286 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

I want to reiterate this thought experiment though.

Someone you view as very very dangerous has you and your two friends cornered. This person also happens to have a complete stranger on hand. This person tells you "I want you to kill this guy I have here. If you don't I am going to attack you and your two friends, and I can probably kill all three of you."

What would you do? This situation is of equal weight to the Arrival scenario.

[KotorEffect3]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I want to reiterate this thought experiment though.

Someone you view as very very dangerous has you and your two friends cornered. This person also happens to have a complete stranger on hand. This person tells you "I want you to kill this guy I have here. If you don't I am going to attack you and your two friends, and I can probably kill all three of you."

What would you do? This situation is of equal weight to the Arrival scenario.

I try to stop the guy that is threatening us even if his hostage dies.  He is a threat to multiple people and I have to stop him once and for all.  The reapers have been commiting genocide on a galactic level for millions of years if they are not stopped they will continue to do it.

[Cainne Chapel]

Ah well, killing all those batarians was kind of an eye opening moment, but then i had to think "Well Shepard... they'd get reaped anyway...so may as well push the button".

Either they died now, or 2 hours later, either way it was gonna happen and the reapers would have free reign aand as Odan said, it'd be game over anyway....

[OdanUrr]

Are we really going to try and solve the as-old-as-time conundrum, "either you kill him or they kill you all?" I'll throw in my two cents then:

a) Shepard decides not to blow up the relay. It shows he has strong moral principles. The galaxy will surely thank him when they get culled by the Reapers.

Shepard decides to blow up the relay. He becomes the first person to commit mass genocide other than Terminator, Rambo, or Robocop, and the only person to commit galactic genocide (that's two achievements, mind you). He gains time for the civilizations of the galaxy to prepare themselves but, since nobody believes him anyway, they don't fully take advantage of this time and we're back to a) minus the clean conscience.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 25 juin 2011 - 02:49 .

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Murder is wrong. Murder for profit is wrong. If it's our time to go then it is our time to go.

Sure. "Murder" is just unlawful killing; if it's lawful, it isn't murder.

But it's really not that simple either. Only individual instances can be seen as simple because you do not draw parallels or seek similarities or differences with different individual instances.

This strikes me as pure obscurantism. Any particular decision is made in a particular situation with particular effects. The fact that the particular situation resembes some other situations may be useful if you're trying to formulate some sort of general rule, but how does this help you make that particular decision?

In this case, it is a matter the deliberate killing of people that are 100% uninvolved with the actions that follow. It's like picking some random person and sayng "hey you, I'm killing you to save the life of my two friends." In fact, that's exactly what it's like because no single life weighs more than any other single life. Saying 300k<[x]trillions is the same as saying 1<2.

The difference is that killing one person to save two gives you big social costs (uncertainty, etc.) while only saving one additional life. Killing 300K to save trillions both has lower social costs, since the circumstances aren't very applicable to ordinary life, and has far greater benefits.

Of course, we could just bring in the double effect doctrine and side-step the whole issue, but I've always found that to be a silly cop-out.

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 juin 2011 - 02:53 .

[atheelogos]

"So what does this mean for my ME3 new game? " Nothing really. Arrival and Lair of the shadow are cannon and its assumed Shepard did them even if you didn't buy them.

[atheelogos]

OdanUrr wrote...

Are we really going to try and solve the as-old-as-time conundrum, "either you kill him or they kill you all?" I'll throw in my two cents then:

a) Shepard decides not to blow up the relay. It shows he has strong moral principles. The galaxy will surely thank him when they get culled by the Reapers.

Shepard decides to blow up the relay. He becomes the first person to commit mass genocide other than Terminator, Rambo, or Robocop, and the only person to commit galactic genocide (that's two achievements, mind you). He gains time for the civilizations of the galaxy to prepare themselves but, since nobody believes him anyway, they don't fully take advantage of this time and we're back to a) minus the clean conscience.

Doesn't really matter. Those batarians were dead no matter what we did. At least when Shepard killed them they died quick. The Reapers wouldn't have been so kind.... Anyway lets not cry over dead slavers;)

Modifié par atheelogos, 25 juin 2011 - 02:59 .

[OdanUrr]

atheelogos wrote...

Doesn't really matter. Those batarians were dead no matter what we did. At least when Shepard killed them they died quick. The Reapers wouldn't have been so kind.... Anyway lets not cry over dead slavers;)

WWFHD? "What would Fenris have done?" 

Modifié par OdanUrr, 25 juin 2011 - 03:04 .

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I want to reiterate this thought experiment though.

Someone you view as very very dangerous has you and your two friends cornered. This person also happens to have a complete stranger on hand. This person tells you "I want you to kill this guy I have here. If you don't I am going to attack you and your two friends, and I can probably kill all three of you."

What would you do? This situation is of equal weight to the Arrival scenario.

Not equal weight. He would need a detonator for a nuke planted in some city for the math to work. We'd also have to believe that he will do exactly what he says. Maybe the example should use some sort of mechanical device whose operations can be verified.

Given those changes -- sure, I'd shoot. It's basically a version of the trolley problem.

Edit: or rather, I think I should shoot. Whether I would... beats me. Like you, I'm not certain that I actually have the courage of my convictions.

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 juin 2011 - 03:07 .

[WolfForce99]

The only DLC's I like for ME2 are Cerberus Network, Kasumi: Stolen Memories, and Lair of the Shadow Broker. I feel like these are the only DLC's that will matter the most in ME3.

Shepard is on trial for working with Cerberus. Arrival might have impact on the trial, but I doubt it. Becuase it does not have any ties to Cerberus, it's an Alliance mission. But it could impact ME3's trial, if you saved the Counsel in ME1 or Digital Comic. Even if it does have an effect on ME3, I'm still not going to play it again. Becuase Firewalker, Overlord, and Arrival just feel like extra content that takes away from the main story of ME2, stopping the Collecters.

[the_one_54321]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

I want to reiterate this thought experiment though.

Someone you view as very very dangerous has you and your two friends cornered. This person also happens to have a complete stranger on hand. This person tells you "I want you to kill this guy I have here. If you don't I am going to attack you and your two friends, and I can probably kill all three of you."

What would you do? This situation is of equal weight to the Arrival scenario.

I try to stop the guy that is threatening us even if his hostage dies.  He is a threat to multiple people and I have to stop him once and for all.  The reapers have been commiting genocide on a galactic level for millions of years if they are not stopped they will continue to do it.

Do you realize that you just said you would not have killed the 300k?

Think about it.

[Godak]

the_one_54321 wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

I want to reiterate this thought experiment though.

Someone you view as very very dangerous has you and your two friends cornered. This person also happens to have a complete stranger on hand. This person tells you "I want you to kill this guy I have here. If you don't I am going to attack you and your two friends, and I can probably kill all three of you."

What would you do? This situation is of equal weight to the Arrival scenario.

I try to stop the guy that is threatening us even if his hostage dies.  He is a threat to multiple people and I have to stop him once and for all.  The reapers have been commiting genocide on a galactic level for millions of years if they are not stopped they will continue to do it.

Do you realize that you just said you would not have killed the 300k?

Think about it.

I believe he said that he would stop him, even if the hostage must die. Indeed, he just said that killing the 300K was quite possibly a necessary evil.

[Cainne Chapel]

WolfForce99 wrote...

The only DLC's I like for ME2 are Cerberus Network, Kasumi: Stolen Memories, and Lair of the Shadow Broker. I feel like these are the only DLC's that will matter the most in ME3.

Shepard is on trial for working with Cerberus. Arrival might have impact on the trial, but I doubt it. Becuase it does not have any ties to Cerberus, it's an Alliance mission. But it could impact ME3's trial, if you saved the Counsel in ME1 or Digital Comic. Even if it does have an effect on ME3, I'm still not going to play it again. Becuase Firewalker, Overlord, and Arrival just feel like extra content that takes away from the main story of ME2, stopping the Collecters.

Well given the context of the conversation with admiral hackett, Shepard is on trial because the Batarians will "want blood" more so than shooting around with cerberus.  Technically, being a spectre, that gives him deniability so that they couldnt really try him without any evidence of wrongdoing.as he is "above the law" in that respect.  He could always say he was undercover

Also, how does it take away from the mission of stopping the collectors? most of the DLC was meant, I believe, to be done AFTER the main mission, sure you can do it DURING the missions but LOTSB and Arrival are implicitly mentioned to be "bridging" DLC with ME3  So in a sense in the timeline, they're after the main mission-missions.

[Il Divo]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I want to reiterate this thought experiment though.

Someone you view as very very dangerous has you and your two friends cornered. This person also happens to have a complete stranger on hand. This person tells you "I want you to kill this guy I have here. If you don't I am going to attack you and your two friends, and I can probably kill all three of you."

What would you do? This situation is of equal weight to the Arrival scenario.

So, you're comparing a small-scale mugging to galactic genocide? Trillions of lives against a mere two?

Unfortunately, mathematics teaches us that the two scenarios are not 'of equal weight'. They are on two entirely different scales. If assuming that all lives are 'equal', simple numbers are enough to determine the proper course of action.

[Aggie Punbot]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Zaeed? Kasumi? Liara becoming the [spoiler here]? Arrival?

I didn't play any of these. I'm never going to play any of these until they start handing them out for free or in a big package deal. So what happens to my game at the start of ME3? One of these was even apparently critical to the beginnig narative of ME3.

If you try to import an ME2 game without DLC, armed men will invade your home, kidnap you, drag you off to a remote undisclosed location and tickle you mercilessly with a griffin feather until you relent.

[khevan]

The context of the Arrival DLC isn't quite as simple as it's being made out to be in this discussion. The decision isn't "kill 300k people or not" it's "destroy the Mass Relay or not."

The result of destroying the Mass Relay is, unfortunately, the loss of those 300k lives, but if the Relay is left intact, the reapers then have direct access to the relay network, and can go anywhere nearly instantly. Destroying the relay gives the galaxy time, time to prepare (if possible, something yet to be determined), time that it wouldn't have had were the Relay left intact.

Yes, it's semantics, and completely pedantic, but it's important semantics. Just as justifiable homicide isn't the same as murder, this isn't directly murder because the 300k deaths are a side effect of buying the galaxy time. A horrible, horrific terribly tragic side effect, but a side effect nonetheless.

On such filmy, flimsy logic does morality lie. In my opinion, while tragic, those 300k deaths are necessary to give the rest of the galaxy a chance.

All of this is, of course, only my opinion. Do with it what you will.

[the_one_54321]

Godak wrote...
I believe he said that he would stop him, even if the hostage must die. Indeed, he just said that killing the 300K was quite possibly a necessary evil.

It sounded to me like he'd deal with the attacker rather than the stranger. I could have misinterpreted.

Il Divo wrote...
Unfortunately, mathematics teaches us that the two scenarios are not 'of equal weight'. They are on two entirely different scales. If assuming that all lives are 'equal', simple numbers are enough to determine the proper course of action.

Your "simple math" dictates that a difference of +1 is sufficient for a judgement. Therefore 2>1 is equivalent to 100000000000000001>100000000000000000.

khevan wrote...
Yes, it's semantics, and completely pedantic, but it's important semantics

No, in this case the semantics of it actually have no importance. It is Sheperd's action and Sheperd's action alone that dictates the outcome. Therefore, whether he "blows up the mass relay" or he puts a gun to their head and pulls the trigger, or he individually stabs each one of them to death, he is the one that kills those people.

The only distinction that matters is if Sheperd kills those people or the Reapers kill those people.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 25 juin 2011 - 08:32 .

[Il Divo]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Your "simple math" dictates that a difference of +1 is sufficient for a judgement. Therefore 2>1 is equivalent to 100000000000000001>100000000000000000.

It certainly does, in the same way that a square is equivalent to a circle.

Scale is a necessary factor. When operating on a 2-1 scale, you are operating on a level where individual circumstances can be more easily taken into account. Which two lives are we discussing? Perhaps the individuals involved are 'good people'. Perhaps they are murderers.

On the scale Shepard is operating on, it becomes impossible to take into account the individual circumstances of each person. He cannot simply count the number of 'good' vs. 'bad' people he will be killing with his act. All he has access to are the numbers. Taking or not taking action in Shepard's situation has much greater repercussions on a much greater scale. Hence,  you are wrong in your determination of 'equal weight'.

In your scenario, if I do not take action, individuals will die. In Shepard's scenario, refusing to open the relay results in the galaxy's past, present, and future being utterly purged from existence.

Modifié par Il Divo, 25 juin 2011 - 01:06 .

[Il Divo]

the_one_54321 wrote...

No, in this case the semantics of it actually have no importance. It is Sheperd's action and Sheperd's action alone that dictates the outcome. Therefore, whether he "blows up the mass relay" or he puts a gun to their head and pulls the trigger, or he individually stabs each one of them to death, he is the one that kills those people.

The only distinction that matters is if Sheperd kills those people or the Reapers kill those people.

And in killing those people, he saves trillions more. What you see as the 'only distinction' is irrelevant to the galaxy at large while suffering genocide. Categorical imperatives unfortunately do not work as a concept.

Modifié par Il Divo, 25 juin 2011 - 01:10 .

[budzai]

no problem... in ME 3 there will be a comic those who don't play earlyer mass effects ( same as the genesis dlc to ME2) and there is no big decision in the dlcs by the way

[PnXMarcin1PL]

Well in Overlord DLC you decide about Cerberus's capability to hack and control geth. That's the only decision I believe that will be important in ME3.

[Lumikki]

Zweebs wrote...

 Why are you so stubborn? It's great extra content... they're not just going to hand it out for free.

OP isn't the only one. I don't buy them too, I don't even play them if they are free.
Reason DRM system. Not that it exist, but how it works.


As for OP, I think they know that all don't play DLC's, so they make someting to make it more sense to us. Like addional start content based what you have done. Like they did with consoles when ME1 wasn't available for them, but ME2 was.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juin 2011 - 02:00 .

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
Unfortunately, mathematics teaches us that the two scenarios are not 'of equal weight'. They are on two entirely different scales. If assuming that all lives are 'equal', simple numbers are enough to determine the proper course of action.

Your "simple math" dictates that a difference of +1 is sufficient for a judgement. Therefore 2>1 is equivalent to 100000000000000001>100000000000000000.

Not necessarily. If one believes that moral rules themselves are useful to society, then +1 may not be a good enough reason to break the rule about  killing innocents even though +10000000000000 is a good enough reason to break that rule.

The only distinction that matters is if Sheperd kills those people or the Reapers kill those people.

Matters to who? Not the dead.

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 juin 2011 - 04:16 .

[Virginian]

AlanC9 wrote...
Matters to who? Not the dead.

Matters to the race of the batarian species, assuming they care about such matters. Matters to the Alliance since Shepard was working for them on that mission. Nothing matters to the dead unless they are undead and are more than zombies.

[khevan]

the_one_54321 wrote...

khevan wrote...
Yes, it's semantics, and completely pedantic, but it's important semantics

No, in this case the semantics of it actually have no importance. It is Sheperd's action and Sheperd's action alone that dictates the outcome. Therefore, whether he "blows up the mass relay" or he puts a gun to their head and pulls the trigger, or he individually stabs each one of them to death, he is the one that kills those people.

The only distinction that matters is if Sheperd kills those people or the Reapers kill those people.

Now I think you're being intentionally stubborn in trying to argue your point.  There is a distinction between killing in self defense and planning a cold blooded murder.  There is a difference between losing control of a car on an icy road and hitting a pedestrian, and driving drunk and hitting a pedestrian. 

There are many examples where the same act, killing another living being, is reduced in severity in the law's eyes, depending on the circumstances.  I believe they're called mitigating circumstances. 

I liken the Arrival DLC choice to a military choice, actually.  Do I shoot this missle at *insert terrible dictator here* and knowingly kill a few hundred people, but in doing so, I'll remove a threat that would cause many thousands of deaths?  Do I drop the bomb on Hiroshima, killing tens of thousands, but saving perhaps a million or more?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible, horribly tragic events.  But it would have been sooo much worse to have attempted a land invasion of Japan, and Japan wouldn't have surrendered without such an invasion.  There are estimates that perhaps as many as a million or more Japanese civilians would have died in an invasion, not to mention the Allied troops that would have fallen.  Which is the right decision to make?  It's arguable that dropping the bombs saved lives, as terrible as they were, which makes them the right choice.

In Arrival, you have the chance, not to stop the Reapers, but to give the galaxy some time.  Time to prepare, time to set up whatever defenses they can, move civilians to uncharted and unregistered locations (to make it harder for the Reapers to find, etc).  By destroying the Mass Relay, Shepard does indeed cause the deaths of those 300k beings.  But he has to weigh those 300k vs the trillions in the rest of the galaxy.  This is the Hiroshima question writ large, and without a guarantee of success....but there was no guarantee of success during WWII, either.  The chance that those 300k deaths could save multitudes more is worth it. 

Is Shepard responsible for those deaths?  Yes, plain and simple.  Could he in good concience not cause those deaths?  I argue that it would be a moral crime larger than those 300k deaths to allow the Reapers free and easy access to the Mass Relay network.