Stellaris Dev Diary #54 - Ethics Rework

[Lord bobyness]

I was in the middle of making a mod to do this exact thing when BAM! Paradox beat me to it
Well, hopefully not all my work will be redundant...

 

[Beric]

The opposite of Authoritarianism is Libertarianism.

And for those here who think "libertarian" is only right-wing, it can be left-wing as well. It simply means the authority (government) stops meddling in your private life. Just take it as the word sounds - "liberty"-ian. What your exact definition of liberty is is up for dispute, but it simply means you aren't ordered around by an authority. The ultimate form would be anarchism, but as Stellaris doesn't seem to go to extremes (or maybe just doesn't feel like simulating anarchism in the game) reduced control by authority is good enough.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Authoritarianism and egalitarianism always butt heads in practice; part of the definition of authoritarian is a hostiility towards deviants and out-groups, whereas egalitarians take as a principle the right of such groups to do as they please. They are not exactly opposites, but they are nearly completely incompatible.

 

[Quackytheduck]

And for those here who think "libertarian" is only right-wing, it can be left-wing as well. It simply means the authority (government) stops meddling in your private life. Just take it as the word sounds - "liberty"-ian. What your exact definition of liberty is is up for dispute, but it simply means you aren't ordered around by an authority. The ultimate form would be anarchism, but as Stellaris doesn't seem to go to extremes (or maybe just doesn't feel like simulating anarchism in the game) reduced control by authority is good enough.

I'm not sure that the overall feel of it is "government vs private individual" insomuch as it is where and how the power is distributed, though. And in that respect, I'm just not sure Libertarian works. Especially since from a purely practical standpoint, you don't want to confuse people who have biases towards that word due to it being misused in politics and culture.

 

[Derp]

Urgh. Really? Come on. It's clearly referring to democracies, as opposed to the other possible government types in Stellaris, such as dictatorships and monarchies.

Even in the proper context the argument is based on a strawman version of democracy that virtually nobody has ever advocated for.

It's what happens when political knowledge is derived entirely from internet arguments and dusty tomes and not from real world experience.

 

[Luckmann]

Y'know, since it's basically just a tweak in a localization file, I could just make every person an individual mod using whatever their preferred pairing is. It might actually be quicker to do that than have this argument.

Will you also change all the interactions between the different factions/empires relating to the ethics, and the text of all relevant events that involves choices based on your ethos/ethi, and keep it updated for the duration of the game's lifetime and mechnanics/events/etc added in the future? Because if so, consider me sold.

Spoiler

Yes, I'm being sarcastic, because that is part of the issues here, it's not just an issue with the names in the creation menu.

 

[Beric]

Authoritarianism and egalitarianism always butt heads in practice; part of the definition of authoritarian is a hostiility towards deviants and out-groups, whereas egalitarians take as a principle the right of such groups to do as they please. They are not exactly opposites, but they are nearly completely incompatible.

This is fine. Except that the game's definition of egalitarianism clearly indicates that society must provide for the needs of individuals, and not merely ensure their rights. If an individual doesn't wish to do this for whatever reason (or perhaps disagrees with the society's definition of a "need") they have committed a crime. This crime must be punished by the use of force (otherwise it is failing to provide its "need") which is authoritarian.

 

[Quackytheduck]

It's not cataclysmic, it's simply wrong. Objectively so. It's not about the tone of it, really - although it could bear improvement, the fact still remains that Egalitarianism is not opposed by Authoritarianism. The opposite of Authoritarianism is Libertarianism. The opposite of Egalitarianism is Elitism or Exceptionalism. They've essentially traded one pair of Ethics that fitted, into two Ethics that not only doesn't fit, but that aren't even philosophical opposites by any means.

Collectivism and Individualism are relevant ethical considerations that are dichotomous to eachother and mutually exclusive in practice, and if one assumes Slavery to also include willing slavery or servitude, this attempt to prettify collectivism becomes entirely unnecessary.

Collectivism vs. Individualism made perfect sense in every way; mechanically, narratively, philosophically. Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism doesn't make a lick of sense in any of them. This has been covered and detailed extensively and exhaustively throughout countless threads here and elsewhere. That's why it's so mind-boggling that they still went ahead with it. It takes a serious level of pig-headed stubbornness and doubling-down on political illiteracy to do that after being so thoroughly steamrolled every single time it's discussed.

Is Paradox a house of yes-men? Is the corporate culture within the company truly this strong? It's like someone's stuck in an echo-chamber while there's a library bus from the political sciences & philosophy university blaring it's horns just outside the door, begging for attention. I just don't get it.

Objectively so, you say? How so? And who says that the opposite of Authoritarianism is Libertarianism? Is that universally true across all cultures and modes of teaching? It's certainly not self evident to me, nor have 500 posts of people arguing seemed to clarify things one way or the other. If anything is objectively true here, it's that it's contentious.

As for corporate culture and yes-men? What does that have to do with anything? Did they make a mistake? Probably. Does that mean they might have ignored relevant advice? Maybe. Does that mean that they clearly have a dubious yes-men enabling toxic corporate culture? Unlikely, I think.

 

[Caspoi]

It seems that the new names did not fulfill their intended role of making things less confusing and divisive, they just inverted what people thought that they meant on the political left-right axis. Oh well, I suppose that this is one of these things that are hard to get in one word without implying more.

Also, people please stop complaining that they ruined things for your hive minds, collectivism did not imply a hive-based society any more than authoritarianism does so there is no problem to shift between the two of them.

 

[Quackytheduck]

This is fine. Except that the game's definition of egalitarianism clearly indicates that society must provide for the needs of individuals, and not merely ensure their rights. If an individual doesn't wish to do this for whatever reason (or perhaps disagrees with the society's definition of a "need") they have committed a crime. This crime must be punished by the use of force (otherwise it is failing to provide its "need") which is authoritarian.

You're absolutely correct, in that it kind of is a logical contradiction if you think about it. I think they may have been waxing poetical though, and it's also a WIP screenshot. Changing a sentence or two likely will happen.

 

[bronze Void poison]

aside from the names it appears we can agree the game is getting slightly better yes?

 

[Luckmann]

[...] And in that respect, I'm just not sure Libertarian works. Especially since from a purely practical standpoint, you don't want to confuse people who have biases towards that word due to it being misused in politics and culture.

But Authoritarian works? Because that is a term that isn't at all misused in politics and culture, now is it?

Seriously though, the choice here is between being right and being wrong. You could refer to it as Liberalism if you want, but it's only vaguely less loaded than any other term, and outside of America itself, Libertarianism is likely the less loaded term by far, on average, and Liberalism would be much less precise.

For what it was, Collectivism vs. Individualism remains the best choice, especially without actually changing any of the mechanical considerations. Bar that, Egalitarianism can be considered to be opposed by Elitism or Exceptionalism, in which it is the moral right (and duty) of the superior individual to rule over their lessers, which could be interpreted as an endorsement or acceptance of slavery for the same reason it worked for collectivism; the idea of willing servitude, not just slavery.

In the same way a collectivist could be interpreted as to support and bow before the will of the collective state, a peasant in a feudal society could consider the right of the elite nobility to rule as legitimate. Either could be considered a form of slavery or servitude, and an acceptance of slavery and servitude as a moral good.

No matter how we cut it, there are many different options, from keeping ethics that already makes sense, to creating new pairs or adding new choices, or changing the mechanics of that particular pairing, and many of them aren't wrong. Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism is not one of them.

 

[Quackytheduck]

aside from the names it appears we can agree the game is getting slightly better yes?

Haha, yes. Finally something I can wholeheartedly agree with.

 

[Quackytheduck]

But Authoritarian works? Because that is a term that isn't at all misused in politics and culture, now is it?

Seriously though, the choice here is between being right and being wrong. You could refer to it as Liberalism if you want, but it's only vaguely less loaded than any other term, and outside of America itself, Libertarianism is likely the less loaded term by far, on average, and it'd be much less precise.

For what it was, Collectivism vs. Individualism remains the best choice, especially without actually changing any of the mechanical considerations. Bar that, Egalitarianism can be considered to be opposed by Elitism or Exceptionalism, in which it is the moral right (and duty) of the individual to rule over their lessers, which could be interpreted as an endorsement or acceptance of slavery for the same reason it worked for collectivism; the idea of willing servitude, not just slavery.

No matter how we cut it, there are many different options, from keeping ethics that already makes sense, to creating new pairs or adding new choices, or changing the mechanics of that particular pairing, and many of them aren't wrong. Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism is not one of them.

Agreed. And yeah, Authoritarian doesn't work either, frankly. The more I think about it, the more I'm...not entirely sure there even IS a right answer to this word choice dilemma, frankly. All of them are either loaded or don't seem to work. Even the ones that aren't wrong aren't quite right either.

Times like these I'm glad I'm not a dev. If I thought everyone would argue about my word choices for hundreds of posts, I'd never be able to muster the nerve to post dev diaries.

 

[Spartanlemur]

Authoritarianism and egalitarianism always butt heads in practice; part of the definition of authoritarian is a hostiility towards deviants and out-groups, whereas egalitarians take as a principle the right of such groups to do as they please. They are not exactly opposites, but they are nearly completely incompatible.

If we define things purely in terms of power distribution, then I would say you're correct with regards to egalitarianism. Egalitarianism attempts to keep power evenly distributed.

But some people have attempted to ringfence economics as though it were its own distinct island, and this is wrong.

Money is power too, you see, and so an egalitarian society will inevitably attempt to redistribute wealth. Meanwhile, an anarcho-capitalist society would clearly allow hierarchies to develop, hence being non-egalitarian. But I don't think "authoritarian" is the right word for a place where business leaders are the de facto rulers, but citizens can do what they want without interference, provided they have the resources.

So I can see where you're coming from, and when we look at it purely in terms of political power, you're right. Though I think "elitism" and "hierarchical" were suggested as an alternative to authoritarianism, and I think that for now, that one change would make things much clearer.

I made a post proposing how splitting auth/egal in two would be better (so you can see where I stand), but I feel like we are no longer in disagreement if we just make clear that we're talking about power distribution and change authoritarian to elitism/hierarchy.

 

[bronze Void poison]

If we define things purely in terms of power distribution, then I would say you're correct with regards to egalitarianism. Egalitarianism attempts to keep power evenly distributed.

But some people have attempted to ringfence economics as though it were its own distinct island, and this is wrong.

Money is power too, you see, and so an egalitarian society will inevitably attempt to redistribute wealth. Meanwhile, an anarcho-capitalist society would clearly allow hierarchies to develop, hence being non-egalitarian. But I don't think "authoritarian" is the right word for a place where business leaders are the de facto rulers, but citizens can do what they want without interference, provided they have the resources.

So I can see where you're coming from, and when we look at it purely in terms of political power, you're right. Though I think "elitism" and "hierarchical" were suggested as an alternative to authoritarianism, and I think that for now, that one change would make things much clearer.

I made a post proposing how splitting auth/egal in two would be better (so you can see where I stand), but I feel like we are no longer in disagreement if we just make clear that we're talking about power distribution and change authoritarian to elitism/hierarchy.

it would most likely be a improvement.

 

[Luckmann]

Agreed. And yeah, Authoritarian doesn't work either, frankly. The more I think about it, the more I'm...not entirely sure there even IS a right answer to this word choice dilemma, frankly. All of them are either loaded or don't seem to work. Even the ones that aren't wrong aren't quite right either.

Times like these I'm glad I'm not a dev. If I thought everyone would argue about my word choices for hundreds of posts, I'd never be able to muster the nerve to post dev diaries.

There's a nordic proverb that I like to fall back on at times like this; gör rätt, räds intet. Do what's right, fear nothing. Dramatic for sure, but my point is that you can't please everyone, and when handling any term, you're bound to piss someone off. The fact that using the term Libertarianism might carry some modern-day political connotations is completely immaterial, because that's not how we should judge whether it's a fitting term or not.

It should be considered based on it's own merit in relation to the subject matter, and in this case, it's actually the correct term, no matter what other value-judgements others may put into it outside of that. Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism is quite simply wrong, for many different reasons all at once. With so many different kinds of solutions, and if we're going to have to use terms that are inherently loaded either way, why would we go with the politically illiterate option?

My suggested option continues to be to keep Individualism vs. Collectivism, because it makes the most sense by far, in context, and then add two new pairs; Authoritarianism vs. Libertarianism, and Egalitarianism vs. Exceptionalism (or Elitism, but I prefer the Exceptionalist label in this context). That'd be a little bit more work than what they're doing now, though.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism is quite simply wrong, for many different reasons all at once.

The fact there's been this much dissent over that assertion and that plentiful evidence has been raised as to the "wrongness" being subjective to different uses on opposite sides of the pond should really kinda make you reconsider that.

 

[Spartanlemur]

There's a nordic proverb that I like to fall back on at times like this; gör rätt, räds intet. Do what's right, fear nothing. Dramatic for sure, but my point is that you can't please everyone, and when handling any term, you're bound to piss someone off. The fact that using the term Libertarianism might carry some modern-day political connotations is completely immaterial, because that's not how we should judge whether it's a fitting term or not.

It should be considered based on it's own merit in relation to the subject matter, and in this case, it's actually the correct term, no matter what other value-judgements others may put into it outside of that. Authoritarianism vs. Egalitarianism is quite simply wrong, for many different reasons all at once. With so many different kinds of solutions, and if we're going to have to use terms that are inherently loaded either way, why would we go with the politically illiterate option?

My suggested option continues to be to keep Individualism vs. Collectivism, because it makes the most sense by far, in context, and then add two new pairs; Authoritarianism vs. Libertarianism, and Egalitarianism vs. Exceptionalism (or Elitism, but I prefer the Exceptionalist label in this context). That'd be a little bit more work than what they're doing now, though.

I agree with most of this, but why do you need authoritarianism vs libertarianism? An elitist collectivist society is authoritarian while an elitist individualist society is libertarian, no?

 

[Naselus]

I think 'Elitism' would be the better option, given that (yet again) 'Exceptionalism' has another meaning - it refers to the tendency of every nation to consider itself different and superior to others, with a unique history and destiny. Which I'd be fairly willing to bet would provoke a massive discussion if you went with it. Also, 'authoritarianism vs Libertarianism' is just begging to start a megathread.