancing happiness".  This includes a lot of things that most people wouldn't consider games, but I don't think that's a problem for this discussion.  I think we are getting closer to universal rules, but they aren't as useful as the ones you originally proposed due to the requirement of vagueness for universality.

Your input has been very constructive.  Thank you!

You're welcome.

[Inevitable Droid]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "order among the players", so I'll assume for now that you mean stuff like turns, structured moves, players getting better at the game, relationships between players, etc.

Turns and structured moves are what I meant by order among the players.  Interestingly, being able to identify whose turn it is and what they need to do to complete that turn could be generalized into a life principle of personal responsibility.  More on that later.

The only thing I can't think of is a game in which players remain at the same skill level or get worse.  There is one game I can think of that is specifically designed to promote disorder among players: Paranoia.  Players have very little knowledge about the game and what is going on, plus they are made to distrust all the other players.  Despite the sound of that description, it's actually a lot of fun.

I'll guess that there are turns and structured moves.  You know, I never thought of games like basketball and football as having turns and structured moves, but they do.  In basketball, once I make a basket, the ball goes to my opponent, constituting a turn, and my opponent begins advancing however feasible toward my end of the court, a structured move.  Likewise, in football, once I make a touchdown, the ball goes to my opponent, thus a turn, and my opponent begins advancing however feasible toward my end of the field, a structured move.  We can identify whose turn it is and what they need to do to complete the turn.  Personal responsibility is clearly demarcated.  More on that later.  

Rules that promoted endless standstill or endless backsliding would be intolerable, I think.  Temporary standstill or temporarily backsliding can be tolerated.

Hm.  I can't think of any games that don't involve any progress at all.  There is Call of Cthulhu, where players become steadily more insane.  I guess you could call that progress if you wanted to, though.

Yes - and I do.  Interestingly, we can generalize preventing endless standstill and endless backsliding into a life principle of self-actualization.  More on that later.

Well, there's Nethack, which, while not actually unbeatable, can be functionally unbeatable for some players.  I've played it on and off for over a year and still not gotten even close to winning, but still find it enjoyable.  There's also every sandbox/open-ended game.

Thus you find the challenge more enjoyable than frustrating.  We can generalize providing challenges more enjoyable than frustrating into a life principle of benevolence.  More on that later.

Yeah, games with turns, for example.  Often one position or another will grant an advantage.  Games with starting configurations that are chosen by players, like RPGs (in which players build a character which may be more or less powerful than another's) and strategy games like Risk.

But at the very beginning, everyone has an equal opportunity to be the one who goes first.  In Risk, players roll to see who goes first.  Before anyone rolls, all are equal in opportunity.  In any game where turns convey an initial advantage, an attempt will be made to let chance or real ability decide who goes first, second, third, etc.  In basketball, teams select champions who jump for a ball tossed in the air by the referee.  At the very beginning, when the ref hasn't yet tossed the ball, both teams have an equal opportunity to get the ball first, and the question is decided by real ability.  This can be generalized into a life principle of fairness.  More on that later.  

I think it might be helpful to have at least a loose definition of game to help with this.  I propose: "An activity governed by artificial rules designed for the purpose of advancing happiness".  This includes a lot of things that most people wouldn't consider games, but I don't think that's a problem for this discussion.

Insert the adjective competitive like so, "a competitive activity," and the definition works nicely, not only for what we normally perceive as games, but for a great deal of what we would think of as life, and would want those portions of life to be like, if we weren't malevolent.

I think we are getting closer to universal rules, but they aren't as useful as the ones you originally proposed due to the requirement of vagueness for universality.

Well, actually, I think we've zeroed in on four core values: personal responsibility, self-actualization, benevolence, and fairness.  I will propose for discussion that any, absolutely any, system of morality that was purposely designed to be a sincere attempt at balancing those four core values would be perceived as reasonable by any reasonable person.

I've been doing a great deal of outside reading on the topic of moral realism, which is the philosophical position this thread was attempting to justify, the idea that moral reasoning is actually attempting what it appears to be, and can at least theoretically succeed at what it appears to be attempting, which is to discover moral facts presumed to exist and be knowable.  An excellent book on this topic is Russ Shafer-Landau's Moral Realism: A Defense - http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Realism-A-Defence-ebook/dp/B002BWPIJS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1291110143&sr=1-1  

This much is clear.  There are people who intuit that moral facts cannot exist, and people who intuit that they must.  These two camps debate one another endlessly.  In the end, I think all a reasonable person can do is pick one side or the other on the basis of nothing but intuition, and then proceed from there.

Interestingly, it occurred to me that a person who intuited that moral facts cannot exist, would have to agree that moral error cannot occur.  Thus, however we defined X, this person would have to agree that X cannot be moral error.  Let X be absolutely anything.  It cannot be moral error if moral facts cannot exist.

So now look at this statement: A sincere attempt at balancing personal responsibility, self-actualization, benevolence, and fairness cannot be moral error.

The person who intuits that moral facts cannot exist would have to agree with the above statement.  Diabolical, no?

What of the person who intuits that moral facts must exist?  I am willing to bet that a person of that sort, if honest, would have a great deal of difficulty disagreeing with the above statement.  In most cases they wouldn't even try, because their intuition would have them nodding their heads in agreement with the statement before they even knew what was happening.

Scriptural theists might disagree with the above statement because it doesn't derive from or support scripture, but this thread is aimed at atheists.  Frankly, when it comes to morality, or pretty much anything philosophical, I don't give a fig what scriptural theists think, and neither does my intended audience.

I think, in the above italicized statement, we have a stout, sharp sword for hacking away at the only real threat to atheism's advance, which is the perception that atheism logically must be morally nihilistic.  What do you think?

Since I seem to be on a roll, I'll take the discussion a step further.  Aside from moral error, the other kind of error that can accrue to a decision is practical error.  A decision manifests practical error when it clearly won't advance the cause it was intended to advance.  What was intended is irrelevant.  Let it be X.  If decision Y clearly won't advance its intention X, then decision Y is a practical error.  How do we avoid practical error?  There is only one way.  We must do our best to gather complete and accurate data and employ valid logic.  A decision that is based on complete and accurate data and valid logic cannot be a practical error, since any practical error would derive from incomplete data, inaccurate data, or invalid logic.

Bear in mind that moral error and practical error are the only kinds of errors that can accrue to decisions.  Either what you intend is a moral error, or your selected method to achieve what you intend is a moral error, or your selected method to achieve what you intend is a practical error, or your selected method to achieve what you intend will cause you to fail to achieve some other intention entirely, in which case it would again be a practical error, it would merely be hitting you from left field.  Sidestep all four pitfalls, and you will be error-free.  The way to avoid the fourth, incidentally, is to have complete and accurate data not only with respect to one of your intentions, but with respect to all of your intentions, and then to employ valid logic on this now comprehensive body of data.

So now try this extended statement on for size: A sincere attempt at balancing personal responsibility, self-actualization, benevolence, and fairness cannot be moral error, and if grounded in complete and accurate data and valid logic, cannot be error at all.

What we have here is a blueprint for life itself.  Someone who lived by this statement consistently would be a paragon of reasonableness, morality, and practicality, a veritable titan of sapience.  

And would quite possibly, even quite probably, be an atheist.

[bandit4god]

Great discussion!  Immanuel Kant may have beat us to the punch on this idea.  "Act only in such a manner as to will the maxim of that act to be universal law."

Suppose a person is considering physically harming a toddler.  Would he/she will that everyone in a similar situation harm toddlers?  Surely no!  The founder of the thread and Kant would likely agree that people should act accordingly.

It gets interesting when we consider whether Kant's dialectic imperative (Philosophy's name for the above quote) gives clues toward what the thread's founder calls "moral facts."  The toddler example above is an effective illustration--we automatically assign moral meaning to what the agent decides to do.  Is it merely "preference" that one agent considers harming toddlers wrong and another right?  When Dawkins apologized for his outburst at the closing of his forum, was he acting pragmatically in order to appease a business market or did he assign a moral truth value (right/wrong) to his actions?

[Inevitable Droid]

Great discussion!  Immanuel Kant may have beat us to the punch on this idea.  "Act only in such a manner as to will the maxim of that act to be universal law."

Unfortunately he never explained why we should.  He took his maxim as being synonymous with being moral at all, but never explained why we should be moral at all.  He never offered a convincing argument why morality isn't fundamentally error or lie.  Perhaps truth and honesty are on the side of amorality.  (Ironic that honesty would uphold the falsehood or dishonesty of morality and thus of honesty as a moral virtue, but to many it seems to do so, nonetheless.)

With Matt's help, I have likewise articulated a proposition as to what it means to be moral at all.  This proposition is implied in my statement, "A sincere attempt at balancing personal responsibility, self-actualization, benevolence, and fairness cannot be moral error."  The implication is that there is no moral code that doesn't mandate as fundamental at least one of the four values cited in my statement.  Every moral code mandates as fundamental either personal responsibility, or self-actualization, or benevolence, or fairness, or some combination of two, three, or all four.  Thus it's impossible to be immoral if you strive to balance the whole quartet.  In so striving, you fundamentally satisfy every moral code ever devised.  You would also, incidentally, design good games.

What my statement doesn't do is argue for the objective truth of morality, or explain why we should be moral at all.  The diabolical cunning of it is that it says enough to force any moralist to agree but doesn't say enough to force any amoralist to disagree.

Suppose a person is considering physically harming a toddler.  Would he/she will that everyone in a similar situation harm toddlers?  Surely no!  The founder of the thread and Kant would likely agree that people should act accordingly.

My subjective morality says don't harm toddlers.  The question is whether my subjective mandate is binding on anyone, even me.  See my recent post to my Subjectivism thread, where I raise that very question.

[bandit4god]

Hmmmm, the subject is getting a bit muddied.  Let me try it a different way:

Chris Hitchens has often remarked that religion is morally wrong because it perpetrates a great deal of harm on the world.  To what standard of moral truth values is he appealing to make this claim?  Similar to the above reference to Dawkins's recent outraged memo.  When he apologized for it, he was recognizing that his outburst carried with it some sort of moral "meaning" that transcended any individual's emotions.  Why?  What sense of right/wrong did he use to believe this?