Lord British's Open Challenge...

Now who the heck would be upset over any of this? Is there anything wrong with any of the actions? everybody got what they wanted except Popeye and Im not sure what Chris had to do with this story... I don't think he was really involved at all so what is his role in all this? SEE HOW SERIOUS THIS IS? Perhaps this is why the show got canceled. That's speculation too.

 

I remember this from years back.. but here's my answer today.. None of the above.

People like to assign degrees. This is better or worse than that etc. Plain fact of the matter is, while each individual is prone to different vices we all have an imperfect nature. On this scale there is little point in passing judgement over whose actions were worse. They are all equally guilty of imperfect behavior. That is not meant as an excuse or justification mind you. Wrong is still wrong and should be avoided when possible, but there is little point in assigning degrees of imperfection over something of this scale.

 

~A Challenge of Our Preconceptions~
I find it interesting that we assume allot of things and we tend to read into the story more than the story offers. Richard Garriott has always attempted to challenge our preconceptions and assumed knowledge of ethics that has been instilled within us that we may never have questioned before.
~Time Lord~

 

I've always found Richard's approach to such things limiting. Take the virtue tests.. they only work within the extreme limits of their contexts and only when a number of assumptions are enforced. I almost universally would arrive at answers where neither virtue is sacrificed but felt those tests were never a true test of your character if they don't allow for an honest and accurate answer. Even in the scenario above I seemed to recall my original answer was typically very different than most for very different reasons.

 

I'm generally of a similar view to Bowen, tests like these necessarily take a very simplistic view and in return give a very vague impression of the respondent's character. Necessarily, because people are complex and if you're going to undertake such an exercise at all, it's impossible to account for everything every individual is capable of.

The only way to rank the characters in the Popeye story is by holding them up to your own conscious standards of what constitutes appropriate behaviour, because of course we don't know how often Wimpy has been beaten by Brutus in the past for interfering in his seduction of Olive; we don't know whether Olive and Popeye have made any commitment to sexual fidelity or if their past behaviour would imply such a commitment; we don't know about the traumas Chris previously suffered that make him lash out in anger - maybe even Olive didn't know that.

So we take the surface impressions of selfish lust, an opportunity for altruism, dispassionate sex acts, impulsive violence... and consider how we might react in the position of the various characters, who we feel more sympathetic too, whose behaviour we would react most negatively to if it were directed against us.

It's a shallow and superficial analysis of how we view ourselves, but still more personal than role playing Conan.

 

You point out your disappointment in singling out Richard G, yet you mention no other that you are comparing his approach to, which certainly leaves that open question hanging in the air. But, I personally find that it's the restrictive nature of mechanics in gaming itself to be the only limiting factor to attach any of my own dissatisfactions to such questioning as people's judgment calls within a game. I have found Richard G's approach to empowering games to come close to challenging our real life values a much more deeply moving approach than I've found within other games. I find that to be a great hallmark within his work that draws me so much to it.

Certainly there's no pleasing everyone, which seems a problem that's never going to go away...

I find this Virtue Challenge's question much similar to what a policeman might encounter who must make a judgment call as to who to arrest and take away when the jail is full. In that situation, just as within the in game quest questioning challenges, of "what would we do, if and when we are faced with such an issue, rather than having the ability to stay away from the issue if we wish to further pursue that particular quest".

We can remain distant from answering such questions, yet we then limit our ability to move forward based on our want to ovoid making a decision when that comes up in our game, which validates his challenge within the video.

Plato's Virtue Ethics seem to fit these question's, along with Deontological Ethics and Consequentailism, yet these are all confined because of our gaming world constrictive mechanics.

Short videos describing them that may effect some of our decisions, or just avoid making any decisions...
But Wimpy seems to be currently coming in second for most worst deed within the pole, which then may apply in the avoidance because it's just seems to fit



I'm still searching for better answers because I'm readying myself for our game and thought I'd share my continuing search here with my friends
~Time Lord~

 

TL;DR Save yourself 30 years and forget your interest in philosophy. As for me, I'm less interested in Mr. Garriott's perspective on what my virtues should be than I am in whether or not he's really built a game where he expects me to prefer his virtues over my own. That would just be... so disappointing.

You're in for a rude awakening; philosophy and it's hidden branches are little more than a seemingly infinite effort to discover new ways to say, "I cannot know, but I believe.....".

Here's one for you - explain to me how scientific method can be more objective than theology when it suffers from the same degree of "blind faith" in its own mental capabilities that theology does?

If you've studied philosophy at all, you've likely come into the question, "How do you know what you know?" (Epistemology) and after as much study as you can stomach, the closest you're ever going to get to that answer without falling into the same "blind faith" is to say, "I believe that I know it." Which IS faith.... faith in self and one's ability to observe independently from both one's physiology and one's ultimate jailer, one's neurological chemistry.

No, friend, leave philosophy alone; the deeper you go, the less you will actually live and the more you will merely think about living (which, trust me, isn't nearly as entertaining as you thought it would be).

On the other hand, if you stick with it, you'll be able to say all of this to someone else in, oh, maybe 30 years if you're lucky. Not for "enjoyment" of course, but to try and save them from the 30 year mountain about to fall upon them when all they're holding is a spoon labeled, "I think..."

They won't listen, of course, because it just sounds so dreary and negative and self-defeatist. They cannot yet understand how it's actively, positively, self-liberating.

I'm less interested in Mr. Garriott's perspective on what my virtues should be than I am in whether or not he's really built a game where he expects me to prefer his virtues over my own. That would just be... so disappointing.

 

??? Why would anyone want to?
Objectivity doesn't really matter for the scientific method since that is not what it is striving for, nor does theology, so why would anyone want to compare them based on that?

For the scientific method it is results which matters, which since empiricism means that faith or no faith doesn't matter as long as you have evidence in the form of repeatable experiments.
We are communicating over a medium which is the derived result of iterative experiments on how how things might work. Such discoveries or inventions like modern computers or the internet doesn't suddenly go away because you cannot prove philosophically that they exist outside the matrix.

Comparing such results with theology and claim the two are equal due to faith in existence or objectivity is absurd.

 

More educated people than you (or myself, actually) debate to this day this "absurdity", so perhaps a little lighter on the judgment and a little heavier on discourse, hmm?

Or not, it's not like you actually HAVE to validate your assumptions, eh? (shrug)

 

Education equals neither intelligence or wisdom. Neither for that matter is ignorance the same as the absence of either.

 

The way I would rank it is:

From worst to least worst:

Popeye
Chris
Wimpy
Olive Oil
Brutus

My explanation:

I think Popeye is the worst in this situation, because he's unforgiving, and he's unsympathetic to the fact that Olive Oil obviously thought being with him was worth the price she payed. He's selfish, and has no problem breaking her heart over what he considers a slight to him, even though it was done for his benefit, and Olive Oil was honest about it and seeking forgiveness.
Chris is the second worst in the situation, because he does absolutely nothing to fix the situation, he just hears something he doesn't like, and responds by attacking a person physically. Absolutely nothing is gained from this, it's just more misery in the world with absolutely no reason.
Wimpy is pretty bad because he's supposed to be Popeye's and Olive Oils friend, but simply doesn't help them. He's the one person that could have resolved the issue without anyone getting hurt, and he doesn't do it.
Olive Oil isn't all that bad in this situation, the only thing she did wrong was deciding to take Brutus' deal without knowing what Popeye would think. She had no way of communicating with Popeye however.
Brutus is IMO the one character that is neutral in this situation. Sure, demanding sex as payment may be in bad taste, but he's simply making an exchange. He's trading something he wants for something Olive Oil wants. At no point does he force her into this, deceive her, manipulate her or is untrue to his deal. He's not charitable or benevolent in this situation, but he's not evil either. He's simply making a trade.

 

I change my mind. Wimpy is clearly the worst worst deed. He should have cared more for others than for himself. If he did it right then none of this would have happened. It was all wimpy's fault. Shame on Wimpy!

 

Was Olive *really* acting out of love?

Lets bring this scenario to real life for a minute. Lets say you and your boyfriend or girlfriend lived across a river from each other, and you really wanted to see them. Someone says they'll let you take their boat if you sleep with them, another refuses to get involved. Do you... try to find some money to pay the second guy, with the hope that he has some price that he's willing to accept? ... try to enlist some help from others in the town? ... try to get a note sent across the river in someone else's hand, so the other person knows your predicament? ... patiently wait for them to come to you? ... ask around if there are nearby towns that also have boats? ... try to build a raft on your own to get across the river, or brave the river in some other way? Or... do you sleep with the first guy?

I'm a little bit with Bowen here, that its a bit foolish to rank people's deeds. Except I find it strange that people give Olive Oyl all the benefit of the doubt, just because the story says she did it for "Love." If I were Popeye, my first thought would not be to be angry with Olive. It would be that something is *seriously wrong* with Olive.

And if Olive had never done something so strange before, I'd be having questions about whether I could really have a serious relationship with her, or should indulge her emotional problems with a relationship. I'd also question if she really loved me, or just had an infatuation. Did she just want to sleep with me, and is that why she so readily slept with Brutus, instead of seeking other solutions to get to me? Its not that I'd feel slighted by some act of betrayal, I'd seriously question her state of mind and her motives.

So, when I read over responses to this question, and people say things like "well, Olive's not so bad, because she did it out of love", I'm shaking my head and wondering why people don't question that premise.

 

There is one place where the answers do matter. Walk into the final, fill out some answers with your rationale... or fail this class. No credits or grades here, but it is a complex way to attempt a simplistic view into what one most perceives as virtuous (or less virtuous in this case).
Just answer, or do not. It is fun for some and not required.

 

Again, adding in your own backstory breaks the simplicity of the test. These are not perfect tests, but they do give insights.

There is no wrong order.

 

Everyone is adding in their own interpretation, though, so to speak, when they analyze each of the choices. Statements like "Wimpy is indifferent" or "Popeye is unforgiving" or "Chris failed to consider Popeye's feelings" are all presuming things about what's going on. But those are all internal emotional states that are not explicit. What if Wimpy is not indifferent, or Popeye isn't unforgiving, or Chris didn't fail to consider his feelings?

If you change just one of those assumptions, the answers become completely different. I'm not changing the story; just giving an interpretation of what's happening.

 

Because there's nothing in the history of their story (as we know it in culture) to indicate it could possibly be anything other.

In fact, I think it'a a wonderfully open-ended consideration that could allow discourse on topics ranging from gender fluidity to cultural and societal rules and just how much of them are truly "valid" given the progression of science and medicine. But that's a much deeper dive than I have time to explore, particularly on the forum.

 

Sure there is. All we know from the story that Olive considers herself as being in love. But there a lot of people who who think that way, but, say, might act like a stalker, or worse. So, that gets to a larger question of what love is, and whether the way she acts is consistent with what real love is. The reason we understand Popeye's anger, intuitively, is because if we were in Popeye's position, we'd start to question the relationship and ask if it were built on a lie.

 

Interesting comment, though, because now I'm left wondering if the roles were reversed -- if it was Popeye having sex with some other woman to get to Olive -- whether the same people would have different opinions on the rankings.

 

Just to jump in here and actually give my thoughts on the scenario. I have to do one of two things. 1: Reject the notion that Popeye and Olive actually love each other or 2: Try to give them the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge they're both being idiots AND that in this case.. neither is acting out of love.

Now this thread isn't meant to get into a discussion of what love actually is and that's a good thing cause it would just be one of those circular discussions where everyone holds on their own opinions. We don't need that here. However, to explain my reasonings I do need to interject my own thoughts on what love is.. and oddly enough in many ways it's a lot like the virtues.. except the virtues in this case are incomplete.

First off, the one thing most of the characters in this scenario fail at is.. love is not self-seeking. Brutus, Olive, Wimpy and Popeye all fail.
Love is patient.. Olive fails here.
Love is kind.. everyone fails here.
Love forgives.. Popeye and Chris fail..

Wimpy.. we are unclear how much Wimpy actually knows about the situation.. we don't know his own situation. All we know is he doesn't want to take Olive across the river. At best, Wimpy is being selfish.

Brutus is obvious being unkind to both Olive and Popeye with his selfish demand.

Olive is being impatient, selfish and unkind to Popeye by actually sleeping with Brutus

Popeye is unkind, unforgiving and selfish by spurning Olive who's made a mistake.

Chris is unkind and unforgiving in resorting to violence.

That said.. no one is capable of loving perfectly. We all make mistakes every day. Trying to rank what I'll dub as every day mistakes is a trap that allows us to excuse and justify and say so long as it's not worse than X it's ok. And we all rank those mistakes differently. Even when we feel we have clear guidelines to follow, the temptation to rank, excuse and justify is always there.

Olive.. should not have slept with Brutus.
Brutus.. should not have made the demand.
Popeye should had forgiven
Chris should have forgiven.

Needless to say.. I don't mix well with psychological tests.