1381 réponses à ce sujet

[someone else]

Arkitekt wrote...

someone else wrote...

Desire, however base or noble does, not rise to the level of moral principle however. As you note, desire, pleasure, satisfaction are individual and idiosycratic. Morality, on the other hand, is necessarily consensus-based, and whether arising out of canon or custom, requires a societal context in which to exist.

All fine and dandy, except for one detail: desires are the biological sources of morality, not the philosophical principles of it. You are not seemingly understanding this fulcral point.

I think - as I reread my post - that I clearly differentiated desire from moral principal.  Now it your thesis that desire gives rise to morality - an intelligent and arguable position, but one that is not universally held, as you know. The world is replete with claims to moral authority, and many buy in.

No where did I state or imply that desires are the philosophical principals of morality.  Frankly, I have no idea what you are attributing to me, inasmuch as a desire is about as far remove from a philosophical principal as I can imagine.  But OK, let it pass, no importa.

....If we do something with our friends or lovers that they may or may not like or approve, the acceptance of the justification of our actions will always depend upon the audience intended to approve, not the "law" or any other concept.  [emphasis added]

You make my point exactly - justification is consensus based, and I certainly can grant you that the societal consensus need not be a formal system, I did say that the necessary consensus must exist by "canon or custom" which covers the instance you present.   So if my conduct meets the standards [explicit or implicit] held by those whom I recognize as imbued with "moral" authority, then I feel justified in my actions.  It is not, however, a decision I can make outside such a context - which is what Saphra and you are apparently arguing.

Back to the theme of the thread, Cerberus clearly went out of the side of the law because they deemed that their purposes were not to appease the courts of Earth or the Citadel, but to make humanity survive at all costs.

In this scenario, I would see Cerberus doing what they think is for the best, even if disapproved by the majority. Humanity's Dark Knight, so to speak.

I have no problem with and basically find myself aligned with Cerebrus' moral decisions - which are based on the choice often found around 4:00 on Sheps wheel - ie greatest good for greatest number, sacrifice a few so the many may live - or put another way, the ends justify the means.   But in these cases - the genophage, vigils energy conservation program, etc., the ends are clearly demarcated - and arguably a superior good to the transient evil.

Cerebrus was only able to act upon its moral choices because the underlying moral principals were shared by its adherents, operatives and supporters. Thus it operates within its own moral universe - however, to suggest as I think you are, that it is a moral majority of one does not hold water.

ps hope you got the mea culpa on the darwinism brain fart

Modifié par someone else, 22 novembre 2011 - 02:33 .

[sponge56]

Can people actually discuss Cerberus and not use it as a bench to attack each other's intelligence on philosophical issues- thanks

[Nethershadow]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

Well yeah; my dislike for Cerberus is based on it's actions to within game, the sentiments associated with the group by in-game sources and the unconscious associations I make with their activities and politics.

Comparative to other groups? I just don't believe that the bad behaviour of others is a valid excuse for bad behaviour perpetrated by myself and those who take it upon themselves to represent me.


But the mere fact that other races are as bad, and in some cases
worse, doesn't serve as a panacea to cure Cerebus and it's sympathisers
within the Alliance of guilt for their actions.

It's not a pardon for, but rather that it's not an invalidator in and of itself unless it's also applied to others as well. If one goes by the morality of 'I won't tolerate anyone who conducts political murder...' then they should also hold that against the Council: among Tela Vasir's first introduction in Cerberus Daily News, for example, was that the Council sent her to knock out the ME-equivalent of wikileaks. Some were killed, some were arrested. What was their crime? Embarassing the Council by leaking true (and less optimistic) economic statistics.


I fully applaud people who don't tolerate Cerberus because they demand everyone rise above the galactic status quo. But people who blast Cerberus while clinging to the Council status-quo are embracing a double-standard of major proportions... all the more so because one group has effects of galactic scale, and until ME2/3 the other did not.

This pretty much sums up for me how you could defend any organisation, ie Cerberus. I actually like Cerberus and i hope they dont get indoctrinated to reapers or destroyed or anything like that in the 3rd, but if so i hope you can reorganize them with some leadership removal like TIM. I think Miranda would be fantastic in his position.

[someone else]

sponge56 wrote...

Can people actually discuss Cerberus and not use it as a bench to attack each other's intelligence on philosophical issues- thanks

No one's been pepper-sprayed lately - and sure, but you gotta admit its more fun in the deep end - really how much can you say about Cerebrus qua Cerebrus - ruthless pursuit of their goal, lots of collateral damage, morally ambiguous, but clearly aimed at human dominance - not a bad deal if you're human, and maybe we'll be benevolent despots - after all humans have 'grown up" dealing with far greater diversity than other species - genetic [per mordin], religious [per legion], and maybe culturally [no cite] - could be a pax humana for a millenium or so.

Totally different judgment if TIM sells us out to the Reapers - but its not clear if, when, how or why.  Highly unlikely, but BW could serve up the Reapers as the ultimate galactic good guys, preserving the essence of intelligent life against the one true enemy of us all - S=k log W (i luv stuff like that) - entropy.

Modifié par someone else, 22 novembre 2011 - 03:09 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

someone else wrote...

No, exactly NOT "Exactly" - Justification implies some sort of social/cultural moral or legal context -[note the root word justice] - simply taking or doing what you want regardless of consequences is simply animal or savage behavior -

Dunno if  I can agree with this.
Is something justified? Depends whom you ask. And whom do you want to justify it too?
I don't think the majority vote is necessary at all.

The end result, how you get to it and why you want to achieve it - ALL THREE matter.

If Cerberuses actions lead to Earth susiving and Reapers defeated - was it's justified?
If Cerberuses actions lead to Earth resisting better, but stil loosing in the end - was it justified?

Again, depends whom you ask.

[onelifecrisis]

someone else wrote...

sponge56 wrote...

Can people actually discuss Cerberus and not use it as a bench to attack each other's intelligence on philosophical issues- thanks

No one's been pepper-sprayed lately

Maxius Artucus got a bit of a senseless bashing on the last page (without any actual argument to back it up, I might add). I think that's what sponge56 was referring to.

[someone else]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

someone else wrote...
No, exactly NOT "Exactly" - Justification implies some sort of social/cultural moral or legal context -[note the root word justice] - simply taking or doing what you want regardless of consequences is simply animal or savage behavior

Dunno if  I can agree with this. Is something justified? Depends whom you ask. And whom do you want to justify it too? I don't think the majority vote is necessary at all. 

The end result, how you get to it and why you want to achieve it - ALL THREE matter.

If Cerberuses actions lead to Earth susiving and Reapers defeated - was it's justified?
If Cerberuses actions lead to Earth resisting better, but stil loosing in the end - was it justified?

Again, depends whom you ask.

I believe I clarified my point in a subsequent post

...justification is consensus based, and I certainly can grant you that the societal consensus need not be a formal
system, I did say that the necessary consensus must exist by "canon or custom" which covers the instance you present.   So if my conduct meets the standards [explicit or implicit] held by those whom I recognize as
imbued with "moral" authority, then I feel justified in my actions.  It is not, however, a decision I can make outside such a context - which is what Saphra and you are apparently arguing.

It need not be a "majority" at all - Just the group or source you recognize as possessing moral authority.  Could be a holy text, could be a group to which you feel allegiance.

Consistency is essential - you cannot be justified, even in your own mind if you reach different conclusions as to the rectitude of your behavior every time you ask.   Similarly, you cannot claim your actions were "justified" if you cannot get answers from your peers that are consistent from time to time and case to case.

If it is not justified for Cerebrus to experiment on humans to create a super-soldier for thepurpos of defending humanity, but you claim it is for the Alliance to do the same thing (please note "same thing"  -lets not go off in the direction of "...oh but cerebrus methods are so much more over the top..")  - such a claim of justification is obviously without merit - simply biased and self-serving.

So it not only matters who you ask, it matters how they hold the criteria by which they judge you.

------------------
OneLifeCrisis wrote:

Maxius Artucus got a bit of a senseless bashing on the last page (without any actual argument to back it up, I might add). I think that's what sponge56 was referring to.

Yes - apolys for oversight - though I've read worse - but they do play hardball in the majors...

Modifié par someone else, 22 novembre 2011 - 07:47 .

[CerberusWarrior]

Its real funny you all can defend what the STG and Turians did to the krogans as well the alliance finding and studying a reaper artifact in the arrival DLC . but Cerberus is some how always seen as the bad guys in Mass Effect 1 is it not true that Cerberus was part of the alliance and in Mass Effect 2 if you ever listen to edi she even says that Cerberus and the alliance are some what connected

[Phaedon]

[quote]Arkitekt wrote...
Easy, Phaedon, I didn't say you suggested it, I said you suggested *others should suggest* if their methodologies were correct. And it's this connection which is bunk, and for the reasons I've stated.[/quote]
Look, mate. It's you who attacked me out of nowhere. I have no problem with attacks at all, since they can be quite fun and bring the point home, but I'd like to know what provoked it at least.

Consequentialists aren't bad. Just like deontologists aren't good.
At least not completely. Every person is flawed to one extent, and they can't follow their moral codes 100%.
What matters here are the moral codes themselves. Consequentialism is BAD.

Who says so? I say so. Why I say so? No reason actually, other than the fact that I feel that this is bad.

So, who exactly set me as the Grand Inquisitor of Morality? No one. That's the point of morality. Morality is the consious or subconsious creation of our basic thoughts and instincts. Humans aren't animals, but they aren't computers either. They are something in between.

I am still not sure if we are on the same page about the definition of "consequentialism". I often get the feeling that you believe that it just has to do with "taking the consequences of an action into advantage to some extent", which applies to all moralities. Consequentialism is imho, flawed by itself and things can get very ugly and very soon when you apply it.

Refer to my "Kid that hits you in the face with a basketball" example.


[quote]Yeah, and that someone would fail miserably at understanding the butterflies involved...

Even still, the sheer amount of negative stuff is so large in WW2, that even a good economy kicker cannot ever be proclaimed to be sufficiently good that erases all the other stuff. OTOH, it's also not surprising that *some* good things may have come out of WW2. [/quote]Bad? 

You are ignoring the misanthropes. Consequentialism is by no means misanthropistic in its entirety but its blacker shades definitely are. When you switch to the idealistic part of the spectrum and get to its extreme, deontology...well, let's just say that it would be far fetched to actually find these kind of people there.

My point is, it's you who thinks that its bad. Because people died, families got separated, etc etc.
Don't assume that everyone who thinks that the ends justify the means is as innoccent as you.
[quote]What I find asinine in here is that you are still arguing that a "consequentialist" would reward the ****s, without any evidence whatsoever, but rather with some Glenn Beck style of connection here. No, obviously, a consequentialist would never reward a bad ideology, for that would have terrible consequences itself, which are even easy to foresee.

Damn, you make me defend a system of ethics that I don't even endorse! This only because of the really bad arguments you put out![/quote]I have no idea why you brought Glenn Beck in this argument. From what I hear, he's a complete moron.

You seem to be missing my point entirely. Terrible consequences? Um, last I checked, Dean over here was arguing that it's okay if bad things happen, as long as the society of the next couple of generations is happy.

I don't need to remind you how terrible things can get if you don't use consequentialism right. Let's talk about another thing: consequences. We have already established that you can't foresee the consequences as a whole, much less calculate the total happiness of all society ever. Where do you draw the line?

To whatever suits you? What does this have to do with a moral code?
To whatever suits the society you are currently in? Yeah, that's not consequentialist at all. That's normative pragmatic ethics.


[quote]Yeah that's kind of vague. Give me a proper example. You should always be aware though that instigation is indeed a crime.[/quote]
A kid is playing with his or her basketball, attempts to make a pass to another kid, misses, and hits me on the face. 

Consequence: Bodily Harm

Should I, a) laugh it off and pass him/her back the ball, drag them to court and demand that they get imprisoned? After all, that ball could have caused me some severe blunt force trauma.


[quote]I wouldn't because I don't confuse the two at all, and I don't get it what you are trying to say here. What am I exactly "defending" in that quote that is in contradiction with your last sentence?[/quote]
Because they are completely different paragraphs with different contents, read again.

[quote]Teleological arguments are, in my POV, always flawed because they assume that the universe has a well defined direction, meaning, reason, etc. It's a highly religious setting for morality. OTOH, consequentialism is a very mechanistic way of dealing with ethics. It's also obviously wrong, but not because of its "setting". I agree with its materialistic foundation. The problem lies, of course, with the huge distances between Physics and Ethics. The scope is so large and the facts and variables so infinite, that a competent account for all those things would be impossible to take on.[

However, one can reach some insights from it. Like I said with the other poster (I'm terrible with names), you don't have to take it seriously, but you can nevertheless be slightly informed by it.
/quote]
Yeah, let's not discuss if Plato was right or not, shall we? I don't know about you, but I suddenly feel a bit underqualified.

You also seem to be mistaking determinism to teleology since the latter one doesn't go against free will and therefore quantum mechanics, but whatever. Your previous statement is still flawed. Just because every morality is purposeful, it doesn't mean that it is actually consequentialist. People who support what seem to be the three most mainstream moralities today would (some of them) not do anything, without any constraints to reach their ultimate goal, if their lives depended on it.

[quote]Of course, "consequence" implies a time stamp. At which "move" are we to calculate the pros and cons? 4 moves ahead? 5? 6? 100? Consequentialism also has this enormous problem.[/quote]And therefore, by itself, unless you limit its scope with a similar philosophy, is fundamentally flawed. Consequentialism isn't even necessarily human-centric. Consequentialism by itself just doesn't work in anything but theoretical scenarios.
[quote]Having a set goal is consequentialist, if by "goal" you equate it with "the greatest good". Since the definition of "the greatest good" is always subjective at its core, it is always dependent upon what you feel or think is the "greatest good". It makes no sense to strive for a sub-par "greatest good" in your ethics. You would always have the goal of the greatest good (such a thing just may not be exactly equal to other "greatest goods" that you may have heard or shared with the culture of your upbringing, etc.)[/quote]I mentioned Plato earlier...Plato is also 100% against the existance of a greater good, since there is no observer who can objectively set it. 

Either way, I am not sure about how this will sound but...you are wrong.

A deontologist who violates basic ethical restraints to get to the 'greater good' doesn't want the 'greater good' at all.

A pragmatist who does something against social rules to get the 'greater good', wouldn't want to get there at all. In fact, a pragmatist doesn't accept a different society with different rules until the society evolves to that point.

An aristotelianist who would violate their own virtues to get to the 'greater good', would rather bang their heads against the wall.


[quote]If we are to define liberty as a very big important factor in "the greatest good", then such a Xanatos Gambit would actually make it so that people would be more free, not less.[/quote]
It doesn't matter. You are limiting yourself, and entering different moral territories. Consequentialism doesn't accept or reject liberty as an important factor. Ulitirianism puts overall happiness well over liberty. Of course, if you kill everyone but the right survivors, they are likely going to be happy.

[quote]Mind you, I don't think such a gambit can even be reasonably discussed, it's obviously impossible to do. But if we think this carefully, we will find here the roots of theological defenses for the ghastly nature of their gods, with all the cruelty and pain and suffering we have to endure coming from a "loving god". Their defense will consist of a "Xanatos Gambit" in which we have to have faith that this world is the best possible one, and all those cruelties will have a very big pay off somewhere in the end, etc.
[/quote]
I don't know why you keep turning this into a theological discussion...

The more liberal religions say that without evil, there would be no point in this liberal world. If we didn't have a choice between inflicting evil or being good towards one another, we wouldn't be free.

Liberty and religion, hmm. You might want to take a look at 'The Brothers Karamazov'. It's a very interesting POV.

[John Renegade]

Just on the issue of consequentialism:

Has anyone thought about how "doing the right actions" has technically become the deontologist's goal? They want to achieve a goal, which is themselves doing the right (moral) choices. And because everything we percieve, even thoughts, can be boiled down to, well, perceptions, the goal of deontologists is to achieve a certain set of perceptions and they go through means (another set of perceptions) to achieve them. The same applies to consequentialists. Sometimes I wonder whether or not is this division even necessary.

On top of that, the goals (or "means") of both groups are often without any grounded basis, those groups ultimately building their goals on some statements of good and bad, right or wrong, etc,which just "are", the people, who originally made them very often just "supposing" something without any logical reason to do so.

But I didn't mean to hijack the thread, just go on, nothing to see here.

Modifié par John Renegade, 23 novembre 2011 - 09:16 .

[Phaedon]

Err, for starters, deontologists have huge restraints that they rely on. They refer to their ideals to deal with every single situation, not necessarily a bad thing, but a wee bit flawed.

[John Renegade]

Phaedon wrote...

Err, for starters, deontologists have huge restraints that they rely on. They refer to their ideals to deal with every single situation, not necessarily a bad thing, but a wee bit flawed.

That's right. I just wanted to point out the big similarities between the two. For the deontologists living by their ideals has effectively became their goal. They tend to sacrifice everything else for it. Just like the consequentialists do.

[Phaedon]

John Renegade wrote...
That's right. I just wanted to point out the big similarities between the two. For the deontologists living by their ideals has effectively became their goal. They tend to sacrifice everything else for it. Just like the consequentialists do.

I am pretty sure that deontologists want a perfect world where no fighting occurs, etc. Still, they wouldn't override their ideals to get to it. Their ideals is more of a code than components of a perfect world.

[John Renegade]

Possibly. This is about individual wants and needs of both groups, which may vary.

We probably should stop hijacking the thread though.

[Arkitekt]

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

Bad? 

You are ignoring the misanthropes.[/quote]

And you are now introducing a strawman. Of course that if we value different things, the calculations will be stunningly different. But we weren't discussing misanthropy. We were discussing consequentialism. Yeah, the "blacker shades" of something may contain this poison, but so will the deontological parts, so what's the point of bringing that **** up if not for derailing the topic entirely?

I mean, what the hell is this supposed to mean in the context of our conversation?:

[quote]Don't assume that everyone who thinks that the ends justify the means is as innoccent as you.[/quote]

I never assume anything, newsflash to you. It's you who are bringing a separate variable just to shuffle the cards and pretend you still have some valid point to make, when it's clear your WW2 analogy was stunningly flawed.

"Hey I know all that, but did you know that Chewbacca lives on planet Endor? Did you account for that?"

[quote]I have no idea why you brought Glenn Beck in this argument. From what I hear, he's a complete moron.

You seem to be missing my point entirely. Terrible consequences? Um, last I checked, Dean over here was arguing that it's okay if bad things happen, as long as the society of the next couple of generations is happy.[/Quote]

It's all about the "lesser evil". If some bad things prevent even badder ones, how in the hell can the choice of doing such things be termed as "bad"? We all do this all the time. For instance, just this morning I interrupted my sleep in order to wake up and go to work. That was terrible, my body needed the rest. But hey, I'm sure you can see that it would be worse not to. That's consequentialism in a nutshell.

[quote]I don't need to remind you how terrible things can get if you don't use consequentialism right. Let's talk about another thing: consequences. We have already established that you can't foresee the consequences as a whole, much less calculate the total happiness of all society ever. Where do you draw the line?[/quote]

Yeah, that's the big problem of consequentialism. Just leave the WW2 "analogy" alone and we'll be fine. However, consequentialism is able to make some insights that perhaps we wouldn't be able to if we only had a "deontological" way of thinking. IOW, consequentialism explains lots of moral decisions we make, but I wouldn't trust its predictions and advices on complex social stuff.

[quote]A kid is playing with his or her basketball, attempts to make a pass to another kid, misses, and hits me on the face. 

Consequence: Bodily Harm

Should I, a) laugh it off and pass him/her back the ball, drag them to court and demand that they get imprisoned? After all, that ball could have caused me some severe blunt force trauma.[/quote]

Sure, but that's the problem of taking consequentialism for just one time data point, the few seconds after the ball having been launched and created a trauma. You are forgetting the butterflies. In the long run, what we have to ask ourselves is, will a law that imprisons people for missing a basketball pass and hurting someone create a better world or not? Even consequentialism is able to equate that with the obvious answer (you'd be imprisoning people arbitrarily, that are otherwise non-correlated with any criminal intentions and activities whatsoever, hurting people by imprisoning them for making simple mistakes, destroying family ties, the economy, the society as a whole, etc.).

What's even more obvious is the fact that these ideas passed through your own mind while creating this example, and they are the reasons why you think such an example would have been absurd. The irony is, your mind was having a quasi-consequentialist criteria .

[quote]Yeah, let's not discuss if Plato was right or not, shall we? I don't know about you, but I suddenly feel a bit underqualified.[/quote]

Your problem. I have no problems at all by saying that many things Plato said were utter nonsense.

[quote]You also seem to be mistaking determinism to teleology since the latter one doesn't go against free will and therefore quantum mechanics, but whatever. Your previous statement is still flawed. Just because every morality is purposeful, it doesn't mean that it is actually consequentialist. People who support what seem to be the three most mainstream moralities today would (some of them) not do anything, without any constraints to reach their ultimate goal, if their lives depended on it.[/quote]

Ahhh no. That went all wrong.... of course that most moralities today wouldn't be "consequentialist", but more deontological. However, they do pressupose that there is a final point to this whole shebang, without which they make no sense at all. In that sense, they are teleological.

[quote]I mentioned Plato earlier...Plato is also 100% against the existance of a greater good, since there is no observer who can objectively set it. [/quote]

Except for god, obviously, and that's the whole source of problems here (and the reason why most moralities are teleological...). But in my example, I wasn't talking an "objective" greater good. Rather a subjective one. A person who reads what I wrote about that couldn't ever reconcile it with your rebuttal, without saying "Hey, why are you disagreeing by agreeing??!?"

[quote]Either way, I am not sure about how this will sound but...you are wrong.

A deontologist who violates basic ethical restraints to get to the 'greater good' doesn't want the 'greater good' at all.[/quote]

Ok I can't parse that sentence.

[quote]A pragmatist who does something against social rules to get the 'greater good', wouldn't want to get there at all. In fact, a pragmatist doesn't accept a different society with different rules until the society evolves to that point.[/Quote]

You are a master at contradicting yourself. Sure, a pragmatist wouldn't abide to your "greater good", but he would to his own, which would consist of, as you said, accepting his society's rules as they are as a good template for "greater good". IOW, if he wants the "greater good", he will abide to the society's rules. Because that's how he sees it. Because we have defined him as a "pragmatist" (And of course no human being can afford to be characterized solely for being a pragmatist.. .but it's what you given us).

[quote]
[quote]If we are to define liberty as a very big important factor in "the greatest good", then such a Xanatos Gambit would actually make it so that people would be more free, not less.[/quote]
It doesn't matter. You are limiting yourself, and entering different moral territories. Consequentialism doesn't accept or reject liberty as an important factor. Ulitirianism puts overall happiness well over liberty. Of course, if you kill everyone but the right survivors, they are likely going to be happy.[/quote]

...and what's the chance of actually pulling that off? Because you see, you cannot make such a calculation without the error margins involved. There's a pretty much good chance that the end result won't be "happy" at all. Perhaps the people won't be easy to be killed. Perhaps the survivors won't stand to live with the knowledge of how they survived and what they went through. Perhaps you will be forced to create even more nastiness than what you calculated beforehand. All these things will obviously happen. In the meantime, you will have created a lot of suffering for all those whom you killed, all the relatives, etc.

If you are able to cover all these problems, you are godlike. But even still, then yeah, I agree that the consequentialist conclusion is unsettling. But even that is insightful, since if anyone get the means to pull this thing off, we will have really crossed some unsettling boundaries...

[quote][quote]Mind you, I don't think such a gambit can even be reasonably discussed, it's obviously impossible to do. But if we think this carefully, we will find here the roots of theological defenses for the ghastly nature of their gods, with all the cruelty and pain and suffering we have to endure coming from a "loving god". Their defense will consist of a "Xanatos Gambit" in which we have to have faith that this world is the best possible one, and all those cruelties will have a very big pay off somewhere in the end, etc.
[/quote]
I don't know why you keep turning this into a theological discussion...[/quote]

The reason is simple: only godlike creatures could pull of such consequentialist nightmares.

[quote]The more liberal religions say that without evil, there would be no point in this liberal world. If we didn't have a choice between inflicting evil or being good towards one another, we wouldn't be free.

Liberty and religion, hmm. You might want to take a look at 'The Brothers Karamazov'. It's a very interesting POV.[/quote]

I read it. I disagree with the nasty Karamazov idiot who proclaims that without god we would be criminals. Yet, he believed in god, and he was a criminal....

[Aeowyn]

CerberusWarrior wrote...

Its real funny you all can defend what the STG and Turians did to the krogans as well the alliance finding and studying a reaper artifact in the arrival DLC . but Cerberus is some how always seen as the bad guys in Mass Effect 1 is it not true that Cerberus was part of the alliance and in Mass Effect 2 if you ever listen to edi she even says that Cerberus and the alliance are some what connected

It's pointless stating this because it will only go over the head of people who are really set on hating Cerberus and their methods.
Also, sadly (because I hate using this argument) I think that people accept what the STG and the Turians did because they're aliens. I guess human morality is something we can identify with easier?

[Dean_the_Young]

CerberusWarrior isn't the sort of person you want to make a common stand with, Aeowyn. Just warning you.

[Bleachrude]

Not sure one can use the genophage as an example of the "aliens behaving badly".

The aliens in question literally had no other choice and as Moridin itself points out, they could've easily designed the genophage to wipe the krogans out.

I mean, we're not talking about using a weapon on a person who was minding their own business here with the krogans..The krogans were actually the attacker and the galactic powers at the time DID try non-violence first.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Bleachrude wrote...

Not sure one can use the genophage as an example of the "aliens behaving badly".

The aliens in question literally had no other choice and as Moridin itself points out, they could've easily designed the genophage to wipe the krogans out.

I mean, we're not talking about using a weapon on a person who was minding their own business here with the krogans..The krogans were actually the attacker and the galactic powers at the time DID try non-violence first.

They're still resposible for the krogan being in that position to begin with.

[Destroy Raiden_]

^ Which is why they should hopefully be smart enough not to uplift the Yahg, biotic bugs, ect to repeat the mistakes of the past. Cerberus keeps making the same mistakes and makes no efforts to avoid repeating them.

[Dean_the_Young]

Destroy Raiden wrote...
 Cerberus keeps making the same mistakes

When?

Unless you mean broad themes of 'thou shall not meddle with things no mortal was meant to tamper with', or 'playing god', there's nothing to suggest anything but that each failure has failed for different reasons.

[Arkitekt]

Destroy Raiden wrote...

^ Which is why they should hopefully be smart enough not to uplift the Yahg, biotic bugs, ect to repeat the mistakes of the past. Cerberus keeps making the same mistakes and makes no efforts to avoid repeating them.

Name me one repeated mistake by Cerberus.

Yeah, they constantly "cross the line", but that's expected, given the stakes and the short time period one has to get results.

[CerberusWarrior]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

CerberusWarrior isn't the sort of person you want to make a common stand with, Aeowyn. Just warning you.

 


Its real clear no one on here wants to dare so one bad word about the alliance and the Salarians and what they did thats fine .   You just don't like the fact I am not a alliance butt hugger like so many on here are .  

[Dean_the_Young]

CerberusWarrior wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

CerberusWarrior isn't the sort of person you want to make a common stand with, Aeowyn. Just warning you.

 


Its real clear no one on here wants to dare so one bad word about the alliance and the Salarians and what they did thats fine .   You just don't like the fact I am not a alliance butt hugger like so many on here are .  

Nah, it's more because you lack style. And grammar.