Moral analysis #2: On Pax using the "Bully" vox on Theo

[holdingsix]

This thread is inspired by two discoveries I made this week: the idea that Pax's way of persuading Theo could be seen as a "positive" use of Vox, and Nietzsche's book "Beyond Good and Evil" being an in-game item that receives some surprisingly enthusiastic commentary by Pax[dustborn.fandom.com] and later also CT[imgur.com], if we give her the book as a present.

Viewing Pax' behavior in this situation as something positive is astonishing to me. Even if we assume that Pax has good intentions, she is still walking over a friend and ally, overriding his conflicted will with her own by using a manipulation technique. How could this be a positive thing? For me, it's one of the worst Pax moments in the game - fortunately, the last of its kind, as she starts to reflect her vox use after this scene (in addition to other reflection developments, which start much earlier).

I'm only getting started to build up my understanding of Nietzsche's view on morality. I'm fascinated by the concept of "will to power", which seems an important and desirable trait for Nietzsche, as he sees it as the key driver for developing strength, creativity, and life, which are important values for him. The term used to have a weird ring for me before, but I'm getting the hang of it. It is certainly useful context for interpreting Dustborn, also beyond this scene.

Nietzsche departs and explicitly diverges from other philosophers, including Kant, whom I'm more familiar with. Parts of Kant's moral philosophy are actually quite close to my heart (his other stuff not so much, though). Not using other people as a means to an end, and respecting the dignity of each individual person, are ideas that just make sense to me. As a European, I'm also happy that some of his ideas keep being impactful around here (not always as much as they could, but I'm a fan of EU data protection laws, for example).

I realized that Nietzsche and Kant provide frameworks that could be useful for understanding how one could arrive at so different conclusions about Pax's vox use. I asked a friendly AI to explore this idea and found the results insightful - I'm pasting it in the appendix.

---
Appendix
---
My prompt:

Assume we have two characters in a story, Pax and Theo, who are on a mission to deliver a data key with secret knowledge on it, which is unknown to them. Pax has a special, supernatural ability which allows her to manipulate people to do stuff against their will. At some point of the story, they have a unique opportunity to check the contents of the data key. Theo is conflicted about it, because he doesn't want to breach his employers' trust, but sees a chance that the contents of the key eventually could save their lives. Pax is curious what's on the key. After exchanging their viewpoints, Pax applies her special skill on Theo to bend his will, and they go ahead to check the contents, which has drastic negative consequences for them.

How would Kant and how would Nietzsche interpret the morality of Pax's behavior?

---
ChatGTP:

The moral analysis of Pax's behavior through the lenses of Kant and Nietzsche provides contrasting perspectives rooted in their philosophical frameworks.

Kant's Perspective

Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy is grounded in the categorical imperative, which emphasizes duty, universal moral laws, and the intrinsic dignity of rational beings. Kant would likely critique Pax's behavior on the following grounds:

Violation of Autonomy
Kant holds that each person must be treated as an end in themselves, not merely as a means to an end. By using her supernatural ability to manipulate Theo, Pax violates Theo's autonomy and rational will. This act treats Theo as a tool for achieving her curiosity or goals, rather than respecting his inherent moral worth.

Failure of Universality
Kant's categorical imperative requires that any action should be evaluated as if it were to become a universal law. If everyone were to justify coercing others to achieve their goals, it would lead to a breakdown of trust and moral order. Pax's action cannot be universalized without contradiction or harm to the moral fabric of society.

Disregard for Duty
Theo's hesitation is rooted in a sense of duty to his employer and the implicit trust placed in him. Kant would view this duty as morally significant. Pax, by overriding Theo's commitment to this duty, acts contrary to moral law and prioritizes her own curiosity over ethical principles.

Kant would likely conclude that Pax's behavior is morally impermissible because it undermines autonomy, fails the test of universality, and disregards duty.

Nietzsche's Perspective

Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy, particularly his ideas about the will to power and the rejection of traditional moral systems, offers a starkly different lens:

Affirmation of Will to Power
Nietzsche values the expression of individual strength, creativity, and the will to overcome obstacles. Pax's use of her supernatural ability to assert her will over Theo could be interpreted as an affirmation of her will to power. Nietzsche might view her action as a demonstration of her capacity to shape the world according to her desires.

Critique of Herd Morality
Nietzsche criticizes "slave morality," which emphasizes submission, guilt, and adherence to external rules. Theo's reluctance to check the data key stems from his adherence to his employer's trust and societal norms. Pax's decision to act, even at the cost of moral conventions, could be seen as a rejection of herd morality in favor of pursuing her own path.

Consequences and the Overman
Nietzsche does not prescribe absolute moral rules but emphasizes the consequences of actions and their alignment with the individual's growth and power. If the drastic negative consequences of checking the data key ultimately lead to greater suffering or diminish Pax's and Theo's capacity to thrive, Nietzsche might critique the action as a failure to exercise foresight or strength effectively.

Nietzsche would likely view Pax's behavior as morally ambiguous. While it aligns with the will to power and a rejection of conventional morality, its ultimate value depends on the broader context of its consequences and whether it contributes to or detracts from Pax's and Theo's flourishing.

Comparison

Kant focuses on the intrinsic wrongness of manipulating Theo, irrespective of the outcome. The act itself is a moral failure because it violates universal moral principles.
Nietzsche focuses on the expression of power and individual will. The morality of Pax's behavior hinges on whether it demonstrates strength and leads to growth or diminishment.

In summary, Kant would condemn Pax's actions as immoral, while Nietzsche might see them as a bold but potentially flawed exercise of will, depending on the broader consequences.

[Houseman]

I don't know anything about Nietzche, but I've downloaded "Beyond Good and Evil", and I'll read it soon.

Just off the top of my head, bullying anyone, especially your friends, is wrong. What Pax did was wrong, because there is a very flimsy justification for doing so, which is the belief that MAYBE knowing about the information on the drive could be life-saving.

But let's try to imagine a scenario in which bullying can be beneficial, perhaps even life-saving.

Let's say that there's a trolley on a course to run over a person tied to the tracks. There's some scared guy at the trolley controls, and only he can pull the lever that will divert the trolley and save the person's life. You can make him pull the lever by bullying him. Would bullying be acceptable in this case? Sure. Of course, this scenario is nothing like the scenario in the game. The stakes were not that high and the outcomes for action and inaction were not that clear.


When Pax bullied Theo, was it a turning point in her life? I doubt it.

I gave a suggestion in the other thread, but I would have liked to see more direct repercussions for her actions. The Puritains showing up isn't enough. For this to make a direct, visible impact on Pax that the audience understands, Pax needs to be directly confronted and harshly condemned for her actions. She needs to have an Uncle Ben moment where she and the audience clearly see the consequences of misusing her powers and she needs to demonstrate actual repentance.

In the game, you cannot take responsibility for bullying Theo, and no matter your dialog choices, Theo ends up blaming himself.

So because this bullying from Pax had no real resolution and just kind of faded into the background as "just a thing that happened", I found it to be unsatisfying from a story perspective, and disgusting from a moral perspective.

[Unknown Samurai]

"STOP BEING WEAK!"
"You want to just COWER here because you're sacred of pissing off your BOSS?"
"You want to let some weird shadow corporation dictate your ACTIONS? Or do you want to take a STAND and find out what you're risking your LIFE over?"

Bully doesn't sound like the right term for this Vox. Peer pressure? maybe. The words Pax uses don't sound like bullying to me. It sounds more like words of encouragement, something to inspire Theo. Activism, could also be a better word for the Vox.

The definition for Bully in game is: "Bully gives us the power to force people to do something they may not want to do, or to make them feel bad about themselves"
Key word being force. Theo doesn't sound like he's being forced with what Pax says, it's like he's given a choice. But maybe the Vox removes his free will to make that choice?

Would've been better if she just said: "To hell with your FEELINGS. Quit moping around about your BOSS, and let's just go see what's on the data DRIVE! Are you with me? or AGAINST me?"

Overall the scene is pretty crummy as nothing comes from it anyway, and Pax ends up committing another crime by using Mr.President to commit theft. Looking forward to seeing how the devs expand it though, to see if it's worth even checking the data drive.

[Houseman]

I wonder, do the particular English words matter when you're using vocals, or can you just say anything, and the powers will still work?

Originally posted by Unknown Samurai:

But maybe the Vox removes his free will to make that choice?

That's my interpretation of how it works, yes.

[holdingsix]

Originally posted by Houseman:

But let's try to imagine a scenario in which bullying can be beneficial, perhaps even life-saving.

Let's say that there's a trolley on a course to run over a person tied to the tracks. There's some scared guy at the trolley controls, and only he can pull the lever that will divert the trolley and save the person's life. You can make him pull the lever by bullying him. Would bullying be acceptable in this case? Sure. Of course, this scenario is nothing like the scenario in the game. The stakes were not that high and the outcomes for action and inaction were not that clear.

I think most people would agree that bullying is morally justified in this scenario. Such dilemmas highlight a weakness of Kant's take on morality, as he was a proponent of absolute moral rules that permit no exception.
I actually edited my original posting to say that it's parts of Kant's moral philosophy, and not the entirety of it, that's close to my heart. In a modern world, it's hard to be a hardcore Kantian without compromises. Academic philosophers have been and I think are still busy with developing new moral philosophy on top of Kant, but not always with the same real-world impact as Kant.
Personally, I think we need to (and factually do) make compromises and allow some level of utilitarianism in our judgement - we look at the (potential) consequences of actions to determine their morality. Kant and Nietzsche give us frameworks to attach weights to particular values in the equation, such as "other peoples' dignity" and "will to power".

More generally, and relevant for Dustborn interpretation, Kant was not only a fan of absolute moral rules, but of absolute truths, which Nietzsche criticizes - I think this could be a key to understanding what Axiom is about.

When Pax bullied Theo, was it a turning point in her life? I doubt it.

I gave a suggestion in the other thread, but I would have liked to see more direct repercussions for her actions. The Puritans showing up isn't enough. For this to make a direct, visible impact on Pax that the audience understands,

I believe that the scene actually has more direct repercussions for Pax than the Puritans showing up, both short-term and medium/long-term:
- Due to Puritans showing up, Justice shows up as well, leading to the immediate termination of the Weave's library in Utah and Lottie's retirement. This is practically bad as it weakens The Weave, which our crew relies on for communication, and personally bad for Pax, who at this point of the her development is already on a personal mission to save anomals.
- Finding our crew in Utah arguably helps the Puritans to get back on track in their hunt. We have no way to be sure about this, but it's possible that the final confrontation moment in the game would never have happened if it hadn't been for Pax's vox use. In that case, one of its outcomes -- Theo's death -- would have been maximally bad.
(The second argument is in a somewhat dynamic state right now, as some of the new contents from version 1.10 suggest that the Puritans might have been on track all along.)

So because this bullying from Pax had no real resolution and just kind of faded into the background as "just a thing that happened", I found it to be unsatisfying from a story perspective, and disgusting from a moral perspective.

Regarding the moral perspective, I would still point out that it's the last vox use of this kind. The next major vox use is on Girl when we rescue here, using "Normalize" to make her less scared. For me, this is very much a positive vox use.

[holdingsix]

Originally posted by Unknown Samurai:

The definition for Bully in game is: "Bully gives us the power to force people to do something they may not want to do, or to make them feel bad about themselves"
Key word being force. Theo doesn't sound like he's being forced with what Pax says, it's like he's given a choice. But maybe the Vox removes his free will to make that choice?

Whether Pax can actually influence (remove or bend) other peoples' will directly is an interesting subtle question. She addresses it herself in the elevator conversation in La Torres, in a way I thought is not fully clear, but at least highlights that it's complicated. But that was also before she discovered "Bully", which, at least according to the description, might alter peoples' wills directly. Anyways, by changing how the person being "bullied" feels about one of several choice alternatives, she at least influences the will indirectly, which is arguably problematic enough.
Regardless of whether the words matter or not, let's not forget that vox are supernatural, that is, their impact is extremely greater than the pure words would have in everyday language. So, from a moral perspective, I don't think the actual words matter a lot either way - she's using an extremely powerful manipulation technique, and that's what I think leads to the moral problem.

Philosophically, talking about free will is opening up a whole other can of worms - people don't even agree on what free will is, and, for a given definition, whether it exists. Pax also addresses this question at a very prominent moment of the game, at the ending, which I thought was cool. Naturally, Nietzsche has a take on it, too - but that's a different thread.

[holdingsix]

Originally posted by holdingsix:

- Finding our crew in Utah arguably helps the Puritans to get back on track in their hunt. We have no way to be sure about this, but it's possible that the final confrontation moment in the game would never have happened if it hadn't been for Pax's vox use. In that case, one of its outcomes -- Theo's death -- would have been maximally bad.

Thinking about this again, I realize that this argument has a mind-boggling twist to it: helping the Puritans to get back on track with their hunt would not only allow the final confrontation to happen, but also their attack on the hospital where Justice holds Pax in their control. If the hospital attack wouldn't happen, Pax would most likely be under Justice's control for the rest of her (possibly short) life, and the rest of the crew would probably not be able to win the final confrontation, meaning the end for Nova Scotia's ambitions in the protolanguage arms race, extremely bad news for all anomals, and potentially more.

Of course, none of this is foreseeable to Pax in the moment she uses Bully on Theo. I personally find the decision in the light of the potential risks more important for moral judgements than the actual outcome. But if we base our judgement on actual outcomes, then there would arguably some grounds to argue that this is a net positive in that case (despite great losses).

[Loot Hunter]

Originally posted by holdingsix:

Viewing Pax' behavior in this situation as something positive is astonishing to me.

I'm not sure but I think soph (the user who said that) was the one who also said that it's okay to manipulate people if it's for a good cause. So, not really surprising.

Originally posted by holdingsix:

"will to power", which seems an important and desirable trait for Nietzsche

You got it all backward. It's not a "desirable" feature, it's an inherent feature for every human (at least according to Nietzsche). In other words, whatever you do, ultimately you do it to establish your power, your control over everything and everyone around you. The only difference is how you go about it, but according to Nietzsche everyone who claims that they aren't exercising their "will for power" is either lying or denying their own nature.

[holdingsix]

Originally posted by Loot Hunter:

Originally posted by holdingsix:

Viewing Pax' behavior in this situation as something positive is astonishing to me.

I'm not sure but I think soph (the user who said that) was the one who also said that it's okay to manipulate people if it's for a good cause. So, not really surprising.

That's a much bigger and more general question, though. Houseman's version of the trolley problem falls under "manipulating people for a good cause", and I believe that most people would agree that it's OK in that case. But I doubt that most people would be OK with Pax's behavior in this situation.

You got it all backward. It's not a "desirable" feature, it's an inherent feature for every human (at least according to Nietzsche). In other words, whatever you do, ultimately you do it to establish your power, your control over everything and everyone around you. The only difference is how you go about it, but according to Nietzsche everyone who claims that they aren't exercising their "will for power" is either lying or denying their own nature.

Yeah, it might be more precise to say "a feature that Nietzsche considers desirable to exercise" than "a desirable feature". Thanks for the hint.

[Houseman]

Originally posted by holdingsix:

I believe that the scene actually has more direct repercussions for Pax than the Puritans showing up, both short-term and medium/long-term:

The problem, as I see it, is that these consequences are never shoved in Pax's face. We the player might be able to see cause and effect, but nobody ever says to Pax "If you hadn't bullied Theo, none of this would have happened". She is never held accountable or made to feel directly responsible for all the fallout.

It would be like if Peter Parker never made the connection between his actions and Uncle Ben's death.

Regarding the moral perspective, I would still point out that it's the last vox use of this kind. The next major vox use is on Girl when we rescue here, using "Normalize" to make her less scared. For me, this is very much a positive vox use.

I think even that is morally wrong. Forcing someone to believe that a bad situation that they are in is "normal", and that they should feel okay with it is wrong. That's "abusive relationship" type stuff.

[holdingsix]

Originally posted by Houseman:

The problem, as I see it, is that these consequences are never shoved in Pax's face. We the player might be able to see cause and effect, but nobody ever says to Pax "If you hadn't bullied Theo, none of this would have happened". She is never held accountable or made to feel directly responsible for all the fallout.

It would be like if Peter Parker never made the connection between his actions and Uncle Ben's death.

At this point, we have moved from a moral criticism of Pax's and other characters' behavior to a criticism of the developers for their artistic choice not to have characters confront Pax for her voice uses. Correct? If so, would you say this criticism is moral, artistic, or both?

Morally, I don't see the problem - as the target audience of the game is adults (there's an age rating), showing morally bad things and leaving their interpretation to the audience doesn't seem to violate any fundamental moral principles (unlike the morally bad things themselves, in the universe of the game, which is distinct from the real world).

Artistically, I personally think the developers have made a great choice in leaving the moral interpretation to us, the players - it creates a space for reflection, for challenging us and bringing our personality and judgment into the equation.
Even better, it creates a space for dialog, for discussions such as this one. You and I might eventually disagree on way more things than we agree on, but I do think it's a rewarding experience to have such discussions.
If the game came with its own moral commentary, it's likely that our reaction would be "aah, that's what they had in mind with that scene - yeah, whatever" and such reflections and discussions would not happen.

Regarding the moral perspective, I would still point out that it's the last vox use of this kind. The next major vox use is on Girl when we rescue here, using "Normalize" to make her less scared. For me, this is very much a positive vox use.

I think even that is morally wrong. Forcing someone to believe that a bad situation that they are in is "normal", and that they should feel okay with it is wrong. That's "abusive relationship" type stuff.

There are surely vox uses that tick the "abusive relationship stuff" box, thinking about Pax's and Noam's for-fun vox uses in the prolog comic. The "Normalize" vox has a potential to be used in such a context.
In the context of Girl's rescue, there's hardly a scenario that could be further away than that for me.
What would be the alternative in this situation? Leaving Girl in the bushes, until Justice (who have pointed guns at her moments before) finds and forcefully collects her, knowing what they do with kids and -- from the perspective of Pax and her beliefs -- with anomals?
In my interpretation, Pax shows an adult's sense of responsibility here, by rescuing a vulnerable person -- a child -- from a threatening situation.

[Houseman]

Originally posted by holdingsix:

At this point, we have moved from a moral criticism of Pax's and other characters' behavior to a criticism of the developers for their artistic choice not to have characters confront Pax for her voice uses. Correct? If so, would you say this criticism is moral, artistic, or both?

I only bring this up to respond to the point that "...the idea that Pax's way of persuading Theo could be seen as a "positive" use of Vox...", and continuing with "When Pax bullied Theo, was it a turning point in her life? I doubt it."

So, not a moral criticism of the action per se, but more of the effect, or lack thereof, it had on her "moral outlook" as a whole.

What would be the alternative in this situation? Leaving Girl in the bushes, until Justice (who have pointed guns at her moments before) finds and forcefully collects her, knowing what they do with kids and

We don't know that "what they do with kids" is even harmful to them.

And yes, they pointed guns at her, but she also threw a guy off a cliff, so one lethal threat deserves another (if those laser guns are even actually lethal, and not just set to stun).

The alternative would be to sit by her and talk to her. Y'know, the non-supernatural method of persuasion.

But sure, you could say that "brain-rinsing" the girl led to a better outcome than the alternative. It's still not ideal to force people to believe things, even if it is "for their own good".

[Loot Hunter]

Originally posted by holdingsix:

If the game came with its own moral commentary, it's likely that our reaction would be "aah, that's what they had in mind with that scene - yeah, whatever" and such reflections and discussions would not happen.

Oh, but it does. The game constantly hammers in points like "Justice is fascist" and "Misinformation acts like a virus". And yet, when it comes to weaponizing language by the main characters or doing illegal activity by the main characters, it goes strangely silent, "leaves everything to interpretation". Don't you see the pattern here?

[Houseman]

Originally posted by Loot Hunter:

Oh, but it does. The game constantly hammers in points like "Justice is fascist"

The game barely does that. There are maybe less than 5 times that the words "fascist" or "nazi" are mentioned. Probably around 3.

and "Misinformation acts like a virus". And yet, when it comes to weaponizing language by the main characters or doing illegal activity by the main characters, it goes strangely silent, "leaves everything to interpretation". Don't you see the pattern here?

I think that's close to being a good point. The devs could have done more there to make both things ambiguous or similar, if that was their intent.

For example, they could have vocals work like "mini echoes", where if you used the meme after using vocals on someone, you could see type of echo in their head, to make it clear that you ARE implanting disinformation in their head.

Or you could have an echo manipulate someone in a "positive" way. For example, a echo could cause someone to believe that they are a messianic figure, and so they open up a soup kitchen and start giving everything they have to help the poor. Then you are faced with a dilemma of excising him of his false beliefs, or letting him exist in his delusion.

If you remove the echo, he goes back to living a normal "selfish" life. If you allow him to keep the echo, he eventually dies in poverty trying to help the poor.

[holdingsix]

Originally posted by Loot Hunter:

Originally posted by holdingsix:

If the game came with its own moral commentary, it's likely that our reaction would be "aah, that's what they had in mind with that scene - yeah, whatever" and such reflections and discussions would not happen.

Oh, but it does. The game constantly hammers in points like "Justice is fascist" and "Misinformation acts like a virus". And yet, when it comes to weaponizing language by the main characters or doing illegal activity by the main characters, it goes strangely silent, "leaves everything to interpretation". Don't you see the pattern here?

I didn't say that the game doesn't contain a single statement of dialog with moral implications, and I don't think that's necessary (or gives additional benefits) to achieve the outcome I mentioned.

The game gives us a variety of morally relevant scenarios that we can reflect on and debate. These scenarios all come with their assumptions on "who knows/believes what", and Justice being a fascist institution, according to what the main characters believe, is one such assumption.
I like the balance they have achieved in terms of what is an assumption and what is left to interpretation. When we debate vox use against Justice, we are debating an institution that the main characters consider to be fascist, not only one that is fascist if we as players connect the dots and pieces and call it like that.
The game leaves a further bit of subtlety in that we can debate the assumptions, as in, "Is Justice really fascist?" and "What does Justice actually do to the anomals they get hold of?" - and that's fine, too.

[Loot Hunter]

Originally posted by Houseman:

Originally posted by Loot Hunter:

Oh, but it does. The game constantly hammers in points like "Justice is fascist"

The game barely does that. There are maybe less than 5 times that the words "fascist" or "nazi" are mentioned. Probably around 3.

First, I think it's way more. And second, 5 is more than enough - do you remember "Blue Beetle"? Just one phrase with the word "fascist" was more than enough to establish the attitude.

Originally posted by Houseman:

If you remove the echo, he goes back to living a normal "selfish" life. If you allow him to keep the echo, he eventually dies in poverty trying to help the poor.

Yeah, good luck with that. Your scenario would introduce moral ambiguity that I really doubt RTG writers could handle.