6970 réponses à ce sujet

[Volus Warlord]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Soo...I kinda noticed killing for money isn't covered by your defintion.

And you are talking about "greatest net positive"

Lol.

Your definitions stink and are ruthlessly subjective.

Greatest net positive? What is the greatest net positive? Is it unifying countries through a series of well-propagaded falsehoods aka social engineering? Is it destroying those that exist simply to harm others? Is it strenghtening international trade to keep money flowing? Is it taking steps to isolate yourself to some extent to keep jobs within your borders? And so forth.

Evil?  You could argue religion is far more tangible than any of us. They've been around for a long time and will continue to be, where you are very temporary.. So, if I harmed someone to defend you, I'd be evil as you are largely intangible, a mere breath in the space of time. Enjoyment is also intangible? Cmon. Whether or not you can touch and feel something does not make it any less real or worthy a cause.  Also, what is harm? What are the priorities when in comes to choosing where the harm should go? Why do people act like it's not inevitable to a certain extent?

If you're gonna label things, do a better job than that. 

[Homebound]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

Whats it worth in the end if we lose our humanity in the process?

Because "humanity" is a concept which evolves with the people, not some neat and clear concept which everybody accepts as being the definition of one's humanity. Any society which judges one as inhumane must understand that their view of humanity is subjective, society needs those which they judge because otherwise they'd suffer in other methods.

IRL, A lot of atrocities were commited for the sake of medical knowledge, countless people were cut open and experimented upon and they all died. Would you classify the medical teams in charge of said operations as "evil"? Of course society would gladly hate upon them, though society has no qualms in using their research and letting them go scot-free for it. Does this mean we're "evil" for letting such "evil" pass by us?

This is because our society is built on hypocrites, our foundation is built upon countless bodies and we'll gladly compromise "ourselves" to attain such research, as long as we're not the ones doing the atrocities ourselves. We need those who are "inhumane" so we can keep our so-called "humanity" for ourselves.

Cerberus represents this in the Mass Effect universe, their research being radical but evolving humanity's place in the galaxy and strengthening it's grip. Without Cerberus, there is no humanity, there's simply another puppet for the Council.

Its not that simple.

[Xilizhra]

IRL, A lot of atrocities were commited for the sake of medical knowledge, countless people were cut open and experimented upon and they all died. Would you classify the medical teams in charge of said operations as "evil"? Of course society would gladly hate upon them, though society has no qualms in using their research and letting them go scot-free for it.

Those who performed it were evil, yes. Those who used the research, unless they were also the ones performing it or allowing it to be performed, were not. I don't personally believe in the idea of tainted knowledge, though I do note the risks of allowing people to think that such means for seeking knowledge would be acceptable or fruitful.

This is because our society is built on hypocrites, our foundation is built upon countless bodies and we'll gladly compromise "ourselves" to attain such research, as long as we're not the ones doing the atrocities ourselves. We need those who are "inhumane" so we can keep our so-called "humanity" for ourselves.

Our foundation is built upon countless bodies because evil is more common the further back in time we go. We use the fruits of evil because we can't turn back the clock, nothing more. Eventually, I hope we can purge it from the human mind forever.

Cerberus represents this in the Mass Effect universe, their research being radical but evolving humanity's place in the galaxy and strengthening it's grip. Without Cerberus, there is no humanity, there's simply another puppet for the Council.

And like all evil forces, while its knowledge may be used, it must be destroyed.

Greatest net positive? What is the greatest net positive? Is it unifying countries through a series of well-propagaded falsehoods aka social engineering? Is it destroying those that exist simply to harm others? Is it strenghtening international trade to keep money flowing? Is it taking steps to isolate yourself to some extent to keep jobs within your borders? And so forth.

That which will lead to the greatest possible amount of pleasure for the greatest possible number of beings that can experience it, over the greatest possible period of time. We need to find out what that is.

You could argue religion is far more tangible than any of us. They've been around for a long time and will continue to be, where you are very temporary.. So, if I harmed someone to defend you, I'd be evil as you are largely intangible, a mere breath in the space of time. Enjoyment is also intangible? Cmon. Whether or not you can touch and feel something does not make it any less real or worthy a cause. Also, what is harm? What are the priorities when in comes to choosing where the harm should go? Why do people act like it's not inevitable to a certain extent?

In terms of tangibility, I'm referring to intangibles as things other than survival and that which is necessary for survival, for oneself or others. To do harm otherwise is evil to a greater or lesser extent. As for harm... the priorities are doing the least harm possible, with it being a better option to do lesser harm to more people than a great deal of harm to fewer (it's better to inconvenience a thousand people than to kill one).

[John Renegade]

Xilizhra wrote...

That which will lead to the greatest possible amount of pleasure for the greatest possible number of beings that can experience it, over the greatest possible period of time. We need to find out what that is.

Why pleasure? Why not knowledge? Enlightenment? Personal power?

How can you choose one of these options with such a certainty?

[Homebound]

John Renegade wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

That which will lead to the greatest possible amount of pleasure for the greatest possible number of beings that can experience it, over the greatest possible period of time. We need to find out what that is.

Why pleasure? Why not knowledge? Enlightenment? Personal power?

How can you choose one of these options with such a certainty?

knowledge, enlightenment, personal power, those are pleasures in this context of the word.

[John Renegade]

Hellbound555 wrote...

And that is why TiM and Cerberus are the bad guys. Thats all they care about. They dont give a crap about how many people they hurt. Sure TiM can say "Oh but I helped save the galaxy by doing all these atrocious things", but that doesnt change the fact that theres a giant pile of bodies beneath him that might not be there if he wasnt so ready or willing to sacrifice people. TiM is ultimately, through his desperation, destroying the very thing he claims hes trying to protect. That being Humanity.

Whats it worth in the end if we lose our humanity in the process?

He is saving more lives than he's dooming.

Can you claim the right to doom so many lives, when the only thing in your sleeve is a word, which means something else for everyone and whose upholding you have in no way justified? Not justified any more than saving all those lives is justified?

[Homebound]

John Renegade wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

And that is why TiM and Cerberus are the bad guys. Thats all they care about. They dont give a crap about how many people they hurt. Sure TiM can say "Oh but I helped save the galaxy by doing all these atrocious things", but that doesnt change the fact that theres a giant pile of bodies beneath him that might not be there if he wasnt so ready or willing to sacrifice people. TiM is ultimately, through his desperation, destroying the very thing he claims hes trying to protect. That being Humanity.

Whats it worth in the end if we lose our humanity in the process?

He is saving more lives than he's dooming.

Can you claim the right to doom so many lives, when the only thing in your sleeve is a word, which means something else for everyone and whose upholding you have in no way justified? Not justified any more than saving all those lives is justified?

No. And neither does the illusive man.

[John Renegade]

Hellbound555 wrote...

John Renegade wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

That which will lead to the greatest possible amount of pleasure for the greatest possible number of beings that can experience it, over the greatest possible period of time. We need to find out what that is.

Why pleasure? Why not knowledge? Enlightenment? Personal power?

How can you choose one of these options with such a certainty?

knowledge, enlightenment, personal power, those are pleasures in this context of the word.

That is incorrect. Knowledge, for example, is about possessing certain information. For whatever reasons (maybe even for the sake of it) you want to have it, pleasure is in no way mandatory for the overall goal.

[GodWood]

Hellbound555 wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...
Whats it worth in the end if we lose our humanity in the process?

How selfish of you.

how is that selfish?

The fact that you're willing to let all life in this cycle and all other cycles perish because you don't want to get YOUR hands dirty.

[John Renegade]

Hellbound555 wrote...

John Renegade wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

And that is why TiM and Cerberus are the bad guys. Thats all they care about. They dont give a crap about how many people they hurt. Sure TiM can say "Oh but I helped save the galaxy by doing all these atrocious things", but that doesnt change the fact that theres a giant pile of bodies beneath him that might not be there if he wasnt so ready or willing to sacrifice people. TiM is ultimately, through his desperation, destroying the very thing he claims hes trying to protect. That being Humanity.

Whats it worth in the end if we lose our humanity in the process?

He is saving more lives than he's dooming.

Can you claim the right to doom so many lives, when the only thing in your sleeve is a word, which means something else for everyone and whose upholding you have in no way justified? Not justified any more than saving all those lives is justified?

No. And neither does the illusive man.

Percisely. You don't have the right to risk death of the entire species (or even the whole galaxy) by being soft and being afraid to sacrifice a few people to assure the best chance for survival of many. And neither does TIM.

[Xilizhra]

John Renegade wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

John Renegade wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

That which will lead to the greatest possible amount of pleasure for the greatest possible number of beings that can experience it, over the greatest possible period of time. We need to find out what that is.

Why pleasure? Why not knowledge? Enlightenment? Personal power?

How can you choose one of these options with such a certainty?

knowledge, enlightenment, personal power, those are pleasures in this context of the word.

That is incorrect. Knowledge, for example, is about possessing certain information. For whatever reasons (maybe even for the sake of it) you want to have it, pleasure is in no way mandatory for the overall goal.

You can replace "pleasure" with "positive emotion." They mean the same thing in my statement.

[Volus Warlord]

Xilizhra wrote...
That which will lead to the greatest possible amount of pleasure for the greatest possible number of beings that can experience it, over the greatest possible period of time. We need to find out what that is.

So pleasure is inherently positive? Doubtful.. And while I agree longetivity is a true meter of value, many things must be sacrificed to achieve it, and often the ones that provide the greatest pleasure are inherently unsustainable.. and then the pleasure is a mere mask of all the suffering it will bring.

In terms of tangibility, I'm referring to intangibles as things other than survival and that which is necessary for survival, for oneself or others. To do harm otherwise is evil to a greater or lesser extent. As for harm... the priorities are doing the least harm possible, with it being a better option to do lesser harm to more people than a great deal of harm to fewer (it's better to inconvenience a thousand people than to kill one).

Ah.. so.. necessary for survival? Utilitarianism.. always liked it.

But what is necessary for survival? What makes it necessary? Obviously, there is food, water, shelter, but people want more. There is no pleasure in simply that. A life of merely survival is empty, meaningless, useless. What is the drive to go forward? What is the motive to act in a way that supports others rather than simply yourself? It may just be those darn "intangibles"....

And is it better to inconvienience a thousand then to kill one? It is fine that the one may be a barrier to the "pleasure" of thousands, yet should be allowed to remain that way? You speak as if force is unnecessary to achieve one's goals, to achive society's goals, to achieve humanity's goals. Glad handing will only get you so far.

[Xilizhra]

So pleasure is inherently positive? Doubtful.. And while I agree longetivity is a true meter of value, many things must be sacrificed to achieve it, and often the ones that provide the greatest pleasure are inherently unsustainable.. and then the pleasure is a mere mask of all the suffering it will bring.

As above, you can replace "pleasure" with "positive emotion."

But what is necessary for survival? What makes it necessary? Obviously, there is food, water, shelter, but people want more. There is no pleasure in simply that. A life of merely survival is empty, meaningless, useless. What is the drive to go forward? What is the motive to act in a way that supports others rather than simply yourself? It may just be those darn "intangibles"....

Oh, certainly, those are all great. However, killing for them isn't.

And is it better to inconvienience a thousand then to kill one? It is fine that the one may be a barrier to the "pleasure" of thousands, yet should be allowed to remain that way? You speak as if force is unnecessary to achieve one's goals, to achive society's goals, to achieve humanity's goals. Glad handing will only get you so far.

If force is necessary, it's a bad sign, one of a situation that should be corrected.

[Homebound]

GodWood wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...
Whats it worth in the end if we lose our humanity in the process?

How selfish of you.

how is that selfish?

The fact that you're willing to let all life in this cycle and all other cycles perish because you don't want to get YOUR hands dirty.

I am simply protecting the things I deem worth living for.

[John Renegade]

Xilizhra wrote...

John Renegade wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

John Renegade wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

That which will lead to the greatest possible amount of pleasure for the greatest possible number of beings that can experience it, over the greatest possible period of time. We need to find out what that is.

Why pleasure? Why not knowledge? Enlightenment? Personal power?

How can you choose one of these options with such a certainty?

knowledge, enlightenment, personal power, those are pleasures in this context of the word.

That is incorrect. Knowledge, for example, is about possessing certain information. For whatever reasons (maybe even for the sake of it) you want to have it, pleasure is in no way mandatory for the overall goal.

You can replace "pleasure" with "positive emotion." They mean the same thing in my statement.

Positive? Emotion?

Why is all about 'emotions'? Why not about, lets just say, doing the 'correct' thing, that is 'what is supposed to be done based on what we know about the structure of the universe we live in'? (Just imagine a civilization based on this philosophy. They don't need to be happy or sad. They may simply gain information which will cause they to do certain things. Period. No positive/negative 'feelings' necesary.)

[Homebound]

John Renegade wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

John Renegade wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

And that is why TiM and Cerberus are the bad guys. Thats all they care about. They dont give a crap about how many people they hurt. Sure TiM can say "Oh but I helped save the galaxy by doing all these atrocious things", but that doesnt change the fact that theres a giant pile of bodies beneath him that might not be there if he wasnt so ready or willing to sacrifice people. TiM is ultimately, through his desperation, destroying the very thing he claims hes trying to protect. That being Humanity.

Whats it worth in the end if we lose our humanity in the process?

He is saving more lives than he's dooming.

Can you claim the right to doom so many lives, when the only thing in your sleeve is a word, which means something else for everyone and whose upholding you have in no way justified? Not justified any more than saving all those lives is justified?

No. And neither does the illusive man.

Percisely. You don't have the right to risk death of the entire species (or even the whole galaxy) by being soft and being afraid to sacrifice a few people to assure the best chance for survival of many. And neither does TIM.

TiM doesnt have the right to risk a few people in his wreckless pursuit for power.

[John Renegade]

Hellbound555 wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...
Whats it worth in the end if we lose our humanity in the process?

How selfish of you.

how is that selfish?

The fact that you're willing to let all life in this cycle and all other cycles perish because you don't want to get YOUR hands dirty.

I am simply protecting the things I deem worth living for.

Why do you deem them living for? Why not any other aspect of humanity, which wouldn't perish if you'll commit those atrocities?

Also, isn't one aspect of humanity the existence of human species and the right of an individual to choose their own path? You are denying all that to billions of people, by sentencing them all to death.

[John Renegade]

Hellbound555 wrote...

John Renegade wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

John Renegade wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

And that is why TiM and Cerberus are the bad guys. Thats all they care about. They dont give a crap about how many people they hurt. Sure TiM can say "Oh but I helped save the galaxy by doing all these atrocious things", but that doesnt change the fact that theres a giant pile of bodies beneath him that might not be there if he wasnt so ready or willing to sacrifice people. TiM is ultimately, through his desperation, destroying the very thing he claims hes trying to protect. That being Humanity.

Whats it worth in the end if we lose our humanity in the process?

He is saving more lives than he's dooming.

Can you claim the right to doom so many lives, when the only thing in your sleeve is a word, which means something else for everyone and whose upholding you have in no way justified? Not justified any more than saving all those lives is justified?

No. And neither does the illusive man.

Percisely. You don't have the right to risk death of the entire species (or even the whole galaxy) by being soft and being afraid to sacrifice a few people to assure the best chance for survival of many. And neither does TIM.

TiM doesnt have the right to risk a few people in his wreckless pursuit for power.

You're wrong. TIM doesn't pursue power for its own sake. It's simply means to an end. The end being saving the lives of all of humanity from the Reapers. And he has the right to do that.

Modifié par John Renegade, 18 février 2012 - 08:24 .

[Homebound]

John Renegade wrote...
-pyramid snip.
Why do you deem them living for? Why not any other aspect of humanity, which wouldn't perish if you'll commit those atrocities?

Also, isn't one aspect of humanity the existence of human species and the right of an individual to choose their own path? You are denying all that to billions of people, by sentencing them all to death.

Just because Im trying to preserve the moral integrity of humans in the game doesnt mean its a death sentence in a time of great strife.

edit: I do not agree with TiM's means. While they do produce results, there are other ways to get to the same thing without hurting others. And if those routes are viable, it will be the route I choose for my Shepard.

Modifié par Hellbound555, 18 février 2012 - 08:25 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Xilizhra wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

So apparently the ME franchise is the best written sci-fi in our history, it represents the "goodness found in others" and the "evils of humanity" in the form of Cerberus, who represents "our dark history with ****s, Hitler and groups thinking they're better than others" and how by remaining optimistic, one may conquer the evils.

My entire keyboard was bloodied by the time I finished reading, I hit my head a dozen or so times.

Cerberus is a tricky business. It's evil, certainly, but evil is at its most dangerous when it doesn't seem immediately evil. Thus, Bioware is in a bit of a quandary over showing that Cerberus is evil vs. annoying whatever fans it may have. I'm not entirely surprised that they removed the question by having them be indoctrinated; a bit weak, perhaps, but understandable for conservative executive types. I am glad that it got through fairly well in ME2, though, despite Cerberus' support; a show of egalitarianism from the fanbase, even if it's not always well-thought-out, is a good thing.

Egalitarianism is almost never well-thought out, and rarely, if ever, a good thing.

[John Renegade]

Hellbound555 wrote...

Just because Im trying to preserve the moral integrity of humans in the game doesnt mean its a death sentence in a time of great strife.

You are putting the lives of them all at stake, you hazard with their survival by decreasing their chances to survive the war, in the very least causing some non-critical deaths due to army's incapability to fight as well as it could. Yeah, I call that a death sentence.

Modifié par John Renegade, 18 février 2012 - 08:30 .

[Xilizhra]

Why is all about 'emotions'? Why not about, lets just say, doing the 'correct' thing, that is 'what is supposed to be done based on what we know about the structure of the universe we live in'? (Just imagine a civilization based on this philosophy. They don't need to be happy or sad. They may simply gain information which will cause they to do certain things. Period. No positive/negative 'feelings' necesary.)

Because nothing is "supposed to be done" based on the structure of the universe. The universe doesn't care about morality, only we do. Thus, we can't look outside ourselves for moral imperatives because there aren't any not made by humanity.

[Homebound]

@John Renegade
We will find another way.

[BlueMagitek]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Ah.. so.. necessary for survival? Utilitarianism.. always liked it.

But what is necessary for survival? What makes it necessary? Obviously, there is food, water, shelter, but people want more. There is no pleasure in simply that. A life of merely survival is empty, meaningless, useless. What is the drive to go forward? What is the motive to act in a way that supports others rather than simply yourself? It may just be those darn "intangibles"....

And is it better to inconvienience a thousand then to kill one? It is fine that the one may be a barrier to the "pleasure" of thousands, yet should be allowed to remain that way? You speak as if force is unnecessary to achieve one's goals, to achive society's goals, to achieve humanity's goals. Glad handing will only get you so far.

While I do enjoy a good discussion on Space Ethics, I think your view of Utilitarianism is a bit off.  It's to generate the greatest amount of "happiness" (not the emotion, that's just the term used).  And yes, how to count "happiness" is a problem that it has.  That's why people tend to go with Rule Utilitarianism; judging each scenario on its own takes too much time and by the time you make your decision the option has usually past. =D

It doesn't matter, anyway.  The Para/Rene System is based on Virtue Ethics; by being either Paragon or Renegade, Shepard knows the ethical thing (as denoted by the Charm or Intimidate options) to do in every scenario, provide he's been acting "ethically" so far.