2338 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

So, I wonder...

Would Samara be willing to stop being a justicar if it was somehow, hypothetically, linked to finding a cure for the Ardat-Yakshi condition? Of course, I'm curious if she'd stop being a justicar for anything, because I don't think it's psychologically good for her and she no longer needs it anyway with Morinth dead, but eh.

[jamesp81]

PrimalEden wrote...

@ jamesp81
So, similar to the turian's sense of responsibility in their government and the Drell's concept of body being separate from the mind is the Asari's trust in the Justicar's sense of conscience?
Very insightful.

Hadn't thought of it that way.  More like the Asari ability to meld likely gives the leaders of the justicar order a tool they can use to weed out people not suited for the job or are likely to abuse their power.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

So, I wonder...

Would Samara be willing to stop being a justicar if it was somehow, hypothetically, linked to finding a cure for the Ardat-Yakshi condition? Of course, I'm curious if she'd stop being a justicar for anything, because I don't think it's psychologically good for her and she no longer needs it anyway with Morinth dead, but eh.

No.

[Dean_the_Young]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

If a cure has not been found yet, it's unlikely to be because the asari are not making all possible efforts to do so.

I hope we get a chance to ask Liara about this. She's the only one I'd trust to give me an accurate view of the matter.

Why? As a pureblood herself, she has a bias towards her perspective of what is reasonable effort and not.

Where and when has she demonstrated this bias ?  I'd like to know so I can see how this will affect our getting a glimpse into the effort the Asari has put into curing ths problem.  I imagine the bias if any will be negligible, something akin to an Asari's perspective vs a human/other species's.  I really disagree with you, as a pureblood and understanding the bigotry she faces with her people I'm inclined to think she'd be more reasonable towards A-Y.

Unless that is the bias you claim, because then it gets interesting...

As a pureblood, Liara is compromised as an objective observor. What is 'reasonable' depends entirely on perspective, and hers is, as you point out, on the receiving end of the discrimination. She's always going to be more sensitive to such things... whether they are 'reasonable' or not.

It's the traditional race-relations delimma. Can the minority really be an objective judge as to its own treatment by the majority?

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...

Govt agencies have historically not been particularly accountable.  At the worst, the Justicar Order is equally as bad.  At best, it's an improvement, at least for the Asari (for other reasons, I don't think this system could work for humans, see below).

You ultimately can't control people with laws and force.  You can to some degree, but a person's true nature always comes out as to whether they are a good or bad person.  When the bad ones reveal themselves, you can only deal with the aftermath and hand out a just punishment for their crime.

Justicars, however, are different in one respect.  Their behavior is not really controlled by law.  They are controlled by their own conscience.  As a force for shaping people's behavior, this is far more powerful than laws written by politicians.  This is likely a much better system, in general, with the assumption that you tightly control who becomes a justicar.  Now, in the real world, that system would be problematic as there's no real way to exert that level of control.  Asari, on the other hand, possess the capability for a lot of mental / telepathic mojo, so they may have ways to determine who would make a good justicar and who would not.

So while this system wouldn't work for humans, there is reason to believe it could work rather well for Asari.

Since the Justicars aren't the main law-keepers of the Asari, it apparently doesn't work well for the Asari either. Asari civil society isn't kept in line by a monastic order of self-controlled zealots: Asari civil society is kept in line by the authorities Asari actually see and deal with: police and their laws.

The Justicars aren't a mainstay force of Asari society, any more than special forces are the backbone of a nation's military.

[Dean_the_Young]

Flamewielder wrote...

By allowing the Justicars' continued existence, the asari have embraced the notion of vigilante-style justice (granted that it is exercised withing the strict parameters of the Code). Similarly, the Council embraces the same with Spectres.

While it is true that the Order is not overseen by the asari government, it's also true it only survives because the asari goverment allows it so. And because the legal system recognizes the judgement of a justicar as having case-specific power of law, the end result is the same: government-tolerated vigilanteism.

I'm sure the Salarians also approve the practicality of this, being practical minded in all things. Unsurprisingly, "good" turians have a generally low opinion of Spectres as an institution; turians like their rules and they hate anything that isn't bound by them.

Toleration and even indulgence has never been the same thing as endorsement.

[whywhywhywhy]

diamondedge wrote...

the bigotry she faces with her people I'm inclined to think she'd be more reasonable towards A-Y.

Where was that? As far as I know her only Ardat-Yakshi problem is with those who openly excercise their genetic disorder and get high off killing their victims. I didn't get the impression she would kill them all just because they were Ardat Yashki. I'd say her reasons are perfectly justified.

I think your misunderstanding Liara as a pureblood has to deal with that in her society.

[whywhywhywhy]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

If a cure has not been found yet, it's unlikely to be because the asari are not making all possible efforts to do so.

I hope we get a chance to ask Liara about this. She's the only one I'd trust to give me an accurate view of the matter.

Why? As a pureblood herself, she has a bias towards her perspective of what is reasonable effort and not.

Where and when has she demonstrated this bias ?  I'd like to know so I can see how this will affect our getting a glimpse into the effort the Asari has put into curing ths problem.  I imagine the bias if any will be negligible, something akin to an Asari's perspective vs a human/other species's.  I really disagree with you, as a pureblood and understanding the bigotry she faces with her people I'm inclined to think she'd be more reasonable towards A-Y.

Unless that is the bias you claim, because then it gets interesting...

As a pureblood, Liara is compromised as an objective observor. What is 'reasonable' depends entirely on perspective, and hers is, as you point out, on the receiving end of the discrimination. She's always going to be more sensitive to such things... whether they are 'reasonable' or not.

It's the traditional race-relations delimma. Can the minority really be an objective judge as to its own treatment by the majority?

Absolutely, because the majority is often time out of touch with what the minority has to deal with.  I reject the notion that her being pureblood rules out any insight, knowledge or experience she has on the matter.  You automatically assume bias on the basis of what she is which, in and of itself is wrong.  Your assessment rules out the individual, redefining them as to what they can be or feel as you see fit.  A viewpoint based only on her background, I don't think you can fairly or accurately define a person this way.

[Flamewielder]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Toleration and even indulgence has never been the same thing as endorsement.

In terms of end result, they are; Spectres are expected to police themselves, just as Justicars are. Neither Spectre nor Justicar enjoys the "moral high ground" over the other.

Spectres are allowed carte blanche to break any law as long as the end result is deemed acceptable to the Council; when they're not, they send another Spectre to bring the "rogue" in (preferably in a body bag, saves on paperwork). There is no ethical or moral oversight involved in this; it's entirely results based, and that's how salarians see things. "Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none".

[Dean_the_Young]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Absolutely, because the majority is often time out of touch with what the minority has to deal with.  I reject the notion that her being pureblood rules out any insight, knowledge or experience she has on the matter.  You automatically assume bias on the basis of what she is which, in and of itself is wrong.  Your assessment rules out the individual, redefining them as to what they can be or feel as you see fit.  A viewpoint based only on her background, I don't think you can fairly or accurately define a person this way.

Except the minority has its own interests first and foremost, not the greater objective interest. It is virtually impossible for a subjected minority to be objective, simply from perspective: this is the classic reason why self-regulation fails without external factors. Just ask any child if the amount of homework they are given is 'fair': from a self-interested person's perspective, any burden is 'excessive.' This doesn't just apply to children: labor unions, corporatations, police forces, whatever: just about every well-intentioned group in the world sees itself as pursuing the best course for everyone in pursuing their own interests, even when their own interests can easily end up being misaligned with the public wellfare. Overly-powerful unions can cripple industries, corporate lobbies strengthening corporate powers too much, police-state creeper syndrome.

While the majority is often time 'out of touch', it can claim perspective and impartiality that the minority never can. Objectivity is the antithesis of empathy-based decision making by its nature.

[Dean_the_Young]

Flamewielder wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Toleration and even indulgence has never been the same thing as endorsement.

In terms of end result, they are; Spectres are expected to police themselves, just as Justicars are. Neither Spectre nor Justicar enjoys the "moral high ground" over the other.

Sure Spectres do. At least Spectres derive their authority from, and are answerable to, governments, and their privilages limited only to where their government does.

And I'm amazed you'd need the differentiation between an 'end result' and a 'process' pointed out to you, considering the Justicars are defined on the idea of the primacy of process, not end-results. If I kill a man because we are soldiers on opposite sides of the battlefield in a legal war, he is dead. If I kill the same man by blowing up his home in an act of revenge, he is still dead. The 'end result' is tha he is dead, but the paths to get there are entirely distinct. One is acceptable, the other is a crime.

Spectres are allowed carte blanche to break any law as long as the end result is deemed acceptable to the Council; when they're not, they send another Spectre to bring the "rogue" in (preferably in a body bag, saves on paperwork). There is no ethical or moral oversight involved in this; it's entirely results based, and that's how salarians see things. "Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none".

And yet not only is the derivation of power sane (which is to say, not self-appointed) and not simply a matter of cultural romanticism, it's also accountable to an external agency (which is the government).

You're pursuing a false equivalence between a government-sanctioned agency and a culturally-revered self-appointed extra-judicial group. The problem is not simply the results (yes, I think the Spectres are abhorrent), but the root of justification. One group claims 'I have a government, you're a threat.' The other goes 'I'm right and you're wrong, and that's worth killing you over regardless of your reasons.'

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 05 octobre 2011 - 01:07 .

[jamesp81]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Govt agencies have historically not been particularly accountable.  At the worst, the Justicar Order is equally as bad.  At best, it's an improvement, at least for the Asari (for other reasons, I don't think this system could work for humans, see below).

You ultimately can't control people with laws and force.  You can to some degree, but a person's true nature always comes out as to whether they are a good or bad person.  When the bad ones reveal themselves, you can only deal with the aftermath and hand out a just punishment for their crime.

Justicars, however, are different in one respect.  Their behavior is not really controlled by law.  They are controlled by their own conscience.  As a force for shaping people's behavior, this is far more powerful than laws written by politicians.  This is likely a much better system, in general, with the assumption that you tightly control who becomes a justicar.  Now, in the real world, that system would be problematic as there's no real way to exert that level of control.  Asari, on the other hand, possess the capability for a lot of mental / telepathic mojo, so they may have ways to determine who would make a good justicar and who would not.

So while this system wouldn't work for humans, there is reason to believe it could work rather well for Asari.

Since the Justicars aren't the main law-keepers of the Asari, it apparently doesn't work well for the Asari either. Asari civil society isn't kept in line by a monastic order of self-controlled zealots: Asari civil society is kept in line by the authorities Asari actually see and deal with: police and their laws.

The Justicars aren't a mainstay force of Asari society, any more than special forces are the backbone of a nation's military.

Non-sequitur.  We're not discussing what keeps asari society in line, we are discussing what keeps justicars in line.

[Flamewielder]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Sure Spectres do. At least Spectres derive their authority from, and are answerable to, governments, and their privilages limited only to where their government does.

And I'm amazed you'd need the differentiation between an 'end result' and a 'process' pointed out to you, considering the Justicars are defined on the idea of the primacy of process, not end-results. If I kill a man because we are soldiers on opposite sides of the battlefield in a legal war, he is dead. If I kill the same man by blowing up his home in an act of revenge, he is still dead. The 'end result' is tha he is dead, but the paths to get there are entirely distinct. One is acceptable, the other is a crime.

There is no such thing as a "legal war", since laws are created by states, which are in turn more or less representative of their constituency. While slavery is outlawed in Council space, the Council has not yet declared war on the Batarian Hegemony. The Hegemony has not declared war on the Council (yet), even though the Council enforces a legislation that is clearly anticonstitutional (from the batarian perspective). States declare war for strictly practical reasons (i.e. economical ones) and only use moral/ethical pretexts to rouse whatever popular support they need to fill their military requirements. You may believe you fight for a "just cause", but you're just killing someone in order to gain the state some economical advantage from which your family/tribe/clan/race/species will benefit. States are no different than Cerberus in that regard, they just enjoy the public endorsement of the majority (in participative democracy) or of the elite ruling class.

If I kill a man out of personal revenge (for whatever slight that could push me to such an extreme course of action) or I kill him so my family/tribe/clan/nation/race/species can confiscate whatever we want to take from his side, I argue that neither act is morally or ethically superior in the final analysis. A soldier rationalizes killing any way he can, if only to preserve his personal sanity (a self-preservation reflex).

End result: a man is dead, possibly leaving a few orphans and a widow behind. He may not care anymore (being dead) but the hardship his surviving family will suffer is the same.

A far better example you should have used is if I kill someone in self-defence; without having done anything to provoke the attack, any court of law will let me go and with good reason. The general public will also approve. Humans in any state also will, because this goes beyond any state's legislation: the right to live it is one of the few universal moral right anyone enjoys. Killing for any other reason is amoral, and may be rewarded/punished differently depending on circumstances and local culture.

Hence my conclusion that Spectres are no less abhorrent than Justicars when they kill. They are no less admirable when their action prevents innocents from being harmed or killed. State endorsement is no more a guarantee of ethical behavior than cultural reverence is; individual convictions are the ultimate determinators in any individual's course of action.

Spectres who "cross the line" get shot, I suspect Justicars get the same treatment.Their continued existence and formal recognition by the asari legal system is endorsement enough in my book to make them no better or worse than Spectres. Both will be judged according to the efforts they displayed to protect the public while excercising restraint and good judgement when force was required. One is paid by the state (just a a merc would be), the other does it pro bono, out of personal conviction.

Modifié par Flamewielder, 05 octobre 2011 - 05:22 .

[whywhywhywhy]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Absolutely, because the majority is often time out of touch with what the minority has to deal with.  I reject the notion that her being pureblood rules out any insight, knowledge or experience she has on the matter.  You automatically assume bias on the basis of what she is which, in and of itself is wrong.  Your assessment rules out the individual, redefining them as to what they can be or feel as you see fit.  A viewpoint based only on her background, I don't think you can fairly or accurately define a person this way.

Except the minority has its own interests first and foremost, not the greater objective interest. It is virtually impossible for a subjected minority to be objective, simply from perspective: this is the classic reason why self-regulation fails without external factors. Just ask any child if the amount of homework they are given is 'fair': from a self-interested person's perspective, any burden is 'excessive.' This doesn't just apply to children: labor unions, corporatations, police forces, whatever: just about every well-intentioned group in the world sees itself as pursuing the best course for everyone in pursuing their own interests, even when their own interests can easily end up being misaligned with the public wellfare. Overly-powerful unions can cripple industries, corporate lobbies strengthening corporate powers too much, police-state creeper syndrome.

While the majority is often time 'out of touch', it can claim perspective and impartiality that the minority never can. Objectivity is the antithesis of empathy-based decision making by its nature.

Laughable.  You claim the Majority has the "greater good" to be concerned with, it's more about maintaining the status quo.  Aside from the fact that we have no idea how the Asari's society is run and you pretend to comment on it.  Again the implication that minority (A-Y) can't be objective is asinine and based only from the perspective of the Majority which in and of itself is bias.

[Xilizhra]

Hence my conclusion that Spectres are no less abhorrent than Justicars when they kill. They are no less admirable when their action prevents innocents from being harmed or killed. State endorsement is no more a guarantee of ethical behavior than cultural reverence is; individual convictions are the ultimate determinators in any individual's course of action.

I would say that it's not state endorsement that makes or breaks it, but that the Justicar Code often prohibits what I feel would be the most morally superior action. Of course, it prohibits many morally inferior ones too, but it could be improved.

[S Seraff]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

So, I wonder...

Would Samara be willing to stop being a justicar if it was somehow, hypothetically, linked to finding a cure for the Ardat-Yakshi condition? Of course, I'm curious if she'd stop being a justicar for anything, because I don't think it's psychologically good for her and she no longer needs it anyway with Morinth dead, but eh.

No.

Possibly - after all we dont know all 5000 of the sutras, there may be an escape clause

[Flamewielder]

Not knowing any of them, it's safe to assume there are as many loopholes in the Code than any other legislation known to humans...

[Flamewielder]

Darn it! Killed the thread again... I hate it when I do that!

@ Xil

You're right, insofar as Samara demonstrates that justicars appear to have a fair bit of latitude as to how much compassion they can work into their judgement. While she clearly states the Code itself considers compassion as irrelevant, she herself seems to favour the more compassionate of two possible outcomes.

That being said, she doesn't allways do so: in the case of Morinth, she couldn't afford herself to be compassionate towards her; or rather, she felt more compassion towards Morinth's victims and their families than towards the monster Morinth has become. She wanted the pain to stop, either through Morinth's death or her own (an outcome she knew was quite possible).

Her last words to Shepard are quite reflective of her personality: "You will regret you choice." That's not the same as "She'll betray you in the end" or "She will seduce and kill you eventually"; "regret" implies that Shepard will eventually suffer the same anguish Samara felt over the suffering Morinth causes around her. Samara feels true anguish at Morinth's death, yet prefers herself to suffer alone over having more mothers suffer the loss of their offspring to Morinth's depradations.

I'd argue Samara chose the most compassionate outcome of all.

[Xilizhra]

I don't know... death is too final an outcome for me to ever have it be preferred. Morinth could have been beaten without killing her, and because of that, I'll always doubt that Samara actually did the right thing. Though it doesn't seem like Morinth (or Samara, for that matter) will get much further development in ME3 anyway, so it may not matter in the end.

[diamondedge]

I disagree. Morinth is one of those people that would have been simply too much trouble by being kept alive. She is brave, cunning, resourceful and it was just matter of time before she devised and executed a plan that would set her free and rampaging again.

That aside, I really enjoyed chatting with Samara. Miranda is my main LI for maleShep and Kaidan for femShep, but I would have dropped them both without second thought if Samara was to be a full fledged love interest. Unlikely, but one can still dream.

[Flamewielder]

That pretty much sums up why a society as old as the asari's only offer death to runaways, rather than lifetime seclusion. Runaway A-Y's are just too dangerous, too powerful to be trusted not to attempt (and succeed) in escaping. The more they have killed, the more powerful and resourceful they become. They will kill again, sooner or later...

And if spending a 50 yeay-life sentence in prison sounds like a lot for us humans, imagine the perspective of spending the next several centuries in solitary confinement, possibly suffering from withdrawal symptoms that will NEVER dissappear... I'm not sure that death wouldn't be considered a more "humane" option by the asari, on the basis of their incredibly long lifespan.

At least, A-Y's who choose seclusion appear to be cloistered rather than emprisonned; they are offered some solace among other A-Y patients (presumably with less dangerous strains) and counselors to help them cope with the isolation they would be suffering from anyway, had they remained left to wander in a world enjoying the intimacy that is forever denied to them by their condition.

[Flamewielder]

That being said, I agree with Xil that an A-Y cure would provide a great story arc for both Morinth and Samara; it just wouldn't be something I'd see in ME3, being the kind of intimate story best developped in writing.

[Xilizhra]

Apparently, from what I hear about Liara's powerset and alternate appearance, the ME3 developers can't take the thought of two asari being in the party, so Samara's likely screwed out of any ME3 appearance. Oh well; if I have to write any fanfiction on the matter, this'll make it easier.

However, having reread the Shadow Broker dossier on Samara, I'm finding that I have a harder time forgiving her for that. I'm certain that there'd be a way to contribute to catching Morinth even without becoming a justicar, if she even had to do that because I'm even more certain there are more justicars than dangerous Ardat-Yakshi. Someone else, in all likelihood, could have easily taken over the hunt for Morinth. Yes, Samara would have to deal with not being able to handle Morinth personally... but I think it would be best, especially since regardless of what Samara thinks on the subject, none of this was her fault in the first place. I think getting past that guilt complex and at least trying to maintain a connection to her other daughters without somehow needing to control the entire situation herself would have been best for everyone involved.
I'm not saying this is unforgivable, but I am saying that Samara solidly made the wrong choice in how to handle the situation.

[Flamewielder]

We may disagree with her decision, but it was always up to her to decide, according to her specific values and beliefs. It may not be what we would have decided, but for Samara it was the only path.

By the same token, we may say that Achilles was an utter moron for choosing eternal fame and an early death over dying of old age in relative obscurity...

[Dean_the_Young]

Flamewielder wrote...

There is no such thing as a "legal war", since laws are created by states, which are in turn more or less representative of their constituency.

There are, actually: the legality of wars depending on the laws of the state involved, and the agreements made by that state with others.

While slavery is outlawed in Council space, the Council has not yet declared war on the Batarian Hegemony. The Hegemony has not declared war on the Council (yet), even though the Council enforces a legislation that is clearly anticonstitutional (from the batarian perspective). States declare war for strictly practical reasons (i.e. economical ones) and only use moral/ethical pretexts to rouse whatever popular support they need to fill their military requirements. You may believe you fight for a "just cause", but you're just killing someone in order to gain the state some economical advantage from which your family/tribe/clan/race/species will benefit. States are no different than Cerberus in that regard, they just enjoy the public endorsement of the majority (in participative democracy) or of the elite ruling class.

There are plenty of wars and policies throughout history waged not for 'practical' reasons such as economic or even direct military/strategic advantage, but ideology. The largest failing of the Realist school of political relations is that governments often don't follow the 'practical' rationals.

Hence my conclusion that Spectres are no less abhorrent than Justicars when they kill. They are no less admirable when their action prevents innocents from being harmed or killed. State endorsement is no more a guarantee of ethical behavior than cultural reverence is; individual convictions are the ultimate determinators in any individual's course of action.

It isn't a guarantee, but it is a far better check. The same applies with even non-endorsed special agents: the rule of law doesn't guarantee that the law will always rule, but societies based on rule of law are better than authoritarian fiat.

Spectres who "cross the line" get shot, I suspect Justicars get the same treatment.Their continued existence and formal recognition by the asari legal system is endorsement enough in my book to make them no better or worse than Spectres. Both will be judged according to the efforts they displayed to protect the public while excercising restraint and good judgement when force was required. One is paid by the state (just a a merc would be), the other does it pro bono, out of personal conviction.

There's a word for people who kill others pro bono out of personal conviction, and that word is 'murderer.'