395 réponses à ce sujet

[rhyddhau]

jamesp81 wrote...
It is quite normal to want to believe evil does not exist or is an invention.  Life is much easier that way.  It means there are no consequences, beyond the material, for one's actions since those actions can be neither evil nor good.  The only consequences one need worry about is survival, acquisition of wealth and power, pleasure, etc.

The reason evil is an uncomfortable idea is because the very concept of it implies one might be made to face some kind of judgment for the things he's done.  The concept of evil forces a man to consider something other than his own self-centered desires, and that's something we, humanity, don't like one bit at all.

This is a pretty tired ad hominem argument used by the religious right and social conservatives to dismiss secularists as moral relativists out of hand who are thus inherently amoral. I don't care to argue morality with someone who holds your opinions as it's completely pointless and utterly tedious, but I just thought I'd point out that your opinion is transparent and completely wrong.

Modifié par rhyddhau, 26 août 2011 - 09:37 .

[shiftylookingspacecow]

rhyddhau wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
It is quite normal to want to believe evil does not exist or is an invention.  Life is much easier that way.  It means there are no consequences, beyond the material, for one's actions since those actions can be neither evil nor good.  The only consequences one need worry about is survival, acquisition of wealth and power, pleasure, etc.

The reason evil is an uncomfortable idea is because the very concept of it implies one might be made to face some kind of judgment for the things he's done.  The concept of evil forces a man to consider something other than his own self-centered desires, and that's something we, humanity, don't like one bit at all.

This is a pretty tired ad hominem argument used by the religious and social conservatives to dismiss secularists as moral relativists. I don't care to argue morality with someone who holds your opinions as it's completely pointless and utterly tedious, but I just thought I'd point out that your opinion is transparent and completely wrong.

I think the fact that people have developed ideas such as law and religion is an indication that there is some form of good and evil in the world. why would we have developed things like that, that so many people agree with and support, if there wasnt something naturally compelling about good and evil?

[rhyddhau]

shiftylookingspacecow wrote...
I think the fact that people have developed ideas such as law and religion is an indication that there is some form of good and evil in the world. why would we have developed things like that, that so many people agree with and support, if there wasnt something naturally compelling about good and evil?

In your law example you're confusing "good and evil" with "right and wrong," which is an understandably common mistake given, for example, how often Nancy Grace calls people "evil" during rulings on her small claims court daytime television show. "Evil" as a word has a plethora of historical and societal connotations that prevent logical discussions from taking place, hence why it's not used much outside of religious debate. But both are socially-defined concepts.

That said, people learn right and wrong from their society, not because it naturally exists (though bodily injury to oneself and loved ones is almost universally considered "wrong" due to deeply ingrained biological imperatives).

Modifié par rhyddhau, 26 août 2011 - 08:54 .

[jamesp81]

Veex wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

It is quite normal to want to believe evil does not exist or is an invention.  Life is much easier that way.  It means there are no consequences, beyond the material, for one's actions since those actions can be neither evil nor good.  The only consequences one need worry about is survival, acquisition of wealth and power, pleasure, etc.

The reason evil is an uncomfortable idea is because the very concept of it implies one might be made to face some kind of judgment for the things he's done.  The concept of evil forces a man to consider something other than his own self-centered desires, and that's something we, humanity, don't like one bit at all.

What did warring tribes do before they could speak and communicate? Were they committing acts of evil?

Seeing how they were human, I'm sure that some did.  Others probably didn't.  Some probably did a bit of good and evil.  In other words, the same as ever.

I don't buy the idea that evil doesn't exist because a sentient being doesn't have a word for it.  That's a nonsensical argument that I reject at its most basic level.

[xXRevan0515Xx]

The Reapers are, from what information we have access to, harvesting us to survive and reproduce. Is it moral to indirectly lead sapient life down a path that has them become effective resources to reap? I would argue no, of course...But I cannot disagree with their desire to survive. I suppose the question is whether self-awareness is a prerequisite for moral consideration?

[shiftylookingspacecow]

rhyddhau wrote...

shiftylookingspacecow wrote...
I think the fact that people have developed ideas such as law and religion is an indication that there is some form of good and evil in the world. why would we have developed things like that, that so many people agree with and support, if there wasnt something naturally compelling about good and evil?

In your law example you're confusing "good and evil" with "right and wrong," which is an understandably common mistake given, for example, how often Nancy Grace calls people "evil" during rulings on her small claims court daytime television show. "Evil" as a word has a plethora of historical and societal connotations that prevent logical discussions from taking place, hence why it's not used much outside of religious debate. But both are socially-defined concepts.

That said, people learn right and wrong from their society, not because it naturally exists (though bodily injury to oneself and loved ones is almost universally considered "wrong" due to deeply ingrained biological imperatives).

good point, though arent good and evil simply expanded versions of right and wrong?

[jamesp81]

shiftylookingspacecow wrote...

rhyddhau wrote...

shiftylookingspacecow wrote...
I think the fact that people have developed ideas such as law and religion is an indication that there is some form of good and evil in the world. why would we have developed things like that, that so many people agree with and support, if there wasnt something naturally compelling about good and evil?

In your law example you're confusing "good and evil" with "right and wrong," which is an understandably common mistake given, for example, how often Nancy Grace calls people "evil" during rulings on her small claims court daytime television show. "Evil" as a word has a plethora of historical and societal connotations that prevent logical discussions from taking place, hence why it's not used much outside of religious debate. But both are socially-defined concepts.

That said, people learn right and wrong from their society, not because it naturally exists (though bodily injury to oneself and loved ones is almost universally considered "wrong" due to deeply ingrained biological imperatives).

good point, though arent good and evil simply expanded versions of right and wrong?

No.  The reasons are complex, though.

[rhyddhau]

shiftylookingspacecow wrote...
good point, though arent good and evil simply expanded versions of right and wrong?

"Right and wrong" label actions while "good and evil" label the character behind those actions, which is why condemning someone or something as "evil" prevents healthy dialogue from taking place. It's an absolutist condemnation that presents behavior as not needing to be understood because the perpetrator behind that behavior is inscrutably abhorrent, and this lack of understanding has direct and foreseeable negative consequences. Furthermore, one doesn't necessarily have to think of something as evil to think of it as incredibly wrong and something that needs to be prevented.

Modifié par rhyddhau, 26 août 2011 - 09:27 .

[shiftylookingspacecow]

rhyddhau wrote...

shiftylookingspacecow wrote...
good point, though arent good and evil simply expanded versions of right and wrong?

"Right and wrong" label actions while "good and evil" label the character behind those actions, which is why condemning someone or something as "evil" prevents healthy dialogue from taking place. It's an absolutist condemnation that presents behavior as not needing to be understood because the perpetrator behind that behavior is inscrutably abhorrent, and this lack of understanding has direct and foreseeable negative consequences. Furthermore, one doesn't necessarily have to think of something as evil to think of it as incredibly wrong and something that needs to be prevented.

Ive never considered "evil" as a valid description of a person, only an influence

[rhyddhau]

shiftylookingspacecow wrote...
Ive never considered "evil" as a valid description of a person, only an influence

Then that becomes more of an argument about free will, I guess.

[shiftylookingspacecow]

But no, the reapers are not evil. haha

[rhyddhau]

shiftylookingspacecow wrote...

But no, the reapers are not evil. haha

I don't think so, no. But given what we know about them I do think that what they've done/are doing/will do is very, very wrong and they need to be stopped at all costs!

[shiftylookingspacecow]

I don't even think that it's wrong, just survival

[rhyddhau]

Possibly. They might need us for sustenance, or their life-cycle might have an ultimate time-based end necessitating reproduction. I'm not sure why they can't just synthesize human DNA on their own though, or replicate DNA from tissue samples.

From what I've seen I feel it'd be wrong for them to turn me into goo. But that's just my personal bias and desire for survival speaking.

Modifié par rhyddhau, 26 août 2011 - 09:53 .

[string3r]

Yes, they just don't realise it because they're robots who don't have moral standards.

[netleopard54]

xXRevan0515Xx wrote...

The Reapers are, from what information we have access to, harvesting us to survive and reproduce. 

where is your source for this information?

[netleopard54]

Veex wrote...

Veex wrote...

Take a look back at the OP's insect example. Ants will indiscriminantly kill and enslave other colonies. Just a part of life for them. Without the ability to conceptualize their actions, is it evil?

Some other good examples to explore in the animal kingdom would be Lions, Bottle-nosed Dolphins, and Chimpanzees especially. Chimps are really, really evil!

My argument here would be that there is a difference between intellegent life and sentient life.  where as humans and reapers are sentient lifeform's.  Animals are just intellegent life.  some could argue otherwise, but i don't know of any proof that would support a claim that ants, monkeys, or dolphins are sentient lifeforms.  I would also ask anyone that argues that case, if they every thought an ant or lion ever reflected on there actions?

also I don't think that language created "evil" and it didn't exist before that because we couldn't conceptualize our actions.  language was developed to help explain our thoughts and feelings to others, humans, for the most part, are very social beings.  for example:  have you ever tried to explain something to a friend and just couln't think of the word that accurately discribed your thought?  does that mean your thought, whether a feeling or otherwise, doesn't exist becuase you couldn't form a word for it?  or does it just mean that while you had that thought you were unable to accuratly convey it to another individual?

just my 2 cents

[Cornughon]

*woops*

Modifié par Cornughon, 26 août 2011 - 11:24 .

[Cornughon]

Things are never completely 'good' nor 'evil', although it seems to be a very American way to think so; at least that's what most US-made movies tell us, it IS easier to just put a 'good'- or 'evil'-label on things and persons and be done with it. It also seems to come forth out of some religious believes: god - the devil, heaven - hell, right - wrong, light - darkness. But in reallife it's never white nor black, there is a huge 'gray' area.

And due to this misconception, and due to the fact that 'our enemy' is always evil (in our eyes), it's easy to put an evil-label on Reapers.

Ofcourse we still don't know the true intentions of the Reapers, and what exactly they're trying to achieve (or better yet: what they're programmed to achieve). It's still 'beyond our comprehension'. Since they're machines one of the reasons could be they're just trying to achieve perfection, and since they're machines and thus logical beings they miss out on the ability to act on emotions (as in 'organic' capabilities), and fail to understand particular (succesful) actions 'we' perform. To better comprehend such illogical-beings-having-succes, the best way is to harvest them, and in doing so all of their knowledge will be added to the Reapers' own. Unless species don't have the special 'thing' the Reapers are looking for ofcourse; then they're just being exterminated to make way for the next cycle and the next and so on.

So Reapers 'feel' (as emotional as an non-emotional being can get) incomplete/imperfect for some reason, and try to achieve just that. They don't feel regret, or remorse. They'll never wonder if what they're doing is right or wrong, they just do what they have to do, since that's just what they do. They're sentient, even intelligent, but act on instinct (their programming).

So no, the Reapers are not "evil". The ones responsible for them however...

I know I know a crapload of air-suspension sh*tlifts on a fridaynight (here in the Netherlands though),

Modifié par Cornughon, 26 août 2011 - 11:22 .

[netleopard54]

Cornughon wrote...

Things are never completely 'good' nor 'evil', although it seems to be a very American way to think so; at least that's what most US-made movies tell us, it IS easier to just put a 'good'- or 'evil'-label on things and persons and be done with it. It also seems to come forth out of some religious believes: god - the devil, heaven - hell, right - wrong, light - darkness. But in reallife it's never white nor black, there is a huge 'gray' area.

And due to this misconception, and due to the fact that 'our enemy' is always evil (in our eyes), it's easy to put an evil-label on Reapers.

Ofcourse we still don't know the true intentions of the Reapers, and what exactly they're trying to achieve (or better yet: what they're programmed to achieve). It's still 'beyond our comprehension'. Since they're machines one of the reasons could be they're just trying to achieve perfection, and since they're machines and thus logical beings they miss out on the ability to act on emotions (as in 'organic' capabilities), and fail to understand particular (succesful) actions 'we' perform. To better comprehend such illogical-beings-having-succes, the best way is to harvest them, and in doing so all of their knowledge will be added to the Reapers' own. Unless species don't have the special 'thing' the Reapers are looking for ofcourse; then they're just being exterminated to make way for the next cycle and the next and so on.

So Reapers 'feel' (as emotional as an non-emotional being can get) incomplete/imperfect for some reason, and try to achieve just that. They don't feel regret, or remorse. They'll never wonder if what they're doing is right or wrong, they just do what they have to do, since that's just what they do. They're sentient, even intelligent, but act on instinct (their programming).

So no, the Reapers are not "evil". The ones responsible for them however...

I know I know a crapload of air-suspension sh*tlifts on a fridaynight (here in the Netherlands though),

I don't find it fair to americans to judge there thought processes by the movie industry(bieng american i'm partial, but i also would not like to be defined by the movies produced in america.  That said I will admit that alot of blockbuster hits do have clear cut distinctions of good and evil, but not all, examples: lord of war and mr. brooks, as well as others.

I will also conceed that alot of life lives in the grey area's, but i will not consead that all life lives in grey area's   i think the best case and point is your own words which, to me, show you do think evil exists.

Cornughon wrote...
So no, the Reapers are not "evil". The ones responsible for them however...

[Scorpion1O1]

I think at this point most agree that the term evil is obsolete. There is no such thing as good and evil just perspectives. Aberrant behavior does exists but that is dictated by the environment.

The Reapers must (I hope for the franchise sake) have a purpose beyond cultivation. As far as we know their goal is to simply multiply I highly doubt a race, of the most advanced, intelligent and collective cohetions such as the reapers is to simply divise an elaborate hoax over organic life to simply multiply. There are reasons we simply do not know yet.

Even if all is revealed of the Reapers motives. Life feeds on life, there is nothing good or bad about it, it's just is. Though I find it very unintelligent for a civilization to spend millions of years wasting time and still not solving the problem of being reliant on organic material. There are a lot of either plot holes, just primitive character development or it simply has not been revealed yet.

Humanity is currently more advanced in culture development then the Reapers (as far as we know of them). Believe it or not people do more then just eat and **** and as far as we know that seems to be all the Reapers aspire to do. There is no culture, there is no goals for a future outside there current cycle. They may put the milky way through a cycle but it is acylce for them as well.

Reapers have no future they fail in solving the problem of organic dependance. Currently scientists are looking to create artificial meats, there goal is to create meat absolutely identical to the muscles in animal but with out the whole slaughtering thing. Reapers don't look beyond their dependancy on organics, they have no seemingly reason for peaceful existance. Their existence is in more of a cycle than organics are, and thaey are the ones that need to be saved.

Modifié par Scorpion1O1, 27 août 2011 - 02:54 .

[Scorpion1O1]

Interesting on do plants feel more pain than animals? Topic

http://www.guardian....,-83446,00.html

Modifié par Scorpion1O1, 27 août 2011 - 03:04 .

[Krunjar]

In order to feel pain one must have a nervous system, plants do not have a nervous system. It can be argued that they respond to negative stimuli. But this is not in any conveivable way what you or I would call pain.

[Balek-Vriege]

Scorpion1O1 wrote...

The Reapers must (I hope for the franchise sake) have a purpose beyond cultivation. As far as we know their goal is to simply multiply I highly doubt a race, of the most advanced, intelligent and collective cohetions such as the reapers is to simply divise an elaborate hoax over organic life to simply multiply. There are reasons we simply do not know yet.

Even if all is revealed of the Reapers motives. Life feeds on life, there is nothing good or bad about it, it's just is. Though I find it very unintelligent for a civilization to spend millions of years wasting time and still not solving the problem of being reliant on organic material. There are a lot of either plot holes, just primitive character development or it simply has not been revealed yet.

Humanity is currently more advanced in culture development then the Reapers (as far as we know of them). Believe it or not people do more then just eat and **** and as far as we know that seems to be all the Reapers aspire to do. There is no culture, there is no goals for a future outside there current cycle. They may put the milky way through a cycle but it is acylce for them as well.

Reapers have no future they fail in solving the problem of organic dependance. Currently scientists are looking to create artificial meats, there goal is to create meat absolutely identical to the muscles in animal but with out the whole slaughtering thing. Reapers don't look beyond their dependancy on organics, they have no seemingly reason for peaceful existance. Their existence is in more of a cycle than organics are, and thaey are the ones that need to be saved.

This is why I like the space arks out of control theory about the Reapers (and I hope it's something along those lines).  A lot of their actions make sense if they're somehow trying to preserve the best species in the galaxy by making them Reapers.

[ubermensch007]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

MGIII wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

No more evil than the Biology student that kills mice for dissection, at least from their perspective.

The mice aren't thinking. fully aware beings. 

The people that the Reapers do their experiments on, turn into husks, kill, etc, ARE.

So, bascally, because it isn't human, it's okay. Gotcha. You just justified the Reapers' crusade.

To the Reapers our thought processes are like those of mice and to them we are not fully "aware."  If you could ask a mouse, I bet they would rather survive than die.  We don't really care though, since mice aren't seen as important in our world view or comparable to our intellectual prowess and importance.  If we needed mice to reproduce ourselves and needed their genetic code to achieve perfection (whatever that is), it wouldn't take long for us to make "mice farms" where we breed the smartest most adaptable mice, then infuse ourselves with them.  That's sort of what the Reapers are doing to the galaxy.

From our point of view that doesn't change the fact that their actions unnaturally and suddenly deny any galactic species the right to exist and develop naturally.  There's no:
 
"Oh look you developed a long lines we consider perfection and managed to survive evolution.  Aww look at you you're perfect!  Welcome to the ascended club!"


It's more:

"Well you got this far, but your evolutionary road ends here as you know it.  We're taking control and we're going to kill you and your dog, then melt down the survivors into perfection soup for ascension."


They're evil.

I really don't buy the whole "To them, we're ants" line of thinking that often comes up in these discussions. 

Kaidan: Anything you need Commander?

Shepard: Just trying to get a sense of where the crew is at - thoughts?

Kaidan: Were all in for the duration.You can count on everyone to do their duty.

Shepard: What's your opinion of the last mission?

Kaidan: Input? Hell. I don't know. We're fighting giant machines from outside the galaxy.
Should I be afraid of them? Or in awe of them? Anything so old, so intelligent...

Shepard: We may be "ants" to them, but humans have never managed to exterminate ants.

Kaidan: Makes you wonder.Are ants any more aware than we were? Of the giants that walk over their heads?

Modifié par ubermensch007, 27 août 2011 - 06:23 .