6970 réponses à ce sujet

[GodWood]

Good and evil are subjective human constructs

/basic philosophy.

[Xilizhra]

GodWood wrote...

Good and evil are subjective human constructs

/basic philosophy.

Well, we could end this with "I like Cerberus" "I don't like Cerberus" and stop talking about it forever if you like.

[Homebound]

GodWood wrote...

Good and evil are subjective human constructs

/basic philosophy.

You are human. They are real enough to us.

[GodWood]

Xilizhra wrote...
Well, we could end this with "I like Cerberus" "I don't like Cerberus" and stop talking about it forever if you like

Or we could simply not bring childish concepts into the discussion .

[John Renegade]

Xilizhra wrote...

So, suddenly good/evil is not about actions, but apparently about noble and not-so-noble intentions. In that case, Cerberus should be saints.

Evil is about both, but it can grow complicated. For instance, a nonsentient or programmed entity lacks free will and can't be evil. It's possible that the Reapers possess something similar and thus aren't.

I think I should clarify. I was talking about Cerberus' general attitude. In the end, I would like to know, whether you would agree with the apparent torture and atrocities in projects like Teltin, if they were done effectively and there were no other better options, than that to save the most lives. (Which could be said about Teltin, if the lives there weren't so apparently wasted.)

Yes, but I find it incredibly hard to believe in a plausible way for this to be true. I could justify it if, say, it was required as a sacrifice to some god that was going to destroy Earth otherwise, but would go away forever if this was performed. But things like that seem implausible.

Why kick Cerberus out of the party when they can still contribute? You need every asset you can get.

I'm not the kicker.

Define good and evil.

There are many possibilities in which it would be necessary. Like, for example, it would be the quickest way to make human biotics stronger and more numerous, which means it would help humanity to better defend itself, thus saving more lives than were initially lost.

I'm still waiting for your answer: Would you be willing to commit those atrocities if it saved more lives than it took?

You're not the kicker? That I guess you would gladly work with Cerberus, if there was an option?

[Homebound]

there are pros and cons to each decision. For example, Cerberus exposing babies to eezo.

Pro: the survivors would become the first human biotics if memory serves me.
Con: You killed a crapton of babies.

Maybe its your desire to kill babies, but I dont. Its things like these, and sending a bunch of thresher maws at my solesurvivor shepard's squad that makes me think its not in my best interest to work with cerberus. there are better allies.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Isn't it the other way around?

And buddy, sometimes the ends do justify the means. Making broad, generalized statements like that has never proven accurate in the history of humanity.

As a historian, I agree.

@Hell, Romans had brought peace to half the Europe, it needed some cruelty at first ... after sometime the conquered barbarian people of western Europe started being accepted as Romans, obtained security, welfare and Support by Rome.

Most decisions by Rome (that can be considered cruel) to preserve the Glory of Rome 'End' were better than watching out the 'means' and being screwed by Huns or Barbars.

There is thousands of examples in History about 'the End justify the means' - without being Hitler or Stalin ...

Modifié par Jedi Sentinel Arian, 18 février 2012 - 06:43 .

[BlueMagitek]

Xilizhra wrote...

That's not quite clear. Maybe in terms of danger, but in terms of ethics, the Reapers are too alien in their motivations and mindset so far for us to term them accurately as "evil," I believe. Though I'm willing to bend in that direction, as some of the dialogue of both Sovereign and Harbinger was directly malicious.

Indoctrination makes you stupid.
No, srsly. It's in the Codex that indoctrination causes progressive neural degeneration, and it's amply demonstrated in Arrival when Kenson blabs about her original plan to Shepard, telling her exactly how to complete it despite the fact that she wanted to destroy it altogether. Or simply the idea that if allowed in any proximity to Cerberus goals, Shepard would find out about them and attack them from within, thus making it more expedient to simply get rid of her immediately.

Even if they do serve a purpose that is beyond our comprehension, do you advocate just sitting down and letting them?  Of course not!  Human survival, turian survival, asari survival, salarian, krogan, quarian, geth, volus, elcor and whatever other species that currently exists (and will exist in the future) survial depends on the Reapers being destroyed or repelled.  Repeated Genocide > anything the Council or Cerberus has ever done. 

I'm aware that indoctrination does that, but TIM has had those eyes for years, and now Shepard does too.  It was the choice of the writers to handle Cerberus this way, and just telling us "indoctrination" when they could have shown TIM slowly losing it throughout ME 3 (becoming forgetful, letting go of more information than he normally would, acting strange) or done something similar throughout ME 2 (and no, the laughter at the end doesn't count).

What's wrong with being upset over what could have been?

[GodWood]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...
There is thousands of examples in History about 'the End justify the means' - without being Hitler or Stalin ...

You can blame the modern world's hippy propaganda for such assumptions.

Ambition is bad. Power is bad. Authority is bad. Authoritarianism is bad. Discipline is bad.


etc etc. 

[Homebound]

@JSA

I also recall a story about a bunch of warring states in an area that in present day is known as China.

I understand there is a place for heavy-handedness. But that heavy-handedness isn't always the best solution. I don't think TiM gets this.

[Xilizhra]

Or we could simply not bring childish concepts into the discussion .

So stop talking about ethics?

Define good and evil.

Good: To do that which will give the greatest possible net positive emotion/effects to the inhabitants of the universe.
Evil: To deliberately inflict tangible harm for intangible reasons (such as religion/personal enjoyment etc.), or to inflict harm for tangible reasons while overlooking ways to accomplish them that would do less harm.

There are many possibilities in which it would be necessary. Like, for example, it would be the quickest way to make human biotics stronger and more numerous, which means it would help humanity to better defend itself, thus saving more lives than were initially lost.

Humanity isn't morally superior to any other race and I see no true reason to focus on saving more human lives than I would others. In any case, I don't believe the political situation was dire enough to come close to justifying it.

I'm still waiting for your answer: Would you be willing to commit those atrocities if it saved more lives than it took?

If it was the only possible way to do so and I could discern it beyond any possible reasonable doubt.

You're not the kicker? That I guess you would gladly work with Cerberus, if there was an option?

If I had to make no other sacrifices to do so.

Even if they do serve a purpose that is beyond our comprehension, do you advocate just sitting down and letting them? Of course not! Human survival, turian survival, asari survival, salarian, krogan, quarian, geth, volus, elcor and whatever other species that currently exists (and will exist in the future) survial depends on the Reapers being destroyed or repelled. Repeated Genocide > anything the Council or Cerberus has ever done.

Cerberus made itself my enemy, not me.

I'm aware that indoctrination does that, but TIM has had those eyes for years, and now Shepard does too. It was the choice of the writers to handle Cerberus this way, and just telling us "indoctrination" when they could have shown TIM slowly losing it throughout ME 3 (becoming forgetful, letting go of more information than he normally would, acting strange) or done something similar throughout ME 2 (and no, the laughter at the end doesn't count).

I think they could have done that, but they weren't totally certain what the end plot would be at the time.

[John Renegade]

Hellbound555 wrote...

there are pros and cons to each decision. For example, Cerberus exposing babies to eezo.

Pro: the survivors would become the first human biotics if memory serves me.
Con: You killed a crapton of babies.

Maybe its your desire to kill babies, but I dont. Its things like these, and sending a bunch of thresher maws at my solesurvivor shepard's squad that makes me think its not in my best interest to work with cerberus. there are better allies.

The entire problem with your line of thinking is that you're, with all due respect, too shortsighted. You think only about present. It seems you can't even imagine the future, its timeline and how your actions will affect the time itself. And that, in this case, one decision that seems bad in simple three-dimensional space can turn out to be the best one, if you account time into your decisions.

The biotic babies issue would... no it actually did make humanity stronger and saved many human lives, when stronger human armies defended against enemies and agressors.

[GodWood]

Hellbound555 wrote...
I also recall a story about a bunch of warring states in an area that in present day is known as China.

That'd be old Qin Shi Huang.

Xilizhra wrote...
So stop talking about ethics?

Yes. It doesn't really help the debate. It's only purpose is to sway the simple minded.

[Xilizhra]

Yes. It doesn't really help the debate. It's only purpose is to sway the simple minded.

Then why are we talking at all?

Ambition is bad. Power is bad. Authority is bad. Authoritarianism is bad. Discipline is bad.

More accurately, all of them are dangerous and can lead to more dangers if abused. Though I suspect authoritarianism is almost inherently abusive.

[Homebound]

John Renegade wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

there are pros and cons to each decision. For example, Cerberus exposing babies to eezo.

Pro: the survivors would become the first human biotics if memory serves me.
Con: You killed a crapton of babies.

Maybe its your desire to kill babies, but I dont. Its things like these, and sending a bunch of thresher maws at my solesurvivor shepard's squad that makes me think its not in my best interest to work with cerberus. there are better allies.

The entire problem with your line of thinking is that you're, with all due respect, too shortsighted. You think only about present. It seems you can't even imagine the future, its timeline and how your actions will affect the time itself. And that, in this case, one decision that seems bad in simple three-dimensional space can turn out to be the best one, if you account time into your decisions.

The biotic babies issue would... no it actually did make humanity stronger and saved many human lives, when stronger human armies defended against enemies and agressors.

So what you're saying is, you WOULD kill a crapton of babies for superpowers?

[GodWood]

Xilizhra wrote...
Then why are we talking at all?

Well I'm incredibly bored. You?

Xilizhra wrote...

GodWood wrote...
Ambition is bad. Power is bad. Authority is bad. Authoritarianism is bad. Discipline is bad.

More accurately, all of them are dangerous and can lead to more dangers if abused. Though I suspect authoritarianism is almost inherently abusive.

Nah that's just the propaganda talking.

Free your mind!

Modifié par GodWood, 18 février 2012 - 07:09 .

[Xilizhra]

Well I'm incredibly bored. You?

My point was more that this discussion is entirely about ethics. Humanity being empowered is an ethical position.

Nah that's just the propaganda talking.

Free your mind!

Freedom is a noble ideal, but I see no oppression here. I see fear... and danger.

[John Renegade]

Xilizhra wrote...

Good: To do that which will give the greatest possible net positive emotion/effects to the inhabitants of the universe.
Evil: To deliberately inflict tangible harm for intangible reasons (such as religion/personal enjoyment etc.), or to inflict harm for tangible reasons while overlooking ways to accomplish them that would do less harm.

Good, now I at least know, which definition of good and evil are we talking about.

Humanity isn't morally superior to any other race and I see no true reason to focus on saving more human lives than I would others. In any case, I don't believe the political situation was dire enough to come close to justifying it.

What if that enemy are the Reapers? Not only humans, but every species should prepare as best as they can to face that kind of a threat. (I know the other species don't generally know about the Reapers, but Cerberus does and that's what counts.

If it was the only possible way to do so and I could discern it beyond any possible reasonable doubt.

Good, than I still hold hope for you.

[John Renegade]

Hellbound555 wrote...

John Renegade wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

there are pros and cons to each decision. For example, Cerberus exposing babies to eezo.

Pro: the survivors would become the first human biotics if memory serves me.
Con: You killed a crapton of babies.

Maybe its your desire to kill babies, but I dont. Its things like these, and sending a bunch of thresher maws at my solesurvivor shepard's squad that makes me think its not in my best interest to work with cerberus. there are better allies.

The entire problem with your line of thinking is that you're, with all due respect, too shortsighted. You think only about present. It seems you can't even imagine the future, its timeline and how your actions will affect the time itself. And that, in this case, one decision that seems bad in simple three-dimensional space can turn out to be the best one, if you account time into your decisions.

The biotic babies issue would... no it actually did make humanity stronger and saved many human lives, when stronger human armies defended against enemies and agressors.

So what you're saying is, you WOULD kill a crapton of babies for superpowers?

If it was the best way to prepare to fight against the Reapers and hoards of husks (TIM knew Reapers are coming), if there was no better and more effective way, what else could I do? Wait for the Reapers to come and massacre the entire galaxy - again?

Also, isn't cancer already fully curable in Mass Effect universe?

Modifié par John Renegade, 18 février 2012 - 07:13 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Learn Something:
The whole is more important (greater than) sum of its parts. Aristotle, Spinoza and Hegel said so.

It can be government or a cause which can affect many positively at the end.

[Homebound]

John Renegade wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

John Renegade wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

there are pros and cons to each decision. For example, Cerberus exposing babies to eezo.

Pro: the survivors would become the first human biotics if memory serves me.
Con: You killed a crapton of babies.

Maybe its your desire to kill babies, but I dont. Its things like these, and sending a bunch of thresher maws at my solesurvivor shepard's squad that makes me think its not in my best interest to work with cerberus. there are better allies.

The entire problem with your line of thinking is that you're, with all due respect, too shortsighted. You think only about present. It seems you can't even imagine the future, its timeline and how your actions will affect the time itself. And that, in this case, one decision that seems bad in simple three-dimensional space can turn out to be the best one, if you account time into your decisions.

The biotic babies issue would... no it actually did make humanity stronger and saved many human lives, when stronger human armies defended against enemies and agressors.

So what you're saying is, you WOULD kill a crapton of babies for superpowers?

If it was the best way to prepare to fight against the Reapers and hoards of husks (TIM knew Reapers are coming), if there was no better and more effective way, what else could I do? Wait for the Reapers to come and massacre the entire galaxy - again?

Also, isn't cancer already fully curable in Mass Effect universe?

Nobody told TiM he had to kill those children to make human biotics. He made that decision on his own. There are better ways to answer the Reaper threat and he happens to keep choosing the worst ways.

[GodWood]

Xilizhra wrote...
My point was more that this discussion is entirely about ethics.

From what I saw the discussion was about the merits of Cerberus and whether their actions are justifiable or not.

Doesn't seem necessary to bring lolethics into the discussion.

Humanity being empowered is an ethical position.

Seems more like a natural biological desire to me.

I see fear... and danger.

I see weakness, ignorance and people trying to stunt the growth of society.

John Renegade wrote...
Good, than I still hold hope for you.

You're like a young Saphra.

Modifié par GodWood, 18 février 2012 - 07:17 .

[Homebound]

GodWood wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I see fear... and danger.

I see weakness, ignorance and people trying to stunt the growth of society.

I see people who want the same things but cant agree on how to get them.

Modifié par Hellbound555, 18 février 2012 - 07:22 .

[Xilizhra]

What if that enemy are the Reapers? Not only humans, but every species should prepare as best as they can to face that kind of a threat. (I know the other species don't generally know about the Reapers, but Cerberus does and that's what counts.

Then we should collaborate and share information, not waste resource working on how to sabotage other races.

From what I saw the discussion was about the merits of Cerberus and whether their actions are justifiable or not.

Doesn't seem necessary to bring lolethics into the discussion.

So... the matter of something being "justifiable" doesn't sound like a matter of ethics to you?

Seems more like a natural biological desire to me.

All thoughts and emotions are biological in origin. In any case, the only evolutionary desire is to preserve your own genetics, not a whole species, and not everyone cares about that.

I see weakness, ignorance and people trying to stunt the growth of society.

As you wish.