127 réponses à ce sujet

[Red Son Rising]

i dont have the tools to manipulate high quality images, a lil color correction doesnt go a long way


that light pattern [which seems to be unique] doesnt fit any reapers in either mass effect game so far and it doesnt match known images of reapers in ME3

sorry im late, gettin sidetracked pretty easily these days

[In Exile]

Meshaber wrote...
I could reply to this in lots of ways, but I'm going to go with the most fun one:

The same set of reaper technology is melting down a homicidal, depressed krogan who wants nothing more than to end his miserable existance and also happens to have a neural disorder causing him to feel like he is undergoing a massage before his brain finally collapses.

Oh, FAWK.

I could reply to this in lots of ways, but I'm going to go with the most fun one:

The reaper technology is created to cause pain, so it not only fixes the neural disorder, it also cures the krogan of his depression so he realizes how much he has to live for while not having any hope for escape, and the krogan dies in horrific pain, only wishing he could survive.

Nuts. 

[Inverness Moon]

In Exile wrote...

I could reply to this in lots of ways, but I'm going to go with the most fun one:

The reaper technology is created to cause pain, so it not only fixes the neural disorder, it also cures the krogan of his depression so he realizes how much he has to live for while not having any hope for escape, and the krogan dies in horrific pain, only wishing he could survive.

Nuts. 

Except that's wrong.

If you're still talking about the juicers in the collector base, pain is merely a side effect, not the intention. You're also changing the goalposts in your response, stop it.

Bottom line: technology is morally neutral. It's how you use it that counts, because it's people that have morals and assign morality to things.

[didymos1120]

Red Son Rising wrote...

i dont have the tools to manipulate high quality images, a lil color correction doesnt go a long way

Here, I pulled the actual textures a while back (which have the names "sovereign1" and "sovereign3", BTW):

that light pattern [which seems to be unique] doesnt fit any reapers in either mass effect game so far and it doesnt match known images of reapers in ME3

The light pattern is the same as Sovereign's.  The same 3D model was used to make the textures.

[In Exile]

Inverness Moon wrote...
Except that's wrong.

No, it isn't.

If you're still talking about the juicers in the collector base,

I was never talking about the collector base. 

You're also changing the goalposts in your response, stop it.

I can't change the goalposts when you're already carrying them on your back.

I do like how you raise this point against me, though, and not against the other poster who invented a mental disorder just so the technology doesn't hurt. 

Bottom line: technology is morally neutral. It's how you use it that counts, because it's people that have morals and assign morality to things.

And there you have your goalposts, as you go about setting them where you like. 

Modifié par In Exile, 10 août 2011 - 11:53 .

[Inverness Moon]

In Exile wrote...

I was never talking about the collector base. 

Really?

"Some set of Reaper technology melts people alive, and they scraem and beg in pain for it to stop. How is this technology (just the melting them down one) morally neutral?"

So you're saying that has nothing to do with the chambers found on the collector base (or their ship)? Because, that is exactly what we encountered, no?

That technology is morally neutral because it is just a tool. What matters is how it is used.

I can't change the goalposts when you're already carrying them on your back.

...

And there you have your goalposts, as you go about setting them where you like. 

Zingers don't make an argument.

I do like how you raise this point against me, though, and not against the other poster who invented a mental disorder just so the technology doesn't hurt. 

Whether it hurts or not is irrelevant, because it doesn't  change the fact that you're dealing with a tool.

Now, if you're the one using the tool to cause pain, then that reflects badly on you, not the tool itself.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 10 août 2011 - 11:59 .

[Meshaber]

@In Exile

Well, in that case I'd say we have a wonderful piece of technology that may teach us how to cure serious neural disorders, and probably more than that (assuming it does similar things to stop victims with other disorders from dying or falling unconscious too quickly). You also just changed what said machine apparently does, this is no longer the same issue as the hypothetical case you originally presented. Also note that I added homocidal to the description of the Krogan, one might say that in killing him it has stopped him from killing a lot of other people.

But far more importantly: No piece of technology, no piece of information and no material object is in any way, shape or form necessarily bound to the purpose of its creation, or the intent of its communication/usage. You cannot bind this to a specific value judgment. At all.

All this is also ignoring the ridiculous case for any objective form of morality, on which your case is completely dependant.

[JukeFrog]

On the topic of the Collector Base, keeping the base is the best option (imo). There's absolutely nothing gained by destroying it. Even if the Cerberus researchers become indoctrinated/huskified they are bound to come up with something (ex. the scientists on the Derelict Ship still managed to extract the IFF). It's better to let Cerberus do all the hard work, then we can reap the benefits when we (forcibly) take their results.

Also, is anyone else worried about what will happen after we defeat the Reapers? Will the surviving species try to weaponize indoctrination tech? Will the galaxy be reduced to a massive power struggle? I agree that we should study the CB in order to help against the fight with the Reapers, but should we study after they're are gone (assuming there is such an ending)?

[In Exile]

Meshaber wrote...

@In Exile

Well, in that case I'd say we have a wonderful piece of technology that may teach us how to cure serious neural disorders, and probably more than that (assuming it does similar things to stop victims with other disorders from dying or falling unconscious too quickly).

Nope, always melts. Can't use it to core diseases, because the melting is part of it. 

You also just changed what said machine apparently does, this is no longer the same issue as the hypothetical case you originally presented.

Nope. I said it caused pain, and turned people into goo. You invented a disorder to make it seem as if the machine wasn't doing that, so I invented a way to workaround that.

Also note that I added homocidal to the description of the Krogan, one might say that in killing him it has stopped him from killing a lot of other people.

Or one might say killing him is immoral no matter how many people the krogan will kill. Morality is always a cluster****, and the only winners are the people that don't debate it.

But far more importantly: No piece of technology, no piece of information and no material object is in any way, shape or form necessarily bound to the purpose of its creation, or the intent of its communication/usage. You cannot bind this to a specific value judgment. At all.

It has nothing to do with the purpose of creation, and everything to do with its possible uses.

Let's say you create a killing machine, and the only use it to execute people. That doesn't make it not a killing machine; it just means you've found people you're okay with killing. That also doesn't mean killing people is neccesarily moral or immoral. These are two issues.

All this is also ignoring the ridiculous case for any objective form of morality, on which your case is completely dependant.

No, it isn't. Let's say morality is subjective. My moral system (which, again, is totally subjective and different from yours) says that tools have moral value independent of their uses. There you go.

My point has nothing to do with anything other than saying that "technology = morally neutral" is not some prima facie objective truth. 

Edit: 

To put it another way, I don't actually believe most tools have any kind of moral value. There could be certain tools, though, (e.g. indoctrination) which can't have a use that isn't immoral. In that case, they are immoral. But of course, that's based off my own moral compass, which isn't yours, or anyone else. I'm happy to say that my moral outlook is entirely subjective. 

The thing is, I don't then expect ME3 to go around and totally endorse my way of seeing the universe. But some of the posters here, well, they seem to want that. And my only point is that the people who want that aren't different at all from the people that wan the opposite. That's it. 

Modifié par In Exile, 11 août 2011 - 12:50 .

[In Exile]

Inverness Moon wrote...
Really?

"Some set of Reaper technology melts people alive, and they scraem and beg in pain for it to stop. How is this technology (just the melting them down one) morally neutral?"

So you're saying that has nothing to do with the chambers found on the collector base (or their ship)? Because, that is exactly what we encountered, no?

Oh, no, it was totally inspired by it. But it wasn't meant to be the collector chambers. I was using some in the arbitrary sense, i.e. "there exist at least one of."

That technology is morally neutral because it is just a tool. What matters is how it is used.

It kills people. You could argue that you're totally justified in kiling people, but that's not an argument for the moral neutrality of the tool, just a moral justification of the use of it. 

Whether or not a tool is moral is independent from its use. 

Zingers don't make an argument.

Funny you say that. 

Whether it hurts or not is irrelevant, because it doesn't  change the fact that you're dealing with a tool.

That's still you carrying the goal-posts. Dealing with a tool doesn't prove anything until you first prove that tools can't have moral worth. Otherwise you're still running around in circles. 

Now, if you're the one using the tool to cause pain, then that reflects badly on you, not the tool itself.

What if I just use the tool,without any intention to cause pain and the byproduct of it causes the horrific death of billions of people? 

Modifié par In Exile, 11 août 2011 - 12:51 .

[Meshaber]

In Exile wrote...

Meshaber wrote...

@In Exile

Well, in that case I'd say we have a wonderful piece of technology that may teach us how to cure serious neural disorders, and probably more than that (assuming it does similar things to stop victims with other disorders from dying or falling unconscious too quickly).

Nope, always melts. Can't use it to core diseases, because the melting is part of it. 

You also just changed what said machine apparently does, this is no longer the same issue as the hypothetical case you originally presented.

Nope. I said it caused pain, and turned people into goo. You invented a disorder to make it seem as if the machine wasn't doing that, so I invented a way to workaround that.

Also note that I added homocidal to the description of the Krogan, one might say that in killing him it has stopped him from killing a lot of other people.

Or one might say killing him is immoral no matter how many people the krogan will kill. Morality is always a cluster****, and the only winners are the people that don't debate it.

But far more importantly: No piece of technology, no piece of information and no material object is in any way, shape or form necessarily bound to the purpose of its creation, or the intent of its communication/usage. You cannot bind this to a specific value judgment. At all.

It has nothing to do with the purpose of creation, and everything to do with its possible uses.

Let's say you create a killing machine, and the only use it to execute people. That doesn't make it not a killing machine; it just means you've found people you're okay with killing. That also doesn't mean killing people is neccesarily moral or immoral. These are two issues.

All this is also ignoring the ridiculous case for any objective form of morality, on which your case is completely dependant.

No, it isn't. Let's say morality is subjective. My moral system (which, again, is totally subjective and different from yours) says that tools have moral value independent of their uses. There you go.

My point has nothing to do with anything other than saying that "technology = morally neutral" is not some prima facie objective truth. 

Edit: 

To put it another way, I don't actually believe most tools have any kind of moral value. There could be certain tools, though, (e.g. indoctrination) which can't have a use that isn't immoral. In that case, they are immoral. But of course, that's based off my own moral compass, which isn't yours, or anyone else. I'm happy to say that my moral outlook is entirely subjective. 

The thing is, I don't then expect ME3 to go around and totally endorse my way of seeing the universe. But some of the posters here, well, they seem to want that. And my only point is that the people who want that aren't different at all from the people that wan the opposite. That's it. 

Oh for the love of...

Morals do not apply to objects or information, it's a man made concept designed to judge the value of an action, the reasoning behind that action and the person who performs said reasoning.

You also misquoted yourself, you never said the machine was designed specifically to cause pain, you said it melted people down and they were in pain. I can throw a book in your face, which would be painful, the book wasn't designed to cause pain. That's mostly (completely) irrelevant to the larger point though.

[Nightdragon8]

so my question is, why would that get teh allince into trouble?? must be because the allince knows about te3h reapers more than they are letting on.

[Red Son Rising]

didymos1120 wrote...

Red Son Rising wrote...

that light pattern [which seems to be unique] doesnt fit any reapers in either mass effect game so far and it doesnt match known images of reapers in ME3

The light pattern is the same as Sovereign's.  The same 3D model was used to make the textures.

wow, the images above are  much better. still hard for me to make out the lights in other pics to make comparisons but if the files are the same i cant argue w/ that. hard to see all the lights in the google images im lookin at

it makes sense that sovereign didnt go completely unnoticed all those years. exposing kasumi's files would be a pretty big deal if the alliance had info on sovereign and didnt do anything with it

[In Exile]

Meshaber wrote...
Oh for the love of...

Morals do not apply to objects or information, it's a man made concept designed to judge the value of an action, the reasoning behind that action and the person who performs said reasoning.

That's still begging the question. Whether or not morality is man-made and only about actions is precisely what we're debating.

More importantly, no, you're still wrong. 

We can easily imagine a state of affairs were information or objects are evil. If we're consequentialists, so right consequence = moral, then any information/object that is incompatible with a state of affairs where its mere existence has net benefit >/= 0 is immoral. Otherwise, if we're deontologists, then any object that's inconsistent with our objective moral reality is immoral. 

You also misquoted yourself, you never said the machine was designed specifically to cause pain, you said it melted people down and they were in pain.

I didn't say in my post that the machine was designed to cause pain at any point. I said merely that it caused pain. In both posts. You tried to workaround that, so I added a feature to counter your made-up workaround.  

I can throw a book in your face, which would be painful, the book wasn't designed to cause pain. That's mostly (completely) irrelevant to the larger point though.

Of course not. But it does mean the book caused pain, which is (if you'll note again) what I actually said the technology does. 

[Inverness Moon]

In Exile wrote...

That's still begging the question. Whether or not morality is man-made and only about actions is precisely what we're debating.

Of course morality is man-made. Good and evil and all those trite things are a matter of perspective. Morals and ethics are as arbitrary as them.

If you think otherwise you're either arguing form a religious perspective, in which case there is no point in debating with you, or you don't know what you're talking about, which seems to be the case here.

Assigning moral value to tools, regardless of how they are used, is extremely silly.

[In Exile]

Inverness Moon wrote...
Of course morality is man-made. Good and evil and all those trite things are a matter of perspective. Morals and ethics are as arbitrary as them.

Well, no. At this point, there is a very real and very serious debate as to whether morality is a social construct or a hardwired evolutionary intuition. Good and evil and all those trite things being disgust reactions to types of behaviours that work against social cohesion. 

If you think otherwise you're either arguing form a religious perspective, in which case there is no point in debating with you, or you don't know what you're talking about, which seems to be the case here.

Your ignornace is showing. You can have philosophical realist alternatives that aren't based in god, or you can have current evolutionary/biological hard-wired models. Both of which have nothing to do with what you're saying.

Assigning moral value to tools, regardless of how they are used, is extremely silly.

Doesn't matter how loud or often you say it, still not a substitute for an actual argument. 

Try and defend your choice to keep Collector base another way. ;-) 

To be honest, I find it really strange that with the Collector base people are really focused on how the choice turns out, instead of the reason for making the choice, on both sides. 

Modifié par In Exile, 11 août 2011 - 05:36 .

[SandTrout]

In Exile: What if said painful killing chamber is used as a method of execution for murderers? It is so horrific and fear inducing that it could have a dramatic effect on decreasing the murder rate?

Also, if no one uses the device in question, then is it still immoral while being inert?

[Boiny Bunny]

Actually, my take on the Reapers and that conversation with Sovereign in ME1, seems to be pointing to the Reapers being precisely what we call 'God'. I'd like to see the plot turn out to be that the Reapers did not in fact evolve from organic life, but rather created it.

At any rate, I think that at the time ME1 was written, the idea WAS for the Reapers to be incomprehensible god like creatures, but as soon as Drew left the writing team to work on TOR and EA started seriously interferring with the game's development, ME2 just feels like it turns the Reapers into 'big evil machines' with 1 dimensional motives.

So, expect ME3 to have our pathetic fleets kill all the Reapers in some AW3SOM3 space battle!

[Brand New]

Indoctrination is based on nanotechnology.

[Red Son Rising]

wading in.. wheres the bottom!? [edit] my god that post is huge.. sorry [edit2] format and clarity

In Exile wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...
Of course morality is man-made. Good and evil and all those trite things are a matter of perspective. Morals and ethics are as arbitrary as them.

Well, no. At this point, there is a very real and very serious debate as to whether morality is a social construct or a hardwired evolutionary intuition. Good and evil and all those trite things being disgust reactions to types of behaviours that work against social cohesion. 

morality and ethics are social constructs just like the more abstract concepts of good and evil. both are driven by societal norms and expectations and [nod to In Exile] function to promote social cohesion and define unacceptable behavior

good and evil are are based more so on [common] emotional responses so facts arent as important. defining good and evil is subjective because the why doesnt matter: the "fact" there is a shared or similar response is proof enough

ethics and morality are the combination rational thinking and other social constructs [like good and evil]. understanding why society labels one thing evil or good is just as important as what it is or how it happened

context makes one thing [evil] and another [ethical], [nod] social cohesion needs a common response

SandTrout wrote...

In Exile: What if said painful killing chamber is used as a method of execution for murderers? It is so horrific and fear inducing that it could have a dramatic effect on decreasing the murder rate?

Also, if no one uses the device in question, then is it still immoral while being inert?

capitol punishment has no proven affect on serious crime rates and has proven to be an ineffective deterrent in almost every case study. the subjective argument that fear of death would prevent crime doesnt work on a large scale

Modifié par Red Son Rising, 11 août 2011 - 06:24 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

jtav wrote...

I'd love to see the quasi-magical aspects of the Reapers and their technology shot down once and for all. Reaper tech is presented as this mystical, incomprehensible thing. Attempts to study it tend to end with indoctrination/disaster. The game heavily slants against keeping the base, with your entire squad criticizing you. The impression I get isn't "be careful" but "there are things man is not meant to know." Which is nonsense. Reaper tech is just that: tech. It can be analyzed, countered, and improved on. It's dangerous, but so is nuclear power. I refuse to treat the Reapers like gods.

*The Reaper Leader casts Horrid Wilting on jtav*

[SandTrout]

capitol punishment has no proven affect on serious crime rates and has proven to be an ineffective deterrent in almost every case study. the subjective argument that fear of death would prevent crime doesnt work on a large scale

PM me some sources on that, because I've seen DOJ stats to the contrary. That's really an off topic discussion, though, so like I said, send it in a PM.

[Red Son Rising]

SandTrout wrote...

capitol punishment has no proven affect on serious crime rates and has proven to be an ineffective deterrent in almost every case study. the subjective argument that fear of death would prevent crime doesnt work on a large scale

PM me some sources on that, because I've seen DOJ stats to the contrary. That's really an off topic discussion, though, so like I said, send it in a PM.

working on it but i may have overstated the position a lil bit, "in almost every" wasnt a smart bet. either way, PM incoming

[In Exile]

SandTrout wrote...

In Exile: What if said painful killing chamber is used as a method of execution for murderers? It is so horrific and fear inducing that it could have a dramatic effect on decreasing the murder rate?


Also, if no one uses the device in question, then is it still immoral while being inert?

I would say that it is. But obviously YMMV. 

The important thing is that I would say it's use is a net good (so arguably moral) in that case, even if the thing itself is immoral, and so there would be a strong argument to keep using it. But that doesn't make the thing in itself good, which was my point previously.


Just because a tool is immoral doesn't mean it's use can't be moral, in the same way that an arguably immoral person (say, a murder) can't do something moral (say, save a child from a speeding car). 

I don't believe that anything more than the end to justify an action. It's like paragon Shepard in Arrival:

Killing the batarians is genocide. But also worth it, 10 times out of 10, and something that should be done again if it came down to it, weighing hundreds of billions of lives against 300,000. Doesn't stop the action from being immoral, and doesn't make Shepard any less of a murderer. Just one who did what he had to do to stop the reapers. 

Red Son Rising wrote...
morality and ethics are social constructs just like the more abstract concepts of good and evil. both are driven by societal norms and expectations and [nod to In Exile] function to promote social cohesion and define unacceptable behavior

good and evil are are based more so on [common] emotional responses so facts arent as important. defining good and evil is subjective because the why doesnt matter: the "fact" there is a shared or similar response is proof enough

ethics and morality are the combination rational thinking and other social constructs [like good and evil]. understanding why society labels one thing evil or good is just as important as what it is or how it happened

context makes one thing [evil] and another [ethical], [nod] social cohesion needs a common response

Speaking broadly, I totally agree. 

As far as ME is concerned, this is my view on the Collector base: if you think the choice is worth it, then it's worth it based on you knew at the time. Even if everything goes wrong, you knew the risks. It went wrong, but the choice itself was worth it, because it could have went right. That applies to keeping it or destroying it.

As to the topic itself, well, saying that a tool is morally neutral is nothing more than trying to create a framework to hinge the justification of the means not on the potential end at the time of making the choice but to the actual end. 

[SandTrout]

Just because a tool is immoral doesn't mean it's use can't be moral, in the same way that an arguably immoral person (say, a murder) can't do something moral (say, save a child from a speeding car).

Our argument is that objects only gain their morality from their use. If something is moral in how it is used, then the use is moral, but nothing has actually changed regarding the device. For something to be moral or immoral requires a choice. You could argue that the intent regarding the device's creation is immoral, but it is the person who creates and/or uses it in an immoral fashion that is immoral, for the device cannot make a choice in how it is used. It simply exists.

You are not immoral for getting into a car accident that causes an innocent death, because you did not choose to take that life. (For the purposes of this analogy, lets assume you did everything as correct as possible, but events conspired against you). You would be immoral if you choose to drive over your ex for cheating on you.

Tools are incapable of making a choice in their use, and therefor inherently cannot hold moral value.