196 réponses à ce sujet

[SandTrout]

JoePilot wrote...

What I'm saying is maybe they have the ability to disagree at any time (like the geth), but in those instances we have seen chose not to. 

That is not relavent to the concept of 'deversity' as it pertains to the long-term survivability of a species. If humanity is used to make a Reaper, we are stuck with however many Reapers are made from us. A portion of a Reaper cannot break off from the rest of the Reaper and grow on its own (to our knowledge.

Also, what General User said about the Reapers representing a evolutionary dead-end.

Modifié par SandTrout, 20 octobre 2011 - 06:59 .

[JoePilot]

SandTrout wrote...

JoePilot wrote...

You're right, it was a bad example, but taking one from the game itself, when Shepard destroyed Bahak to "save" the galaxy, that was moral relativism.

No. That was moral consiquentialism. The best estimates of likely results are weighed against each other and the result which is the most morally correct is chosen. In this case, Shepard didn't kill 300k, he saved millions.

Claiming that Balak from BDtS was morally equivalent to Shepard because he has a different culture would be moral relativism.

I may be missing something here, but I was talking from the perspective of the dead batarians, Shepard is morally equivalent to the reapers, because either way, they are dead.  To them, there is no diference.

[JoePilot]

SandTrout wrote...

JoePilot wrote...

What I'm saying is maybe they have the ability to disagree at any time (like the geth), but in those instances we have seen chose not to. 

That is not relavent to the concept of 'deversity' as it pertains to the long-term survivability of a species.

The whole point of reapers (as I understand them) is that they take the existing genetic diversity to create another reaper.  Genetic recombination would no longer serve any purpose once as many different genotypes as possible have been "uploaded". 

Also, what General User said about the Reapers representing a evolutionary dead-end.

Again, what I said; at some point they have to make a game out of this.  If they were omnipotent, wouldn't be much of a game.

Modifié par JoePilot, 20 octobre 2011 - 07:03 .

[111987]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

111987 wrote...

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

What freaks me out the most is this...

If the Human Reaper Larva was sentient, that sentience being hundreds of thousands of human beings... those hundreds of thousands of humans all decided to fight Shepard and friends. They wanted the process to continue, to become complete.

Do we really understand what that implies...?

Perhaps there still is an AI component to the Reapers, and it is the AI part of the Reaper that wishes to continue the cycle, not the organic part?

Makes it more difficult for me to imagine the Reapers truly feel they're doing us a favour then. And by everything they say, that really seems to be how they feel.

True. Although the AI part could truly 'feel' that way.

However I think it would be more interesting if all of these species did truly enjoy their Reaper existence so much they decided to perpetuate an extinction cycle for millions, if not billions of years. It adds an interesting moral dimension to the war.

[SandTrout]

JoePilot wrote...

I may be missing something here, but I was talking from the perspective of the dead batarians, Shepard is morally equivalent to the reapers, because either way, they are dead. To them, there is no difference.

There is no difference in their specific circumstance, but that doesn't have any relevance to Shepard's moral standing, which is based on the moral premise "Save as many lives as possible." Someone can end up doing something that screws you over without necessitating that you view that person as immoral.

Granted, moral premises can vary between cultures, meaning that two people can simultaneously view each other as immoral, but that is not moral relativism either. That is moral dissonance. Additionally, an act can be viewed as immoral or moral based on available information between the actor and the viewer. IE: Going back in time to kill a 10 year old Charles Manson would be seen as immoral by those present, even though the act is view as moral by the time traveler because it saves innocent lives.

The only reason that Shepard is even being vilified at all regarding Bahak is due to ignorance regarding his reasons for doing so. In light of certain knowledge of the Reapers' arrival within the system, the act becomes understood as a moral act.

Moral relativism is when you accept that any moral premise is acceptable as long as the actor acts within their moral premise, therefor devaluing your own moral premise to the point that anything can be justified. In essence, moral relativism is the denial of the existence of immoral acts, therefor implying a denial of the existence of moral acts, therefor implying a denial of morality in general.

[JoePilot]

SandTrout wrote...

snip

Thanks for clearing that up; I was misinformed.

Modifié par JoePilot, 20 octobre 2011 - 07:29 .

[SandTrout]

It's cool, happens to the best of us (except didymous, it seems)

Moral philosophy isn't commonly taught in school either ;-)

Edit: You also make a decent Devil's Advocate.

Modifié par SandTrout, 20 octobre 2011 - 07:25 .

[Dean_the_Young]

SandTrout wrote...

It's cool, happens to the best of us (except didymous, it seems)

Moral philosophy isn't commonly taught in school either ;-)

Edit: You also make a decent Devil's Advocate.

Good thing, to. Can you imagine if more high-schoolers read 'Atlas Shrugged'?

[JoePilot]

Based on what I've learned (thank you, SandTrout) I'm certainly not a moral relativist, but I am proposing that what the reapers are doing is (in my opinion) probably similar to what shepard did to Bahak - attrocious in our eyes, but  to them necessary in the grand scheme of things, for reasons only they know.

I feel this way because it is (again, in my opinion) the only logical motivation for an entire race of sentient machines as powerful as the reapers.  Any other, less complex motivation is selling them short and I feel would be less interesting.

As to why they go about it so underhandedly, like I said, maybe they tried other ways, and for various reasons this is what they determined to be the most efficent, logical course.  Maybe they don't even try to explain themselves fully because in their experience it is a futile waste of time and we couldn't grasp it.

Regardless, while I am reasonably sure that resistance is the right choice in the end, if the ME story is going to continue past ME3, then the resolution to this conflict must either must be some sort of truce (god I hope not - the matrix did that and it sucked) or a new enemy, likely to be something the reapers were fighting against that we are as yet unaware of.  Wouldn't that be a kick?

Reapers: "Oh yeah, hey, before we go: that dark energy species that destroyed Haestrom's star? Yeah, we were holding it at bay - nice job, jerk.  Good luck with that."

Modifié par JoePilot, 20 octobre 2011 - 07:35 .

[SandTrout]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

It's cool, happens to the best of us (except didymous, it seems)

Moral philosophy isn't commonly taught in school either ;-)

Edit: You also make a decent Devil's Advocate.

Good thing, to. Can you imagine if more high-schoolers read 'Atlas Shrugged'?

Without getting too much into politics, I can only dream for such a day as "Atlas Shrugged" becoming required reading for high-school students.

The book is probably too slow for most high-schoolers to get into though.

[SandTrout]

JoePilot wrote...

Based on what I've learned (thank you, SandTrout) I'm certainly not a moral relativist, but I am proposing that what the reapers are doing is (in my opinion) probably similar to what shepard did to Bahak - attrocious in our eyes, but to them necessary in the grand scheme of things, for reasons only they know.

I feel this way because it is (again, in my opinion) the only logical motivation for an entire race of sentient machines as powerful as the reapers. Any other, less complex motivation is selling them short and I feel would be less interesting.

I'll believe that when I hear the reason. The Reapers, however, are not simply logical machines. Their nature is that of a condensed organic species housed in a mechanical form. To me, it was always implied that the Reapers were extreme narcissists that view the cycles as a pseudo-religious duty to uplift worthy species, or to allow new species to rise and flourish. Their behavior does not seem like they are responding to a threat, IMO.

As to why they go about it so underhandedly, like I said, maybe they tried other ways, and for various reasons this is what they determined to be the most efficent, logical course. Maybe they don't even try to explain themselves fully because in their experience it is a futile waste of time and we couldn't grasp it.

Perhaps, but until I have a Reaper present me with the claim that they are preventing some greater disaster, I'm taking that theory with a saltlick.

Regardless, while I am reasonably sure that resistance is the right choice in the end, if the ME story is going to continue past ME3, then the resolution to this conflict must either must be some sort of truce (god I hope not - the matrix did that and it sucked) or a new enemy, likely to be something the reapers were fighting against that we are as yet unaware of. Wouldn't that be a kick?

I'll just agree to disagree here. IMO, we don't need a Bigger Bad when we have plenty of possible political conflicts within the galaxy already to write about.

Reapers: "Oh yeah, hey, before we go: that dark energy species that destroyed Haestrom's star? Yeah, we were holding it at bay - nice job, jerk. Good luck with that."

I'll consider it if they say anything at all to imply it beyond the ridiculously vague "We are your salvation through destruction."

[Dean_the_Young]

SandTrout wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

It's cool, happens to the best of us (except didymous, it seems)

Moral philosophy isn't commonly taught in school either ;-)

Edit: You also make a decent Devil's Advocate.

Good thing, to. Can you imagine if more high-schoolers read 'Atlas Shrugged'?

Without getting too much into politics, I can only dream for such a day as "Atlas Shrugged" becoming required reading for high-school students.

The book is probably too slow for most high-schoolers to get into though.

*shiver*

I think you need a few years of college and out-of-house experience before you should be allowed to read AS. The people who think it's a good idea (because they think themselves part of that privileged few) only get more insufferable afterwards.

[Dean_the_Young]

SandTrout wrote...

As to why they go about it so underhandedly, like I said, maybe they tried other ways, and for various reasons this is what they determined to be the most efficent, logical course. Maybe they don't even try to explain themselves fully because in their experience it is a futile waste of time and we couldn't grasp it.

Perhaps, but until I have a Reaper present me with the claim that they are preventing some greater disaster, I'm taking that theory with a saltlick.

Hell, I don't care and I do believe in the e-zero overuse theory. Whether they're saving anything of the past or not, what they're doing is unacceptable even if it is in a sense inevitable.

Even if Reaperfication is the end-state of evolution in order to avoid galactic extinction from dark energy destroying stars, I'd rather do it on our own terms than the Reaper's cycle.

[SandTrout]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

*shiver*

I think you need a few years of college and out-of-house experience before you should be allowed to read AS. The people who think it's a good idea (because they think themselves part of that privileged few) only get more insufferable afterwards.

/shrug I had a few years out in the world before I read AS, and it only affirmed my current philosophy and pointed out a few rough-spots that needed work.

AS also vilified the "privilaged few" that thought that they were entitled to anything other than their own labors, though.

[Dean_the_Young]

SandTrout wrote...

AS also vilified the "privilaged few" that thought that they were entitled to anything other than their own labors, though.

Most privilaged few think that they're wealth is the result of their labor after a point, no matter if it is or not.

[SandTrout]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

AS also vilified the "privilaged few" that thought that they were entitled to anything other than their own labors, though.

Most privilaged few think that they're wealth is the result of their labor after a point, no matter if it is or not.

Granted, I'm not associated that much with 'high society', but most of the well-off people I know did earn their wealth through their labor.

Since this is probably getting into dangerous territory though, I'll just point out that my last statement was anecdotal and leave it at that.

[SandTrout]

Damn double post.

Modifié par SandTrout, 20 octobre 2011 - 08:01 .

[Dean_the_Young]

SandTrout wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

AS also vilified the "privilaged few" that thought that they were entitled to anything other than their own labors, though.

Most privilaged few think that they're wealth is the result of their labor after a point, no matter if it is or not.

Granted, I'm not associated that much with 'high society', but most of the well-off people I know did earn their wealth through their labor.

Since this is probably getting into dangerous territory though, I'll just point out that my last statement was anecdotal and leave it at that.

Sure. Consider it dropped.


So... how about starting up our own, moral Reaper cycle if galactic e-zero death really is unavoidable?

[SandTrout]

Get rid of the eezo seems like a better long-term plan to me. Someone will figure out FTL through some other means eventually.

[JoePilot]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

So... how about starting up our own, moral Reaper cycle if galactic e-zero death really is unavoidable?

And become that which you detest?  Hmmmmmm.

History repeats and all that.  The original reapers probably consider(ed) themselves to be doing the morally just thing also, or was that your point?  Just saying.

[JoePilot]

SandTrout wrote...

Get rid of the eezo seems like a better long-term plan to me. Someone will figure out FTL through some other means eventually.

I thought eezo was created each time a star went supernova, which I believe happens with somewhat predictable regularity, galactically speaking.

[Dean_the_Young]

JoePilot wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

So... how about starting up our own, moral Reaper cycle if galactic e-zero death really is unavoidable?

And become that which you detest?  Hmmmmmm.

What I destest is the involuntary extinction event surprise attack.

'My' cycle would be voluntary: you can volunteer to become a Reaper, or we let you wipe yourselves out and wait for the next batch.

[Dean_the_Young]

SandTrout wrote...

Get rid of the eezo seems like a better long-term plan to me. Someone will figure out FTL through some other means eventually.

Actually, I'd much prefer the franchise if no other form of FTL was possible.

There's no particular reason to believe it should be, given that 'all sci-fi is equally valid' is just a fan-fallacy.

[Chapity]

A thought. The reaper cycle is conducted in this way because no individual mind can grasp the concept of merging with all of the minds of a species. We all have our own goals, aspirations, affinities, and morals. As it were, since all societies are just collections of individuals who make social contracts to create livability and "happiness", the reapers would never get there aims without some sort of outside force, ie indocrination and violence. This explains why soverign says things like "musings of a mind fumbling in ignorance at things it couldn't possibly understand". We exsist so that the reapers can groom our evolution towards there tech. We (individually) cease to exist because the reapers elevate us to the pinnacle of collective evolution and wipe out all traces of the individuals that inhabited it. Moral relativism indeed. You could also argue that Kant's categorical imperative is also at play as the goal of eternal life is a moral good and justifies the ends. Interesting stuff. I don't think the dark energy death theory for all of it's points is right though as I believe the star death at hailstrom is happening as a goal of harvesting the eezo blow off to create reaper cores (another theory that I think is more in tune with the canon). If this was the CSS that dark energy caused supernovi, there would be more happening especially around some of the older constructs (widow comes to mind).

[JoePilot]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

JoePilot wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

So... how about starting up our own, moral Reaper cycle if galactic e-zero death really is unavoidable?

And become that which you detest?  Hmmmmmm.

What I destest is the involuntary extinction event surprise attack.

'My' cycle would be voluntary: you can volunteer to become a Reaper, or we let you wipe yourselves out and wait for the next batch.

Sorry, I can't help myself:

So do you leave behind the mass relays and citadel, thus allowing the next species that may not want to join your club the opportunity to jump to your level of evolution and then wipe you out?  Maybe they're like the yahg and don't want anything other than to dominate.

Or do you destroy all your left-behind infrastructure, wasting immeasurable time and resources each cycle to acquiesce to what may be a hard-headed species, and thus simultaneously lengthining the time it would take any other species to rise to a high enough level by possibly hundreds of thousands of years?

I bring this up because for all their power, reapers are not invincible, and need prolonged periods of hibernation.  Seems like either way would be inneficient and counter-productive.

Modifié par JoePilot, 20 octobre 2011 - 08:37 .