1381 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Here's the problem with consequentialism: are you taking actions that'll lead to the best possible outcome, or only one that happens to be better than the current one without bothering to account for better possibilities?

How is that a problem with consequentialism in particular, and not any philosophy?

But the consequentialist answer would be that you've already expressed a fallacy. If there are better possiblities to be taken, the consequentialist would take them. They are better, and there would be no reason to NOT have already taken them.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 12 novembre 2011 - 08:08 .

[John Renegade]

Xilizhra wrote...

Here's the problem with consequentialism: are you taking actions that'll lead to the best possible outcome, or only one that happens to be better than the current one without bothering to account for better possibilities?

Here is the problem with deontology: How can you, amongst all those contradicting rules, find the "right" ones. What is the basis for that "rightness?" How can you know, that what you apire to is what you should aspire to. I'm not saying that the aspiration to the correct goals (as in what should the correct goals be) is not the problem with consequentialism too, I just suggest, that you are at least as equally screwed in regards to morals as consequentialists are.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

Modifié par John Renegade, 12 novembre 2011 - 08:17 .

[sponge56]

Clara Shepard wrote...

:happy:  I think you're awesome.  And I hate Cerberus, and TIM. <_<

Though my arguement is weak I will say:

Cerberus, who wants to advancement of humanity, experiments on humans(like Tombs and others), gives a bad name to humans everywhere, and destroy all possible peace with others when it could so benificial.  
Would a man be stronger by himself, or would he be stronger if he had a pack of dogs and some friends?  One can only support themselves so much, after that, when everyone and everything is your enemy, you will have nothing left but your own ignorance.

Thank you! And I agree about how Cerberus gives humanity a bad name through its actions

[Xilizhra]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Here's the problem with consequentialism: are you taking actions that'll lead to the best possible outcome, or only one that happens to be better than the current one without bothering to account for better possibilities?

How is that a problem with consequentialism in particular, and not any philosophy?

But the consequentialist answer would be that you've already expressed a fallacy. If there are better possiblities to be taken, the consequentialist would take them. They are better, and there would be no reason to NOT have already taken them.

Excellent, so consequentialism is Paragon.

Here is the problem with deontology: How can you, amongst all those contradicting rules, find the "right" ones. What is the basis for that "rightness?" How can you know, that what you apire to is what you should aspire to. I'm not saying that the aspiration to the correct goals (as in what should the correct goals be) is not the problem with consequentialism too, I just suggest, that you are at least as equally screwed in regards to morals as consequentialists are.

I'm not a deontologist.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...
Excellent, so consequentialism is Paragon.

Nope*.


*Not without metagaming, that is. All philosophies can only work on what they know at the time going forward, not retroactive justification fallacies.

I'm not a deontologist.

Paragon has a very strong deontological slant.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 12 novembre 2011 - 08:24 .

[Zatwu]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

That's just character/faction assassination to railroad you into working against them.

No it isn't. I see a lot of people saying "Oh Cerberus is only helping the Reapers because BioWare forced them to, its not something they'd actually do." Sorry to burst your bubble but BioWare created Cerberus and they knew Cerberus better than you. If BioWare says so then it is exactly the kind of thing they would do.

Modifié par Zatwu, 12 novembre 2011 - 08:29 .

[John Renegade]

Zatwu wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

That's just character/faction assassination to railroad you into working against them.

No it isn't. I see a lot of people saying "Oh Cerberus is only helping the Reapers because BioWare forced them to, its not something they'd actually do." Sorry to burst your bubble but BioWare created Cerberus and they knew Cerberus better than you. If BioWare says so then it is exactly the kind of thing they would do.

Bioware can of course do whatever they want, but once you create certain character with particular traits (like TIM), he can only do things a character with his traits would. When he does something else, he ceases to be the original character - you could say that the original has been killed and replaced. And Bioware has stated on many occasions, that TIM is supposed to be a "grey" character, not a comic book villain.

Modifié par John Renegade, 12 novembre 2011 - 08:38 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Zatwu wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

That's just character/faction assassination to railroad you into working against them.

No it isn't. I see a lot of people saying "Oh Cerberus is only helping the Reapers because BioWare forced them to, its not something they'd actually do." Sorry to burst your bubble but BioWare created Cerberus and they knew Cerberus better than you. If BioWare says so then it is exactly the kind of thing they would do.

That only applies if you think a a character can't be derailed and go onto a tangent characterization during a work, despite all prior characterization. It usually doesn't happen without good reasons (hidden agendas, secret facts), but it can happen and it can be bad writing.

[The Everchosen of Chaos]

I honestly couldn't careless about the moral or ethical functions of Cerberus. All I care about is getting the job done. The ultimate aim of all if not most of us should be defeating the Reapers.

In order to do that we will need powerful technology, weapons and allies. Cerberus is a powerful and influential organisation, while it is lamentable that they are opposed to Shepard and presumably his goals. It does not mean that they aren't still opposed to the Reapers, especially if TIM is still in charge. My point is that: Cerberus could still albeit indirectly help our cause against the Reapers.

Just because an enemy wants to kill you, doesn't mean you can't influence or otherwise use them to your advantage. It's done all the time in Chess after all. My two cents.

[Zatwu]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Zatwu wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

That's just character/faction assassination to railroad you into working against them.

No
it isn't. I see a lot of people saying "Oh Cerberus is only helping the
Reapers because BioWare forced them to, its not something they'd
actually do." Sorry to burst your bubble but BioWare created Cerberus
and they knew Cerberus better than you. If BioWare says so then it is
exactly the kind of thing they would do.

That only
applies if you think a a character can't be derailed and go onto a
tangent characterization during a work, despite all prior
characterization. It usually doesn't happen without good reasons (hidden
agendas, secret facts), but it can happen and it can be bad writing.

That dosn't change the fact that Cerberus supporters are still just projecting a less villainous version of Cerberus and TIM onto the actual versions of Cerberus and TIM. The story might be better if Cerberus weren't omnicidal maniacs, but they are. Thinking otherwise is wishful thinking.

Modifié par Zatwu, 12 novembre 2011 - 09:48 .

[Yezdigerd]

I'm kinda curious, those people who see the galaxy as dog eat dog place, how do you explain that the Council didn't simply subjugate earth? the Turians alone could have done it, but the council mediated, and not only that but allow humanity to colonize other starsystem.

As for the lack of equality of the council, is that really strange and unfair?
Contribution, size and comittment naturally influence power in and organization. Doubt many find it unfair that the US has more of a say in the UN then Andorra.
Which was also the premise I liked about the first game. The Earth Alliance trying their best to show the Council that humanity had things to offer.

[Arkitekt]

Phaedon wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Ok, since you go that ridiculous trolling path, name me one consequentialist that has ever produced such an asinine thought.

Oh you cannot? Then you are just trolling the thread.

I honestly can't understand why you are getting so worked up.

Because you are building a giant strawman the size of Jupiter.

"Hey, let's imagine that this philosophy that I don't like reaches a really barbaric conclusion.

Therefore, it's a stupid philosophy! QED"

Except that it didn't, it hasn't and never will.

So you are arguing strawmans. Learn to argue and don't pretend that the arguments you are fighting are caricatures of some lame idea that is going inside your own mind. Because they aren't.

[Dean_the_Young]

Yezdigerd wrote...

I'm kinda curious, those people who see the galaxy as dog eat dog place, how do you explain that the Council didn't simply subjugate earth? the Turians alone could have done it, but the council mediated, and not only that but allow humanity to colonize other starsystem.

Because the Council doesn't want the Turian Heirarchy running amock, and the trouble the Turians caused the Humans would be rebounded by other species (and the Terminus) who don't like it.

As for the lack of equality of the council, is that really strange and unfair?
Contribution, size and comittment naturally influence power in and organization. Doubt many find it unfair that the US has more of a say in the UN then Andorra.

But the UN doesn't go 'you're black, you don't have a vote, you're white, so you do.'

I think everyone can agree that even when heirarchies exist, racist caste systems do not need to.

[Dean_the_Young]

Zatwu wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Zatwu wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

That's just character/faction assassination to railroad you into working against them.

No
it isn't. I see a lot of people saying "Oh Cerberus is only helping the
Reapers because BioWare forced them to, its not something they'd
actually do." Sorry to burst your bubble but BioWare created Cerberus
and they knew Cerberus better than you. If BioWare says so then it is
exactly the kind of thing they would do.

That only
applies if you think a a character can't be derailed and go onto a
tangent characterization during a work, despite all prior
characterization. It usually doesn't happen without good reasons (hidden
agendas, secret facts), but it can happen and it can be bad writing.

That dosn't change the fact that Cerberus supporters are still just projecting a less villainous version of Cerberus and TIM onto the actual versions of Cerberus and TIM. The story might be better if Cerberus weren't omnicidal maniacs, but they are. Thinking otherwise is wishful thinking.

Now you're changing your argument. Radically.

But sure. Let's play.

Where in ME1, ME2, or any of the side material to date has Cerberus pursued or advocated any omnicidal maniac agenda? Where did they ever oppose Shepard, the Alliance, and the Council in favor of the Reapers?

After all, if we're projecting a less threatening version onto Cerberus, surely the more threatening Cerberus was already there?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 12 novembre 2011 - 10:11 .

[lovgreno]

Cerberus may become omnicidial maniacs in ME3 (only the writers knows for sure) but they don't feel like that kind of villains to me thus far. Shady, brutal and clumsy, definitely. But they have never been plain evil. At least that is how I prefer to see it.

[John Renegade]

Yezdigerd wrote...

I'm kinda curious, those people who see the galaxy as dog eat dog place, how do you explain that the Council didn't simply subjugate earth? the Turians alone could have done it, but the council mediated, and not only that but allow humanity to colonize other starsystem.

The Council saw as as a counterpart to the turians who got out of line (they went behind the Council's back). And they generously "allowed" us to colonize Attican Traverse and Skyllian Verge, which they couldn't efficiently take for themselves by their own means. They also wanted someone to deal with the batarians. And when we got into trouble with the geth, you know those mysterious machines which could be a threat to the entire galaxy, and we asked them for help, they practically told us where to shove it. Are you really that surprised that humans would want more power for themselves to be able to protect their lives and interests?

If you don't believe me about the Attican Traverse, ask Anderson in ME1 after one of the Council meetings.

Also, the Council has no right to allow us to colonize planets which aren't actually theirs. You only own something, when you can adequately protect it. But of course the Alliance know that the Council would cause "problems" if they didn't obey Council's restrictions, which is yet another example of why they would want more power - they don't want the Council to be able to cause them trouble.

[Lotion Soronarr]

sponge56 wrote...

GodWood wrote...

So if I hate all black people for a reason other then their skin colour it's not racist?

All reapers kill and destroy, therefore a legitimate reason for hatred.  However, black people do not all kill and destroy/ whatever your hypothetical universal dislike of them is.  So yes, the above comment IS racist as it is an irrational and unfounded dislike

Pfffft..."legitimate" reason for hate and racism...You what that legitimate reason is?

Whatever you think it is. If something like that can even exist.



And the books establish TIM quite nicely. It's damn clear he's all about humanity,

If he wanted personal power, he could have got it in a million better ways.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Yezdigerd wrote...

I'm kinda curious, those people who see the galaxy as dog eat dog place, how do you explain that the Council didn't simply subjugate earth? the Turians alone could have done it, but the council mediated, and not only that but allow humanity to colonize other starsystem.

There are many ways in which you can control another being or race. Not merely trouhg military power.

[Zatwu]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Zatwu wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Zatwu wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

That's just character/faction assassination to railroad you into working against them.

No
it isn't. I see a lot of people saying "Oh Cerberus is only helping the
Reapers because BioWare forced them to, its not something they'd
actually do." Sorry to burst your bubble but BioWare created Cerberus
and they knew Cerberus better than you. If BioWare says so then it is
exactly the kind of thing they would do.

That only
applies if you think a a character can't be derailed and go onto a
tangent characterization during a work, despite all prior
characterization. It usually doesn't happen without good reasons (hidden
agendas, secret facts), but it can happen and it can be bad writing.

That dosn't change the fact that Cerberus supporters are still just projecting a less villainous version of Cerberus and TIM onto the actual versions of Cerberus and TIM. The story might be better if Cerberus weren't omnicidal maniacs, but they are. Thinking otherwise is wishful thinking.

Now you're changing your argument. Radically.

But sure. Let's play.

Where in ME1, ME2, or any of the side material to date has Cerberus pursued or advocated any omnicidal maniac agenda? Where did they ever oppose Shepard, the Alliance, and the Council in favor of the Reapers?

After all, if we're projecting a less threatening version onto Cerberus, surely the more threatening Cerberus was already there?

Actually I didn't change my argument at all. As of ME3 Cerberus are omnicidal maniacs. To say they're not is projecting a less threatening version. Maybe they didn't used to be, but they are now. You can call it bad writing sure, but trhat's entirely beside the point. As they currently are, they are indefensible.

Modifié par Zatwu, 12 novembre 2011 - 10:53 .

[Fixers0]

To OP, you're wrong here, as long as you agree with Cerberus's Methods, ideals, and actions nothing is stopping one from defending them.

[Zatwu]

Fixers0 wrote...

To OP, you're wrong here, as long as you agree with Cerberus's Methods, ideals, and actions nothing is stopping one from defending them.

Actually there is, Cerberus wants Shepard dead. If you agree with their methods, ideals, and actions, then the most logical thing to do is for Shepard to paint a bullseye on his armor.

[Dean_the_Young]

Zatwu wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Zatwu wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Zatwu wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

That's just character/faction assassination to railroad you into working against them.

No
it isn't. I see a lot of people saying "Oh Cerberus is only helping the
Reapers because BioWare forced them to, its not something they'd
actually do." Sorry to burst your bubble but BioWare created Cerberus
and they knew Cerberus better than you. If BioWare says so then it is
exactly the kind of thing they would do.

That only
applies if you think a a character can't be derailed and go onto a
tangent characterization during a work, despite all prior
characterization. It usually doesn't happen without good reasons (hidden
agendas, secret facts), but it can happen and it can be bad writing.

That dosn't change the fact that Cerberus supporters are still just projecting a less villainous version of Cerberus and TIM onto the actual versions of Cerberus and TIM. The story might be better if Cerberus weren't omnicidal maniacs, but they are. Thinking otherwise is wishful thinking.

Now you're changing your argument. Radically.

But sure. Let's play.

Where in ME1, ME2, or any of the side material to date has Cerberus pursued or advocated any omnicidal maniac agenda? Where did they ever oppose Shepard, the Alliance, and the Council in favor of the Reapers?

After all, if we're projecting a less threatening version onto Cerberus, surely the more threatening Cerberus was already there?

Actually I didn't change my argument at all. As of ME3 Cerberus are omnicidal maniacs. To say they're not is projecting a less threatening version. Maybe they didn't used to be, but they are now. You can call it bad writing sure, but trhat's entirely beside the point. As they currently are, they are indefensible.

And now you're repeating your first argument and ignoring your second.

Actually, it's closer to abandoning your second argument because now you're even conceding that Cerberus has been changed from all prior depictions... and that doing so is bad writing.

[Dean_the_Young]

Zatwu wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

To OP, you're wrong here, as long as you agree with Cerberus's Methods, ideals, and actions nothing is stopping one from defending them.

Actually there is, Cerberus wants Shepard dead. If you agree with their methods, ideals, and actions, then the most logical thing to do is for Shepard to paint a bullseye on his armor.

If you're stupid at logic, sure.

[Arkitekt]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Sure, but stuff like that is basic empirical feedback studies, and so on.

Hardly. Politics and inter-personal expertise predate the scientific method, and one of the first lessons is that there is no constant in dealing with people. An empiracle study that shows 59% of people felt offense when a word was spoken does not imply that 59% of all people will feel the same: it only tells us about that group. The entire field of psychology has spent centuries figuring out that behavior is incredibly flexible for many non-mathematical reasons.

Exactly. And this failure to reach any precision makes utilitarianism an utopian dream for those more statistically and scientifically inclined. I am scientifically inclined, but I have dropped this methodology as useful a long time ago...

And easily degradable too.

In this context, that word means nothing.

Actually, you said the same thing in different wording when you said "no constant in dealing with people". That's the problem. And soft sciences, because they base their thinking in one or two sigma papers, with dubious methodologies, once you try to connect two or three papers to reach a conclusion, the probabilities degrade and you won't reach any significant result.

And yet it's linked. Cerberus can not be defended if teleological ethics are invalid. If there is no such thing as public good, teleological ethics are invalid. But then came the point that if there are no precise units of public good, there can be no public good. But soft sciences without units do exist, proving the existence of things that exist without units.

Soft sciences exist, and so do teleological ethics, and public good and individual good, and so on. They exist either as human activities or ideas. I don't subscribe to the idea that something like an ethic or a moral is "valid" or not. In relation to what? To the universe? To god? To myself? For me, I have the ethics that I have built for the years that I've been living here, but they are neither valid nor invalid, since there's no exam that I must pass in order to get an official seal of approval.

Cerberus can be defended if you think that they can pull off what they set out to do and if you agree with the end result.

That's it. No teleological or metaphysical shenanigans are required.

Of course, some people *may want* to defend Cerberus using flawed teleological reasons. But that does not mean that Cerberus cannot be defended without such reasons, only that those reasons are invalid, if we do not accept teleology.

We can certainly work backwards, if you'd like. Would you like to start by agreeing that teleological ethics can stand without a measured unit, or would prefer to debate the existence of soft-sciences?

Soft sciences exist, they work with "measured units" and they are mostly bunk. Not to say that I would do better: the problem is the subject, which is far too complex. Many bright people have gathered some intuitive insights and correlated them with some interesting numbers. Thing is, with its low demand upon the quality of its accuracy, a lot of rubbish and shenanigans go through. This is why one cannot base their morals upon these sciences, although one can base their morals on some insights that are sufficiently simple that these sciences seem to hint to. Because that's the best we have.

[Arkitekt]

And I agree that Paragon is extremely "Deontological" ... although every ethics are "consequentialists", since they all try to build the best possible world... (obvious innit?)