183 réponses à ce sujet

[TobyHasEyes]

 @Wesker

 I am not sure that counts as deontological reasoning then

 If you are stating that 'It is immoral to do x' as logically true, but then state that it 'It is moral to do x if it leads to y' then you are still judging the action by its consequence

 If you claim that it is wrong to kill deontologically, then even if killing that person would save lives it would still be wrong. If you think that the act of killing can change from being immoral to moral then what you are judging the action on is its consequences

 The principle which combines your claims would be is it wrong to do x (as it leads to y) unless -x would lead to >y. My writing of logic is sloppy, but you are stating that the consequences of x are undesirable, but could be moe desire than the consequeces of not doing x; all consequentialist

 The statement 'It is morally wrong to do something immoral' only has logical certainty because you are just describing how the term is defined. 'Morally wrong' is a quality of 'Immoral'. However that definition barely fits the consequenialist reasoning you actually display, as you cannot both express that statement and then claim that 'morally right' could be found in 'Immoral', given the circumstances. These logical certainties cannot be understood as subjective, they are used to describe that which is objective and universal (hence vapid truisms)

[EsterCloat]

I don't equate it to brainwashing. If I were to equate it to a biological condition, I would say the heretics have mental disorders similar to psychopathy. They see only the goal even if that goal is littered with the corpses of billions, even trillions, of live. Having no qualms murdering all intelligent life in order to achieve their goal is not in any way a moral or normal thought process no matter how you look at it.

"But that's their choice. You can't be moral if you don't respect their choice."

I suppose a police officer is morally wrong to stop a mugger from killing someone since it was their choice to mug and/or murder someone. Or rather morally wrong for NOT killing the mugger, who happens to be mentally unstable, and getting him medical attention to keep him from going off the deep end again. I keep seeing people equating this to brainwashing when its not. Not as I define it. The heretics have a sickness, a sickness that I cured with the virus just as any psychiatrist would by prescribing anti-psychotics to a patient. They still have all their thoughts, all their experiences but the "genetic defect" that prevented them from seeing how idiotic their decision to join the Reapers was fixed. This isn't some shy kid who marches to the beat of a different drummer that I decided should follow everyone else. This is a group who decided that annihilating all organic life in the galaxy is a good way to start their march and I saw the potential to not only save organic life but the heretics as well.

Here's the kicker though: we don't know if the heretics came back after fixing them. The true geth would, sure, seeing as Legion is staunchly on the opposing the Reapers side. However, the heretics are not the true geth. After the time they've spent apart from one another, with vastly different experiences and history, their different. For all we know, after seeing the Reapers up close and personal they might still decide to stay with the Reapers. All the virus did was fix a mental disorder, its still the heretics decision to return to the true geth or not. Brainwashing would not allow that choice thus to me they are not brainwashed.

If I run into more heretic geth in ME3 and they have decided to stay with the Reapers, then I've done all that I can do to help them and I have no choice but to kill them but I'm not going to condemn their whole group to death because they've got something wrong with their heads.

Modifié par EsterCloat, 08 août 2011 - 08:40 .

[InkognitoY]

Well I asked Legion for his opinion (because I disliked both choices) and he said 573 Geth were for brainwashing, and 571 for destruction.

So I went with brainwashing.

[marshalleck]

EsterCloat wrote...

I don't equate it to brainwashing. If I were to equate it to a biological condition, I would say the heretics have mental disorders similar to psychopathy. They see only the goal even if that goal is littered with the corpses of billions, even trillions, of live. Having no qualms murdering all intelligent life in order to achieve their goal is not in any way a moral or normal thought process no matter how you look at it.

"But that's their choice. You can't be moral if you don't respect their choice."

I suppose a police officer is morally wrong to stop a mugger from killing someone since it was their choice to mug and/or murder someone. Or rather morally wrong for NOT killing the mugger, who happens to be mentally unstable, and getting him medical attention to keep him from going off the deep end again.

What an incredibly idiotic leap of logic you've devised. 

In the case of the heretic geth, 'respecting' their right to choose their own path doesn't mean you sit around and let them victimize you. 

They chose to become your enemy, thus you treat them as such and blow up their station.

Also, there is nothing "mentally unstable" about the heretic geth decision to support the Reapers. They were proposed a deal in which they would benefit greatly from their service. By all accounts, they entered into it willingly. 

A better scenario than your "mentally unstable" mugger (lol?) is a petty street thug victimizing people merely because he can, for quick and easy profit. He's still perfectly sane, rational, and in control of his behavior. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 08 août 2011 - 09:02 .

[EsterCloat]

marshalleck wrote...

EsterCloat wrote...

I don't equate it to brainwashing. If I were to equate it to a biological condition, I would say the heretics have mental disorders similar to psychopathy. They see only the goal even if that goal is littered with the corpses of billions, even trillions, of live. Having no qualms murdering all intelligent life in order to achieve their goal is not in any way a moral or normal thought process no matter how you look at it.

"But that's their choice. You can't be moral if you don't respect their choice."

I suppose a police officer is morally wrong to stop a mugger from killing someone since it was their choice to mug and/or murder someone. Or rather morally wrong for NOT killing the mugger, who happens to be mentally unstable, and getting him medical attention to keep him from going off the deep end again.

What an incredibly idiotic leap of logic you've devised. 

In the case of the heretic geth, 'respecting' their right to choose their own path doesn't mean you sit around and let them victimize you. 

They chose to become your enemy, thus you treat them as such and blow up their station.

Also, there is nothing "mentally unstable" about the heretic geth decision to support the Reapers. They were proposed a deal in which they would benefit greatly from their service. By all accounts, they entered into it willingly. 

A better scenario than your "mentally unstable" mugger (lol?) is a petty street thug victimizing people merely because he can, for quick and easy profit. He's still perfectly sane, rational, and in control of his behavior. 

That was a bit rude. I used to like you marshalleck. Now you've broken my poor heart. :crying:That's okay, I still like you.

Nothing mentally unstable about deciding to help in the elimination of all sapient life in the galaxy for some big ship/sphere, eh? Willingness presumes mental stability right?  Sure, I'll go with that.

Modifié par EsterCloat, 08 août 2011 - 09:26 .

[TobyHasEyes]

EsterCloat wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

EsterCloat wrote...

I don't equate it to brainwashing. If I were to equate it to a biological condition, I would say the heretics have mental disorders similar to psychopathy. They see only the goal even if that goal is littered with the corpses of billions, even trillions, of live. Having no qualms murdering all intelligent life in order to achieve their goal is not in any way a moral or normal thought process no matter how you look at it.

"But that's their choice. You can't be moral if you don't respect their choice."

I suppose a police officer is morally wrong to stop a mugger from killing someone since it was their choice to mug and/or murder someone. Or rather morally wrong for NOT killing the mugger, who happens to be mentally unstable, and getting him medical attention to keep him from going off the deep end again.

What an incredibly idiotic leap of logic you've devised. 

In the case of the heretic geth, 'respecting' their right to choose their own path doesn't mean you sit around and let them victimize you. 

They chose to become your enemy, thus you treat them as such and blow up their station.

Also, there is nothing "mentally unstable" about the heretic geth decision to support the Reapers. They were proposed a deal in which they would benefit greatly from their service. By all accounts, they entered into it willingly. 

A better scenario than your "mentally unstable" mugger (lol?) is a petty street thug victimizing people merely because he can, for quick and easy profit. He's still perfectly sane, rational, and in control of his behavior. 

That was a bit rude. I used to like you marshalleck. Now you've broken my poor heart. :crying:That's okay, I still like you.

Nothing mentally unstable about deciding to help in the elimination of all sapient life in the galaxy for some big ship/sphere, eh? Willingness presumes mental stability right?  Sure, I'll go with that.

 Rational choice theory is ye olde debunked bogus theory, but you walk down dangerous paths when you conclude that those with a different world view are simply mentally ill

[RocketManSR2]

What it boiled down to was Legion's consensus. It was in favor of re-write by a slim margin. That's how machines think, yes and no, 1s and 0s.

[EsterCloat]

TobyHasEyes wrote...
 Rational choice theory is ye olde debunked bogus theory, but you walk down dangerous paths when you conclude that those with a different world view are simply mentally ill

Obviously but it's not like I'm saying all those who see things differently are mentally ill. The heretics are a special case in my view.

With people, what can and cannot be attributed to mental illness is complicated and requires much evaluation from a trained professional. One cannot simply assume that one's viewpoint is from a chemical imbalance that differs from the norm or because of upbringing or any other numerous factors that can influence a person's decisions and outlooks. Then it has to be evaluated whether this difference is actually detrimental to a person's life and/or the lives of others.

This is not so with the heretics, at least in relation to the reasons behind their decision. No matter what can be said about history and experience and upbringing, what has caused the heretics to join the Reapers is simple and has been sourced back to a single factor: a bug. That's what Legion tells us. A bug in certain floating point division operations results. A bug that brings back a wrong answer. Legion says neither is wrong when speaking of  the "2 is greater than 1" and "3 is greater than 2" analogy but in pure math terms they are wrong.

"An equation with a result of 1.33382 returns as 1.33381. This changes the results of all higher processes. We will reach different conclusions."

An organic cannot be broken down to math and checked against a list. A geth can and it was discovered that bug brings back a wrong answer and thus affects all "higher processes". They are "broken" or "ill" as I see it and the virus corrected the bug in my interpretation.

Modifié par EsterCloat, 08 août 2011 - 10:02 .

[Monochrome Wench]

There is no indication that the Heretics have any sort of hardware or software flaw in their programming. All that is known is the Heretics virus will introduce a specific flaw that will change the True Geth. There is no information about what Legions virus will do to the Heretics.

Regarding inability for legion to choose. Legion has 1183 programs. As stated earlier, 573 Geth were for brainwashing, and 571 were for blowing them up. Half of 1183 is 591.5. Neither choice managed to get a majority of support. 39 programs apparently didn't agree with either decision. I think this is why Legion lets Shepard make the decision. Legion can't come to consensis so which ever choice managed to get more support doesn't matter.

Think of it this way:
573 are for rewriting
571 are for destroying
but
610 are against rewriting
612 are against destroying

Each of the options has more opposition than support. At least thats the way I see it.

[superfastguy]

people are talking like heretic geth can still infect other geth after the rewrite.
Didnt Legion say the electromagnetic pulse would spread out and rewrite other geth too?

[Nightdragon8]

the heretic geth are on there own network, the "true geth: doesn't have contact with the Heratics, and it wasn't until ont he station that the Heratics where having servalice data on there patrol routes. So in realitythey where considered an enaimy aslo to the fact that the heritics where using

I think what people are wondering is if the reapers can rewrite geth code I think

[Thanix_cannon_in_my_pants]

If giving a chance of just deleting half the Geth with one key struck you have to take it. Is not like they can't make more programs. Is not like you are killing babies, but i thought about it for a seconds, because they could be useful in ME3.

[-Skorpious-]

Thanix_cannon_in_my_pants wrote...

If giving a chance of just deleting half the Geth...

I don't believe that the heretics account for half the Geth (I thought they were a distinct minority). However its been a while since my last ME/ME2 run, so I'm not entirely sure.

Anybody have a more specific answer this question?

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 09 août 2011 - 03:35 .

[Weskerr]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 @Wesker

 I am not sure that counts as deontological reasoning then

 If you are stating that 'It is immoral to do x' as logically true, but then state that it 'It is moral to do x if it leads to y' then you are still judging the action by its consequence

 If you claim that it is wrong to kill deontologically, then even if killing that person would save lives it would still be wrong. If you think that the act of killing can change from being immoral to moral then what you are judging the action on is its consequences

 The principle which combines your claims would be is it wrong to do x (as it leads to y) unless -x would lead to >y. My writing of logic is sloppy, but you are stating that the consequences of x are undesirable, but could be moe desire than the consequeces of not doing x; all consequentialist

 The statement 'It is morally wrong to do something immoral' only has logical certainty because you are just describing how the term is defined. 'Morally wrong' is a quality of 'Immoral'. However that definition barely fits the consequenialist reasoning you actually display, as you cannot both express that statement and then claim that 'morally right' could be found in 'Immoral', given the circumstances. These logical certainties cannot be understood as subjective, they are used to describe that which is objective and universal (hence vapid truisms)

You've pointed out that my reasoning contradicts itself and I think you're right to an extent. You're saying that it's impossible to solve a moral dilemma using both deontological and teleological thinking at the same time. That may be true, but then who's to say which philosphical line of moral reasoning is competely correct and which is completely wrong? I think they both have their advantages and disadvantages, and they both internally contacfict themselves. So neither is perfect.

Deontological example: I am duty bound to protect my family. I am duty bound to protect myself. I am faced with a situation in which I can either only protect myself or only protect my family, but not both. So, then choosing one or the other becomes arbitrary, but I choose to protect my family and so I am hurt in some way. Whatever my reasons were for my choice, I still failed morally because I was obligated to protect both myself and my family. A question then must be posed: Who's to say that I'm obligated to do anything? God? Society? My conscience? My hamster?

Telelogical example: I have to kill one of two children to save 1000 people. One of the children is my own, and the other a stranger's. I rather save my child, but I must uphold my teleological viewpoint! I have the two children pull two straws from my hand. The one who pulls the shorter straw is the one I kill. My child pulls the shorter straw, so I kill him, and I'm devasted. A question then must be posed: What is the purpose of having a family? Why do I have affection for my mother but not for a woman of identical age? Why do I have more affection for my son, but not a boy of identical age? By all accounts, there should be no families, but everyone has one nonethelss - even consequentialists! Teleoglical philosophy must be flawed in some way.

Why is it morally right to what's obligated of you (following pre-determined rules)? Why is it morally right to do what's best for the greater good (judging the moral correctness of an action based on its consequences)?

What I'm getting at is I think morality is a lot of guesswork, conjecture, and arbitrainess. That doesn't mean I don't think it has its uses. In the end though, it's just rules by which people think we should behave and act, unless you believe that the 10 Commandments from the Bible are God's will (Who is perfect in all things and so can never be wrong). I guess I'm a Pragmatic Ethics thinker.

[Weskerr]

-Skorpious- wrote...

Thanix_cannon_in_my_pants wrote...

If giving a chance of just deleting half the Geth...

I don't believe that the heretics account for half the Geth (I thought they were a distinct minority). However its been a while since my last ME/ME2 run, so I'm not entirely sure.

Anybody have a more specific answer this question?

Someone earlier in the thread said that the Heretics account for 5% of the total Geth population.

[Johnny34]

They chose their own way, I killed them. Should make it easier for the quarians to retake their world in ME3 if that's a possibility.

[lokiarchetype]

There's nothing morally wrong about brainwashing the Heretics.

The Heretics engineered the brainwashing virus.  They created it because they came to the consensus that the schism between the Geth couldn't be allowed to continue and that rewriting was necessary.

The Heretics approve of rewriting a faction of the Geth to make all Geth in agreement. That's practically permission from them to use their virus against them.  Turnabout is fairplay.

Modifié par lokiarchetype, 11 août 2011 - 08:08 .

[Izhalezan]

Johnny34 wrote...

They chose their own way, I killed them. Should make it easier for the quarians to retake their world in ME3 if that's a possibility.

That's kinda what I went with. I respected their decision... by blowing them to kingdom come.

[Candidate 88766]

The only reason I re-wrote them with my main Shepard was because I came to the conclusion that it isn't actually brainwashing. Whilst intelligent in groups, a single Geth is little more than a VI - not a sentient being. Whilst on the Heretic Base, the Geth were split into small groups due to Legion's meddling, so the Heretics would be re-wrote in small groups.

Re-writing all of the Heretics could be seen as brainwashing as together they are intelligent and sentient, but from my understanding the virus affects each individual Geth and so I think the Geth should be considered as no more intelligent than VIs in regards to re-writing them. I sort of reasoned it as giving them a second chance - after their attacks on Eden Prime, Feros, Noveria and the Citadel I felt that re-writing them was an opportunity to show, well not necessarily forgiveness, but at the very least a second chance.

However, I still think it is a very grey moral area and I won't be surprised if the newly re-wrote Heretics are less than pleased with my Shepard. I also think that both choices should've given renegade points, or that both choices should've been neutral.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 11 août 2011 - 09:06 .

[In Exile]

Aumata wrote...

Morally right? Brainwashing is not the moral thing to do. Geth made their own choice, brainwashing them is basically a cop-out to keep someone alive while ridding of their ideals because you don't agree with it. How is that the moral thing to do? Hell, from the way the UN puts it that is genocide. Destroying them on the other hand, gives them the right to keep their ideals, but let them have consequences for their choice. Really it was nothing more than a military objective. I wonder how this would have played differently if the choices was an exact opposite of paragon and renegade choices, or kept neutral as possible.

That's about my thought on the issue as well. The heretics choose. They lost. But at least I respect that choice enough to let them face the consequences of it, instead of forcing them to review their beliefs, opinions, etc. 

[Candidate 88766]

lokiarchetype wrote...

There's nothing morally wrong about brainwashing the Heretics.

The Heretics engineered the brainwashing virus.  They created it because they came to the consensus that the schism between the Geth couldn't be allowed to continue and that rewriting was necessary.

The Heretics approve of rewriting a faction of the Geth to make all Geth in agreement. That's practically permission from them to use their virus against them.  Turnabout is fairplay.

Actually, thats not bad reasoning. If the Heretics don't think its wrong to re-write the other Geth, why would they think it is wrong to use it on themselves?

[Weskerr]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

The only reason I re-wrote them with my main Shepard was because I came to the conclusion that it isn't actually brainwashing. Whilst intelligent in groups, a single Geth is little more than a VI - not a sentient being. Whilst on the Heretic Base, the Geth were split into small groups due to Legion's meddling, so the Heretics would be re-wrote in small groups.

Re-writing all of the Heretics could be seen as brainwashing as together they are intelligent and sentient, but from my understanding the virus affects each individual Geth and so I think the Geth should be considered as no more intelligent than VIs in regards to re-writing them. I sort of reasoned it as giving them a second chance - after their attacks on Eden Prime, Feros, Noveria and the Citadel I felt that re-writing them was an opportunity to show, well not necessarily forgiveness, but at the very least a second chance.

When I think of individual geth, I picture individual brain cells. They aren't sentient individually, but when they start functioning in unison, they are the brain itself. If you change how fast each neruon in the brain fires electrical impulses, then the brain will start thinking differently. So changing how the individual geth process information ultimately changes their thinking once they gain sentience in a group. I still consider that brainwashing.

[Bad King]

Mesina2 wrote...

Neither choice is morally good.


It's either genocide or brainwashing.



Also for in-game consequences?
Maybe big part of True Geth won't like the idea for brainwashing them and effect negatively for you trying to get them Allied.

This. I originally was convinced that re-writing them was the best option, but the geth seem to dislike any sort of brainwashing, and may be more reluctant in ME3 if Shepard comes around to recruit them.

[jshadow]

Legion once said, judging other species by your own standards is racist, even if it's sentient machines.

What mite be considered morally/ethically wrong by humans (or organics in general), like per say genocide or brainwashing the Heretics, isn't to Geth. They're machines.

Reprograming (or brainwashing if you wanna put it that way) wouldn't harm them, because it'd be like reinstalling a program on PC, but set it with different functions. The Heretics would rejoin Geth and add any useful data they have collected while working for Soverin to other Geth, possibly allowing development of anti-reaper weapon and more over, the Heretics would no longer serve reapers.

Destroying the Heretics however, would indeed end their agression and working for reapers, but would loose any data that mite've been useful for later on and the number of Geth that would be useful for fighting the Reapers would be gone.

So personally, I preffer having them rewritten.

[lltoon]

Mesina2 wrote...

Neither choice is morally good.


It's either genocide or brainwashing.

Technically the Reapers 'brainwashed' them first by introducing a suble coding error into their programming. All you're doing is returning their programs to their default state. I see it as repairing a corrupted operating system.

Additionally, the Heretics were planning on brainwashing the rest of the normal Geth with this subroutine. If they were willing to brainwash the normal Geth, I think the punishment is fair and equal that they have it turned around on them instead.