71 réponses à ce sujet

[LtlMac]

Scimal wrote...

The Reapers launch a two-pronged attack while you're in the Terminus systems; they attack Earth and the Citadel en force.

Which one do you save?

Do you preserve galactic civilization or your own species?

Forever endanger Humanity's position in galactic society, or leave a handful of survivors to be praised for their sacrifice?

That would be a good one to me.

That's too easy:  Earth.  I'd let the entire asari and Turian races be wiped out before I let earth go.  I wouldn't want it to happen.  It would suck but Earth is home, and the hole function of a Soldier is to protect your home.  I'm a fairly enlightened guy...and am a firm believer in peace first and the common good, but when you are charged with protecting people, it is your duty to hold that charge.  I would strive for alternative decisions...but if fate made such a choice mine, without alternatives, then home comes first.  Otherwise, whats the point?

[Scimal]

^I can't guarantee I'd do the same.



Given the choice, I might choose to save the Citadel - and thus, the current iteration of Galactic society.



In my head, Earth would be a huge loss - our home, our culture, our history - lost. However, pure numbers can be restored, and we would find a new place to call home with the advantage of being the first "Galactic" civilization, and not simply a civilization that participates in Galactic politics, coming to think of that which we protected as our home.



Can't say I wouldn't make the opposite choice, too, though, depending on the song I was listening to.

[Estelindis]

If by "pure numbers can be restored" you mean that population levels can rise to what they used to be, then yes, they can (over a very long time). But the people killed can't be brought back. Don't individual lives have value? Each of us only has one chance (Shepard aside, 'twould seem). Isn't it better to save billions than millions?



And couldn't some other station or planet become the centre of galactic society anyway? Why should people keep on following the Reapers' wishes in focusing so much on the Citadel?

[Scimal]

Estelindis wrote...

If by "pure numbers can be restored" you mean that population levels can rise to what they used to be, then yes, they can (over a very long time). But the people killed can't be brought back. Don't individual lives have value? Each of us only has one chance (Shepard aside, 'twould seem). Isn't it better to save billions than millions?

And couldn't some other station or planet become the centre of galactic society anyway? Why should people keep on following the Reapers' wishes in focusing so much on the Citadel?

If the Reapers are destroyed, the Citadel's habitation doesn't matter much.

The immediate choice is to save billions over millions, but I intended to invoke more of the ramifications of each decision.

If the Citadel is destroyed, their leadership is lost and it's feasible wars would break out after the Reaper threat for control over the systems.

If Earth is destroyed, they'd obviously be given the respect their sacrifice deserved (I'd hope), the current system of government would remain intact (one which is more favorable to Humans than another possible iteration), but as a species we'd be weak for centuries.

Eventually things would even out regardless of the choice. Either a new government would be established or human population would rise to pre-Reaper levels.

The answer isn't clear-cut to me, though. If it is to you, good for you.

[Estelindis]

I think it's more a case of good for you that you can come up with a dilemma that leads us to have this debate. ;-)



But yes, it is quite clear-cut to me. It wasn't at first (as I said, I needed to think about it for a few minutes), and I do acknowledge the benefits of saving the Citadel (as you mention), but I think that the Council got one chance when my Shep saved them in ME1 and they're not worth a second sacrifice of unspeakably more human lives (given their lack of action re the Reapers in ME2). I also don't think that billions of innocent lives is an acceptable price for the "respect" of the galaxy. But hey. Thanks for the discussion!

[GnusmasTHX]

Meh, I'd choose Earth and humanity over any other race every time. Maybe if it was Earth or your LI, then it might be tough. I'd just save and load.

Also I fail to see how preserving the Citadel is required to preserve current galactic politics. The Citadel is merely a hub, a gathering place for the races of the world. I don't doubt they're capable of making another station, of obviously smaller size. If, however, the Relay Network were to collapse upon its destruction, then, and only then, would the destruction of the Citadel have any important consequence.

ALL governments can continue as they are, with minimal loss to the actual races with the destruction of the Citadel. The only downside to it's destruction is a brief period of reelection, provided the races want to continue with that form of government. I for one don't care for it. Seeing as how it fails to provide any competent assistance to the galaxy in its time of literally, greatest need, it's largely useless.

Modifié par GnusmasTHX, 04 février 2011 - 02:09 .

[LtlMac]

Scimal wrote...

^I can't guarantee I'd do the same.

Given the choice, I might choose to save the Citadel - and thus, the current iteration of Galactic society.

In my head, Earth would be a huge loss - our home, our culture, our history - lost. However, pure numbers can be restored, and we would find a new place to call home with the advantage of being the first "Galactic" civilization, and not simply a civilization that participates in Galactic politics, coming to think of that which we protected as our home.

Can't say I wouldn't make the opposite choice, too, though, depending on the song I was listening to.

My thoughts probably come from being  a Soldier in real life.  It's just....when I signed up to protect the American people...thats what I signed up for.  It isn't that I don't care about people from other countries....but sacrificing America for the good of our current global situation....would feel like a betrayal.   I, along with many others, have been charged with the duty of protecting our country....any decision I make that makes our country less safe means I have failed.  Now, don't get me wrong.....there are certain moral choices I would NOT make (torture for example, is not worth the moral price to save lives)...Ibut if it is an innocent 'us' verse an innocent 'them'....my duty is to protect the innocent 'us'.

The failure of some Soldiers over recent times has been the fact that they have been too willing to sacrifice the innocent 'them' when the innocent 'us' was not really in any danger.  A percieved threat is not necessarily a true threat...we have to be smart about what we do.   I doubt the threat will be 'percieved' in ME3 though, if this situation played out.

 

Modifié par LtlMac, 04 février 2011 - 02:35 .

[LtlMac]

Scimal wrote...

Estelindis wrote...

If by "pure numbers can be restored" you mean that population levels can rise to what they used to be, then yes, they can (over a very long time). But the people killed can't be brought back. Don't individual lives have value? Each of us only has one chance (Shepard aside, 'twould seem). Isn't it better to save billions than millions?

And couldn't some other station or planet become the centre of galactic society anyway? Why should people keep on following the Reapers' wishes in focusing so much on the Citadel?

If the Reapers are destroyed, the Citadel's habitation doesn't matter much.

The immediate choice is to save billions over millions, but I intended to invoke more of the ramifications of each decision.

If the Citadel is destroyed, their leadership is lost and it's feasible wars would break out after the Reaper threat for control over the systems.

If Earth is destroyed, they'd obviously be given the respect their sacrifice deserved (I'd hope), the current system of government would remain intact (one which is more favorable to Humans than another possible iteration), but as a species we'd be weak for centuries.

Eventually things would even out regardless of the choice. Either a new government would be established or human population would rise to pre-Reaper levels.

The answer isn't clear-cut to me, though. If it is to you, good for you.

Intersting thought...but even inside the politics of the mass effect fictional universe, we would be given 'respect' as were the Krogan against the Rachni, and every other race used as tools.   They would herald our sacrifice....but only as a footnot of the greater history of the Asari, Turians, and Salarians.   History matters.  Culture matters.  I'm not saying humans would deserve to be the sole rulers of the galaxy (hence the reason my instinct has always been to play paragon...despite going into the game thinking I would be making renegade chocies)....but I'd be damned if I'd let Humans be some sidebar thought to some Asari Matriarchs memory.  Irrational...maybe...but we are, of course, only human.

Modifié par LtlMac, 04 février 2011 - 02:54 .

[The Fan]

How about choosing between you romance and you other most used squadmate?

[KhaysunDei]

Sacrificing your reputation and becoming a hated figure or having all your friends die for the sake of an important political mission.

Saving a group of children(50ish) trapped in a treasury vault and leave the riches but also killing your friends in the process or steal the riches alongside your friends(who support stealing) and retire to a fancy reservation and let the children die.

Abandon an endangered colony(maybe 3 million people) to save your ship against superior enemy numbers or stay and defend the colony at all costs (no reinforcements except from colony).

[LtlMac]

Estelindis wrote...

I think it's more a case of good for you that you can come up with a dilemma that leads us to have this debate. ;-)

But yes, it is quite clear-cut to me. It wasn't at first (as I said, I needed to think about it for a few minutes), and I do acknowledge the benefits of saving the Citadel (as you mention), but I think that the Council got one chance when my Shep saved them in ME1 and they're not worth a second sacrifice of unspeakably more human lives (given their lack of action re the Reapers in ME2). I also don't think that billions of innocent lives is an acceptable price for the "respect" of the galaxy. But hey. Thanks for the discussion!

I agree.....i have a very strong opinon on this (obviously) but don't be-little others opinions about it.  This is a very interesting discussion for me as I've begun to consider it in relationship to my role in the real world and how a lot of things are applicable to the current dynamic of countries!    Wonderful discussion, and a credit to why ME is so amazing!

[LtlMac]

The Fan wrote...

How about choosing between you romance and you other most used squadmate?

This isn't a bad one...but it leads to a bit of 'gameism' in me.   The gamer in me would recognize that romance shouldn't factor into a moral decision and would make the 'moral' call.  However, if we were talking Real Life....sorry, but family aint the most important thing, it's the only thing.

My only issue with this is that it would create a situation where the real me and the 'im only playing a video game' me would make different choices.  I have tried to play the games as I would if it were the real me.....but I'm pretty sue the only reason my cannon Shep was able to let Ashley dies is because I knew saving her would have only been a product of our personnel relationship (not moral).  But if it was my REAL wife.....well, as I've said in other post...sucks to have not married/dated me. 

Anyways...not that it would be a bad idea....i just don't like how I don't think the choice made would reflect how I would behave if it were 'real'. 

[Scimal]

LtlMac wrote...

My thoughts probably come from being  a Soldier in real life.  It's just....when I signed up to protect the American people...thats what I signed up for.  It isn't that I don't care about people from other countries....but sacrificing America for the good of our current global situation....would feel like a betrayal.   I, along with many others, have been charged with the duty of protecting our country....any decision I make that makes our country less safe means I have failed.  Now, don't get me wrong.....there are certain moral choices I would NOT make (torture for example, is not worth the moral price to save lives)...Ibut if it is an innocent 'us' verse an innocent 'them'....my duty is to protect the innocent 'us'.

The failure of some Soldiers over recent times has been the fact that they have been too willing to sacrifice the innocent 'them' when the innocent 'us' was not really in any danger.  A percieved threat is not necessarily a true threat...we have to be smart about what we do.   I doubt the threat will be 'percieved' in ME3 though, if this situation played out.

 

The contrasting is intriguing. I'm Pre-Med myself.

You'd think with me being Pre-Med that I'd be all for the preservation of as many lives as possible without a second thought (and you'd be right in practice), but an integral part of the job is knowing that sometimes a better life exists beyond temporary pai n. Physical therapy is very painful, but the rewards are clear, for instance.

I hestitate to choose a clear answer in the hypothetical situation because I am caught up in weighing the immediate cost in lives lost vs. the future costs of a destabilized government.

Interesting.

[rodgerage]

Well if it came to the choice of making the ultimate sacrifice than im taking miranda with me no one gets her ASS that is mine

[AndrahilAdrian]

The Reapers can only be defeated by creating a "mega-reaper", using the collector base to synthesize all asari, turians, salarians, krogan, and a few billion humans. The resulting uber-weapon can destroy the reapers and save the rest of humanity. Not doing it means everyone dies. If you destroyed the collector base, you're F#$ked. Serves you right for sabotaging your own cause. If you choose to synthesize them, you go from planet to planet enslaving the people and sending them through the relay. If you choose not to, you go from planet to planet getting them to help you save Earth, and eventually lose in the final battle.

[IBPROFEN]

Scimal wrote...

The Reapers launch a two-pronged attack while you're in the Terminus systems; they attack Earth and the Citadel en force.

Which one do you save?

Do you preserve galactic civilization or your own species?

Forever endanger Humanity's position in galactic society, or leave a handful of survivors to be praised for their sacrifice?

That would be a good one to me.

Great question. You would have to save the Citadel, cause the reapers wouldn't destroy it they need it.
 Cause they could lock each world a start destroying one by one.  Then how would you save the rest?

[Inquisitor Recon]

Scimal wrote...

The Reapers launch a two-pronged attack while you're in the Terminus systems; they attack Earth and the Citadel en force.

Which one do you save?

Do you preserve galactic civilization or your own species?

Forever endanger Humanity's position in galactic society, or leave a handful of survivors to be praised for their sacrifice?

That would be a good one to me.

The Citadel, it of too great strategic importance due to being the hub of the relay network. Humanity can rebuild without Earth, and Emperor Shepard can lead the way, forging a stronger humanity and all that. /motivational speech

[Estelindis]

LtlMac wrote...

Wonderful discussion, and a credit to why ME is so amazing!

Yes indeed. Thank you for your very interesting thoughts based on your military service. Please permit me to say that, in spite of not being American myself (and thus being one of "them" rather than "us" from your point of view), I feel your attitude is fair and correct - a credit to your country.

WarlordDavian wrote...

Sacrificing your reputation and becoming a hated figure or having all your friends die for the sake of an important political mission.

Sacrifice one's reputation. In the words of Aral Vorkosigan: "Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself." It hurts to have a bad reputation, but better to suffer than to let others die.

The only possible exception I can imagine for this (after a little thought) is a situation in which having a terrible reputation would make many more people die than just one's friends. Perhaps the galactic community not being able to trust Shepard would lead to disaster due to not committing resources Shepard insists are necessary to stop the Reapers. But maybe this has already happened due to Shep's association with Cerberus. In any case, Shepard should still not sacrifice his or her friends unless he or she is absolutely certain it will be impossible to salvage the reputation afterwards and that having a bad reputation will lead to some further catastrophe. And that seems very unlikely, so my default answer would remain my initial one.

WarlordDavian wrote...
Saving a group of children(50ish) trapped in a treasury vault and leave the riches but also killing your friends in the process or steal the riches alongside your friends(who support stealing) and retire to a fancy reservation and let the children die.

If the only thing left for myself and my friends after carrying out this mission is to retire (in this scenario, we seem to have no greater commitments to things like, say, a suicide mission to save the galaxy), then the children should be saved.

This is made somewhat more problematic by the fact that this isn't a question of sacrificing soldiers under one's command for a greater cause, but killing people who favour the theft and oppose rescuing the children. One might argue that if I leave the children then I do not actively kill them, only passively allow them to die - whereas, if I choose the other course of action, then I actively murder my friends. However, my personal feeling is that I should first state my preference for saving the children, telling my friends that I will try to save as many as I can whether they help me or not. Then, if they try to stop me, I will take whatever steps I can to oppose them. This is legitimate defence of myself and the children.

WarlordDavian wrote...
Abandon an endangered colony(maybe 3 million people) to save your ship against superior enemy numbers or stay and defend the colony at all costs (no reinforcements except from colony).

This one is a bit difficult without more details. How superior is the enemy, really, considering that the Normandy's firepower and shielding have been upgraded significantly? Or, perhaps, can the Normandy jump away to save itself while a landing party stays to help defend the colony? How hopeless is the defence without help, and how much difference could a landing party make? Does the attacking force want to destroy the colony or simply to take its people (who might be recovered if the Normandy went to get help; said help might track down and liberate the people)?

My innate preference would be to stay and fight, to try to save the millions of people. But one must beware of sacrificing oneself needlessly in a tactically hopeless situation.

ReconTeam wrote...

The Citadel, it of too great strategic importance due to being the hub of the relay network. Humanity can rebuild without Earth, and Emperor Shepard can lead the way, forging a stronger humanity and all that. /motivational speech

Not all mass relays operate via the Citadel, though, do they? It's an important hub, but wouldn't the greater part of the network still function without it? Forgive me if I'm forgetting some important codex entry to the contrary.

As for the Emperor Shepard part, that sounds a tad too 40k-ish for me!

Modifié par Estelindis, 04 février 2011 - 04:01 .

[LtlMac]

Scimal wrote...

LtlMac wrote...

My thoughts probably come from being  a Soldier in real life.  It's just....when I signed up to protect the American people...thats what I signed up for.  It isn't that I don't care about people from other countries....but sacrificing America for the good of our current global situation....would feel like a betrayal.   I, along with many others, have been charged with the duty of protecting our country....any decision I make that makes our country less safe means I have failed.  Now, don't get me wrong.....there are certain moral choices I would NOT make (torture for example, is not worth the moral price to save lives)...Ibut if it is an innocent 'us' verse an innocent 'them'....my duty is to protect the innocent 'us'.

The failure of some Soldiers over recent times has been the fact that they have been too willing to sacrifice the innocent 'them' when the innocent 'us' was not really in any danger.  A percieved threat is not necessarily a true threat...we have to be smart about what we do.   I doubt the threat will be 'percieved' in ME3 though, if this situation played out.

 

The contrasting is intriguing. I'm Pre-Med myself.

You'd think with me being Pre-Med that I'd be all for the preservation of as many lives as possible without a second thought (and you'd be right in practice), but an integral part of the job is knowing that sometimes a better life exists beyond temporary pai n. Physical therapy is very painful, but the rewards are clear, for instance.

I hestitate to choose a clear answer in the hypothetical situation because I am caught up in weighing the immediate cost in lives lost vs. the future costs of a destabilized government.

Interesting.

You've hit on the key underlying element:  The assumption that all life is equal.    Those of us living in the 'real world' know this simply isn't the case....and I'm not talking just animals vs ppl.....lets face, some ppl are more valuable than others.  Not because of wealth, or heritage, simply because one Socrates, Shakespear, and Albert Einstein have done more to revolutionize the world than a million 'normal' people.

It is from this point that I understand your piont of view on saving the Citidel before earth.  But my point is....if we let earth go all of the history (or most of it) that those brilliant minds created would go with it (as well as countless of other current 'elite's living in this ficticious world of Mass Effect.  Whose to say our history/culture is better than the Asari's?  Not me.  What I am going to say is the history of earth takes priority over all else.  It is perhaps a less enlightened way of looking at things...but such is the way of the world.  Or should I say galaxy.

[LtlMac]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

The Reapers can only be defeated by creating a "mega-reaper", using the collector base to synthesize all asari, turians, salarians, krogan, and a few billion humans. The resulting uber-weapon can destroy the reapers and save the rest of humanity. Not doing it means everyone dies. If you destroyed the collector base, you're F#$ked. Serves you right for sabotaging your own cause. If you choose to synthesize them, you go from planet to planet enslaving the people and sending them through the relay. If you choose not to, you go from planet to planet getting them to help you save Earth, and eventually lose in the final battle.

The problem with this is it creates another simple moral vs immoral choice.  Becoming evil to defeat evil is...counterproductive at best.  We are all dead one day...i plan to go to my grave being the best person i could be....no point selling my soul (or others) to defeat some entity of this world/galaxy.

 What is fascinating me about the destruction of earth vs destruction of other races/alien planets argument is that it is a difficult choice (one that I argue a specific side of, but not without understanding of the conssequences of my choice) in which it could be argued BOTH sides were moral.  I mean, I don't care how righteious you are...neither choice would be more 'moral' than the other.

[AndrahilAdrian]

LtlMac wrote...

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

The Reapers can only be defeated by creating a "mega-reaper", using the collector base to synthesize all asari, turians, salarians, krogan, and a few billion humans. The resulting uber-weapon can destroy the reapers and save the rest of humanity. Not doing it means everyone dies. If you destroyed the collector base, you're F#$ked. Serves you right for sabotaging your own cause. If you choose to synthesize them, you go from planet to planet enslaving the people and sending them through the relay. If you choose not to, you go from planet to planet getting them to help you save Earth, and eventually lose in the final battle.

The problem with this is it creates another simple moral vs immoral choice.  Becoming evil to defeat evil is...counterproductive at best.  We are all dead one day...i plan to go to my grave being the best person i could be....no point selling my soul (or others) to defeat some entity of this world/galaxy.

so your moral code is so inflexible it won't allow you to sacrifice a few people to save more? Or do anything you deem "evil" even if it leads to an outcome that is clearly better than the alternative? You'd make a great justicar...

Modifié par AndrahilAdrian, 04 février 2011 - 04:16 .

[xentar]

Why do so many people want games to screw them over? As if there's no real life to to that without asking...

[LtlMac]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

LtlMac wrote...

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

The Reapers can only be defeated by creating a "mega-reaper", using the collector base to synthesize all asari, turians, salarians, krogan, and a few billion humans. The resulting uber-weapon can destroy the reapers and save the rest of humanity. Not doing it means everyone dies. If you destroyed the collector base, you're F#$ked. Serves you right for sabotaging your own cause. If you choose to synthesize them, you go from planet to planet enslaving the people and sending them through the relay. If you choose not to, you go from planet to planet getting them to help you save Earth, and eventually lose in the final battle.

The problem with this is it creates another simple moral vs immoral choice.  Becoming evil to defeat evil is...counterproductive at best.  We are all dead one day...i plan to go to my grave being the best person i could be....no point selling my soul (or others) to defeat some entity of this world/galaxy.

so your moral code is so inflexible it won't allow you to sacrifice a few people to save more? Or do anything you deem "evil" even if it leads to an outcome that is clearly better than the alternative? You'd make a great justicar...

Don't kid yourself.  Evil does exist,  I am not even a particularily religuous person but I do believe in good and evil.  People who steal food and concrete  from starving/unsheltered children to help finance their mansion are evil.  I don't care how you define it.  That is wrong.

So.  We've established evil does exist even in todays world.  Now, you are creating an 'ends justify the means' argument.  You have simply created the 'no win scenerio'.  Do the evil thing and 'win' (and don't aruge that what you are saying isn't 'evil'....there is a huge difference between making a dificult choice between two innocent societies dying through no fault of your own and activley participating in the desctruction of that society for your own preservation) or do the 'right' thing and lose.  Well, seeing that--whether there is an afterlife or not--my time here is finite I plan to ensure that I do the right thing.  My Shep will do the same. 

To put it better...if earth only survived by contributing to a holocaust of the rest of the galaxy then our entire purpose of 'being' would be corrupted.  As a world we would live in sin (to be honest...not much unlike all that America 'is'  is  founded on the Sin of what we did to the Indians).  Could we recover?  yes.  Would I like to go back and undo what we did to the Native Americans, despite the consequences?  yes.  Every American today thrives economically on the atrocities commited by us to the Native Americans of a century+ ago.  We accept it and move on because what is done is don.  But if we did not LEARN from that...then ALL of it was in vain.  If society cannot progress past those basic animal instincts then we are all damned.  Do not think I don't understand that what I have just said holds a high level of irony based of my previous comments.   Evolution doesn't occur over night, and my instincts are what they are.

Anyways...I am babbling now.  My point simply is this.....your scenerio creates a good vs evil argument.  I decided long ago that even in the real world I would choose good over evil.  The only moral dilema for me comes when the choice is so....unclear.  Hence the reason this discussion about earth vs others  fascinates me so much.  I defend America from attacks...I would not/did not condone attaking unjustly, even in the name of self preservation (though I do my job).  The morals of a country are as important, if not more so, than anything else.   In the Earth vs Galaxy scenerio presented....we are disucussing making a choice between two 'innocent' parties (Earth vs everyone else) in which, through no fault of our/their own, both have been placed in a position in which we have to make a 'choose one or the other' decision.  The lack of a morally obvious choice is what is so interesting.   If 'Earth' was proven to be morally unsound.....well, you reap what you sow.  In relevance to the current 'global' situation....I belive America as a whole has made some bad mistakes---and some of our leadership simply needs to grow up (I swear half of them act like little kids)--we have not been 'eviil'.  At least as a country.   Some of the corporations could probably use a few years in a Cathedral, though.

Modifié par LtlMac, 04 février 2011 - 04:56 .

[LtlMac]

xentar wrote...

Why do so many people want games to screw them over? As if there's no real life to to that without asking...

Life is a journey.  I promise you that if you percieve it to have 'screwed you over' too many times your issue is your perspective.   Treat it as an adventure...........you and I will one day be dead....but this forum discussion, and my post to you, will have always taken place.  At the end of the day, anything that gets our blodd flowing is a good thing, for better or worse.  Trust me....the stagnation of emotion is way worse than anything else the worlds got to offer.

Thats me bineg 100% honest to random forum people.

Modifié par LtlMac, 04 février 2011 - 04:39 .

[Estelindis]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

so your moral code is so inflexible it won't allow you to sacrifice a few people to save more? Or do anything you deem "evil" even if it leads to an outcome that is clearly better than the alternative? You'd make a great justicar...

Depends on what you mean by sacrifice, doesn't it?  If you're talking about the kind of sacrifice with which we're so familiar from Virmire, in which someone under your command freely gives their life so that others might live, then this is quite acceptable (though obviously one would prefer it if no-one had to die).  If you mean murder, then that's not acceptable under any circumstance, regardless of what beneficial side-effects might result.

We have a number of guidelines for moral decision-making in cases where a single action one takes has a good result and a bad result and we're left trying to work out whether we're justified in taking the action in spite of the bad result.  These guidelines comprise the principle of double effect.  You may not agree with it, but (assuming, possibly incorrectly, that you have not yet encountered it) you may find it interesting.  Allow me to sum up the conditions one must meet to be able to take the action (in the way it was taught to me, which was slightly different from the Wikipedia version):

• The action itself (vs the results) must not be evil.
• It must be possible for the good effect to come about even if the bad effect did not happen (in other words, the good effect must not be a direct result of the bad effect).
• There must be no better alternative way to achieve the good effect.
• The good effect must be equal or greater to the bad effect.

Clearly the murder of all other species in the galaxy does not meet these criteria, regardless of whether or not humanity (and all other future races) survive.  But this is all quite theoretical, as there's no way Bioware would ever put us in such a situation.  Other possible choices mentioned in this thread, by contrast, at least have some small chance of cropping up in the Mass Effect universe.