Hypocritical objectivism is a term I'm coining for arguments to the effect of "the thing I value must be the only objectively valuable thing because all other values are subjective". Believe it or not, I have two examples.
- Many anarcho-capitalist purists argue that property rights must be an absolute overriding any other moral value because all other concepts of morality are somehow "subjective". Of course, their claimed logical derivation for it falls apart with the tiniest smidge of intellectual honesty.
Rebuttal to Shane Killian on Utilitarianism
- I've seen a number of people do the same thing with game design. I can think of two people, Celia Wagar and mrguy888, who believe that depth and determinism are the only objective values of game design because everything else is subjective, and thus dismiss a priori any arguments that a game element is poorly designed for any other reason.
Celia Wagar's article
Depth in game design
Of course, this demarcation is just as arbitrary as that of anyone else who uses the "your opinion" cliche, because even depth is technically person-relative since a culture or individual who finds the game mechanics intuitively pre-solved will experience less depth, and there's nothing any *more* relative about other game design values, like the idea that failure should not have persistent consequences. Games exist to provide enjoyment, and psychology isn't an arbitrary mess.
Why you shouldn't have persistent consequences for failure
subscribe via RSS