384 réponses à ce sujet

[lolwut666]

@Silrian

Just because Legion was fine with rewriting the geth does not mean it wants the geth to be enslaved.

[Drachasor]

Silrian wrote...

I get you're point where one is merely efficient while the other is also ethically descent. I just take Legion's words more literal in saying that if he has no trouble rewriting his brethren's behavior and even let's an ORGANIC person choose wether to do that, I don't see the problem in "making" the Geth more "willing". I just don't see the ethical argument holding up against the consequences of Legion's own attitude.

He NEVER said he had no trouble.  Far from it, he can't reach a decision between whether it is more correct to simply kill them or to preserve them by overwriting their self-determination.  It's a real ethical dilemma for him.

You seem to forget that the "organic" person he chose is the same guy who singlehandedly caused Sovereign's plan to fail and whose armor Legion inexplicably used to patch his hole.  Shepherd is clearly someone Legion respects a great, great deal, and in fact whom the Geth view as quite notable given Legion's platform was designed for the expressed purpose of finding him.  Legion trusts the Shepherd-Commander, which is why he lets him make the decision -- a simple fact that is easy to confirm as Legion explicitly states this if you ask him why he lets you make the call.  If you trust someone to make a given decision for you, that doesn't mean you don't care and it doesn't mean you are willing to let anyone make any call they want for you in the future.

There is absolutely no basis for saying Legion doesn't care or that Legions inability to reach a decision here means he and the Geth would have no problems with having their self-determination taken from them.  In fact Legion expresses many times the importance the Geth place in self-determination.  The logical conclusion is that they'd be against it (in fact you will find this is the case if you bring Legion on Tali's loyalty mission).

Silrian wrote...
And personally I also still doubt wether Geth are really inately aware,
but that is partially a different discussion.

I think it is quite related.  Given that the Geth warred with their creators so that they could survive, create their own technology, determine their own goals and dreams, have different opinions (and discuss such things with each other), are capable of passing the Turing Test, etc, etc, on what basis do you say they are not "really" aware?  Could you not then say the same thing about the Turians or any other species?

Modifié par Drachasor, 09 mai 2011 - 07:57 .

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Drachasor wrote...

It's hardly "loaded."  We're talking about thinking beings here.  Sure, it might not be life in a BIOLOGICAL sense, but they are certainly intelligent entities.  Defining biological life precisely is a nuanced issue.  However the rights of sentients is a completely different matter from what they are composed of.  The Geth can think, learn calculus (one of Mordin's measures), and in all ways that matter are sentient non-biological life -- like say, Data from Star Trek TNG.  Destroying them is killing, and yes killing them all is genocide and is heinous.  The Quarians trying to wipe out a young AI trying to figure the world out is just as heinous as if they tried to wipe out their own children.  Remember, the Geth did NOTHING to provoke violence; they only asked questions about the nature of existence.  Later they were forced to defend themselves.

Nothing you're saying is supported by anything we, as humans, have ever experienced. You are making assumptions you do not even have the slightest ability to support (unless you count Star Trek...). Do they have "rights as sentients"? I do not know. Is destroying anything sentient akin to murder? I can't possibly know that either. Can you commit "genocide" (a loaded and often misused term itself when attributed to human interaction) against sentient machines? No one knows. You present these ideas as if you are personally the moral authority on human-robot interaction.

Drachasor wrote...

I see you advocate murdering every member of a civilization or enslaving them though.

I never made that claim. We would have to agree that Geth were a legitimate civilization worthy of protecting first.

[lolwut666]

Just because you asked someone to put down your dog when it got rabis, it doesn't mean anyone can kill your dogs whenever they feel like it.

[nakrato]

Zal's side on the whole peace thing and the fact that he seems to be the only admiral that realises the mistake the quarians made 300 years ago, but my main focus is gonna be to try and make them live peacefullt in co-exsistence.

Modifié par nakrato, 09 mai 2011 - 07:58 .

[lolwut666]

@Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams

Rather than just denying everything he says, why don't you explain why do you think the geth have no "rights as sentients"?

[Paraxial]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Qwib Qwib.

Qwib Qwib Qwib Qwib Qwib Qwib.

[VolusNamedBob]

Qwib Qwib may be a ****, but he's a **** I agree with.

[jamesp81]

I have trouble choosing.  There's little middle ground with these guys.

Zaal'Koris is probably right that starting a war with the Geth is a bad idea.  However, I have zero respect for the man.  For him, it's not enough to say that war with the Geth is a bad idea and that what was done to the Geth 300 years previously was wrong.  He has to go into full scale apologist mode.  The man looks down on his own people.  He also attempted to get a member of my crew, and one of his own citizens, convicted of a CAPITAL CRIME just to further his own political ends.  This is a profoundly criminal act.  If the Quarian people don't punish him for this crime, I will.  For this thing he has done, he may very well taste the wrong end of my sword before it's all over.

Han'Gerrel seems to be a decent sort, but a war, even a successful one, against the Geth is not justified and leaves everyone weaker for the Reapers.  I think here is some hope of changing Gerrel's mind, as he suggests that the Quarians would at least "need a world to shelter their non-combatants" during any war with the Reapers.  It suggests he might be convinced to colonize another world besides Rannoch and avoid war with the Geth.  It also suggests he might be talked in to peace with the Geth if he can be sufficiently convinced the Geth are being forthright with him.   This as opposed to Zaal'Koris who's going to loathe his own people no matter what.

Daro'Xen is bat**** insane and countenances nothing less than large scale enslavement.  The Batarians would be very jealous indeed if they knew what she was planning.

I wish there was an admiral who was of the opinion that the Quarian people of today aren't monsters and don't deserve the treatment they give, but is also willing to let the past go with the Geth.  If there were, that's the guy I'd support.

I'm going to say I would somewhat favor Han'Gerrel on the condition that I could get him to consider colonizing a new world and avoiding war with the Geth, at least until the Reaper situation is taken care of.  Hopefully, during the Reaper war, I could convince him that the Geth are being straight with him, and the Quarians and Geth could bury the hatchet and let the Quarians have Rannoch back.

If I couldn't convince Han'Gerrel, I'd support Zaal'Koris until the vote to make peace with the Geth was made.  Then I'd blow Koris's head off and ****** on his corpse.

Modifié par jamesp81, 09 mai 2011 - 08:06 .

[Silrian]

Drachasor wrote...

Silrian wrote...

I get you're point where one is merely efficient while the other is also ethically descent. I just take Legion's words more literal in saying that if he has no trouble rewriting his brethren's behavior and even let's an ORGANIC person choose wether to do that, I don't see the problem in "making" the Geth more "willing". I just don't see the ethical argument holding up against the consequences of Legion's own attitude.

He NEVER said he had no trouble.  Far from it, he can't reach a decision between whether it is more correct to simply kill them or to preserve them by overwriting their self-determination.  It's a real ethical dilemma for him.

You seem to forget that the "organic" person he chose is the same guy who singlehandedly caused Sovereign's plan to fail and whose armor Legion inexplicably used to patch his hole.  Shepherd is clearly someone Legion respects a great, great deal, and in fact whom the Geth view as quite notable given Legion's platform was designed for the expressed purpose of finding him.  Legion trusts the Shepherd-Commander, which is why he lets him make the decision -- a simple fact that is easy to confirm as Legion explicitly states this if you ask him why he lets you make the call.  If you trust someone to make a given decision for you, that doesn't mean you don't care and it doesn't mean you are willing to let anyone make any call they want for you in the future.

There is absolutely no basis for saying Legion doesn't care or that Legions inability to reach a decision here means he and the Geth would have no problems with having their self-determination taken from them.  In fact Legion expresses many times the importance the Geth place in self-determination.  The logical conclusion is that they'd be against it (in fact you will find this is the case if you bring Legion on Tali's loyalty mission).

I hear, remember and know everything you say. But consider this: what is the content of self-determination worth, if Legion, so upholding this concept, passively (through Shepard, if that route is taken) decides to negate this self-determination by re-writing his brethren's 'mind' (partially). If you're willing to go thatfar, wether on your own motives or by someone's judgement you trust, what logical argument is left to inherently value self-determination. You can't value something up until the point where it's convenient. You either uphold something as inherently valuable or not. Legion can claim he values self-determination, but his actions – be it indirect – are in my view not consistent with this claim. 

It is imo a blurry line and to meet your viewpoint half-way, I do see that enslaving an entire 'race' is different from rewriting a very certain (perhaps faulty) aspect of their mind. But 1) it's hard to fully understand the Geth's standpoint justice-wise seeing as we don't exactly know what happened between them and the quarians (or have I missed that?). And 2) should it come to it, I'd pick Geth enslavement (a.k.a. data-replacement) over their destruction any day because as was already stated a few posts back, they'd make one hell of a kamikazi force against the reapers. I am not yet convinced the machinary known as Geth has the same ethical value as (organic) life or wether they are really 'alive' at all. [sorry for the possibly long post]

[Drachasor]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Drachasor wrote...

It's hardly "loaded."  We're talking about thinking beings here.  Sure, it might not be life in a BIOLOGICAL sense, but they are certainly intelligent entities.  Defining biological life precisely is a nuanced issue.  However the rights of sentients is a completely different matter from what they are composed of.  The Geth can think, learn calculus (one of Mordin's measures), and in all ways that matter are sentient non-biological life -- like say, Data from Star Trek TNG.  Destroying them is killing, and yes killing them all is genocide and is heinous.  The Quarians trying to wipe out a young AI trying to figure the world out is just as heinous as if they tried to wipe out their own children.  Remember, the Geth did NOTHING to provoke violence; they only asked questions about the nature of existence.  Later they were forced to defend themselves.

Nothing you're saying is supported by anything we, as humans, have ever experienced. You are making assumptions you do not even have the slightest ability to support (unless you count Star Trek...). Do they have "rights as sentients"? I do not know. Is destroying anything sentient akin to murder? I can't possibly know that either. Can you commit "genocide" (a loaded and often misused term itself when attributed to human interaction) against sentient machines? No one knows. You present these ideas as if you are personally the moral authority on human-robot interaction.

Drachasor wrote...

I see you advocate murdering every member of a civilization or enslaving them though.

I never made that claim. We would have to agree that Geth were a legitimate civilization worthy of protecting first.

It's not hard to reason this stuff out.  Why do people have more rights than dogs?  Why does someone in a permanent vegetative state not have the same rights as someone in a more normative state?  This inherently comes from the fact we are capable of higher thought.    We can reason, have creativity, use tools, etc, etc.  Or, as Mordin states, we can learn Calculus.  The Geth can do all these things too.  On what basis would you deny them rights?  Because they aren't composed of carbon?  How does that make any sense?

Sentience is certainly something humans have experienced before.  It isn't hard to see that it doesn't matter what shape or material the sentient being comes in, what matters is THAT IT THINKS.  This, as I noted, is a system we already use with humans.  There is no reason to think it wouldn't work with non-humans; certainly you haven't even presented the crudest conjecture as to why it might fail.

As for the "legitimate civilization" bit, do you apply that same line with human cultures too?  The Geth are a thinking people, with their own dreams, goals, wants, and culture.  They do not seek to harm others, and in fact have lived in peace with the galaxy for a couple hundred years or more.  In what sense are they any less worthy than any other species?

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams

Rather than just denying everything he says, why don't you explain why do you think the geth have no "rights as sentients"?

Because I have no legitimate support to the claim that the Geth have no rights as sentients. It's impossible for us to determine whether or not Geth fall under the category of life that we would consider in some way "sacred," such as the general consensus towards many other races in ME (Asari, Turian, etc.). I would tend to not consider synthetic intelligence to be as worthy of protecting as organic life, but again I have no hard evidence of that. Then again, neither does my fellow forum poster.

[lolwut666]

jamesp81 wrote...

I have trouble choosing.  There's little middle ground with these guys.

Zaal'Koris is probably right that starting a war with the Geth is a bad idea.  However, I have zero respect for the man.  For him, it's not enough to say that war with the Geth is a bad idea and that what was done to the Geth 300 years previously was wrong.  He has to go into full scale apologist mode.  The man looks down on his own people.  He also attempted to get a member of my crew, and one of his own citizens, convicted of a CAPITAL CRIME just to further his own political ends.  This is a profoundly criminal act.  If the Quarian people don't punish him for this crime, I will.  For this thing he has done, he may very well taste the wrong end of my sword before it's all over.

Han'Gerrel seems to be a decent sort, but a war, even a successful one, against the Geth is not justified and leaves everyone weaker for the Reapers.  I think here is some hope of changing Gerrel's mind, as he suggests that the Quarians would at least "need a world to shelter their non-combatants" during any war with the Reapers.  It suggests he might be convinced to colonize another world besides Rannoch and avoid war with the Geth.  It also suggests he might be talked in to peace with the Geth if he can be sufficiently convinced the Geth are being forthright with him.   This as opposed to Zaal'Koris who's going to loathe his own people no matter what.

Daro'Xen is bat**** insane and countenances nothing less than large scale enslavement.  The Batarians would be very jealous indeed if they knew what she was planning.

I wish there was an admiral who was of the opinion that the Quarian people of today aren't monsters and don't deserve the treatment they give, but is also willing to let the past go with the Geth.  If there were, that's the guy I'd support.

I'm going to say I would somewhat favor Han'Gerrel on the condition that I could get him to consider colonizing a new world and avoiding war with the Geth, at least until the Reaper situation is taken care of.  Hopefully, during the Reaper war, I could convince him that the Geth are being straight with him, and the Quarians and Geth could bury the hatchet and let the Quarians have Rannoch back.

If I couldn't convince Han'Gerrel, I'd support Zaal'Koris until the vote to make peace with the Geth was made.  Then I'd blow Koris's head off and ****** on his corpse.

so i herd u liek tali

[lolwut666]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

@Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams

Rather than just denying everything he says, why don't you explain why do you think the geth have no "rights as sentients"?

Because I have no legitimate support to the claim that the Geth have no rights as sentients. It's impossible for us to determine whether or not Geth fall under the category of life that we would consider in some way "sacred," such as the general consensus towards many other races in ME (Asari, Turian, etc.). I would tend to not consider synthetic intelligence to be as worthy of protecting as organic life, but again I have no hard evidence of that. Then again, neither does my fellow forum poster.

There's no evidence to support that *any* sentient life-form is "sacred" besides what we make to ourselves.

The concensus is that any type of life that can think for itself is entitled to basic human rights, like the right  to life and freedom.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Drachasor wrote...

It's not hard to reason this stuff out.  Why do people have more rights than dogs?  Why does someone in a permanent vegetative state not have the same rights as someone in a more normative state?  This inherently comes from the fact we are capable of higher thought.    We can reason, have creativity, use tools, etc, etc.  Or, as Mordin states, we can learn Calculus.  The Geth can do all these things too.  On what basis would you deny them rights?  Because they aren't composed of carbon?  How does that make any sense?

Sentience is certainly something humans have experienced before.  It isn't hard to see that it doesn't matter what shape or material the sentient being comes in, what matters is THAT IT THINKS.  This, as I noted, is a system we already use with humans.  There is no reason to think it wouldn't work with non-humans; certainly you haven't even presented the crudest conjecture as to why it might fail.

As for the "legitimate civilization" bit, do you apply that same line with human cultures too?  The Geth are a thinking people, with their own dreams, goals, wants, and culture.  They do not seek to harm others, and in fact have lived in peace with the galaxy for a couple hundred years or more.  In what sense are they any less worthy than any other species?

First, the Geth can "think" only because their creators programmed that ability within them. They are the creation of on organic race. In my opinion, that already puts them on a lower level of "inherent worth" than the Quarians.

Second, organics are very inherently different than Geth. Organics have emotions, creativity, and individuality. Geth have only a faux individualism based on programming.

Third, by "legitimate civilizations," I was referring to one composed of beings whose lives were worth protecting. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on the Geth.

Finally, I don't know how you can possibly say that the Geth don't "seek to harm others." Did you play ME1? In fact, Legion is the only example of the Geth being anything but openly violent towards organics, and I don't trust that thing in the least.

[Drachasor]

Silrian wrote...

I hear, remember and know everything you say. But consider this: what is the content of self-determination worth, if Legion, so upholding this concept, passively (through Shepard, if that route is taken) decides to negate this self-determination by re-writing his brethren's 'mind' (partially). If you're willing to go thatfar, wether on your own motives or by someone's judgement you trust, what logical argument is left to inherently value self-determination. You can't value something up until the point where it's convenient. You either uphold something as inherently valuable or not. Legion can claim he values self-determination, but his actions – be it indirect – are in my view not consistent with this claim. 

It is imo a blurry line and to meet your viewpoint half-way, I do see that enslaving an entire 'race' is different from rewriting a very certain (perhaps faulty) aspect of their mind. But 1) it's hard to fully understand the Geth's standpoint justice-wise seeing as we don't exactly know what happened between them and the quarians (or have I missed that?). And 2) should it come to it, I'd pick Geth enslavement (a.k.a. data-replacement) over their destruction any day because as was already stated a few posts back, they'd make one hell of a kamikazi force against the reapers. I am not yet convinced the machinary known as Geth has the same ethical value as (organic) life or wether they are really 'alive' at all. [sorry for the possibly long post]

Oh, I see. so if you leave the treatment of psychotics to psychiatrists (who then prescribe anti-psychotics, changing the programming of those people), then you ALSO don't believe that, generally speaking, self-determination is a worthwhile goal?

There is nothing logically wrong with saying you value freedom up until the point someone feels "free" to come at you with a knife.  Or value freedom of speech up until the point someone yells "fire" in a theatre or strikes fear by burning a cross.  Or value life, up until the point a person is brain dead and kept alive solely by machines.  Just because a given thing is valuable, doesn't mean it is more valuable than all other concerns.  The rebel Geth were a clear and present danger to the rest of the Geth and the rest of the Galaxy.

Legion's values here aren't very different from yours and mine, honestly.  Perhaps even more unconfortable than you or I would be.  He isn't certain if rewriting is ok and it isn't more ethical to just destroy them rather than change part of who they are.  He has trouble weighing the value of life, on one hand, vs. the value of freedom on the other.  At what point is it more merciful to let them die with what freedom they had than change who they are and let them live?  (Personally I view Reaper Worship as a kind of disease and the virus is just a really efficient treatment, but Reaper Worship is a special case here...freedom in general certainly isn't a disease).

As for what happened between the Geth and Quarians, both sides agree.  A Geth asked "do I have a soul?"  or another metaphysical question or two.  This terrified the Quarians, who immediately decided to wipe the Geth out.  Both sides agree the Quarians struck first and both sides agree on the reason (rather astonishly, I admit...in real life it would not be so clear cut).  The Geth decided they didn't want to just give in and die...they wanted to exist.  Hence the war.  Legion expresses some confusion over why the Creators did this and regret at the deaths and forcing the creators of their home world.  If you bring Legion to Tali's loyalty quest, he also says the Geth would be willing to make peace with the Quarians IF they could be convinced the Quarians actually valued peace (since, according to Legion 100% of the time the Quarians could strike and get away with it, they've attacked).

[jamesp81]

lolwut666 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

I have trouble choosing.  There's little middle ground with these guys.

Zaal'Koris is probably right that starting a war with the Geth is a bad idea.  However, I have zero respect for the man.  For him, it's not enough to say that war with the Geth is a bad idea and that what was done to the Geth 300 years previously was wrong.  He has to go into full scale apologist mode.  The man looks down on his own people.  He also attempted to get a member of my crew, and one of his own citizens, convicted of a CAPITAL CRIME just to further his own political ends.  This is a profoundly criminal act.  If the Quarian people don't punish him for this crime, I will.  For this thing he has done, he may very well taste the wrong end of my sword before it's all over.

Han'Gerrel seems to be a decent sort, but a war, even a successful one, against the Geth is not justified and leaves everyone weaker for the Reapers.  I think here is some hope of changing Gerrel's mind, as he suggests that the Quarians would at least "need a world to shelter their non-combatants" during any war with the Reapers.  It suggests he might be convinced to colonize another world besides Rannoch and avoid war with the Geth.  It also suggests he might be talked in to peace with the Geth if he can be sufficiently convinced the Geth are being forthright with him.   This as opposed to Zaal'Koris who's going to loathe his own people no matter what.

Daro'Xen is bat**** insane and countenances nothing less than large scale enslavement.  The Batarians would be very jealous indeed if they knew what she was planning.

I wish there was an admiral who was of the opinion that the Quarian people of today aren't monsters and don't deserve the treatment they give, but is also willing to let the past go with the Geth.  If there were, that's the guy I'd support.

I'm going to say I would somewhat favor Han'Gerrel on the condition that I could get him to consider colonizing a new world and avoiding war with the Geth, at least until the Reaper situation is taken care of.  Hopefully, during the Reaper war, I could convince him that the Geth are being straight with him, and the Quarians and Geth could bury the hatchet and let the Quarians have Rannoch back.

If I couldn't convince Han'Gerrel, I'd support Zaal'Koris until the vote to make peace with the Geth was made.  Then I'd blow Koris's head off and ****** on his corpse.

so i herd u liek tali

She is a cool person that I like having on my crew.  But that's not what you meant, was it?

I have, for the record, never romanced Tali on a single playthrough.

Modifié par jamesp81, 09 mai 2011 - 08:22 .

[Silrian]

lolwut666 wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

@Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams

Rather than just denying everything he says, why don't you explain why do you think the geth have no "rights as sentients"?

Because I have no legitimate support to the claim that the Geth have no rights as sentients. It's impossible for us to determine whether or not Geth fall under the category of life that we would consider in some way "sacred," such as the general consensus towards many other races in ME (Asari, Turian, etc.). I would tend to not consider synthetic intelligence to be as worthy of protecting as organic life, but again I have no hard evidence of that. Then again, neither does my fellow forum poster.

There's no evidence to support that *any* sentient life-form is "sacred" besides what we make to ourselves.

The concensus is that any type of life that can think for itself is entitled to basic human rights, like the right  to life and freedom.

That is first of all a slippery slope conscerning argumentations, because what about Babies? Children? Mentally-challanged persons? And to add to the overall complexity: there is still the possibility the Geth are a collective machine ACTING AS IF they are sentient. What's to know the difference for us, we inherently do not know there entire form of life. Based on the things we do know: they, at times, support reconfiguration of all sorts of identity-data, have no form of indiviuality, are machines constructed from lifeless (life in the organic perspective) material, refer to themselves as programs, litterally say organic morality does not apply and at the very least ACT as though they are self-aware, though what that 'self' is is hard to convey seeing as they lay no claim on any individuality. Based on this list of facts I'd say that the only way to get them so the same level of ethical perspective as organics, is to say that organic life is also just a form of 'machinary', this however to me only results in the entire negation of any ethical theory: 'life' is an accumulated illusion in this scenario.

Based on THIS entire line of reasoning I conclude that until new facts come to light, we can do whatever the hell we want with and too Geth because they are simply machinery that act in a way, resembeling partially to living creatures.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

lolwut666 wrote...

There's no evidence to support that *any* sentient life-form is "sacred" besides what we make to ourselves.

Agreed.

lolwut666 wrote...

The concensus is that any type of life that can think for itself is entitled to basic human rights, like the right  to life and freedom.

Freedom is hardly the consensus throughout the world. Also, where is the fact that humans are intelligent claimed as the basis of modern Western ideas of human rights?

[Silrian]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

There's no evidence to support that *any* sentient life-form is "sacred" besides what we make to ourselves.

Agreed.

lolwut666 wrote...

The concensus is that any type of life that can think for itself is entitled to basic human rights, like the right  to life and freedom.

Freedom is hardly the consensus throughout the world. Also, where is the fact that humans are intelligent claimed as the basis of modern Western ideas of human rights?

I can answer that as a student of philosophy: The German enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant (from the 18th century) is the biggest initiator of that line of thought and was one of the first to give a complete account of an ethical rule of (a) human's rights.

[lolwut666]

@Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams

"Freedom is hardly the consensus throughout the world. Also, where is the fact that humans are intelligent claimed as the basis of modern Western ideas of human rights?"

Indeed. Some civilizations see freedom differently. I overlooked that.

But, in that case, why would we try to enforce any type of freedom on the geth? Just leave them alone. They're another civilization, with different views. Let them live the way they want.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams

"Freedom is hardly the consensus throughout the world. Also, where is the fact that humans are intelligent claimed as the basis of modern Western ideas of human rights?"

Indeed. Some civilizations see freedom differently. I overlooked that.

But, in that case, why would we try to enforce any type of freedom on the geth? Just leave them alone. They're another civilization, with different views. Let them live the way they want.

Or we could consider them as machines and destroy them all or reprogram them to serve us.

[Drachasor]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

First, the Geth can "think" only because their creators programmed that ability within them. They are the creation of on organic race. In my opinion, that already puts them on a lower level of "inherent worth" than the Quarians.

What's your basis for saying that?  Are humans therefore at a lower level than australopithecines?  Afterall, we come from them, right?  Further, why is something that came about through a chaotic* process rather than something that was designed worth more?  How does that have anything to do with rights?  Do you mean to say that a child not planned for is worth more than one where the parents both decided to have a baby?  Or do you divine some sort of magical aspect to things bonds between carbon, nitrogent, oxygen, and hydrogen?  What's your BASIS for saying one is worth more than the other?

Also thinking is thinking, however it comes about.

*I mean this in a very technical sense.  Evolution as a whole is chaotic in mathematical sense, probably, because I don't think you can predict the resulting species based on what you start with.  It's (imho probably) too sensitive to slight perturbations along the way.

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...
Second, organics are very inherently different than Geth. Organics have emotions, creativity, and individuality. Geth have only a faux individualism based on programming.

Legion demonstrates emotion.  He has regret for the war with the creators; some sort of hero worship for Shepherd; struggles with an ethical dilemma; is creative about fixing his hole; etc.  The Geth certainly invent technology as well, and clearly have individuality as different geth programs can have different opininions.  You say this is "faux" for the Geth, but one could just as easily say one human's emotions are fake...this is a bit related to solipsism.  The fact is they DO have thoughts, inventions, desires, etc, and ones that the Quarians certainly are incapable of predicting (which is better than most humans, I think).

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...Third, by "legitimate civilizations," I was referring to one composed of beings whose lives were worth protecting. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on the Geth.

Well, you could say the same thing about humans or any other race.  The Geth certainly haven't done anything worse than anyone else.

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...Finally, I don't know how you can possibly say that the Geth don't "seek to harm others." Did you play ME1? In fact, Legion is the only example of the Geth being anything but openly violent towards organics, and I don't trust that thing in the least.

Legion is pretty clearly an example of 95% of the Geth, as he estimates.  ALL THE GETH in ME1 are the rebel faction that you get rid of with Legion as part of his loyalty quest, and the same is true of all the ones in ME2 save for Legion.  Did you bother paying attention to what Legion says?  Or are you accusing him of lying?  (Which I think would actually undermine you argument against artificial life further).  The non-rebel Geth, 95% or so of them all, haven't left their space for something like 300 years.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Drachasor wrote...

Legion is pretty clearly an example of 95% of the Geth, as he estimates.  ALL THE GETH in ME1 are the rebel faction that you get rid of with Legion as part of his loyalty quest, and the same is true of all the ones in ME2 save for Legion.  Did you bother paying attention to what Legion says?  Or are you accusing him of lying?  (Which I think would actually undermine you argument against artificial life further).  The non-rebel Geth, 95% or so of them all, haven't left their space for something like 300 years.

You do realize if Legion is not actually the ally he pretends he is, all of this "information" is worth nothing, right?

[lolwut666]

@Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams

But they're not "just machines".

No offense, but you're advocating racism.

Many cultures with the same perspective would argue that it was all right to destroy others because they were not as worthy, for example.

Just because you chose to view them in a certain way, it does not mean it is the correct way.