965 réponses à ce sujet

[Arijharn]

Moiaussi wrote...

He has no qualms about ordering hits on Alliance politicians and clergy. Why would he be reluctant to order the same against foreign targets? If he really is in this for humanity, that is?

Right, but how does that translate into 'xenophobia'?

He did afterall try and bring the Salarian and Human governments closer together, even if it was to counterbalance any perceived threat from the Turians.

[aeetos21]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

OK, so what makes children special? I mean, saying "Killing children is worse than killing adults" translates into "killing adults is not so bad as killing children", and that opens up a hell lot of oppurtunities. Then there is a lot of cultural stuff pertaining to the definition of "children". I mean, your own beloved character implies that she was technically a child herself, when she volunteered into Cerberus. And then there are situations when 10-year-olds can be considered combatantsand therefore legitimate targets in a war.

If you consider anyone who breaks the law evil, then go ahead, TIM is evil by this measure. But morality is a sneaky thing when you try to nail it. TIM knows it, so he doesn't bother with it and continues to run his black ops just the way black ops are meant to be run.

Innocence, for starters and yeah - in our society or our generally accepted morality killing children is the lowest you can go. The thing is showing dead kids in video games is so taboo we don't have an image to associate it with, but, I think any kid age five and up was fair game for the Teltin facility (Jack was four when she was kidnapped from her family and taken to the Teltin facility - so I'm being generous here).

Miranda was in tough sitch, it was likely her father had plans of not keeping her too much longer given her attitude: "Shots were fired." Can't really blame her for going to Cerberus for protection. If you are trying to make an inference that she, a child, willingly volunteered herself for combat right off the bat I'm not so sure about that. The only information we have between when she was born in 2150 until the events of Mass Effect Galaxy (2183 I believe) is whatever was told to us from her in the ME2 dialogues.

Breaking the law, a person who j-walks technically is breaking the law but I don't think they're evil. You take the person and you take the crime, its how judges determine punishments. It doesn't always work but its the best we've come up with so far. I think TIM is lawful evil, like Saren. If he genuinely believed that humanity could survive by working with the reapers then ME2 would've gone down radically different. The fact that every crime he commits is always considered carefully and is seen as a sacrifice "for the greater good" (sooner or later that excuse just STOPS WORKING) makes no difference to a little kid being tortured to death. Or thousands of quarian non-combatants (children and adults) being threatened for the sake of a single human biotic.

Modifié par aeetos21, 08 février 2011 - 06:13 .

[Arijharn]

I don't think 'killing children' is the lowest you can go... I think genocide is a lot worse. I think religious/cultural oppression is worse. I think murder is murder and is bad, so I don't think it is 'generally accepted' as much as you seem to make it out to be. That isn't saying it isn't bad though; just that I don't think there is a definite scaling on how bad. Personally? I think pedophilia is even worse than killing a child.

Modifié par Arijharn, 08 février 2011 - 06:14 .

[aeetos21]

I can see that, but I'm fairly certain TIM isn't that evil - a pedophile. And he hasn't committed genocide which leaves this discussion left with the kidnapping, torture, and murdering of kids. At least when Anakin went dark side he killed the youngest jedi apprentices quickly (there, an image of killing kids for yah), don't know how long those kids on Pragia suffered.

Modifié par aeetos21, 08 février 2011 - 06:18 .

[Zulu_DFA]

aeetos21 wrote...

Innocence

Define it.

[aeetos21]

Innocence - wiki, answers.com, merriam-webster.com, thefreedictionary.com, dictionary.com

Are you really making the argument that killing kids isn't evil, Zulu?

[Arijharn]

aeetos21 wrote...

I can see that, but I'm fairly certain TIM isn't that evil - a pedophile. And he hasn't committed genocide which leaves this discussion left with the kidnapping, torture, and murdering of kids. At least when Anakin went dark side he killed the youngest jedi apprentices quickly (there, an image of killing kids for yah), don't know how long those kids on Pragia suffered.

Pragia, as far as I see it, is the only truly stupid thing I think Cerberus has done, if only because if they were testing biotic potential, wouldn't it make more sense to record something like telemetry data from Bio-Amps from biotics already within Alliance service?

I digress though. While I think Illusive Man should hold some degree of responsibility for the events of Pragia, I don't think it's fair to lay the total blame on him. I'm sure he allowed 'experimentation' on children (but I have a feeling it's more along the lines of psychological testing, which is probably why he started to investigate the cell in the first place.)

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

aeetos21 wrote...

Innocence

Define it.

The defining line between childhood and maturity is one of the ability to comprehend (or at least have a reasonable chance of comprehending) the choices one makes.

The average adult is better able to defend themselves on a great many levels than the average child is, and the children who can defend themselves as well as an adult are arguably the ones who have matured sooner.

By virtue of being less able to make choices to protect themselves, children are considered more 'innocent' by society, usually are offered protections by society, and simultaneously granted fewer rights to decide for themselves by society.

Killing the elderly is usually taboo for similar reasons... that the elderly are still of value to society, but less able to defend themselves (usually physically, but in some cases due to varying levels of senility as well).

[Arijharn]

aeetos21 wrote...

Innocence - wiki, answers.com, merriam-webster.com, thefreedictionary.com, dictionary.com

Are you really making the argument that killing kids isn't evil, Zulu?

He's probably making the argument that 'evil' is subjective. Personally I'm inclined to believe that you shouldn't potentially damn your entire species (including yes, other children) just to win a PR battle.

If your argument is 'all life is precious', then shouldn't more people's lives be worth more than some peoples lives by any measurement you care to make?

[Zulu_DFA]

aeetos21 wrote...

answers.com

The state, quality, or virtue of being innocent, as:
Freedom from sin, moral wrong, or guilt through lack of knowledge of evil.
Guiltlessness of a specific legal crime or offense.
Freedom from guile, cunning, or deceit; simplicity or artlessness.
Lack of worldliness or sophistication; naiveté.
Lack of knowledge or understanding; ignorance.
Freedom from harmfulness; inoffensiveness.

Nothing of this is exclusive to children.

Are you really making the argument that killing kids isn't evil, Zulu?

No.

[Zulu_DFA]

Moiaussi wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

aeetos21 wrote...

Innocence

Define it.

The defining line between childhood and maturity is one of the ability to comprehend (or at least have a reasonable chance of comprehending) the choices one makes.

[You're gonna love this.]

So, if TIM lacks this ability in regards to subjecting "innocent" people to his "evil" experiments... I mean, his mom and dad never told him that it's bad to fry ants with his grandpa's spectacles, and therefore he couldn't learn the difference between "good" and "evil"... does it make TIM "innocent"?

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

aeetos21 wrote...

answers.com

The state, quality, or virtue of being innocent, as:
Freedom from sin, moral wrong, or guilt through lack of knowledge of evil.
Guiltlessness of a specific legal crime or offense.
Freedom from guile, cunning, or deceit; simplicity or artlessness.
Lack of worldliness or sophistication; naiveté.
Lack of knowledge or understanding; ignorance.
Freedom from harmfulness; inoffensiveness.

Nothing of this is exclusive to children.

Lol, so you figure that there is no relation between how long someone has lived and how much about the world they have learned, and thus naivete or lack thereof?

Children are born all knowing?

Some people mature faster and some slower. There will always be exceptions. Now is there a point to all these semantic games?

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

[You're gonna love this.]

So, if TIM lacks this ability in regards to subjecting "innocent" people to his "evil" experiments... I mean, his mom and dad never told him that it's bad to fry ants with his grandpa's spectacles, and therefore he couldn't learn the difference between "good" and "evil"... does it make TIM "innocent"?

Assuming there was no other way for him to learn the difference. If he is incapable of understanding the difference, that is different. That is called a psychopath, and although on the basis of that being a mental condition (currently untreatable), they are on some levels innocent, they (like children) are 'protected' by society.

Psychopaths arguably get even more protection that children. They often get their own cells.

[aeetos21]

People aren't born evil, genetically they may be more prone to aggression and violence but somewhere along the way they made that decision to give into their own basic desires.

[Arijharn]

what 'basic desires' has TIM really given into though? I mean, other than copious amounts of sex (and sometimes even with asari (i.e., not humans!))



Sure, he may have gotten personal benefit from some of his ventures (although I can't imagine it going down like: "Oh man, Pragia was so worth it! I got these sweet ass new shoes and a top hat and monocle from it!") but by and large he's putting a community (even if said community is 'restricted' in the sense that it's humanity) on top.



A twisted sense of altruism? If he does get personal rewards (A year's supply of free cigars, but only if he experiments on Rachni today!) I don't think that is his driving motivation.

[Zulu_DFA]

Moiaussi wrote...

Some people mature faster and some slower. There will always be exceptions. Now is there a point to all these semantic games?

So... Are we taking statistical approach now?

Becasue, you know, that's what TIM does all the time.

Moiaussi wrote...

Psychopaths arguably get even more protection that children. They often get their own cells.

Lol, TIM's got himself a lot of his own cells. I doubt he needs any more protection.

[aeetos21]

I'm just saying in general, that's how it starts. As for TIM's own basic desires?

You mean to tell me he is 100% altruistic and doesn't love the power trip he's on right now? Or the perks that come with it? Power corrupts, one of the oldest grains of truth out there. The difference between TIM and Cerberus and other organizations is that there is oversight, bureaucracy. And though they're far from perfect at least there is some repercussion if you go off the reservation, so to speak.

As for Pragia, no I don't fully blame TIM and Cerberus anymore than I do the Alliance (at that time Ceberus was still an Alliance black ops organization). But they should take responsibility for their actions and own up to their mistakes, something I've seen very little evidence of and only reinforces my want to break free of both Cerberus the Council and the Alliance altogether in ME3.

Modifié par aeetos21, 08 février 2011 - 07:36 .

[Arijharn]

No, he isn't 100% altruistic, but he isn't out purely for himself either. He's working for humanity's benefit (although I don't doubt he himself wouldn't get anything out of it). To me, that makes him remarkably... human, and he's never portrayed himself as anything but imo.



Cerberus and TIM do have oversight... his financial backers. He himself apparently holds some sort of morale compass as well (you only went to the derelict reaper when he ascertained that the IFF was essential, other than that he didn't want to risk further teams. He supplied monetary aid to Horizon, he helped ferry the survivors I believe off Aite).



Also, Cerberus obviously faces repercussions too; namely if they ****** off someone too much they're in danger.

[James2912]

Who is 100% altruistic in the game? You certainly don't have the option of working for anybody that doesn't have ulterior motives.

[aeetos21]

About as human as... some really bad people in our culture, so yes that much I agree with. As for working for humanity's benefit? Whose vision of humanity? His financial backers are likely a couple hundred wealthy men and women (barely even a fraction in the wider scheme of things), is it their vision of humanity he's supporting? And if so what gives them the right to make decisions that will effect the outcome of an entire species?

He also was the one who got half the colonists on Horizon killed by the collectors and the only reason the people on Alite were rescued in the first place was because Miranda broke security protocol and forwarded the findings to Jacob (something she later got chewed out for if memory serves correct).

The only reason Cerberus hasn't been taken out is BECAUSE of its financial backers (**** it, just call them power brokers because that is exactly what they are). The same people who support Cerberus likely have real pull with the Alliance and the Council.

In the end: "Strength for Cerberus is strength for humanity."

Whose humanity because other than helping stop the reaper threat in ME2 I see very little good Cerberus has done for humanity given the nature of its past crimes.

Modifié par aeetos21, 08 février 2011 - 08:04 .

[aeetos21]

James2912 wrote...

Who is 100% altruistic in the game? You certainly don't have the option of working for anybody that doesn't have ulterior motives.

One of the reasons why I say screw the Alliance, Council and Cerberus. Go at it alone in ME3.

Apologies for the 2x post.

[Inverness Moon]

aeetos21 wrote...

So that's why humanity came up with the idea of thermal clips

That came from the geth.

and that's why humanity was the one to drive the rachni back

The rachni were dealt with by the krogan, everybody knows this. You're making yourself look silly.

I'm sure it isn't part of normal Cerberus protocol to take on members of different species. I'm sure Tali wasn't the only quarian engineer who knew more about the Normandy's propulsion systems than Ken and Gabby.

Tali is both a genius and the only quarian engineer who worked on the first Normandy.

"First off, why should one care about some other nation (race) at all?"

I think that is obvious, variety is a good thing in many cases. Consider the various upgrades done to the Normandy SR2.

Also, Zulu, you failed (I repeat failed) to answer my point about TIM willing to kill a child for the "greater good" of humanity. If he was willing to risk destroying an entire quarian ship for the sake of getting one human biotic - what does that say?

Well first, how do you know it is TIM that wanted to destroy that ship? He tells people what to do, not how to do it (most of the time).

And I think it's obvious he cares more about how biotic research will benefit humanity than a ship full of useless (in his eyes) quarians.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 08 février 2011 - 08:37 .

[aeetos21]

Inverness Moon wrote...

aeetos21 wrote...

So that's why humanity came up with the idea of thermal clips

That came from the geth.

and that's why humanity was the one to drive the rachni back

The rachni were dealt with by the krogan, everybody knows this. You're making yourself look silly.

That was me being sarcastic, I thought that was pretty clear but yes - of course I know all of that.

Eh, I'm not going to get into an argument over whether there are other quarians who know as much about the Normandy as Tali does, or whether they could learn as much. Whereas asari are naturals with biotics I see quarians as being naturals with tech, simple.

Edit: For the record I never read Ascension but the Mass Effect Wiki doesn't paint a pretty picture for TIM's involvement:

The second area of interest is the quarian Migrant Fleet,
which the Illusive Man sees as a threat, given that the Fleet is the
largest single armada in the galaxy. Also, as creators of the geth, the quarians have suddenly become of much greater interest in light of the recent attack on the Citadel. To this end, the Illusive Man contacts a quarian exile, Golo, to gain the Flotilla's transmission codes.

Modifié par aeetos21, 08 février 2011 - 08:43 .

[Arijharn]

aeetos21 wrote...
About as human as... some really bad people in our culture, so yes that much I agree with. As for working for humanity's benefit? Whose vision of humanity? His financial backers are likely a couple hundred wealthy men and women (barely even a fraction in the wider scheme of things), is it their vision of humanity he's supporting? And if so what gives them the right to make decisions that will effect the outcome of an entire species?

What makes them qualified? They have the money and the drive to make the difference really. Might is right essentially. They want to see humanity strengthened in not just the military, but socio-economic factors as well. Honestly, I can't hold that against anyone, not even TIM.

I know, I'm in danger of assuming here, but I doubt that you are a completely selfless person, because I doubt completely selfless people are common, in fact, I'd say they're pretty extraordinarily rare.

aeetos wrote...
He also was the one who got half the colonists on Horizon killed by the collectors and the only reason the people on Alite were rescued in the first place was because Miranda broke security protocol and forwarded the findings to Jacob (something she later got chewed out for if memory serves correct).

No.

More detailed answer: If you honestly can't see the difference between organising the defense and protection of half the colony over potentially losing an entire colony, then I guess you really don't have any degree of a 'sense of scale.' Losing say 500 colonists is better than losing say 1000.

And even if Miranda did those things, TIM still sent the ships to rescue them (or got the Alliance to do so), as opposed to say deciding not too. TIM also could have decided not to help Horizon, he wasn't under any obligation to do so.

Whose humanity because other than helping stop the reaper threat in ME2 I see very little good Cerberus has done for humanity given the nature of its past crimes.

I think to personally go for something like say the protection and promotion of humanity to be actually quite brave. I don't see any inherent ethical border crossing with experimentation on Rachni, on Thorian Creepers or even Husks. 
I don't even see the assassination of the Pope to be that bad when it was done to draw two species closer together.
Honestly though; other than the actual torture of them, I don't see inherent ethical issues with psychological evaluation of children either.
While I feel for David Archer, I view any potential losses (of which there would be many) between a real war between Humanity and the Geth to be incredibly risky and to be incredibly high.
Honestly though; I think the protection of the masses at the expense of the minority to be easier than say loosing, of which the cost may be even higher. I can't trust other species to obey ethical considerations. I don't expect Turian's to spare infants in their initial bombing of our worlds in case things go wrong, I certainly don't expect ethical conduct from Salarian missions, and I certainly don't from the Reapers either.
Therefore, I don't view Cerberus' 'crimes' as crimes in comparison, although that doesn't make it any easier.
I should imagine that TIM feels pretty much the same, although perhaps he's even more a harsh pragmatist.

[Ieldra]

A few comments:

Killing children:
We are wired to be very protective towards our children, and as a result we consider killing children worse than killing adults. From a strictly rational ethical viewpoint, that makes no sense, but we aren't rational when it comes to children, one way or the other. So we rationalize this "children are special" intuition in any number of ways. The plain fact is that the mere thought of doing things to children *feels* more horrible than doing it to adults. That's the start and the end of it.

Selfishness:
We all start out selfish *and* altruistic both. We must be selfish to survive, and must co-operate to survive. Children aren't innocent, they're most unabashedly selfish creatures, always in competition with other children as we adults are in competition with others about mates and resources. Everyone starts out with the potential to do evil.

Is TIM evil?
That depends on the kind of morality you're using. We're wired to consider certain acts evil regardless of possible benefits, so we're inclined to say he's evil based on the methods he's used to acquire information and power. Again, that's not rational, but we aren't rational in these things unless we make a deliberate effort to be. If you're consequentialist in your ethics, it's your goals that determine if you're evil regardless of the methods you use to achieve them. Consequentialism has been part of ethical reasoning for quite some time, and a part of strategic reasoning for the whole of human history.
So where do we draw the line? Where's the point where desirable goals are invalidated by the methods used to achieve them? Where does the evil stop being necessary? It's a nontrivial question. In a war for survival, almost anything could be justified if it was really necessary. The main question then would be: is it *really* necessary?

If you want to change human traits, at some point you have to experiment on them. But the way Cerberus experiments are portrayed would suggest that there are better methods to achieve the same end, their brute force research comes across as unnecessarily brutal and painful for the subjects. So yes, I'd say those who do them are doing evil, as is the one who finances and organizes them. Though on the other hand, you might ask if these experiments are portrayed realistically? Would any scientist act that way if there was a better way to achieve the same ends? Would someone like TIM totally disregard the bad reputation gained by unnecessarily brutal experiments? I've always found that Cerberus experiments were specifically designed to give life sciences a bad name, and I highly resent that. If *I* can think of less painful methods to achieve the same ends, be that creating stronger human biotics, establish communication with the geth or studying Reaper technology, Cerberus's scientists would surely be able to think of them. Not that their methods would ever be 100% ethically clean, but they might be considered justifiable.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 février 2011 - 08:50 .