1104 réponses à ce sujet

[Golden Owl]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

True...though this fails to work once we hit species level...an unknown human is just as foreign as a unknown alien.

Not really. There's evolutionary familiarity and identity with an unknown human. An unknown alien depends on what their dominant features are (more presumed familiarity with, say, Salrians than Rachni).

I am generally much more affected by culture than race/species...species really doesn't hold a lot of meaning to me, but culture does....I find my relating or not relating to species in ME is purely driven by how I view their culture.

[Warlocomotf]

Humans are selfish, greedy, arrogant, aggresive- etc. Sure, not all of them- but those who are are the ones in power.

True, I would save Salarians before the Asari, but the Asari still seems like a preferable species to humanity. If I had children, would I want them surrounded by a compassionate, intelligent, peaceful and open minded people- or would I ignore all of that and just care about whether they have similar DNA?

Personally, I find "same species" less important than species characteristics.

[Dean_the_Young]

Luc0s wrote...

Biological determinism = Social Darwinism.

Or at the very least, biological determinism is often the foundation for social darwinism.

Gah.

This is true in the same sense that the ideal of justice Justice is the foundation for state-sanctioned assassination, or that communism is based on the foundation of capitalism . They are are distantly related, but nowhere near identical.

Biological determinism is the theory that many of your behaviors are the result of your, well, biology. It's a very broad, established concept that is the foundation of most of modern medicine and much of modern psychology. If you've taken hormonal supplements, drugs, or other foreign substances to treat a psychological condition that affects your decision making processes (ie ADD, schizophrenia, alzeheimers, anti-social disorders)... congratulations, you're taking the fruits of the fruits of biological determinism.

Social Darwinism was a psuedo-scientific ideology created by and for elites to justify themselves being the elites and doing whatever they were doing to those weaker to them. It has more in common with divine mandate theories than Darwin's theory of evolution.

/rant

[Golden Owl]

Luc0s wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

The morally right thing to do...how so?

Because every single species is looking out for themselves. The powerful individuals from the other species also prioritize their own species above other species. Just look at (the original) council. They obviously put the needs of their own species above the needs of other species. This is perfectly understandable and perfectly natural. But if we won't do the same, then how is that NOT betrayal to your own species?

If Commander Shepard won't look out for humanity, than who will?

Edit: And as I said: Humanity COUNTS on Shepard, while I believe that the other species won't count on Shepard as much as humanity does.

Humanity counts on Shepard doing the right thing for them as much as you count on your own father doing the right thing for you.

That is not a moral issue, in fact it's contrary to moral choices...that's just continuing to support and compound a view should have been out dated a long time ago....just a show that all the species continue to lack the wisdom to see beyond themselves and is a serious threat to Galactic cohesion in the wake of a Reaper War.

[Wulfram]

Luc0s wrote...

Which is a little too late because the codex/wiki says that asari rely on their biotics and martial arts, which asari that aren't in the military haven't trained in.

Assuming they weren't in the military, or served as a mercenary at some point in their centuries long life.  When it's implied that becoming a mercenary is pretty normal for maiden stage asari.

Asari that aren't in the military are pretty much useless against the reapers. Training them now is simply too late.

You're assuming a short war, which may not be valid. 

Also:
"Less than 3% of humans volunteer to serve in their military, a lower proportion than any other species."

Modifié par Wulfram, 21 août 2011 - 01:02 .

[elarem]

No humanity comes first and not just because I don't respond well to the Asari as a race. It's been less than 30 years since the first contact war so why would I trust any of the races that are in Citadel space?

Earth is my home and humans are the only ones I can breed with to get human children. I'm being as selfish as the Asari in this respect, who don't really mix genes with other species and only produce Asari babies.

[Xilizhra]

Luc0s wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Because every single species is looking out for themselves. The powerful individuals from the other species also prioritize their own species above other species. Just look at (the original) council. They obviously put the needs of their own species above the needs of other species. This is perfectly understandable and perfectly natural. But if we won't do the same, then how is that NOT betrayal to your own species?

If Commander Shepard won't look out for humanity, than who will?

I'm a Spectre. My duty is to the galaxy as a whole.

I agree. But don't you realize that "the galaxy as a whole" INCLUDES humans?

How does sacrificing your own species to help another species (that might not even need your self) benefit the galaxy as a whole?

Again: If Shepard doesn't look out for humanity, who else would? Certainly not the (original) council (races), that's for sure.

I don't want to sacrifice humans. I'm just saying that if it's total extinction for one or the other...

[Xilizhra]

If you don't want to sacrifice humans, than why on earth would you make saving the asari a higher priority than saving humanity?

If you rather save the asari from extinction over saving humanity from extinction, then in fact you DO sacrifice humanity as an entire species. You sacrifice humanity for the asari. Why?

There are more asari than humans. More lives would be saved.

[Golden Owl]

Luc0s wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

That is not a moral issue, in fact it's contrary to moral choices...that's just continuing to support and compound a view should have been out dated a long time ago....just a show that all the species continue to lack the wisdom to see beyond themselves and is a serious threat to Galactic cohesion in the wake of a Reaper War.

Care to explain this post? Because I really don't see how looking out for your own species as a father would look out for his own daughter is "outdated".

I don't see how dooming your own species to save another species (that might not even need your help) is a serious threat to galactic cohesion. All other species will look out for themselves first and foremost, so why would we shoot ourselves in the foot by not doing the same?

Would the asari councilor sacrifice the asari race to save humanity?
Would the turian councilor sacrifice the turian race to save humanity?
Would the salarian councilor sacrifice the salarian race to save humanity?

My answer: I highly doubt it.

You are stating that is the moral thing to do is to look out for Number 1 because that is what everyone else is doing...I disagree.that mentality already causes enough problems on our own planet in the now...the Galaxy is just an extension of the same philosophy.

[Xilizhra]

Luc0s wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

If you don't want to sacrifice humans, than why on earth would you make saving the asari a higher priority than saving humanity?

If you rather save the asari from extinction over saving humanity from extinction, then in fact you DO sacrifice humanity as an entire species. You sacrifice humanity for the asari. Why?

There are more asari than humans. More lives would be saved.

Yes but that's not a really correct or realistic point of view. You can't expect to save ALL asari. Neither can you expect to save ALL humans.

You can only save X amount of people and X amount of people WILL die.


So you either save 1 billion asari, or you save 1 billion humans. Why would you save 1 billion asari over 1 billion humans?

All right. That's a completely different scenari from what I was talking about.

Also, wholly circumstantial. I can't really make that decision yet.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

If you don't want to sacrifice humans, than why on earth would you make saving the asari a higher priority than saving humanity?

If you rather save the asari from extinction over saving humanity from extinction, then in fact you DO sacrifice humanity as an entire species. You sacrifice humanity for the asari. Why?

There are more asari than humans. More lives would be saved.

Are we taking future lives into account? Because you're de-facto abording more future generations of Humans than future generations of Asari when you kill identical numbers of Asari or Humans.

[sedrikhcain]

Golden Owl wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

That is not a moral issue, in fact it's contrary to moral choices...that's just continuing to support and compound a view should have been out dated a long time ago....just a show that all the species continue to lack the wisdom to see beyond themselves and is a serious threat to Galactic cohesion in the wake of a Reaper War.

Care to explain this post? Because I really don't see how looking out for your own species as a father would look out for his own daughter is "outdated".

I don't see how dooming your own species to save another species (that might not even need your help) is a serious threat to galactic cohesion. All other species will look out for themselves first and foremost, so why would we shoot ourselves in the foot by not doing the same?

Would the asari councilor sacrifice the asari race to save humanity?
Would the turian councilor sacrifice the turian race to save humanity?
Would the salarian councilor sacrifice the salarian race to save humanity?

My answer: I highly doubt it.

You are stating that is the moral thing to do is to look out for Number 1 because that is what everyone else is doing...I disagree.that mentality already causes enough problems on our own planet in the now...the Galaxy is just an extension of the same philosophy.

That's fair enough. I've made similar arguments myself, in a real-world, human context. But it also makes little sense to say "I'm not saving humanity because I'm human and if I save humanity, then I'm just part of the problem". What's the compelling reason to save any one race over any of the others? The ME universe makes it so that they all have  glaring strengths and weaknesses to offer the galaxy. Heck, you can make a case that humanity's relative genetic diversity makes it the "moral" choice, since it offers the most potential for proliferation and adaptation of life throughout the galaxy. Of course, you can make several arguments against humanity as well. Same is true for all the other races.

[Golden Owl]

Luc0s wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

You are stating that is the moral thing to do is to look out for Number 1 because that is what everyone else is doing...I disagree.that mentality already causes enough problems on our own planet in the now...the Galaxy is just an extension of the same philosophy.

No, I say it's the moral thing to do to look out for your own children/family/friends/species because they rely on you and they count on you.

Everyone else will do the same. The asari councilor will look out for the asari. The turian councilor will look out for the turians. The salarian councilor will look at for the salarians. It's only fair to your own species to look out for them, because no one else will.

Once again I pull up before including Species in that analogy....the whole Galaxy is relying on Shep, not just humans....and again I still see a major problem with the everybody out for themselves attitude...it solves nothing, only continues to compound the issue and the Galaxy continues to run around in circles getting nowhere until species can start widening their circles to be all inclusive...that would be the Galaxies greatest strength against the reapers and beyond.

Modifié par Golden Owl, 21 août 2011 - 01:37 .

[Golden Owl]

sedrikhcain wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

That is not a moral issue, in fact it's contrary to moral choices...that's just continuing to support and compound a view should have been out dated a long time ago....just a show that all the species continue to lack the wisdom to see beyond themselves and is a serious threat to Galactic cohesion in the wake of a Reaper War.

Care to explain this post? Because I really don't see how looking out for your own species as a father would look out for his own daughter is "outdated".

I don't see how dooming your own species to save another species (that might not even need your help) is a serious threat to galactic cohesion. All other species will look out for themselves first and foremost, so why would we shoot ourselves in the foot by not doing the same?

Would the asari councilor sacrifice the asari race to save humanity?
Would the turian councilor sacrifice the turian race to save humanity?
Would the salarian councilor sacrifice the salarian race to save humanity?

My answer: I highly doubt it.

You are stating that is the moral thing to do is to look out for Number 1 because that is what everyone else is doing...I disagree.that mentality already causes enough problems on our own planet in the now...the Galaxy is just an extension of the same philosophy.

That's fair enough. I've made similar arguments myself, in a real-world, human context. But it also makes little sense to say "I'm not saving humanity because I'm human and if I save humanity, then I'm just part of the problem". What's the compelling reason to save any one race over any of the others? The ME universe makes it so that they all have  glaring strengths and weaknesses to offer the galaxy. Heck, you can make a case that humanity's relative genetic diversity makes it the "moral" choice, since it offers the most potential for proliferation and adaptation of life throughout the galaxy. Of course, you can make several arguments against humanity as well. Same is true for all the other races.

I am not stating that....what I am stating is Shep is fighting for ALL species not just his own.

[sirgippy]

Foxy blue ladies. That is all.

[Dean_the_Young]

Golden Owl wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

True...though this fails to work once we hit species level...an unknown human is just as foreign as a unknown alien.

Not really. There's evolutionary familiarity and identity with an unknown human. An unknown alien depends on what their dominant features are (more presumed familiarity with, say, Salrians than Rachni).

I am generally much more affected by culture than race/species...species really doesn't hold a lot of meaning to me, but culture does....I find my relating or not relating to species in ME is purely driven by how I view their culture.

Not least, mind you, because your basis of comparison is other humans. You're making about the same sort of defense of pre-modern racism: back before Europe had much contact with other continents white-on-white distinctions were far more common than white-vs-anything else. Once continental travel started, however, you saw a cultural shift dominated less color than ethnicity. You're in the same position: because your awareness is to your immediate surroundings, you think that's what dominates. As your awareness expands, however, you raise to the next level.

In truth, aliens aren't going to be humans with funny skin suits. You'll have far more biology and culture in common with today's China than an alien civilization that has entirely different evolutionary/social considerations that shaped it.

[Dean_the_Young]

Warlocomotf wrote...

Humans are selfish, greedy, arrogant, aggresive- etc. Sure, not all of them- but those who are are the ones in power.

True, I would save Salarians before the Asari, but the Asari still seems like a preferable species to humanity. If I had children, would I want them surrounded by a compassionate, intelligent, peaceful and open minded people- or would I ignore all of that and just care about whether they have similar DNA?

Personally, I find "same species" less important than species characteristics.

Name an Asari leader to date who hasn't been self-interested, patronizing, and aggressive? We know two Asari elites: Nasana Dantius, who should be obvious, and the Asari Councilor... you know, who's entire job is putting a nice face on making deals to the advantage of the Asari, sending Spectres to swat inconveniences, and dismisses billions because they haven't met an arbitary standard of 'contribute to the galaxy' (or rather, Council).

[Arppis]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Warlocomotf wrote...

Humans are selfish, greedy, arrogant, aggresive- etc. Sure, not all of them- but those who are are the ones in power.

True, I would save Salarians before the Asari, but the Asari still seems like a preferable species to humanity. If I had children, would I want them surrounded by a compassionate, intelligent, peaceful and open minded people- or would I ignore all of that and just care about whether they have similar DNA?

Personally, I find "same species" less important than species characteristics.

Name an Asari leader to date who hasn't been self-interested, patronizing, and aggressive? We know two Asari elites: Nasana Dantius, who should be obvious, and the Asari Councilor... you know, who's entire job is putting a nice face on making deals to the advantage of the Asari, sending Spectres to swat inconveniences, and dismisses billions because they haven't met an arbitary standard of 'contribute to the galaxy' (or rather, Council).

Don't forget the leader of Omega.