[fadeyev]

Author of the post here. Thank you for your comments.

I'd like to address the main criticism that I see in the comments, which is that I did not specify what it is that I mean by morality, and what moral system I'm using to make my judgement.

The post is not meant to be a complete essay, rather it is a short outline of an idea, much like the rest of the stuff I publish on my blog, most of those posts building on each other like bricks rather than standing alone as a finished structure. That's absolutely my fault and it doesn't help with public consumption, and this is something I need to work on. I am, and will be, writing more thoughts on the subject as the post in this submission hardly covers much ground, but nevertheless, I do stand by the idea presented there.

To address the actual point: I do not prescribe a specific moral framework, only that there be one. Morals can come from religion or philosophy (or both), and they should be used to guide design decisions rather than those design decisions being made in isolation. Design decisions made without a moral foundation focus on effectiveness alone, which is not a useful indicator for the good's true worth (again, assuming your life is not amoral, in which case none of that would matter), and what I mean by "true worth" is how that good benefits society and man in light of your moral framework.

[eevilspock]

I feel that much of the negative comments are a defensive reaction. Coming to Hacker News and pointing out, even if indirectly, that the tricks of the startup trade are of questionable morality is like showing up at an decadent dinner party and pulling out photos of starving third world children.

[slurgfest]

Which tricks?

[eevilspock]

Even more telling is that my statement above is getting downvotes, and only established users even have that power.

[saraid216]

> To address the actual point: I do not prescribe a specific moral framework, only that there be one.

Everyone has a moral framework, whether or not it is examined the way Socrates would demand it to be. The issue is that you gave an example, which undermines your claim that you're not prescribing a moral framework: no example can successfully be free of every possible framework.

You claim that "life is the ultimate aim of moral design", but this is completely untrue. Many moral systems encourage the wasting of time and the dismissal of life in its various forms. Many moral systems, indeed, are not about the contribution of work to society and humankind at all. As a matter of nuance, this can be argued. (Is afterlife a form of life? Is life in the city or in nature? Is your time wasted if you intentionally wasted it? Et. al.)

In short, you actually are prescribing a specific moral framework. Yours. There's nothing wrong with this, except that you didn't even realize you were doing it. You've answered the relevant questions, at least implicitly, and so forgot that they were even questions to begin with.

> I do stand by the idea presented there.

You're not wrong, exactly. Take Richard Bartle, who has been pounding out a very similar message to the game community, though you'd have trouble recognizing it.

His message is simple: know why you do things. Why do you have levels in your RPGs? MUD1 (his game) had them because they represented the possibility of social mobility to a pair of British country-born schoolkids annoyed by their circumstances. But most designers only have them because well... that's just expected. Their decision stands unexamined; often unrecognized to be a decision at all.

He did not need to bring up morality, because it's not the point. The point is that, when you do things, it should be grounded in a solid self-aware understanding of what and why you act. Design intentionally. Think about the details. Care about consequences. Test everything, hold onto what is good.

[fadeyev]

Thank you for your comment saraid216.

I realize full well that I am prescribing my own moral framework, but that is the second part of the main idea, the first being that there be a moral framework in the first place. I emphasize this split because this way we can discuss: 1) whether or not morals play a role in design decisions, should they, and if they should then to what extent, and 2) what moral framework to use (i.e. how to live). Obviously the latter invites a very long and difficult discourse better suited for a moral treatise than a blog post or a few comments, so by taking it aside I focus on the former point which is more relevant to the discussion at hand.

[saraid216]

> whether or not morals play a role in design decisions, should they, and if they should then to what extent

My response is a word and a link.

The word: Thoroughly.

The link: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/the-most...

[eevilspock]

"though you'd have trouble recognizing it."

"I actually bother with knowing what I'm talking about."

"There's nothing wrong with this, except that you didn't even realize you were doing it. You've answered the relevant questions, at least implicitly, and so forgot that they were even questions to begin with."

"Pop quiz. What are the four main types of ethical systems? Explain how "clapping with glee" figures into each one."

Dude, do you realize how patronizing and pompous your replies are?

.

"> To address the actual point: I do not prescribe a specific moral framework, only that there be one.

"Everyone has a moral framework, whether or not it is examined the way Socrates would demand it to be. The issue is that you gave an example, which undermines your claim that you're not prescribing a moral framework: no example can successfully be free of every possible framework."

Please try an extricate yourself from yourself and make an attempt to actually listen to the other person (Ask your spouse/children whether you are a good listener. As a lousy listener myself I know a little about this.) rather than using them as an excuse to strut your (purely, in my opinion) academic training. The author specifically says that he does "not prescribe a specific moral framework, only that there be one." Having some moral framework in an example does not contradict this. You could nail him on a technicallity, that requiring a moral framework in itself stems from a (meta?)moral framework, but then I'd again point out how pompous you are.

If morality is not the point, why "should [it] be grounded in a solid self-aware understanding of what and why you act"? Why "design intentionally"? Why "think about the details"? Why "care about consequences"? Why "hold onto what is good"? What is the measure of good? If you answer that Bartlett is talking about aesthetics not morality, then why the fuck did you bring him up? It would not be a "similar message" at all. See feedback about listening.

[saraid216]

> If morality is not the point, why "should [it] be grounded in a solid self-aware understanding of what and why you act"? Why "design intentionally"? Why "think about the details"? Why "care about consequences"? Why "hold onto what is good"? What is the measure of good? If you answer that Bartlett is talking about aesthetics not morality, then why the fuck did you bring him up? It would not be a "similar message" at all. See feedback about listening.

Of course he was talking about morality. He simply didn't need to bring it up. He didn't need to say "there exists immoral game design"; he understood that it was not him who needed to make the value judgement, but the designer who needed to make the judgement upon himself. He was making people into better designers, rather than offering a way to critique design.

Here's another example of the point the OP is making (and this time I can link to it, since it's not in the GDC Vault): http://www.bogost.com/writing/the_bulldog_and_the_pegasus.sh... And again, morality goes unmentioned. A different thinker talks about the same thing: http://www.raphkoster.com/2010/02/18/gameifying-everything/ But of course, my knowledge is restricted to game design. I'd have more trouble citing designers outside that field, though I suspect I could find something from Luke Wroblewski or someone from 37s or something.

By his own admission, the author is not talking about morality. He is saying that "Morals ... should be used to guide design decisions rather than those design decisions being made in isolation." This is, as I have agreed repeatedly, an important point. It is also one that has been better stated without the baggage of waxing philosophical about morality.

I have no idea where you pulled aesthetics from. It's not as if aesthetics are required to be amoral (see: http://www.friesian.com/domain.htm ); isn't that part of the point of the original post? Ugliness steals away life, too, almost as much as stealing time does.

[nomnomnom]

That blog post restored a good deal of my faith in smart people in the tech sector... it's looking kinda bleak lately, not a whole lot of actual thought or even reflection going on. Thanks, and all the best.