PDA

View Full Version : Morality and religion


Achilles
03-13-2007, 05:49 PM
I'd like to have a dialog on this topic, however I won't be able to break down the barriers to communication as much as I would like :(

I would like to persuade the reader to visit this site (http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/) and view a part of Session 9, specifically Sam Harris' presentation from 9:20 to 27:20. I'd like to be able to point people to a Youtube clip or something, but I'm afraid it just isn't there.

As the site specifies: These are Flash videos that you may view here or you can download them via Google Video and watch using the Google Video Player.

I'd very much be interested in hearing the opposing viewpoints, however I don't want to discourage anyone that agrees with Harris' comments from speaking up.

Thanks!

SilentScope001
03-14-2007, 05:15 PM
Hm. I think some atheists might be able to help me understand.

NOTE: You must be an atheist to respond to this question. If you are a religious person, then do not, by any means, respond to this question, unless you are willing to abandon your faith in God/Gods/Goddess/Intelligent Designers/Dieties/etc. for a quick second to help get in the view of an atheist and then come up with morality.

I know that the world can exist without religion. Religion is not needed. Some people argue that religion is needed because it provides morality...but...you don't need religion to have morality. I accept that. Morality is just a code of what is right and wrong. We already got some morality codes (AU, Kantian, ethical egoism, ethical relativism)...We don't need no God.

Here's the question I want to know: WHY?

The reason I worship God is out of fear. I get sent to Hell. Simple. Not out of love for God, it's out of duty (God made me, I might as well follow him). There are also the adding of meaning in life, and much other reasons, but here's the framework offered for religion.

But, well, where's the fear in following Kant's principles? Where's the fear in making sure everyone is happy? Why must I give my life up for my country? Why should I even bother dealing with morality if I am not going to get rewarded/punished for doing good/evil deeds?

So the question is simple: Why should I have a morality system? What makes you say that one morality system is right over another? If God does not exist, I feel no fear, so surely, I could do whatever I want?

The main goal is to find out what atheists think. That's it. I am not going to go and respond to you saying you are wrong. The only response I will make is questions and asking for clarifications, to make sure you clarify your viewpoint so that I can understand. I don't want to cause any flame wars or chaos.

Thank you for any who responds.

TK-8252
03-14-2007, 05:28 PM
If the only thing that is stopping you from going out and murdering, raping, and stealing is the fear of being punished for it... then you are an amoral person. It's that simple.

A moral person does or doesn't do something based on what is right and what's wrong. If I knew I could get away with raping someone... I wouldn't do it. Why? Well, because it causes harm to someone else. Not because I fear punishment. But because I know it would hurt someone.

Achilles
03-14-2007, 05:53 PM
If the only thing that is stopping you from going out and murdering, raping, and stealing is the fear of being punished for it... then you are an amoral person. It's that simple. QFE

Mods, didn't someone already start a thread on morality and religion? Oh wait...:D

SilentScope001
03-14-2007, 06:02 PM
If the only thing that is stopping you from going out and murdering, raping, and stealing is the fear of being punished for it... then you are an amoral person. It's that simple.

...Er, why should I adopt a moral standard? I still don't understand, it doesn't help me out at all.

Listen, raping, I hate. But what about murdering a terrorist? Or stealing money from a nation that is waging war against America? Surely, these are good acts...but wait. Murdering and stealing are wrong. My bad.

Morality systems restrict my ability to choose. At least in religion, you get rewarded/punished based on how you adhere to the morality system. But I still wonder WHY should I be moral if there is no God. If anyone can give me any answers, that would be appericated. Why is Right and Wrong so important to know? I still do understand.

Mods, didn't someone already start a thread on morality and religion? Oh wait...

I assumed your thread was about comparing the morality system in religion and how it was flawed. I am comparing morality without religion.

The Sith'ari
03-14-2007, 06:52 PM
I am a Catholic, but I don't think trying to answer your question would undermine my faith or do anything to that effect. It's just a hypothetical question: "IF" there's no God.

I think this topic is related to another previous discussed in the K1 section, whether the jedi council was justified in their act of erasing Revan's identity. Someone raised the argument that, no matter what the reasons behind, what's immoral is immoral. Erasing someone's identity is immoral, so one should never do it no matter what. While an opposing argument suggested that morality is just a matter of perspective- if you commit the controversial act for a bigger good that's enough to justify the act, then it's not immoral. Mind you, by "good" I mean deeds that're universally recognized as good, like saving loads of lives.

So there could be 2 answers to your question:
1) Well, because human beings have principles, and we have to stick to them, thus we should still care about right and wrong.
2) Right and wrong is still important because the concept is vital to the well-being of a community as a whole.

Personally I favour (2) coz it makes more sense and is more practical. But one should always be mindful when applying (2) because the "path to evil is often paved with good intentions". You have to consider things like whether there's a better alternative, whether the "good" is universally recognized, etc.

So, if you apply (2) to further answer your questions, killin a terrorist is not immoral (when there's no other alternative like to capture and imprison him)because almost no one would object that the end justifies the cost in this case- he himself is not innocent and he would have killed loads of people if allowed to live.

And stealing money from a US enemy, I'd say, is immoral, because it's only good from the US point of view, not from a universal point of view. Anyone with conscience would not be able to justify himself to steal money for one's/ one's country's benefit.

In fact, I found your question quite strange as I thought it was obvious that religion is never the sole reason for morality, or else atheists would all be pretty immoral. There're for sure reasons for morality even if God does not exist, the real question is what they are.

Jae Onasi
03-14-2007, 08:21 PM
I think the 2 topics are asking essentially the same question, so I'm going to merge these 2 threads. Carry on! I'm interested in an answer on how atheists determine right and wrong. It seems to me like there'd be such a sliding scale of right and wrong based on what _you_ feel is harmful to someone else that it would be hard to determine a definitive moral code--most things would be definitively right and wrong to be sure, but how do you address gray area issues?

SykoRevan
03-14-2007, 08:38 PM
For me, I just think about how bad actions affect those around me, and I know I would feel bad if I didn't help them or if I hurt them. It's all about empathy and whether or not you feel for the people around you. For me, I'm full of empathy, and I didn't choose to either. It just is what I am. It's not about whether you want to be moral or immoral, it's about what you feel when the time to decide between being a good person or a bad person comes.

Achilles
03-14-2007, 11:17 PM
I'm interested in an answer on how atheists determine right and wrong. It seems to me like there'd be such a sliding scale of right and wrong based on what _you_ feel is harmful to someone else that it would be hard to determine a definitive moral code--most things would be definitively right and wrong to be sure, but how do you address gray area issues?
Jae,
I think there are almost 2 questions around "atheist morality":

1) Where does it come from and
2) What does it look like

Where does "atheist morality" come from?

In any society with memes, such as ours, we may expect there to arise what we consider as "ethical" behavior - honesty, integrity, kindness, generosity, etc. This is because of the fact that these memes not only replicate themselves better than potential competitors, but they also assist other "piggyback" memes that fare better when they find themselves in an honest, kind person or that are preferentially adopted by this type of person. In this way ethical systems develop memetically, by groups of interconnected memes becoming more and more commonly associated with one another.

Honest and kind ethical-system memeplexes are also more likely to be replicated than are unforgiving, cruel, deceptive systems. Those who are not adherents of either memeplex will certainly find themselves more attracted to the honest and kind types, who will then have more opportunities to pass on their memes. In this way honesty, kindness, etc. can spread through the population even if they put their hosts at a genetic disadvantage - causing hosts to spread more memes is more important to the memes than causing hosts to spread more genes.

Any successful system of ethics, based on evolutionary theory or not, must be a successful replicator. Therefore, evolutionary ethics must appeal to people, especially those who are adherents of existing memeplexes. Evolutionary theory itself shows that a meme which does not replicate is not successful, so the ethics based on this theory must get itself propagated somehow - hopefully, by appealing to people's sense of justice and fair play.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/ph2.shtml

What does it look like?

Nearly all atheists, agnostics and other irreligious people adhere to some form of ethical code. Contradictory to claims that morality would be impossible without religion, many state that religion is not necessary for moral behavior at all. The Dalai Lama has said that compassion and affection are human values independent of religion: "We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things."

Those who are unhappy with the negative orientation of traditional religious ethics believe that prohibitions can only set the absolute limits of what a society is willing to tolerate from people at their worst, not guide them towards achieving their best. In other words, someone who follows all these prohibitions has just barely avoided being a criminal, not acted as a positive influence on the world. They conclude that rational ethics can lead to a fully expressed ethical life, while religious prohibitions are insufficient.

That does not mean secular ethics and religion are mutually exclusive. In fact, many principles, such as the Golden Rule, are present in both systems, and some religious people, as well as some Deists, prefer to adopt a rational approach to ethics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics#Humanist_ethics


I realize that this is a "guerrilla" response, but I'm hoping it's enough to get you started.

SilentScope001
03-15-2007, 12:50 AM
Some questions, but merely for clarification, not for argument:

I am a Catholic, but I don't think trying to answer your question would undermine my faith or do anything to that effect. It's just a hypothetical question: "IF" there's no God.

Okay.


So there could be 2 answers to your question:
1) Well, because human beings have principles, and we have to stick to them, thus we should still care about right and wrong.

But if there is no invisible Diety, then why should we believe in invisible prinicples?

2) Right and wrong is still important because the concept is vital to the well-being of a community as a whole.

Ah, so it's a construct by the community in order to protect itself. Sounds reasonable. We obey this moral code because we really have no other choice...we're born into it and society, long ago, agreed to this moral code and forced it upon us, telling us to obey or get "shame" or, in some cases, punishment. Of course, now that they are there, if the all of humanity abandon this sort of morality, we would devolve into a world without civilization, just anarachy and violence.

There lies a problem however. If human society creates morality, then whatever the human society, or whatever is the "universal good", says...goes, no? Has human society replaced God in the dicitating of what is right and wrong? Is that your intended implication, or is there something else?

So, if you apply (2) to further answer your questions, killin a terrorist is not immoral (when there's no other alternative like to capture and imprison him)because almost no one would object that the end justifies the cost in this case- he himself is not innocent and he would have killed loads of people if allowed to live.

Ah, but wouldn't the terrorist object?

The thing is: The terrorist is a creation of the society in which he was born into, told that he is fighting for the "universal good", that is the good for his creed. Didn't he obey his own "morality" code when he plotted to kill loads of people? Am I violating his morality code by bringing him into harm?

And stealing money from a US enemy, I'd say, is immoral, because it's only good from the US point of view, not from a universal point of view. Anyone with conscience would not be able to justify himself to steal money for one's/ one's country's benefit.

Well, I kinda assumed that it would be construed in a "self-defense" idea. The US enemy attacked first (or at least, the US thinks it attacked first) and you are retailting, by stealing the money of the US Enemy.

I guess, to end it all, a final question: Define the universal benieft?

Another question: Suppose, in a seperate universe other than ours, murder is tolerated. Think of it as the Sith contorlling everything, and the "good" is killing your foes, the "bad" and the "evil" is sparing them and getting defeated. If morality is a construct of "human society", would you define this behavior of the Sith as okay? If everyone believed murder is right...is murder right?

In fact, I found your question quite strange as I thought it was obvious that religion is never the sole reason for morality, or else atheists would all be pretty immoral. There're for sure reasons for morality even if God does not exist, the real question is what they are.

You see, I actually know of the different morality systems that have nothing to do with religion. I myself prefer AU as a pretty useful morality system.

The question I merely asked is that...if there is no God, or no diety to punish/reward me, then why must I choose a morality system? Why must I bother and agonize over the ethical delimmas of good or evil? If I'm not going to get punished, then surely, why must I limit my actions. I'm not asking about the different ethical theories that govern atheists...I'm asking why I must subscribe to any in the first place.

For me, I just think about how bad actions affect those around me, and I know I would feel bad if I didn't help them or if I hurt them. It's all about empathy and whether or not you feel for the people around you. For me, I'm full of empathy, and I didn't choose to either. It just is what I am. It's not about whether you want to be moral or immoral, it's about what you feel when the time to decide between being a good person or a bad person comes.

Empathy, huh? I'm wondering if it is just the "superego" talking, but it makes sense. Okay.
==
Honest and kind ethical-system memeplexes are also more likely to be replicated than are unforgiving, cruel, deceptive systems.

Proof, please?

Those who are not adherents of either memeplex will certainly find themselves more attracted to the honest and kind types, who will then have more opportunities to pass on their memes.

What's the difference between honest and kind memes and "unforgiving, cruel, deceptive systems"? Who is it to decide what is "good memes" and what is "bad memes"? I can see many differnet good memes that been slaughtered in infancy, and many bad memes that govern society.

Judeo-Christian religion composes about 60% of the Earth. Judging from your belief that religion is a lie, with the Bible promoting many crimes...wouldn't that qualify as an "unforgiving, cruel, deceptive system"? If so, then why is it not excint? How come its meme continued to spread?

Evolutionary theory itself shows that a meme which does not replicate is not successful, so the ethics based on this theory must get itself propagated somehow - hopefully, by appealing to people's sense of justice and fair play.

Where does that sense of justice and fair play come from? And why in the world should we follow it? That still is not getting to the heart of the matter...

Why must we be compelled to support the meme in the first place? You say before that the meme is more interested in propogating itself rather than...you know, propgating the species. It seems to be too cumbersome to follow, especially for so little a benieft.

For example, if someone attacks me, I want to attack back. But if I attack someone, I don't want to be attacked back. Why would I attack someone? I need food, water, land, shelter, anything to keep me alive. My goal is to peserve myself...and I don't want to go and say, "Oh, I want to play fair, and have justice, so I should wait."

What if the "good meme" promotes everyone to live together in peace, but the followers of the "bad meme", hardened by cynicism, hardened by hate, comes in to attack? The followers of this "good meme" get murdered, and the "bad meme" suriviors live? Surely, it would have been more conductive for surivial had the people adopted the "bad meme" rather than the "good meme", at the least they would have a fighting chance...

Those who are unhappy with the negative orientation of traditional religious ethics believe that prohibitions can only set the absolute limits of what a society is willing to tolerate from people at their worst, not guide them towards achieving their best. In other words, someone who follows all these prohibitions has just barely avoided being a criminal, not acted as a positive influence on the world. They conclude that rational ethics can lead to a fully expressed ethical life, while religious prohibitions are insufficient.

I still don't understand why morality is necessary. What's so good about providing help to the world? What is this "fully expressed ethical life" that people want. To do good? But nobody going to pay attention to you doing Good, least of all any Intelligent Designer. To make you feel happy? But people feel happy from doing lots of things: mass murder, for instance? Isn't mass murder, then, ethical? Moral? Is it some sort of unexplained empathy?

The Sith'ari
03-15-2007, 08:42 AM
You seek to know why morality matters at all if God doesn't exist. Well, in fact, you could do whatever you want and ignore morality if you want. The point is, you'd be punished not by God, but by others in the society. We don't live alone on an island, we live within communities and our actions affect others. That's basically what gives morality value.

If you don't care what others do to you or think about you, you can do WHATEVER you think is moral or immoral, and of course on the basis that you don't give a damn about being right and moral.

It's just that simple, don't over complicate it. We live in a soceity, and have to account for our actions, that's why we're expected to be "moral".

As for the terrorist case, all I can say is different factions in the society have different morality systems. Terrorists think they're moral commiting mass genocides, but most of others think the contrary. It all just depends on which side you take. If you're on the terrorist's side, you say he's moral; otherwise he's just a murderer deserved to be sentenced.

In this world we all fight for our own beliefs. One can believe whatever he wants to be moral or immoral, but while endeavouring this belief you inflict pain on others who don't believe in the same things? That's unacceptable. We're all entitled to our own freedom, unless we waive it ourselves.

EDIT: And in case you still ask why should we do good at all, I believe that human beings are good in nature. There's a natural tendency to do good.

The_Catto
03-15-2007, 10:21 AM
Morality is such a confusing toping for me. I would not rape, murder, steal or anything like that because i know that it would destroy somebody's life. Rape is the most obscene crime imaginable (Apart from murder, but one could argue that murder is worse than rape because your killing a person. But, rape is just the same. Rapists are killing a person's inner being, demeaning them of identity, erasing all what they thought to be good in the world and eaving them to die. Instead of killing them, your making them live with the horror of what has happened to them. To me, frankly, i would prefer death.)

The same with murder for your country (example: killing a terrorist) You may think you are doing something good, but you are also destroying someone according to their beliefs. And before i say anymore, i would like to clarify that i absolutely despite terrorists and their actions and beliefs. But i would not kill them. I couldn't really. To kill a person, whether it being someone terrible or good, the prospect of that is just ... something i dont want to think about. Thats why i disagree with the whole killing the person because he's a terrorist thingy. (An exception of course would be Bin Laden) But thats it.

I wont say anymore about that topic, but i will say something about Religion.
I wont say i worship God, and i wont say i worship the Devil either, because its a no for both of them.
I just think sometimes, that it would easy to believe in there being multiple gods than just the one controlling EVERYTHING. He would need help wouldnt he? See, the ancient: Egyptians, Greeks, Germainics ... They had the right idea. Beileiving in all the differnt other gods, for the different aspects of life. (The Seas, earth, nature, animals, life, death, marriage, etc ..)
However, i do beleive, even though sometimes i may have my doubts, that there is a god. perhaps not more than one, but there is someone, or something, watching over us and giving us feelings, etc. Because, what the world be like without Religion. COULD the world really live without Religion? I'm not sure. To not beleive in anything and expect the world to go on the same would be ... i dont know, just .. well, i cant really come up with an explanation.

Anyways, thats my views on Morality and Religion. Some may disagree, some may agree. Thats fine, because what would the world be like without debates and different perceptions?

Achilles
03-15-2007, 03:48 PM
The same with murder for your country (example: killing a terrorist) You may think you are doing something good, but you are also destroying someone according to their beliefs. And before i say anymore, i would like to clarify that i absolutely despite terrorists and their actions and beliefs. But i would not kill them. I couldn't really. To kill a person, whether it being someone terrible or good, the prospect of that is just ... something i dont want to think about. Thats why i disagree with the whole killing the person because he's a terrorist thingy. (An exception of course would be Bin Laden) But thats it. I think that point brings up something that wasn't touched on by my earlier post and that is the impact of in-group/out-group dynamics on evolutionary morality.

Evolutionary morals developed in such a way that the brain areas for empathy react very strongly when both parties have a perceived similarity (same tribe, same family, etc). Once someone is indoctrinated into part of the in-group (i.e. your consciousness is raised and now you include everyone of your gender and race) the brain centers for empathy will show a lot of activity when the criteria are met.

However, this is not the case for members of the out-group. The evolutionary basis for moral behavior only extends as far the in-group. Enculturation is responsible for passing down which groups are in-group and so on. The good news is that we can constantly update our in-group list, however that usually requires formal study of the subject of ethics, etc.

So when we search for a reason behind Sunni/Shia, Protestant/Catholic, Christian/Muslim, Crip/Blood hostilities in what are usually quite normal human beings, we can see that it's because they haven't had their consciousness raised.

EDIT: A little more info on in-group bias if anyone is interested.Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroup_bias)

SykoRevan
03-15-2007, 07:12 PM
Empathy, huh? I'm wondering if it is just the "superego" talking, but it makes sense. Okay.

What exactly is the "superego?"

Superego info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego,_superego,_and_id) --Jae

EDIT: Thanks for the info Jae. I guess you could say that my view on morality is similar to the concept of the super-ego, since I do think that I have a big conscience. However, it seems that the concept of the super-ego comes from the views of the self, and I have come to believe that my feelings regarding morality come not from myself, but from the feelings of others and how I pick up those feelings. I think of it as less of an issue on my conscience, and more of an issue on the other people involved, although that could be my conscience working as well, it's hard to tell sometimes. Suffice to say, I care about other people and that's all the motivation to be a moral person that I need.

SilentScope001
03-15-2007, 09:49 PM
You seek to know why morality matters at all if God doesn't exist. Well, in fact, you could do whatever you want and ignore morality if you want. The point is, you'd be punished not by God, but by others in the society. We don't live alone on an island, we live within communities and our actions affect others. That's basically what gives morality value.

If you don't care what others do to you or think about you, you can do WHATEVER you think is moral or immoral, and of course on the basis that you don't give a damn about being right and moral.

It's just that simple, don't over complicate it. We live in a soceity, and have to account for our actions, that's why we're expected to be "moral".

Ah, okay. Sorry if I did overcomplicate an issue. I just wanted to know. Thanks for responding to my question.

COULD the world really live without Religion? I'm not sure. To not beleive in anything and expect the world to go on the same would be ... i dont know, just .. well, i cant really come up with an explanation.

I'm betting that if the human race continues to advance in technology and sciences as they are doing, they could very well advance to a point when they could call themselves "God". In this sense, the human race would be working not for a diety...but for themselves. It could be somewhat hopeful...just, you know, different.

Of course, said "progress" could easily be interrupted, diverted, even smashed...if a war or a natural disaster sets back human's progress. In that case...I don't know how the world would live without religion, and I speculate religion might be "reinvented", only as a coping mechanism.

SykoRevan
03-15-2007, 10:44 PM
You seek to know why morality matters at all if God doesn't exist. Well, in fact, you could do whatever you want and ignore morality if you want. The point is, you'd be punished not by God, but by others in the society. We don't live alone on an island, we live within communities and our actions affect others. That's basically what gives morality value.

If you don't care what others do to you or think about you, you can do WHATEVER you think is moral or immoral, and of course on the basis that you don't give a damn about being right and moral.

It's just that simple, don't over complicate it. We live in a soceity, and have to account for our actions, that's why we're expected to be "moral".

In my opinion, that sounds less like morality and more like fear. Fear of retibution from society keeping people from doing bad things? I just don't see how that can count as morality. To be expected to be moral because your community expects it of you doesn't always make people fall in line, obviously. If that were the case, we would all be completely within society's standards, which I know for a fact that I am not (I'm hated by the more conservative people in my neighborhood), and I'm sure that nobody is completely perfect in society. The point is, we all have our deviations from what society expects from us, so what's to stop someone from deviating from being moral and just doing whatever they want? Hopefully their own feelings will stop them. That's what I believe morality to be, our own feelings and how much we care about our society, instead of being afraid of what that society would do to us if we slip up.

TK-8252
03-16-2007, 03:17 PM
If you ask why someone should be moral when there is no eternal reward or punishment either way, I would say that there is a common interest among humans to live in a society that is civilized. I help others, others help me. I hurt others, others hurt me. Atheists know that if they were to go around hurting others, they would end up in prison... which is no way to live your life. Atheists know that once their life is over, that's it. There is no afterlife or second chances. So atheists have an even better interest in living a good life while they are gone forever.

SilentScope001
03-16-2007, 04:37 PM
If you ask why someone should be moral when there is no eternal reward or punishment either way, I would say that there is a common interest among humans to live in a society that is civilized. I help others, others help me. I hurt others, others hurt me. Atheists know that if they were to go around hurting others, they would end up in prison... which is no way to live your life. Atheists know that once their life is over, that's it. There is no afterlife or second chances. So atheists have an even better interest in living a good life while they are gone forever.

So if society tells me to murder people (the terrorist example), then I should murder people, regardless of the consquences, regardless of what you personally believe? I don't think that's your implication here, the implication you want to give.

And if you were told that you have to do something that you personally hate...or get thrown in jail? Would you do that...because that is what society tells you to do, and you want to "live the good life"?

TK-8252
03-16-2007, 08:44 PM
So if society tells me to murder people (the terrorist example), then I should murder people, regardless of the consquences, regardless of what you personally believe? I don't think that's your implication here, the implication you want to give.

Well, clearly, murdering someone goes against your own common sense. However, terrorists are not influenced by common sense. Rather their main concern is their radical religious beliefs.

And if you were told that you have to do something that you personally hate...or get thrown in jail? Would you do that...because that is what society tells you to do, and you want to "live the good life"?

I'd say it could go either way. It would depend on the severity of the act.

SilentScope001
03-16-2007, 10:08 PM
Well, clearly, murdering someone goes against your own common sense. However, terrorists are not influenced by common sense. Rather their main concern is their radical religious beliefs.

There are secular terrorist movements out there, you know. (IRA, Maoists in Nepal, Shining Path, PKK, amongst others...)

...But, what is "common sense"? Common sense also dictates 'an eye for an eye', and that slogan is the cause for many susistaned political violence. After all, the terrorists want to cause terrorism because they believed that the other side struck first. All's fair in war, they say...

Still, let me rephrase it to form a hypothetical question, to see how your morality system works: Suppose the United States get overthrown by a coaltion of nations, including the EU, China, and Russia. A brand new puppet government is formed.

There is an insurgency group that wants to get rid of the supporters of the New World Order. They want to fight for freedom, but the EU, Chinese, and Russian troops call them terrorists. The Colation wants to restructre the USA to be more democratic...while the insurgency wants to create a democratic government and kick out the Colation, who they see as evil.

Who would you ally with? The society of EU, China, and Russia...or the society of the American rebels? Or neither?

I'd say it could go either way. It would depend on the severity of the act.

Ah, okay.