91 réponses à ce sujet

[Lapis Lazuli]

To wax philosophic for a moment: I think it is also worthy of note that something can be without analogy in human experience and still be "worked with" by the human mind. There are several things in science that are like this. Quantum Mechanics being one of them. It was once thought that the atom was analogous to a planetary or solar system. Now we know that there is no analogy in human experience. Also, subatomic particles themselves are not like billiard balls like was once thought. They have no analogy in the macroscopic world. Also, the expansion of the universe is not like a 3D balloon. In reality, We can't imagine it. Yet we can work with all of these things and explain phenomena. So it is possible that the reaping purpose can't be imagined but can be "worked with" by the human mind.

Modifié par Lapis Lazuli, 19 juin 2011 - 02:50 .

[Raven4030]

I suppose I should just repeat my reasoning and then call it in:

I do not believe destruction, even if it is my own, to be inherently evil, I believe that destruction that serves the purpose of the growth or survival for a species is acceptable even if morally ambiguous at best. I also believe that reaper growth or survival is absolutely dependent upon organic life because if they're just doing it to be evil, or because they don't want us to reach their level of tech, or anything other than their continued survival then why not just destroy organic life outright? They leave primitive species behind, let them grow and evolve and even let them reach the point to where they spread throughout the galaxy before destroying them: so WHY? There must be some gain for them that requires these extinction cycles to continue, otherwise they could just destroy all organics everywhere and do nothing. I mean, is the genocide how they get their kicks?

Though I guess when you get right down to it the question is academic. I mean, for all our speculation we'll probably find out in ME3 anyway, and evil or no, they still have to be blown to shreds.

[Mabari Owns High Dragon]

Raven4030 wrote...

I suppose I should just repeat my reasoning and then call it in:

I do not believe destruction, even if it is my own, to be inherently evil, I believe that destruction that serves the purpose of the growth or survival for a species is acceptable even if morally ambiguous at best. I also believe that reaper growth or survival is absolutely dependent upon organic life because if they're just doing it to be evil, or because they don't want us to reach their level of tech, or anything other than their continued survival then why not just destroy organic life outright? They leave primitive species behind, let them grow and evolve and even let them reach the point to where they spread throughout the galaxy before destroying them: so WHY? There must be some gain for them that requires these extinction cycles to continue, otherwise they could just destroy all organics everywhere and do nothing. I mean, is the genocide how they get their kicks?

Though I guess when you get right down to it the question is academic. I mean, for all our speculation we'll probably find out in ME3 anyway, and evil or no, they still have to be blown to shreds.

Well.. an argument could be made that they couldn't destroy all life, but I agree completely with what you said. You made a good point.

And anyway, about renegade/paragon Shepherd. Those action only denote Shepherds "Personality". Regardless of the way he does things, his actually are generally for the best.

Modifié par Mabari Owns High Dragon, 19 juin 2011 - 04:39 .

[Lapis Lazuli]

Raven4030 wrote...

I suppose I should just repeat my reasoning and then call it in:

I do not believe destruction, even if it is my own, to be inherently evil, I believe that destruction that serves the purpose of the growth or survival for a species is acceptable even if morally ambiguous at best. I also believe that reaper growth or survival is absolutely dependent upon organic life because if they're just doing it to be evil, or because they don't want us to reach their level of tech, or anything other than their continued survival then why not just destroy organic life outright? They leave primitive species behind, let them grow and evolve and even let them reach the point to where they spread throughout the galaxy before destroying them: so WHY? There must be some gain for them that requires these extinction cycles to continue, otherwise they could just destroy all organics everywhere and do nothing. I mean, is the genocide how they get their kicks?

There have been all kinds of theories about why. But you are putting forward that they logically must always involve the very survival of the reapers. Not necessarily. In all these RPG's involving cyclic destruction, the villain gains something. But ME would be unique (from what I've seen) if the villain's very survival depends upon it. An interesting expample is seen in Bethesda's Elder Scrolls IV expansion called "Shivering Isles".  SPOILER WARNING There is an infinite cycle of destruction. But the villain's survival isn't dependent on it; only his form of incarnation. 

[Ship.wreck_]

SandTrout wrote...

Ship.wreck wrote...
Of course humans are evil. But we have individuality, so many of us are not evil at the same time that many of us are evil. And we are evil or not based on our individual actions, not on the fact that our ancestors managed to survive.

As far as the evolution of species in general: competing for resources and winning does not constitute a joint species wide conscious decision to genocide the competition. If you eat the only food for miles and leave, then someone else comes along to find no food and starve, you didn't murder that guy, you didn't even know he'd be there or need food, you didn't even know he existed. Just a random turn of events that resulted in you living and him... well, not. The fact that many species have died out in competition with humans does not reflect in any way shape or form on the morality of the human species. The Reapers on the other hand know they're killing us, and are consciously choosing to do so.
And they don't even NEED to kill us to survive. Sure MAYBE they need to harvest a species here and there to survive (not confirmed), but even if that's the case, it still doesn't constitute a need to complety eradicate the species being harvested, let alone all of the dozens or hundreds of species NOT being harvested that they wipe out anyway. Therefore: evil.

If you truly believe this, then you should be working toward the destruction of the Human species based on the fact that we are evil. This is a deeply flawed and self-destructive view of good and evil.

What are you talking about? Nothing about that post implied that the human species is inherently evil.

You also forget that, as a species, we have made several conscious actions to commit genocide in order to ensure our own survival. Smallpox was a blight on the world until scientists and doctors made the conscious decision to start mass immunizations of the human population, resulting in the functional extinction of the smallpox bacteria (Only a few samples remain in laboratories for scientific purposes). It was a matter of Smallpox or Humans, and we made the only possible correct decision, Humans.

That is a horrible comparison. Killing bacteria is not genocide, it's not even close. Bacteria aren't even sentient. There is nothing wrong with killing bacteria in any numbers.

It was not a matter of weather it is good or evil to wipe out one species in order to ensure the survival of your own, it was simply a matter of of survival, and if Humans ever abandon the principal of survival, we will no longer exist, resulting in our own self-inflicted genocide because of a philosophy that refuses to acknowledge the reality that the only natural law of behavior is survival. If you think that you can operate outside the law of survival, reality will very quickly remove you from life.

If that were the case we would all be dead already. The very existence of human society is the antithesis of survival of the fitest. In the so-called "natural" world there is no morality at all - ever. There is ONLY survival or death. The topic of this thread being a question of morality (good vs. evil) precludes the use of the "survival of the fitest" justification.

[Ship.wreck_]

SandTrout wrote...

For me, the definition is destruction without creation. The Reapers destroy a civilization in order to produce something greater than that civilization: the Reaper Avatar of the civilization. They wipe out some races that are not worthy of being made into to a Reaper so that the galaxy can be left open to allow the opportunity for another species to earn that privilege. From their perspective, they destroy something that is flawed in order to allow the creation of something perfect. Therefor, they do not necessarily fall under my definition of evil.

Their methods are abhorrent to me, and their goals are counter and mutually exclusive to my own, so I will fight them because I wish to survive, I do not fight them because they wish to create.

Wow. The N*zis tried to wipe out the "inferior" Jewish "race" for the benefit of the "superior" Arian "race". So from their perspective they were destroying something that was "flawed" (Jewish people) to allow the creation of something "perfect" (a world dominated by Arian people).

And your justification for the Reapers is that because they're destroying something "flawed" (all Galactic space-faring species) to create something "perfect" (another douchey Reaper... which by the way we don't even know is the case), therefore it's not evil at all.

Oh... wait a second... Oh yeah! When the N*zis did it, it was pretty much the most evil f*cking thing to go down in human history! And now that the Reapers are doing... it's pretty much the most evil f*cking thing to go down in ME galactic history. Hmmm... therefore the Reapers are evil.

The very idea that they might not be evil is ludicrous.

"Destruction without creation"? Who the hell taught you right from wrong? When someone gets raped nothing gets physically destroyed, and potentially a new life could be created but guess what... rape is super evil. Evil has nothing to do with creation or destruction. Causing unnecessary suffering is evil no matter what does or doesn't get destroyed or what does or doesn't get created. Welcome to reality.

[Ship.wreck_]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Ship.wreck wrote...

The very existence of human society is the antithesis of survival of the fitest.

Oh, no, my friend. That is not the case. Only the fitest members of society carry on to the next generation. The fittest ideas, the fittest members, the fittest societies out-compete the weaker societies.

If only that were true, the world would be a much better place. Unfortunately any a-hole can insert tab A into slot B and spawn a new generation of douche bags, and they do! Everyday. And what makes it possible? Society which provides a legal system, police forces, safety devices, medical care, and a general state of being for the populace in which it is not okay for anyone walking down the street to club you to death for being "less fit" to survive. And all to protect even the most pathetic slimeballs from death, allowing them to breed where the "natural" world would chew them up (literally) before they ever had the chance to.

If it weren't for society human numbers would never have reached what they have, and probably 8 out of 10 people you see on a daily basis would not be alive in the first place. 

I reiterate:
The very existence of human society is the antithesis of survival of the fitest.

[Ship.wreck_]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Ship.wreck wrote...

If only that were true, the world would be a much better place. Unfortunately any a-hole can insert tab A into slot B and spawn a new generation of douche bags, and they do! Everyday.

Guess what? "Fittest" is a variable term. Evolution doesn't select for the most ideal design, only for what works, for what isn't a hindrance. In this day and age self sufficiency isn't needed, it isn't even wanted in a lot of cases. Nor is a lot of thought.

The fact is, the "smart" people by and large aren't interested in breeding. Their smart genes go to waste. Their way of life focused on the values of education and sophistication dies out because there is no new generation to carry it on.

Clubbing people to death in the street isn't common place because it is not a winning strategy. You know what is? Having a stable government capable of enforcing laws and a citizenry who won't tolerate reckless or destructive behavior. You might say those society models are more fit than more chaotic ones.

So way to miss the point completely. You are advancing my argument without even realizing it.

Human society IS the survival of the fittest.

*sigh...*

Societies are designed from the ground up to preserve the lives of their members, regardless of wether or not those individual members have "desireable" characteristics. Without society you have to be smart, fast, strong, etc. enough to survive long enough to reproduce. In modern society you don't... because society protects you. Therefore society allows anyone to reproduce wether they're the "fittest" or not. Therefore society is the opposite of "survival of the fittest"

You can provide another argument that explains why society which attempts to ensure the survival of everyone is actually a working model of survival of the fitest but you'll still be wrong, and I won't respond as this debate is off topic. Topic being whether or not the Reapers are evil.

[Raven4030]

Ship.wreck wrote...

If only that were true, the world would be a much better place. Unfortunately any a-hole can insert tab A into slot B and spawn a new generation of douche bags, and they do! Everyday. And what makes it possible? Society which provides a legal system, police forces, safety devices, medical care, and a general state of being for the populace in which it is not okay for anyone walking down the street to club you to death for being "less fit" to survive. And all to protect even the most pathetic slimeballs from death, allowing them to breed where the "natural" world would chew them up (literally) before they ever had the chance to.

If it weren't for society human numbers would never have reached what they have, and probably 8 out of 10 people you see on a daily basis would not be alive in the first place. 

I reiterate:
The very existence of human society is the antithesis of survival of the fitest.

I know I said I'd back down, but I feel I can respond here because this is not directly related to the topic:

The common misconception is that 'survival of the fittest' means 'survival of the ideal', that the smartest, strongest, or otherwise best of a species survive. In fact, survival of the fittest (which, incidentally, was not actually first coined in relation to economics and I think also used as justification for social darwinism) more accurately pertains to those most fit to survive a given environment. Yes, any idiot can insert tab A into slot B, but the reason they're able to do it is because in the environment allows them to do so. To put it another way: the 'fittest' in survival of the fittest are the ones who survive, period (so yes, that expression is a tautology).

So yes, survival of the fittest still exists and still applies. In short, if you want those you classify as the best and brightest to survive, they have to do a better job at attracting mates and making babies than those you classify as douchebags. In short, from a biological standpoint: the bloodline of the deadbeat dad paying child support to several families is 'fittest' (even if we find him morally repugnant).

Furthermore, all the tech and cool stuff we have that allows those you deem 'unfit' to survive and reproduce must be maintained by smart people and other people you would classify as 'fit'. If there aren't enough 'fit' people to maintain these systems, then human society collapses and those unfit for survival die off anyway. If you plan on bringing up Idiocracy: keep in mind that that society of morons was about to die off and would have done so if the main character (I'll just call him 'not sure' because I don't remember his name) didn't save them from their own stupidity.

[Yakko77]

I believe Vigil said something along the lines of, "Your survival depends on stopping them, not in understanding them," implying that they are so alien both literally and figuratively that it is pointless to try to determine when their reasoning or motivation is "evil".

[SandTrout]

Ship.wreck wrote...

Wow. The N*zis tried to wipe out the "inferior" Jewish "race" for the benefit of the "superior" Arian "race". So from their perspective they were destroying something that was "flawed" (Jewish people) to allow the creation of something "perfect" (a world dominated by Arian people).

At the time, the N's did not view themselves as evil, only from the outside looking in was that lable placed on them on the pricipal that they were following an extremely destructive path towards everything around them, and creating relatively little.

And your justification for the Reapers is that because they're destroying something "flawed" (all Galactic space-faring species) to create something "perfect" (another douchey Reaper... which by the way we don't even know is the case), therefore it's not evil at all.

I did not justify anything. I was explaining their perspective, in that they are not just commiting senseless destruction. They do not see themselves as evil, and from an objective philisophical standpoint, neither do I. I have already pointed out that I still consider them my enemy because of their means and their end.

Oh... wait a second... Oh yeah! When the N*zis did it, it was pretty much the most evil f*cking thing to go down in human history! And now that the Reapers are doing... it's pretty much the most evil f*cking thing to go down in ME galactic history. Hmmm... therefore the Reapers are evil.

The N's were following a deeply flawed philosophy instituted by madmen and didn't take the time to think past their own self-destructive desires to realize that they were not creating more than they destroyed. The N's are evil by my philosophy as well because they caused far more destruction than was necessary for the creation they produced. In fact, most of the creation that can be accounted to them gained nothing from the mass murders they commited.

The very idea that they might not be evil is ludicrous.

And you idea of evil being any destruction necessary for life as evil, and therefor humans as a species are evil, is any more rational?

"Destruction without creation"? Who the hell taught you right from wrong? When someone gets raped nothing gets physically destroyed, and potentially a new life could be created but guess what... rape is super evil. Evil has nothing to do with creation or destruction. Causing unnecessary suffering is evil no matter what does or doesn't get destroyed or what does or doesn't get created. Welcome to reality.

First off, you're taking an extemely scewed and non-rational view of my philosophy, which I learned myself from my experiences, rather than being tought. Rape is not commited with the intent of anything other than satifying the criminal's desires at the physical and mental expense of the victim through the use of force. This act cannot be anything other than evil, even if the unintened good of a new life is created.

The creation of a Reaper is not the complete destruction of the choosen species, as well. The species used looses its individual bodies, but it continues existance in the form of a new Reaper. From the Reapers' standpoint, the only things that they are actually destroying are those species which are unfit to become Reapers, and by their continued existance suppress the rise of a more fit species that might not be quite as technologically advanced as the existing species.

Note that none of the Citadel species could have risen to power if the Reapers had not purged the Protheans. The Protheans could not have risen to dominance without the species before them being purged by the Reapers. In this manner, we owe the existance of our space-fairing culture to the Reapers beyond just Eezo-based FTL. When Sovreign stated "You exist because we allow it", he was being quite literal.

I am not saying that the Reapers are 'right' or 'good', but that they are not necessarily evil.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Ship.wreck wrote...

 Causing unnecessary suffering is evil no matter what does or doesn't get destroyed or what does or doesn't get created. Welcome to reality.

Says who?  Whence cometh this moral surety amidst a morally relativistic culture?

[SandTrout]

Unnecessary suffering? who is suffering unnecessarily? From the Reapers Perspective it is necessary in order to give the gift of becoming a Reaper to the most number of worthy species.

[Moiaussi]

SandTrout wrote...

Unnecessary suffering? who is suffering unnecessarily? From the Reapers Perspective it is necessary in order to give the gift of becoming a Reaper to the most number of worthy species.

Once from the German perspective it was deemed neccessary to eliminate everyone they considered undesirable. They even used efficient relatively humane means of doing so (not inlcuding those they used as lab animals for research). That doesn't mean it was really neccessary or anything other than 'evil.'

We don't even know that the Reapers do consider it any sort of 'gift.' How they preditor spins their hunting to the prey is rarely the entire truth.

[SandTrout]

As already stated, the N's were destroying lives unnecessarily, and their goal was insane, which is why they kept it secret from the general population. the N's were evil, by my standards as well.

Something I do not seem to be communicating well is that my moral philosophy will result in the same conclusions as most other people's on any given incident 99% of the time. As an objectivist, however, I distilled it down to the fundamental abstract, where everyone else seems to need some pre-judged analog for a moral question in order to pass their own judgement. This implies that the person requiring the analog is not actually applying their own judgement, but rather, is applying their best estimate of what society has judged as evil without understanding that evil's nature.

And off topic: how can people claim that video games are not art when they spark discussions such as these.