As an atheist I never understood why people keep believing in various religions when there is so much scientific evidence against it or at least not enough evidence for it. Now I do:
1:23 “I think people are longing for sense”
That is something many people, at least on the “progressive”, more atheistic side, don’t understand. You can’t just tell someone to stop believing in an entire belief system which guides you. It’s like pulling the rug away under someone’s feet. I really had to lay down much arrogance in regard to religion as I started to see the exact same patterns in socialist-atheist societies, which showed the exact same totalitarian behavior I was blaming religion for.
I still don’t think believing in arbitrary concepts like a supernatural spirit named “god” is a good solution (though thanks to Dr. Peterson I now have a better understanding of some biblical metaphors and their psychological or philosophical meaning), but it has to be recognized that religious beliefs do not only exist to give people explanations for natural phenomena or other things they don’t understand (like many atheists believe), but because it offers a sense of meaning and direction. You cannot expect people to throw away a system which has guided them their entire lifes, because this is what you do when you tell religious people to stop believing in god. What should they do then with their ethics which comes from “god”? How should they interpret the world? No wonder atheism looks like nihilism to many religious folks (“without god, anything goes”). I think it’s possible to create a coherent naturalistic, atheistic philosophical view of the world (Ayn Rands approach looks plausible to me for example), but you have to articulate and offer it to people as an alternative.
Maybe these aren’t big news to some, but this was something that bugged me for years and I’m excited to finally understand it.
Exactly. But this „social justice“ nonsense is not only a problem in the gaming industry. Many people are over-compensating because they’re feeling guilty for the deeds of their ancestors and start seeing racism or sexism everywhere.
It are the people who are constantly outraged about alleged insensitivities towards minorities, women, black people etc., who are keeping this topic alive. They think that you have to tell people non-stop how awful and bad racism and sexism are and that they should feel guilty.
But the solution is simple, just listen to this interview with Morgan Freeman:
Interviewer: „How do we gonna get rid of racsim?“ Freeman: „Don’t talk about it!“
A game that, in my opinion, does this right for example is Horizon Zero Dawn. There is no special emphasis on Aloy, the protagonist, being a woman and her sexuality isn’t explored at all. Instead you’re just playing a strong, self-confident and determined individual, who just happens to be female. That’s why she doesn’t come across like one of those obnoxious quota-women.
Battlefield 5 on the other hand sparked a controversy, not because you can play as a female soldier in WW2 and there are so many sexist asshole-gamers, but because most people think that there were no female soldiers back then (I believed that too). Most people wouldn’t have a problem to be corrected in this believe, but because everything gets politicized, because the smallest, insignificant things get analyzed to death so they adhere to the gender-equality-madness, because “progressives” always make a fuss when a gender-quota isn’t exactly 50/50, all that is why many people who actually are for gender- or racial-equality, are so annoyed that they see SJW-agitation everywhere and feel lectured. That something so insignicant like a woman on a videogame-cover has such huge effects only shows how progressives/SJWs/leftists or whatever you wanna call them, are creating their own enemies.
Another reason people get furious about this whole topic are articles like this (emphasis mine):
The epic launch trailer for the latest shooter was derailed by an army of ignoramuses last week who objected to the arrival of women soldiers, which they wrongly claimed was historically inaccurate.
The author doesn’t consider people actually being concerned about historical accuracy or thinking the portrayal of female soldiers at WW2’s frontlines feel kind of forced. Instead he calls the critics part of an army, which invokes the impression of a large, scary mass of mindless drones.
This is a relative harmless example, but it is this arrogant, self-righteous and aggressive propaganda of alleged “diversity” that has so many people offended.
When I first heard about Bioshock I was 14 and totally pissed off as a Halo fanboy, as Bioshock got nominated as game of the year. As I later borrowed it from a friend, I was fascinated. I wasn’t interested in politics (or any intellectual topic for that matter) yet, but even back then BioShock fascinated me due to its philosophical and society critical theme, which I never had seen or even cared about in a videogame.
Even years before I read Ayn Rands books and started to view myself as libertarian, I couldn’t help but agree with much Andrew Ryan says (not does!) in the game. Just remember for example this radio transmission in Arcadia:
“On the surface, I once bought a forest. The Parasites claimed that the land belonged to God, and demanded that I establish a public park there. Why? So the rabble could stand slack-jawed under the canopy and pretend that it was paradise earned. When Congress moved to nationalize my forest, I burnt it to the ground. God did not plant the seeds of this Arcadia; I did.”
Thanks to a blogger I frequently read, I later realized that Bioshock is based upon Rand and her ideas. Since then I’ve been more and more consciously informing myself about her philosophy. Even though I was neither interested nor did I know anything about politics, economics or philosophy and Andrew Ryan, who is supposed to be a figure of virtue, is being portrayed as the villain as well as all of Rands ideas (free market, limited government, rational (!) self-interest) seem to be put in an intentionally bad light, Ryan’s/Rand’s ideas still managed to convince me for the most part. A good example of her view of how powerful and important ideas are.
And that’s the point where I need to clear out some common confusions, which the game unfortunately also seems to convey. I’m no expert on Objectivism, but as far as I can tell, the game is wrong in the following points:
When speaking of „selfishness“ or „egoism“ she does this always with the prefix „rational“, which is to show that she isn’t talking about a „murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.“ (The virtue of selfishness, p. 1), because she argues that this is not in a persons best (long-term) self-interest – only fair, honest trade with others is (trader principle). You could also just call it „Individualism“ and people are more likely to understand what you mean and probably agree with you. Why she insisted to use the word she used, I still don’t fully understand.
Objectivism’s ethics are virtue ethics, which means it is more of a guideline to help people navigate through life and give them generalized instructions how to act in and evaluate certain situations. The „good“ is hereby what furthers your life and the „bad“ is what doesn’t. This means that when Rand calls something „evil“, an individual which has done „evil“ is not necessarily and irredeemably to be considered a monster or a „sinner“. She merely tries to say that this individual is hurting itself and should reconsider its values or course of action.
Rand was a minarchist, not an anarchist. She saw the role of the state as limited to military, police and courts.
As far as I remember, Rapture had none of those, except a council of unelected members and cronies of Ryan. Also the speech at the beginning about „petty morality“ goes diametrically against objectivism’s ideas of a proper morality being a necessity for (a good) life.
Rapture is more anarchistic than minarchistic, since – and correct me if I’m wrong – it had no real law enforcement or other institutions other then the council and Ryan’s goons. Besides, Ryan eventually betrays all his principles and with each betrayal alienating the people of Rapture further and driving them into the arms of Atlas. The biggest betrayals being:
the ignorance towards the enslavement of innocents in the Little Sister- and Big Daddy programs and the experiments done to them
the nationalisation of his opponents company
murder (e.g. the mother of Jack)
ban on religion and ultimately
robbing the people of their free will (how ever little was left of it)
And I bet there are much more examples. Somehow the game tries to show how Ryan’s ideas can’t work in reality while also showing at the same time what happens when he betrays those ideas, which just seems odd.
like the attempt to criticize the other (altruist-collectivist-)side in
Bioshock 2 though. Naturally it can’t compete with the story of the first, but
it’s still interesting. But I had and still have a big problem with the
character of Sofia Lamb, because I find it very hard to believe that Ryan – a
self-made billionaire with very strong political convictions – is such a bad
judge of character and dumb enough not to realize what kind of person Lamb is.
Just read in the novel how cautiously Ryan recruits people like Bill McDonagh
and then tell me it isn’t odd that he recruits his arch-nemesis, just because
he mistook some statements of her…
Jack I must say that I normally don’t like silent protagonists, but in this
game it at least made some kind of sense. Though I wished he started talking or
making his own decisions after being freed from Fontaine’s control. But instead
you’ve basically traded Fontaine for Tannenbaum and followed her
Luke, the uploader of the video, is also right about the moral choices regarding the little sisters. I think it doesn’t make a big difference in the long run. If you are a completionist and want every upgrade and plasmid, you have to rescue/heal the sisters to get all the necessary adam. But normal players will hardly notice any difference. Which is a shame, because this whole morality system could have so effectively shown the difference between the short-sighted recklessness normally associated with selfishness and the rational self-interest Rand was talking about, which has it’s eye on the long-term consequences.
BioShock is one of the best games ever made. The setting, the atmosphere, the gameplay and many, many other things make it a modern classic. And even though the philopsophical critique of Rand’s ideas is incoherent and distorting, it raises the players interest and, in my case, even make you admire the alleged villain or rather his philosophy.
yet pure capitalism means unsafe work conditions, low wages, and no workers rights because the government plays no role in regulating the system As they choose, this only changed when the government made laws protecting workers, broke up monopolies that controlled entire industries, and labor unions became common. The idea that capitalism is somehow a perfect system that doesn’t need improving is dangerous. Look at the third world, large corporations pollute the environment at will to increase profits and the government’s do nothing to protect the health, safety or even lives of its citizens. That’s why a system like in Europe, or Canada is best, balancing a capitalist system with social programs to help those the system would otherwise abuse, and protecting workers so everyone has the opportunity to succeed, because in a capitalist system most people need to end up at the bottom of the totem pole, someone has to do the hard dirty work in a society, and they should always at least be able to live a decent life.
I’m not defending anarcho-Capitalism. Of course there needs to be a state guaranteeing the individual rights and „putting the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control“ like Ayn Rand put it.
The problem with terms like „decent“ is though that it’s highly subjective. In Germany it isn’t considered a decent living standard to live in a trailer park and you are not allowed to have it as your official address – even if you wish to. I, as a trainee, would love to have my own little trailer and only have to pay 100-150€ a month for a small spot to place it. But no: other people have decided that it’s „not decent enough“ for me to live that way. Instead, I have to pay 470€ for an Appartement and beg the state for money to even be able to pay for it. Money that it has stolen me in the first place. Money that I’m not getting back because the social security office and the employment office both told I’m not entitled to it. And then I read about some guy with 13 kids and 3 wifes living completely off of tax money. Very decent, right? That’s what happens when the state plays the “good Samaritan”, which is not his job.
Regarding Pollution: I once saw a documentary about jeans production in China. There was a father and his son, who lived next to a river near a jeans factory. They lived there for years before the factory started dumping all their toxic waste in it, so they were suddenly robbed of their livelihood (the fish they were selling on the market were dead). Such reports are often used to make us feel bad for our consumption. Yet, in reality, it only shows what happens in a collectivist system like China, where individual rights are either not sufficiently formulated or simply ignored because the collective matters more than the individual. The Chinese government, as far as I can tell, doesn’t give a shit about those people. Quite the opposite: They arrest reporters, when they point out these or similar conditions in factories. They sacrifice these two men for “the common good“. In western countries the two men could sue the hell out of the company.
It is, by the way, a common misconception that capitalism allegedly promises everyone to get rich or to become anything one wants. It promises only that neither the state nor other people will hinder you by force in trying. Also: “because in a capitalist system most people need to end up at the bottom of the totem pole“. That’s wrong. History has shown that this is total nonsense. Millions of people were lifted out of poverty, since China opened their markets. In my country, the ownership of a television is considered a subsistence*. A device that only wealthy people could afford half a century ago. People are so spoiled today that they won’t see how incredibly high the living standards for poor people have risen since the industrialisation.
“someone has to do the hard dirty work in a society”
What is „dirty work“? Who decides what this is? One mans „dirty work“ is an other mans dream job.
Nobody has to do anything. In a free society, nobody is forced to take any job.
“Productive work” does not mean the unfocused performance of the motions of some job. It means the consciously chosen pursuit of a productive career, in any line of rational endeavor, great or modest, on any level of ability. It is not the degree of a man’s ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.
Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness
*At least that’s what I thought. When I googled it, I found out that there was only a woman filing a lawsuit for money to get a TV, but it was dismissed by the court. So a TV is not considered a substinence in germany. Unfortunately many other things, too many things, are.
“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law. […] Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.
Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness
“Rechte” sind ein moralisches Konzept – das Konzept, das einen logischen Übergang von den Prinzipien, die das Handeln eines Individuums leiten, zu den Prinzipien, die sein Verhältnis zu anderen leiten – das Konzept, das die individuelle Moral in einem sozialen Kontext bewahrt und schützt – die Verbindung zwischen dem Moralkodex von einem Mann und dem Rechtskodex einer Gesellschaft, zwischen Ethik und Politik. Individuelle Rechte sind das Mittel, um die Gesellschaft dem moralischen Recht zu unterwerfen. […] Denken Sie daran, dass das Recht auf Eigentum wie alle anderen auch ein Recht auf Handlung ist: Es ist nicht das Recht auf einen Gegenstand, sondern auf die Handlung und die Folgen der Herstellung oder des Erwerbs dieses Gegenstandes. Es ist keine Garantie, dass ein Mann Eigentum verdient, sondern nur eine Garantie, dass er es besitzt, wenn er es verdient. Es ist das Recht, materielle Werte zu erlangen, zu behalten, zu nutzen und darüber zu verfügen.