119 réponses à ce sujet

[Slayer299]

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

that should be considered some guy's personal interest and not their professional concerns

??????

[Inquisitor Recon]

If Admiral Hackett was a senior member my Shepard would become a full member of the group. If it gets Hackett's Seal of Approval™ it is too good to destroy.

[PauseforEffect]

Slayer299 wrote...

If I believed it would stop such experiments as Teltin and Overlord? I'd push the button/pull the trigger without a blink. Because there is absolutely, ZERO justification for either those cases or the multitude of other atrocities that Cerberus has committed in the name of *humanity*. Whatever the gains were or were wanted is irrelevant once that line of abandoning ones humanity is crossed. Renegades can bluster all that they choose about the ends justifying the mans or whatever else they choose to use to show their extreme decisions are in the best interests of humanity, but its all just excuses.

David is autistic, that means that he's not going to understand what it means beyond he's helping his brother. So, the justification that David volunteered is a sop for Archer's conscience (and any other person who chooses to accept that line) not a statement that David understood one iota of what volunteering meant or what dangers there might be.

Cerberus in its present from is a threat to all of humanity and it needs to be treated as such....

I'm inclined to agree. The flaw with the ends justifying the means is that it becomes too easy to get so caught up in the means that you render the ends obsolete. The goals of Cerberus for advancing humanity is understandable when the First Contact War occurred. However, advancing one's ambitions at the cost of others(aliens as well as humans), will potentially prove the aliens'  worst fears about humanity. When the krogan grew too bold conquering other worlds, the other council races worked together to nullify the threat. Just because they won't declare outright war on humanity in the current situation does not mean they cannot neutralize us as a threat somehow.
I don't believe eliminating Cerberus will stop tragedies like Pragia, Akuze and such being committed. There will always be organizations striving to outdo the other races. I don't think I would want all Cerberus operatives to be killed as there are good people like the crew working on the Normandy SR2. But with the current mindset of results at all costs, Cerberus is risking a self-made prophecy in their fear. Fear, that other alien species will try to conquer humanity, may motivate them to do it out of necessity.
Unless they change their methods, find different ways than destroying people's lives (which violates a cardinal rule in today's society) for experiments, Cerberus would have to go. Otherwise, there might not be a future for humanity.

[Shock35]

playing through mass effect, you keep getting the feeling that Cerberus is going to stab you in the back. while this is a dark chapter in the Mass Effect series, it would be much more morally engaging if bioware had casted Cerberus as much in a positive light as well as the negative "ends justify the means".



an example: you have an alien race fixing unleash a bio weapon on humanity with the Alliance being unable to act for whatever reason (or worse, having the Council dragging the Alliance to burn the world to make sure that none of the virus leaves to infect the rest of the life in the galaxy). Cerberus sees this and decides to act on behalf of humanity.



this is a role reversal in who is hero and who is villain but in the end, all organizations serve their stated goals. the Council is concerned not what happens to the humans on that world but if the virus gets free and comes after their races of people thus wanting to burn out the source before it's spreads. the Alliance would be caught between a rock and a hard place with trying to appease both the Council and humanity at large and ends up doing neither. Cerberus meanwhile, serves it's stated mission to protect humanity from alien threats without the whole "the ends justify the means bit" that their missions usually have.



those are the missions i wanted to have as DLC (and hopefully will come) but meh.

[AlexMBrennan]

Yes; fruit of the poisonous tree and all that

[Terraneaux]

Arijharn wrote...

stuff

I'm not really opposed to Cerberus's methods, just their level of (in)competence.  Ergo, if you took all the bad parts out of the organization (like with your examples), they would become a worthwhile organization.  That doesn't mean that the organization as presented in the games is worthwhile at all.

[uzivatel]

Shock35 wrote...

an example: you have an alien race fixing unleash a bio weapon on humanity with the Alliance being unable to act for whatever reason (or worse, having the Council dragging the Alliance to burn the world to make sure that none of the virus leaves to infect the rest of the life in the galaxy). Cerberus sees this and decides to act on behalf of humanity.

this is a role reversal in who is hero and who is villain but in the end, all organizations serve their stated goals. the Council is concerned not what happens to the humans on that world but if the virus gets free and comes after their races of people thus wanting to burn out the source before it's spreads. the Alliance would be caught between a rock and a hard place with trying to appease both the Council and humanity at large and ends up doing neither. Cerberus meanwhile, serves it's stated mission to protect humanity from alien threats without the whole "the ends justify the means bit" that their missions usually have.

Given Cerberus history, they would probably release the bio weapon themselves by accident and Shepard would be needed to save the day.

[tallinn]

It is a principle of medical research that one does not voluntarily sacrifice human life to gain knowledge able to save human life. The latter does not justify the former. It has no value to kill one to save another, not even to save many others. The reason is simple: just imagine it is you that gets promoted to the laboratory rat used for research without being asked to volunteer. Will you care about the fantastic insights that may be gained from the experiments made with you? No, you will sign "One life is as much of value as many" as that "one life" happens to be yours.



Ethic rules are there to protect each and every one exactly the same way. What you do not want for yourself you cannot do to others.

[lovgreno]

I don't doubt that Cerberus have caused a lot of good in the past. I must also admit that your theoretical Cerberus is not impossible. However Shepard must also consider if Cerberus will keep being for more good than bad in the future. During ME2 Cerberus was undeniably for the greater good despite some rather spectacular fails. Without them Shepard would still be dead and colonies would still be dissapearing. But after the suicide mission the writers have deliberately put us in the situation where we are forced to ask ourselves if we can risk having Cerberus messing up things, despite some good intentions and past victories. But that's how I like it, Cerberus are more interesting as something potentialy both very dangerous and very beneficial than just cartoon styled villains or brave and superiour heroes that dares to do what have to be done.

[Arijharn]

I agree with you entirely lovgreno. I think Cerberus is a much better 'villain' now then what it was during the course of ME1.



I think that usually the ends don't justify the means, but I also think that this situation with the Reapers makes the situation desperate, and therefore maybe under the threat of total extinction they must be.



If Cerberus can be seen as being a force for major good, then I don't see why it's an automatic sentence of death for it's leaders, especially since most people are usually of the opinion that everyone should stand trial for their actions. Basically, what makes TIM deserving of a bullet straight away if he has given the order to save colonies etc or to otherwise act in the interests of public good, but alternatively people are far more likely to free Elnora just because of the situation? That's what I don't get, the double standards.

[lovgreno]

A trial for TIM and Cerberus, sure, why not. At the moment it seems practicaly and politicaly impossible though. Shutting them down, with lethal force if necesary, on the other hand is something that needs to be considered if/when they become a too big liability and they may already have crossed that line. But I suppose that is a topic for a different thread.

[Ultai]

I wonder if the information in Kasumi's greybox has evidence of the Alliance and Cerberus still working together on many things. Given that Keiji said it was big and if the Council ever got wind of it, the Alliance could be implicated.

[Slayer299]

Arijharn wrote...
I think that usually the ends don't justify the means, but I also think that this situation with the Reapers makes the situation desperate, and therefore maybe under the threat of total extinction they must be.

But Cerberus' actions haven't changed due to the Reapers pending arrival, so claiming its the situation which is the cause and not their methods is flawed.

If Cerberus can be seen as being a force for major good, then I don't see why it's an automatic sentence of death for it's leaders, especially since most people are usually of the opinion that everyone should stand trial for their actions. Basically, what makes TIM deserving of a bullet straight away if he has given the order to save colonies etc or to otherwise act in the interests of public good, but alternatively people are far more likely to free Elnora just because of the situation? That's what I don't get, the double standards.

Because Cerberus' leaders aren't a force 'for good'. They aren't doing all these things because of the Reapers arrival and TIM hasn't saved any colonies, if anyone has it was Shepard. TIM has led an organization that his experimented on humans, murder, torture and experimentation of children...does the list need to be longer? Seriously?? As far as Elnora goes my Shep kills her and sleeps just fine at night.

What would you consider from laundry list of crimes Cerberus has committed to be serious enough??

[Slayer299]

Ultai wrote...

I wonder if the information in Kasumi's greybox has evidence of the Alliance and Cerberus still working together on many things. Given that Keiji said it was big and if the Council ever got wind of it, the Alliance could be implicated.

Now that would be very interesting!

[Kaiser Shepard]

Ultai wrote...

I wonder if the information in Kasumi's greybox has evidence of the Alliance and Cerberus still working together on many things. Given that Keiji said it was big and if the Council ever got wind of it, the Alliance could be implicated.

Click

[fongiel24]

PrimalEden wrote...

I'm inclined to agree. The flaw with the ends justifying the means is that it becomes too easy to get so caught up in the means that you render the ends obsolete. The goals of Cerberus for advancing humanity is understandable when the First Contact War occurred. However, advancing one's ambitions at the cost of others(aliens as well as humans), will potentially prove the aliens'  worst fears about humanity. When the krogan grew too bold conquering other worlds, the other council races worked together to nullify the threat. Just because they won't declare outright war on humanity in the current situation does not mean they cannot neutralize us as a threat somehow.
I don't believe eliminating Cerberus will stop tragedies like Pragia, Akuze and such being committed. There will always be organizations striving to outdo the other races. I don't think I would want all Cerberus operatives to be killed as there are good people like the crew working on the Normandy SR2. But with the current mindset of results at all costs, Cerberus is risking a self-made prophecy in their fear. Fear, that other alien species will try to conquer humanity, may motivate them to do it out of necessity.
Unless they change their methods, find different ways than destroying people's lives (which violates a cardinal rule in today's society) for experiments, Cerberus would have to go. Otherwise, there might not be a future for humanity.

This is possible, but it's making a lot of assumptions. In this scenario, Cerberus has to go over the line enough times (or go far enough over the line once) to convince the other species it is a true threat and not a mere nuisance. If that were to happen, the other species would have to link Cerberus with humanity, not consider it a fringe group. If that connection were made, we would have to assume the Alliance is too incompetent or stubborn to adamantly deny or bury any alleged links it did have with Cerberus. Condemning the entire human race for the actions of a fringe splinter group seems a bit too extreme for the Council.

Also, if we look at what Cerberus has done, it keeps most of its operations low-key. Even their failures don't seem to be very well known. Part of this obviously is that Shepard is cleaning them up, but even afterwards these acts don't seem to become common knowledge. This would suggest that the Alliance, the Council, or even Cerberus itself is actively suppressing information and doing a good job at it.

Looking at Cerberus' actions thus far, most of their operations don't seem aimed at directly challenging or attacking other species either. They don't seem to engage in terrorism against other species and when they do engage in open violence, it seems limited to attacks against the Alliance (and even incidences of this are rare). This is a far cry from what spurred the Council to launch a crusade against the krogan.

Shock35 wrote...

an example: you have an alien race fixing unleash a bio weapon on humanity with the Alliance being unable to act for whatever reason (or worse, having the Council dragging the Alliance to burn the world to make sure that none of the virus leaves to infect the rest of the life in the galaxy). Cerberus sees this and decides to act on behalf of humanity.

Wasn't this basically the plot of Mass Effect Galaxy, except instead of protecting only the Alliance, Jacob and Miranda were actually trying to protect the Council from a batarian bioweapon?

Slayer299 wrote...

But Cerberus' actions haven't changed due to the Reapers pending arrival, so claiming its the situation which is the cause and not their methods is flawed.

Cerberus' 'ends justifies the means' reasoning might not have held water before, but now that the stakes have become literally life-or-death, the equation has changed so that the 'ends justifies the means' is a viable justification for everyone fighting the Reapers, not just Cerberus.

Slayer299 wrote...

Because Cerberus' leaders aren't a force 'for good'. They aren't doing all these things because of the Reapers arrival and TIM hasn't saved any colonies, if anyone has it was Shepard. TIM has led an organization that his experimented on humans, murder, torture and experimentation of children...does the list need to be longer? Seriously?? As far as Elnora goes my Shep kills her and sleeps just fine at night.

What would you consider from laundry list of crimes Cerberus has committed to be serious enough??

It's unfair to give Shepard all the credit and give TIM and Cerberus none for saving the human colonies in ME2. If it's not for Cerberus, Shepard's just a cold piece of meat. After resurrecting Shepard, Cerberus provides the intel, logistical support, the ship, and the initial crew so Shepard can go out there and play hero. Without Cerberus, none of this happens. TIM's motives for saving the colonists probably aren't purely altruistic, but nonetheless we have to give credit where it's due. 

Whether or not Cerberus' "laundry list of crimes" is enough depends on what your priorities and values are. If you value Cerberus' goals highly enough (advance humanity's position in the galaxy, preserve a stable environment in which humanity can flourish, pursue new technologies that can improve humanity's competitiveness vis-a-vis other species), you just might be able to reason that Cerberus is worth keeping around. Cerberus' goals are all human-centric, but the benefits aren't always exclusive to humanity either. Cerberus' fight against the Reapers is one example of this. Cerberus' reason for fighting the Reapers is to protect humanity - TIM probably couldn't care less about what happens to everyone else. That said, if Cerberus succeeds in helping Shepard fight off the Reapers, everyone benefits. Some of Cerberus' actions have positive externalities for everyone.

Modifié par fongiel24, 22 octobre 2010 - 04:05 .

[Xilizhra]

If this was the case, but Cerberus was still doing everything bad that it's done before... yes, I'd want it gone. Use the insights that they've already gained, by all means, but remove the ones committing atrocities as well.



Of course, if this means just ending Cerberus while giving the individual scientists amnesty as long as they kept their noses clean and worked directly for the Alliance, a la Unit 731, it'd be irritating but tolerable.

[rumblefv]

 That's assuming Shepard is the wiping them out kind of guy. Would the Shepard I run with put them on the same level  as say, the Collectors, and blow them up? Probably not. However given the chance (which I did in one of the sub-missions where you upload data to the Alliance regarding Cerberus activities) Shepard would dismantle that organisation simply because their inability to work with the other aliens in a cohesive manner and be violent about it just makes the whole decision easier.

[Slayer299]

Cerberus' 'ends justifies the means' reasoning might not have held water before, but now that the stakes have become literally life-or-death, the equation has changed so that the 'ends justifies the means' is a viable justification for everyone fighting the Reapers, not just Cerberus.

But that's isn't the point however. It's not whether Cerberus' methods are acceptable now because of the Reapers, because Cerberus was like this before they even *knew* about the Reapers! So how does the 'ends justify the means' become acceptable when the Reapers aren't even in the picture?

It's unfair to give Shepard all the credit and give TIM and Cerberus none for saving the human colonies in ME2. If it's not for Cerberus, Shepard's just a cold piece of meat. After resurrecting Shepard, Cerberus provides the intel, logistical support, the ship, and the initial crew so Shepard can go out there and play hero. Without Cerberus, none of this happens. TIM's motives for saving the colonists probably aren't purely altruistic, but nonetheless we have to give credit where it's due. 

Funny, I didn't see TIM down there next to Shep as she fought her way across the colony. And its funny you want to give TIM credit when it was his release of information that brought the Collectors there in the first place.

Whether or not Cerberus' "laundry list of crimes" is enough depends on what your priorities and values are. If you value Cerberus' goals highly enough (advance humanity's position in the galaxy, preserve a stable environment in which humanity can flourish, pursue new technologies that can improve humanity's competitiveness vis-a-vis other species), you just might be able to reason that Cerberus is worth keeping around. Cerberus' goals are all human-centric, but the benefits aren't always exclusive to humanity either. Cerberus' fight against the Reapers is one example of this. Cerberus' reason for fighting the Reapers is to protect humanity - TIM probably couldn't care less about what happens to everyone else. That said, if Cerberus succeeds in helping Shepard fight off the Reapers, everyone benefits. Some of Cerberus' actions have positive externalities for everyone.

The point if this thread was would you wipe out Cerberus if the Reapers were no longer a threat.

I'm certain that all the humans and *children* who've been tortured, murdered and experimented on will just feel 'oh so much better' with the news that they've helped humanity and others.

Its laudable they accomplished some worthwhile things, the problem is the costs for those *accomplishments* are always ankle deep in blood....

Edit - fixed formatting

Modifié par Slayer299, 22 octobre 2010 - 05:25 .

[Phaedon]

I would. Criminals are criminals.

[Therion942]

No need to kill everybody. Just the Illusive Man and the majority of his backers.

Well actually you'd just need to kill the Illusive Man and use his information to out his backers.

[lovgreno]

I think killing TIM is letting him off easy. Humiliating him in a public trial on the other hand would hurt his rather inflated ego much more. But more importantly that way you can get some usefull things he knows out of him.

[mineralica]

Cerberus follows the right goals by wrong way. Tresher Maw's venom might be tested on animals. Studies in Teltin facility may be replaced with data from biotics from another races. Attempt to gain control on geth when geth are not a main threat is questionable, especially if you already have Legion. Experiments of turning entire colony into husks shouldn't even been discussed. On the other hand, Alliance with its monopoly for military force and science isn't much better (brain camp, for example). So why don't turn Cerberus in an alternate force to Alliance as a representatives of humanity? If they will fight for dominance and reputation, it will make them both healthier.

So the problem is to make Cerberus controlled organisation. Of course, top leaders will have ansver about their experiments (maybe it's just me, but if tIM really haven't known about Teltin or Overlord), so Shepard needs someone who is familiar with Cerberus structure but don't support brutal experiments. The first candidate for me will be Miranda.

She is the leader of the only successful project. She denies keeping Collectors' base because it's unethical. She is intelligent enough. All in all, she is proved leader.

[GuardianAngel470]

In some things, especially military things, the ends do justify the means.



Thing is, Cerberus isn't just Ends-justify-Means, they're completely incompetent. Almost all of their experiments that we know about ended horribly, either the purpose achieved but at great cost or much, much worse.



They don't seem to know what Murphy's law is, and that is why I would destroy them given the chance. They don't think through possible consequences, they don't prepare against worst case scenarios, they just recklessly forge ahead.

[Moiaussi]

I want to know how many of the Cerberus supporters here would volunteer as test subjects for such experiments. The arguement is that this is neccessary research, correct? So they should feel it their duty to volunteer, right?