352 réponses à ce sujet

[marshalleck]

Eddo36 wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

How other deals with the truth is their own thing. Hiding the truth is a breach of integrity.

Seriously? So if you were a part of a military squad that was sent to ambush an enemy patrol, you would consider it a breach of integrity not to warn them ahead of time?

Please keep in context with the discussion.

Dodge. Though I rather think a better scenario to have used would be interrogation by an enemy regarding said plans. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 06 janvier 2011 - 08:38 .

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Eddo36 wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

How other deals with the truth is their own thing. Hiding the truth is a breach of integrity.

Seriously? So if you were a part of a military squad that was sent to ambush an enemy patrol, you would consider it a breach of integrity not to warn them ahead of time?

Please keep in context with the discussion.

I don't follow. You stated the bolded sentence as a principle that applies to more than just this situation.

Also, could you give me a working definition of "integrity"? I feel this is a nuanced term that can be easily misapplied and used to facilely and fallaciously support one argument or the other.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Nightwriter wrote...

I will save my justice for bad men who commit bad deeds, not good people who make mistakes.

As for me having no right to challenge quarian law, every time I encounter a situation involving an alien government, I think:

- Is this government right?
- Is obeying it wise?
- Are their laws just?
- Are they being executed justly?

In this case the answers were: No, no, yes, and no.

Every time I encounter a situation involving an alien government, I think:

"Screw you guys, I'm goin home . . ."

[marshalleck]

Perhaps another scenario: you have cracked the cipher used by enemy communications, and you learn that a major offensive is planned against a large population center. Do you warn the population and evacuate the city and thus tip off the enemy that their encryption has been compromised, or do you allow the attack to happen in order to maintain the illusion that their communications have not been compromised in order to be able to strategically end the war sooner?

Modifié par marshalleck, 06 janvier 2011 - 08:44 .

[Eddo36]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

How other deals with the truth is their own thing. Hiding the truth is a breach of integrity.

Seriously? So if you were a part of a military squad that was sent to ambush an enemy patrol, you would consider it a breach of integrity not to warn them ahead of time?

Please keep in context with the discussion.

I don't follow. You stated the bolded sentence as a principle that applies to more than just this situation.

No, that is a completely different thing. I was talking about this scenario and others similar. That wasn't remotely similar.

[Eddo36]

"Also, could you give me a working definition of "integrity"? I feel this is a nuanced term that can be easily misapplied and used to facilely and fallaciously support one argument or the other."



You can't do it yourself? www.dictionary.com



in·teg·ri·ty 

[in-teg-ri-tee]

–noun

1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.

2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.

3. a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship's hull.

[Pacifien]

Nightwriter wrote...
I will save my justice for bad men who commit bad deeds, not good people who make mistakes.

Unfortunately, because you miss the opportunity to inform the public about what their government is doing behind their back, you provide an opportunity for an arguably bad person to continue making that mistake.

Which I can understand someone doing, because perhaps your Shepard doesn't like to rock the boat unless it serves his needs against the Reapers. And how could he foresee that someone would find the data anyway and proceed to continue the secret experiments. Or to invoke the spirit of Shand, those experiments could prove beneficial to the quarian people whether they like it or not.

I mean, there's a lot of scenarios to consider and the simplest one is to do what your friend wants. I can understand friendship loyalty or serving the needs of your squad so they can stay focused on the larger picture. That really doesn't cover the issue of whether it's right, though. Selfishly right perhaps.

[Eddo36]

Nightwriter wrote...

I will save my justice for bad men who commit bad deeds, not good people who make mistakes.

As for me having no right to challenge quarian law, every time I encounter a situation involving an alien government, I think:

- Is this government right?
- Is obeying it wise?
- Are their laws just?
- Are they being executed justly?

In this case the answers were: No, no, yes, and no.

- Is it my right to judge them?

[Pacifien]

marshalleck wrote...
Perhaps another scenario: you have cracked the cipher used by enemy communications, and you learn that a major offensive is planned against a large population center. Do you warn the population and evacuate the city and thus tip off the enemy that their encryption has been compromised, or do you allow the attack to happen in order to maintain the illusion that their communications have not been compromised in order to be able to strategically end the war sooner?

Or in other words: are you Revan?

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Eddo36 wrote...

No, that is a completely different thing. I was talking about this scenario and others similar. That wasn't remotely similar.

This is my last post about semantics, but I quoted your entire post. It did not refer to the topic at hand. I took it at face value. You either agree or do not agree with the statement (p or not p), therefore:

1) If you agree with that statement as a universal principal, then my fellow poster and I have shown that is a pretty ridiculous stance.

2) If you don't always agree with that statement as a principle, that it can't be applied to any situation as evidence as each situation would be required to be judged on its own merits.

Therefore, via proof by exhaustion flowing from the tautology p or not p, your post about hiding evidence and integrity does not provide support for your argument.

Edit: A "working definition" is not one found in a dictionary. I was interested in hearing what you thought integrity entailed and how it applied to the situation. Words come with far more baggage than what Merriam Webster gives you.

Modifié par Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams, 06 janvier 2011 - 08:53 .

[marshalleck]

Pacifien wrote...

marshalleck wrote...
Perhaps another scenario: you have cracked the cipher used by enemy communications, and you learn that a major offensive is planned against a large population center. Do you warn the population and evacuate the city and thus tip off the enemy that their encryption has been compromised, or do you allow the attack to happen in order to maintain the illusion that their communications have not been compromised in order to be able to strategically end the war sooner?

Or in other words: are you Revan?

I was actually thinking of the the urban legend regarding Churchill and the bombing of Coventry, but alright. I vaguely remember something along these lines with Revan in KoTOR. I'll trust your judgement that it fits.

[Eddo36]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

No, that is a completely different thing. I was talking about this scenario and others similar. That wasn't remotely similar.

This is my last post about semantics, but I quoted your entire post. It did not refer to the topic at hand. I took it at face value. You either agree or do not agree with the statement (p or not p), therefore:

1) If you agree with that statement as a universal principal, then my fellow poster and I have shown that is a pretty ridiculous stance.

2) If you don't always agree with that statement as a principle, that it can't be applied to any situation as evidence as each situation would be required to be judged on its own merits.

Therefore, via proof by exhaustion flowing from the tautology p or not p, your post about hiding evidence and integrity does not provide support for your argument. 

I agree with my statement, but your example is a completely different thing. In your example, the enemy squad is not the higher authority that your integrity should be towards. In this scenario, the Quarian government is.

[snfonseka]

Eddo36 wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

I also consider condeming one's entire life for such a mistake is unjust. That is her father. He has done more good for the fleet ans her then bad. Condeming his entire life for one mistake is unjust. I never lie to the council,just let them make their own decision based on the facts they have. That is your justice.

Theres what you know. and what you can prove. This is your justice,therefor justice was served at Tali's trail.

Condemning his life is up to the Quarians. The truth is said and nothing false stated. As I said, what they do with the truth is up to them. They will be the ones unjust. Just the truth be told, that is my justice.

It’s your justice but that doesn’t mean others’ actions are wrong in this matter. Some of us believe that telling the truth at what ever the cost is important and some believe that taking care of a friends’ need is important than telling the truth.

[Eddo36]

"Edit: A "working definition" is not one found in a dictionary. I was interested in hearing what you thought integrity entailed and how it applied to the situation. Words come with far more baggage than what Merriam Webster gives you."



As it says, honesty. Good enough for you?

[Eddo36]

snfonseka wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

I also consider condeming one's entire life for such a mistake is unjust. That is her father. He has done more good for the fleet ans her then bad. Condeming his entire life for one mistake is unjust. I never lie to the council,just let them make their own decision based on the facts they have. That is your justice.

Theres what you know. and what you can prove. This is your justice,therefor justice was served at Tali's trail.

Condemning his life is up to the Quarians. The truth is said and nothing false stated. As I said, what they do with the truth is up to them. They will be the ones unjust. Just the truth be told, that is my justice.

It’s your justice but that doesn’t mean others’ actions are wrong in this matter. Some of us believe that telling the truth at what ever the cost is important and some believe that taking care of a friends’ need is important than telling the truth.

Even if friend's need is unjust.

[marshalleck]

snfonseka wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

I also consider condeming one's entire life for such a mistake is unjust. That is her father. He has done more good for the fleet ans her then bad. Condeming his entire life for one mistake is unjust. I never lie to the council,just let them make their own decision based on the facts they have. That is your justice.

Theres what you know. and what you can prove. This is your justice,therefor justice was served at Tali's trail.

Condemning his life is up to the Quarians. The truth is said and nothing false stated. As I said, what they do with the truth is up to them. They will be the ones unjust. Just the truth be told, that is my justice.

It’s your justice but that doesn’t mean others’ actions are wrong in this matter. Some of us believe that telling the truth at what ever the cost is important and some believe that taking care of a friends’ need is important than telling the truth.

Or that there are greater things at stake than the memory of Tali's father, and that Tali herself can be far more beneficial to averting galactic disaster if she's both loyal to Shepard personally and still in the good graces of her people, with access to their research on Haestrom's sun and why the geth were interested in it. 

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Eddo36 wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

No, that is a completely different thing. I was talking about this scenario and others similar. That wasn't remotely similar.

This is my last post about semantics, but I quoted your entire post. It did not refer to the topic at hand. I took it at face value. You either agree or do not agree with the statement (p or not p), therefore:

1) If you agree with that statement as a universal principal, then my fellow poster and I have shown that is a pretty ridiculous stance.

2) If you don't always agree with that statement as a principle, that it can't be applied to any situation as evidence as each situation would be required to be judged on its own merits.

Therefore, via proof by exhaustion flowing from the tautology p or not p, your post about hiding evidence and integrity does not provide support for your argument. 

I agree with my statement, but your example is a completely different thing. In your example, the enemy squad is not the higher authority that your integrity should be towards. In this scenario, the Quarian government is.

1. Shepard is not under Quarian authority.

2. So if I lie to my friends all the time and betray them, but always tell the truth to my superiors, I have integrity?

3. Along with number 2, you said your "working definition" of integrity is "honesty." I would be dishonest towards my enemy by misleading them, therefore I would have no integrity. I seem to remember you arguing that honesty is the equivalence of justice.

[Eddo36]

marshalleck wrote...

snfonseka wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

I also consider condeming one's entire life for such a mistake is unjust. That is her father. He has done more good for the fleet ans her then bad. Condeming his entire life for one mistake is unjust. I never lie to the council,just let them make their own decision based on the facts they have. That is your justice.

Theres what you know. and what you can prove. This is your justice,therefor justice was served at Tali's trail.

Condemning his life is up to the Quarians. The truth is said and nothing false stated. As I said, what they do with the truth is up to them. They will be the ones unjust. Just the truth be told, that is my justice.

It’s your justice but that doesn’t mean others’ actions are wrong in this matter. Some of us believe that telling the truth at what ever the cost is important and some believe that taking care of a friends’ need is important than telling the truth.

Or that there are greater things at stake than the memory of Tali's father, and that Tali herself can be far more beneficial to averting galactic disaster if she's both loyal to Shepard personally and still in the good graces of her people, with access to their research on Haestrom's sun and why the geth were interested in it. 

And let Morinth suck up brains of lovers to satisfy her, too, if you find her more handy than Samara. End doesn't justify means.

[snfonseka]

Pacifien wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
I will save my justice for bad men who commit bad deeds, not good people who make mistakes.

Unfortunately, because you miss the opportunity to inform the public about what their government is doing behind their back, you provide an opportunity for an arguably bad person to continue making that mistake.

Which I can understand someone doing, because perhaps your Shepard doesn't like to rock the boat unless it serves his needs against the Reapers. And how could he foresee that someone would find the data anyway and proceed to continue the secret experiments. Or to invoke the spirit of Shand, those experiments could prove beneficial to the quarian people whether they like it or not.

I mean, there's a lot of scenarios to consider and the simplest one is to do what your friend wants. I can understand friendship loyalty or serving the needs of your squad so they can stay focused on the larger picture. That really doesn't cover the issue of whether it's right, though. Selfishly right perhaps.

My Shep didn't see any good that can achieve by revealing the truth. So he decided that the best thing is to help his friend to achieve her goals.

[Eddo36]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

No, that is a completely different thing. I was talking about this scenario and others similar. That wasn't remotely similar.

This is my last post about semantics, but I quoted your entire post. It did not refer to the topic at hand. I took it at face value. You either agree or do not agree with the statement (p or not p), therefore:

1) If you agree with that statement as a universal principal, then my fellow poster and I have shown that is a pretty ridiculous stance.

2) If you don't always agree with that statement as a principle, that it can't be applied to any situation as evidence as each situation would be required to be judged on its own merits.

Therefore, via proof by exhaustion flowing from the tautology p or not p, your post about hiding evidence and integrity does not provide support for your argument. 

I agree with my statement, but your example is a completely different thing. In your example, the enemy squad is not the higher authority that your integrity should be towards. In this scenario, the Quarian government is.

1. Shepard is not under Quarian authority.

2. So if I lie to my friends all the time and betray them, but always tell the truth to my superiors, I have integrity?

3. Along with number 2, you said your "working definition" of integrity is "honesty." I would be dishonest towards my enemy by misleading them, therefore I would have no integrity. I seem to remember you arguing that honesty is the equivalence of justice.

1. The whole mission was under Quarian space. It affects them. Shepard is just an outsider.

2. They aren't your friends if you lie to them.

3. Enemy is enemy. Quarian government isn't.

[marshalleck]

Eddo36 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

snfonseka wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

I also consider condeming one's entire life for such a mistake is unjust. That is her father. He has done more good for the fleet ans her then bad. Condeming his entire life for one mistake is unjust. I never lie to the council,just let them make their own decision based on the facts they have. That is your justice.

Theres what you know. and what you can prove. This is your justice,therefor justice was served at Tali's trail.

Condemning his life is up to the Quarians. The truth is said and nothing false stated. As I said, what they do with the truth is up to them. They will be the ones unjust. Just the truth be told, that is my justice.

It’s your justice but that doesn’t mean others’ actions are wrong in this matter. Some of us believe that telling the truth at what ever the cost is important and some believe that taking care of a friends’ need is important than telling the truth.

Or that there are greater things at stake than the memory of Tali's father, and that Tali herself can be far more beneficial to averting galactic disaster if she's both loyal to Shepard personally and still in the good graces of her people, with access to their research on Haestrom's sun and why the geth were interested in it. 

And let Morinth suck up brains of lovers to satisfy her, too, if you find her more handy than Samara. End doesn't justify means.

"Please keep in context with the discussion."

I like how you only follow this when it suits you.

Modifié par marshalleck, 06 janvier 2011 - 09:06 .

[Eddo36]

That is within context. It's a similar scenario to show ends doesn't justify means.

[Pacifien]

snfonseka wrote...
My Shep didn't see any good that can achieve by revealing the truth. So he decided that the best thing is to help his friend to achieve her goals.

I know. Such wasted chances to create an actual moral dilemma in the game. If Rael'Zorah had been found alive, for instance.

[didymos1120]

Eddo36 wrote...

How other deals with the truth is their own thing. Hiding the truth is a breach of integrity.

Why yes, Mr. Gestapo guy!  I DO indeed have some Jews hiding in my attic!  And that's against the law, isn't it?

[marshalleck]

Eddo36 wrote...

That is within context. It's a similar scenario to show ends doesn't justify means.

The other scenarios that have been proposed demonstrate the inverse principle, and should be allowed.

Modifié par marshalleck, 06 janvier 2011 - 09:09 .