127 réponses à ce sujet

[Red Son Rising]

@sandtrout - check your private messages, sent you a small novel [w/ hyperlinks]

SandTrout wrote...

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.

Dr Richard J Gatling invented the 'gatling gun' to end wars. literally. he thought putting so much power in so few hands would demonstrate the futility of war and lead to smaller armies, smaller conflicts and few casualties

he was wrong. the gatling gun is still one of the most efficient killing machines in use on battlefields today. wars steadily increased in size until the invention of the atomic bomb which still didnt end wars from happening. 

the road to h*** is paved with good intentions. if a tool is good at doing bad things its hard for me to argue that using it was ever a good idea. whether or not the tool itself is evil or ethical is debatable, what it can do isnt

i destroy the collector base out of disgust for what the collectors did and out of respect for my teammates that died on it. plus the reapers expect us to use their tech against them, [i believe] we have to think outside that box to defeat them

Modifié par Red Son Rising, 11 août 2011 - 08:53 .

[In Exile]

SandTrout wrote...
Our argument is that objects only gain their morality from their use.

I wouldn't object to that. In fact, that's exactly what I would say makes objects moral. If it were the case that every object that every possible use, we wouldn't be having this debate. But it's not that simple.

It's certainly true that we could use one thing as something else (a gun as a make-shift shovel, for example). But when we do that we aren't using the tool as the tool that it is (i.e. not using a gun as a gun, but rather using a gun as a shovel). The moral value in that case would be of the shovel, not of the gun.

The only way we could use a gun as a gun is to injure or kill something. And depending on whether that action is moral, the tool itself is either moral or not. Still, I wouldn't say guns are immoral tools. 


In other words, the issue is that an object doesn't have to be used to have moral worth.

Indoctrination technology does one thing: control minds. It does not matter who uses it. It does not matter how it is used. The mere act of controlling minds a wrong. 

If something is moral in how it is used, then the use is moral, but nothing has actually changed regarding the device. 

I would rephrase it like this:

If there is a moral use to something, then the use is moral, but nothing has actually changed regarding the device.

The issue comes back to whether or not things have intrinsic moral worth. 


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.

Of course. But we are not talking about you: we are talking about your car. And using a car as a car is not immoral. Using a car as a bludgeon is immoral, but then I would say that reflects on the person.

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

Tools have uses, though. Diseases are not moral agents of any sort, but I would also not say that a disease is morally neutral. 

Edit:

Let me just add that I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. I don't think tools have uses. But I think you can make an interesting argument for it, that at least separates the question of the whether or not a tool is in itself moral from its uses. 

Modifié par In Exile, 11 août 2011 - 09:01 .

[SandTrout]

@Red Son Rising,

No accounting for poor judgment.

[SandTrout]

Tools have uses, though. Diseases are not moral agents of any sort, but I would also not say that a disease is morally neutral.

I would consider them morally neutral. They are undesirable, certainly, but undesirable =/= immoral.

I stand by my premise that morality resides in the choice of an individual.

[Red Son Rising]

SandTrout wrote...

@Red Son Rising,

No accounting for poor judgment.

true dat. if i had to choose sides tho id probably go with In Exile's [this] arguement: tools are a medium for the user's intentions.

[Full Disclosure: i hate this argument but i have to use it cause it makes sense: i not pro-gun in any way, shape or form]
guns dont kill ppl, ppl kill ppl. if a tool's only purpose is to do bad things that doesnt make it evil: ppl that use tools to do bad things can be considered good or evil depending on what they choose to do with it

[EDIT] d***it! got ninja'd so bad im completely lost

SandTrout wrote...

Tools have uses, though. Diseases are not moral agents of any sort, but I would also not say that a disease is morally neutral.

I would consider them morally neutral. They are undesirable, certainly, but undesirable =/= immoral.

I stand by my premise that morality resides in the choice of an individual.

now i gotta go back and figure out where i lost track of the argument. 

Modifié par Red Son Rising, 11 août 2011 - 09:13 .

[In Exile]

SandTrout wrote...
I would consider them morally neutral. They are undesirable, certainly, but undesirable =/= immoral. 

I stand by my premise that morality resides in the choice of an individual.

The issue, though, is which individual. The user? The designer? 

Though, like I said, I don't think tools are immoral. But I do think the argument brings to bear one important issue: the potential uses of a tool as the kind of tool it is, and the kinds of ends it can achieve. Looking at something like indoctrination, it doesn't seem like there can be a moral end. 

[In Exile]

Red Son Rising wrote...
[EDIT] d***it! got ninja'd so bad im completely lost

No, you didn't. 

[Reever]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

That can still ne true in the Mass Effect Universe. So don´t be too quick to judge what we should be able to understand...

Although I personally would like to get to make sense out of everything, and that´s what will probably happen as well ^^

[Inverness Moon]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

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. 
[/quote]
Social cohesion and things like that for humans are entirely relative. If morality is based on such things, then it still isn't universal. Morals of one group don't apply to other groups for whatever reason.

But the point in this argument is the moral value of tools. Whether morality is a social construct or a hardwired evolution intuition is irrelevant since, either way, tools are a means to an end for the user.
[quote]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.[/quote]

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.
[/quote]
My comment was in response to what I believed to be an assertion of some sort of universal system of morals, such as the type someone would say is put in place by God.

If you're not claiming that then you must recognize that morals are entirely relative whether it is to the individual or to the species. Yet, you seem to be trying to assign a moral value to tools independent of either.
[quote]
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. [/quote]
Don't make this argument about the collector base. It was not on my mind when I was making my posts, excluding your example with the melting machine.

It seems rather biased of you to jump to the conclusion that my argument has anything to do with my choice regarding the collector base.

[quote]In Exile wrote...

Though, like I said, I don't think tools are immoral. But I do think the argument brings to bear one important issue: the potential uses of a tool as the kind of tool it is, and the kinds of ends it can achieve. Looking at something like indoctrination, it doesn't seem like there can be a moral end. 
[/quote]
If indoctrination can be used to counter indoctrination by restoring a person to their normal state, then I'd say you have your moral end.

Or here is a more controversial example, would it be wrong to indoctrinate dangerous criminals into being law abiding citizens?

And now that I think about it, isn't that quite similar to what you can do to the heretic geth?

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 11 août 2011 - 11:03 .

[Ieldra]

In Exile wrote...

SandTrout wrote...
I would consider them morally neutral. They are undesirable, certainly, but undesirable =/= immoral. 

I stand by my premise that morality resides in the choice of an individual.

The issue, though, is which individual. The user? The designer? 

Though, like I said, I don't think tools are immoral. But I do think the argument brings to bear one important issue: the potential uses of a tool as the kind of tool it is, and the kinds of ends it can achieve. Looking at something like indoctrination, it doesn't seem like there can be a moral end.

In that case, you'd probably be justified in saying the designer made an immoral choice.

But that's still the human perspective. If you look at it from the Reapers' perspective, organic life is something that needs to be controlled, as evidenced by Sovereign's speech, and who's to say that they're wrong (playing Devil's advocate here)? Also they might consider organic intelligence as not more than a fly's intelligence would be to us - and we don't give flies equal consideration. And lastly, they refer to the process of harvesting humans as "preparing them for Ascension". From their point of view, they are doing something good, possibly even uplifting us inconsequential organics to a higher lifeform like themselves. And that purpose extends to the artifacts they build.

If it is possible to have such a fundamental values dissonance, I do not think it would be appropriate to ascribe morality to an object as a property. After all, that would mean that this property is different when we look at it, compared to a Reaper looking at it. 

That extends even to the moral status of the Reapers themselves. They cannot be said to be evil. That they cannot doesn't change the necessity to fight them, but this is a war for survival, not for the good.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 août 2011 - 11:23 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

They never should've gone down the roads they have with the Protheans and the Reapers; I prefered the former as being gone forever, Ilos being their last act of defiance, whereas I would've rather seen the Reapers retaining their status as "gods".

Instead, the Protheans returned as the Collectors in ME2, and we'll even have a living one in ME3. Same goes for the Reapers, of which we currently know how and where they're made, and in ME3 we'll probably learn their entire backstory and visit the planet they originated from.

[Ieldra]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
They never should've gone down the roads they have with the Protheans and the Reapers; I prefered the former as being gone forever, Ilos being their last act of defiance, whereas I would've rather seen the Reapers retaining their status as "gods".

Instead, the Protheans returned as the Collectors in ME2, and we'll even have a living one in ME3. Same goes for the Reapers, of which we currently know how and where they're made, and in ME3 we'll probably learn their entire backstory and visit the planet they originated from.

Why would you *not* want to learn their backstory? This is what I play the game for, to a significant degree - to solve the mystery. Wouldn't you find it unsatisfactory if you defeated the Reapers and never came to know their motivations and their nature? 

The question "what are the Reapers" is one thing that has kept my mind focused on the ME story. I'd be very disappointed if we never got an answer.

[Tommy6860]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

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!

You really know how to bring down any good feelings I've had for ME3, you know that .

[Red Son Rising]

i dont necessarily believe anything the reapers say. its not impossible the first reapers to successfully hide in dark space did so out of fear after stumbling on organisms advanced enough to fight back

[imo] the earliest reapers probably harvested any lifeforms they could find and over time developed the numbers necessary to take on more advanced organic civilizations: theres a reason theyre in a rush to get back now

the reapers biggest advantage is surprise but organic life is unpredictable. reapers need perfect timing or when they do show up there might actually be a fight. reapers arent invincible and the tech they left behind can be used against them

reapers dont breed in dark space and they dont feed in dark space: why are they in out there to begin with? survival. they fled to dark space and i think organics drove them there back before they had the numbers they do now

[imo] the reapers are full of it. where the first reaper came from i dont know but the most organic life it could harvest mightve been alien ants. 50k years later 2 reapers took on space squirrels and 5 million year later theyre after humans

Boiny Bunny wrote...

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. [boo]

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! [i coulda told you that was gonna happen back in 07]

mass effect makes no effort to portray reapers as gods to anyone but the geth. if creating life is the measuring stick the quarians have been gods for a long time. i doubt reapers evolved from organic life, that wouldnt make much sense


sovereign wasnt left behind to create or nuture organic life for harvest, its here to open a door. thats it. sovereign was a big evil machine with one job, bring back the reapers. sovereings only god-like power is mind control

Modifié par Red Son Rising, 11 août 2011 - 01:01 .

[didymos1120]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

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.

Um, Drew left halfway through ME2's development, well after the main story was written.  IOW, he was still Lead when they wrote it.  And why do you think EA meddled in the story?  We have no evidence for that at all.  We don't really have any evidence of them meddling with any aspect of the game other than the Cerberus Network being implemented as part of Project 10 Dollar, and that's just a matter of sticking one character into a DLC.  Yeah, the lack of a dialogue tree with Zaeed is a bit of a drag, but he still had plenty to say and it didn't ruin the character.

[jasonsantanna]

It just seems fun that Anderson statements sort of imply like that don't know what happen to the Soverein after his destruction , but Alliance swooped in grab most of him , turians got a small fraction and Cerburus a small amount , because isn't EDI reaper tech. . . Of course this is just my opinion . . .

Modifié par jasonsantanna, 11 août 2011 - 01:27 .

[jasonsantanna]

It just seems fun that Anderson statements sort of imply like that don't know what happen to the Soverein after his destruction , but Alliance swooped in grab most of him , turians got a small fraction and Cerburus a small amount , because isn't EDI reaper tech. . . Of course this is just my opinion . . . Also I know this has been handled in another thread but what's everyones take on indoctrination, does it work by sending a signal to through the inner ear and into the brain , cut down the will of that person, its highly obvious that Shep is strong willed and possibly hard to indoctrinate, this is hinted on several times , does everyone believe this also?

[didymos1120]

Brand New wrote...

Indoctrination is based on nanotechnology.

Codex, folks.  Codex. When you refuse to read it, you make a writer cry.  You don't want to do that to the poor writers, do you?

Reapers: Indoctrination:

Reaper "indoctrination" is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods. The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.

Organics undergoing indoctrination may complain of headaches and buzzing or ringing in their ears. As time passes, they have feelings of "being watched" and hallucinations of "ghostly" presences. Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim's body to amplify its signals, manifesting as "alien" voices in the mind.

Indoctrination can create perfect deep cover agents. A Reaper's "suggestions" can manipulate victims into betraying friends, trusting enemies, or viewing the Reaper itself with superstitious awe. Should a Reaper subvert a well-placed political or military leader, the resulting chaos can bring down nations.

Long-term physical effects of the manipulation are unsustainable, Higher mental functioning decays, ultimately leaving the victim a gibbering animal. Rapid indoctrination is possible, but causes this decay in days or weeks. Slow, patient indoctrination allows the thrall to last for months or years.

Some Reaper nanotech is capable of indoctrination.  It is not the only way of doing so, and it is not required.  This actually raises an interesting possibility though:  if the type of nanotech used on Grayson could be understood well enough to reprogram it, you could turn it into an anti-indoctrination measure.  Instead of taking up residence in the brain and manipulating it to the Reapers' benefit, it would hang out and act to maintain normal brain function when the characteristic signs of indoctrination appear and repair any damage caused by external signals.

Modifié par didymos1120, 11 août 2011 - 02:25 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
They never should've gone down the roads they have with the Protheans and the Reapers; I prefered the former as being gone forever, Ilos being their last act of defiance, whereas I would've rather seen the Reapers retaining their status as "gods".

Instead, the Protheans returned as the Collectors in ME2, and we'll even have a living one in ME3. Same goes for the Reapers, of which we currently know how and where they're made, and in ME3 we'll probably learn their entire backstory and visit the planet they originated from.

Why would you *not* want to learn their backstory? This is what I play the game for, to a significant degree - to solve the mystery. Wouldn't you find it unsatisfactory if you defeated the Reapers and never came to know their motivations and their nature? 

The question "what are the Reapers" is one thing that has kept my mind focused on the ME story. I'd be very disappointed if we never got an answer.

I honestly don't really care about what the Reapers are, nor where they came from. All that matter is what they are doing *now*, which is why we need to stop them. As Sovereign so aptly put it "We simply are.", and that was more than enough for me. It was part of his strength, as well as that of the upcoming (or attempted) invasion. They should've stayed a force of nature, like the darkspawn of Dragon Age, only vastly more intelligent.

What I want to learn more about, and deal with myself, are the socio-political workings of the Mass Effect universe. Sadly, ME2 didn't touch upon this subject as much as I'd like.

[Luigitornado]

Indoctrination....wooooo itssss sooooooo scarrrry...wooooo

Anyway, I hope Bioware doesn't go into detail about the beginning of the Reapes or the science behind Indoctrination behind the Reapers.

[marshalleck]

Red Son Rising wrote...

i destroy the collector base out of disgust for what the collectors did and out of respect for my teammates that died on it. plus the reapers expect us to use their tech against them, [i believe] we have to think outside that box to defeat them

So it was an emotional decision, and you still have no actual plan for how to fight the Reapers and nowhere to even start looking.

Modifié par marshalleck, 11 août 2011 - 03:29 .

[jasonsantanna]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
They never should've gone down the roads they have with the Protheans and the Reapers; I prefered the former as being gone forever, Ilos being their last act of defiance, whereas I would've rather seen the Reapers retaining their status as "gods".

Instead, the Protheans returned as the Collectors in ME2, and we'll even have a living one in ME3. Same goes for the Reapers, of which we currently know how and where they're made, and in ME3 we'll probably learn their entire backstory and visit the planet they originated from.

Why would you *not* want to learn their backstory? This is what I play the game for, to a significant degree - to solve the mystery. Wouldn't you find it unsatisfactory if you defeated the Reapers and never came to know their motivations and their nature? 

The question "what are the Reapers" is one thing that has kept my mind focused on the ME story. I'd be very disappointed if we never got an answer.

I honestly don't really care about what the Reapers are, nor where they came from. All that matter is what they are doing *now*, which is why we need to stop them. As Sovereign so aptly put it "We simply are.", and that was more than enough for me. It was part of his strength, as well as that of the upcoming (or attempted) invasion. They should've stayed a force of nature, like the darkspawn of Dragon Age, only vastly more intelligent.

What I want to learn more about, and deal with myself, are the socio-political workings of the Mass Effect universe. Sadly, ME2 didn't touch upon this subject as much as I'd like.

Thanks Kaiser almost forgot about that, I have read it but slipped away , I most be indoctrinated . . .lol
Anyway I still hope it is explained if Shep is able to be indoctrinated, he/she is consider special , but is because of the strong will or resisted to indoctrination if possible and from its description would a deaf person be resisted rto its affects, only asking or pondering this as maybe a counter measure possibility in ME3

[DCarter]

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.

Ye there's a lot of lines in game which place the reapers as supernatural or incomprehensible beings. I hope their mechanics and motives are explained properly in ME3 and not just sidestepped. 

[Schneidend]

They're meant to be the sci-fi equivalent of an Eldritch Abomination. They're techno-thulus. The fact that they transform the minds and bodies of the lesser creatures that come in contact with them further cements this. They're Lovecraftian horrors, and should no more be explained than should Cthulu itself.

Modifié par Schneidend, 11 août 2011 - 08:40 .

[eye basher]

technology is morally neutral how you use it reflects on the user alone.It's like guns they don't kill people,people kill people the gun only makes it easier or like an axe it can be used to cut a tree or someones head all depends on who wields it.