1381 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Depends on the revolution. Or occupier.

[111987]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

111987 wrote...

No, Cerberus cannot call itself its own government as it does not have the backing of about a dozen of species (like the Council does),

That's not what makes a government. The Alliance was a government before the Council recognized it. So was the Turian Heirarchy.

Recognition by foreigners isn't what establishes a government, or else there would be no governments to do the recognizing in the first place.

and it does not govern a group of people. It is an organization; do not twist the argument. It is an illegal organization.

Organizations govern themselves, which is a group of people.

Why throw out hypotheticals? Cerberus is, as of right now, an illegal organization. Do we agree? Because that is all I am saying.

I'm not throwing out hypotheticals. I'm challinging the very root of your definition of legitimacy.

If ' recognized power' is the onlything necessary to be a legitimate power, the only thing separating Cerberus from legitimacy is the recognition by others, which can still be gained in the future and thus render past-illegitimacy moot.

If the root of legitimacy is NOT 'pre-existing power', then we call into question the Council's own derivation of legitimacy.

 

1. The formation of a galactic government is very different from the formation of the government of a single nation...this should be obvious. A galactic government can only gain legitimacy if it is backed by the governments of other species. just like the UN, for example; it would be meaningless and powerless without the backing of the world's governments.

2. I'm not even going to get into this argument, about Cerberus being a government. You are smart enough to know the difference between an organization and a government.

3. You just threw out another hypothetical; 'if Cerberus is recognized in the future the point is moot'. Since that hasn't happened, Cerberus is still not legitimate and is still illegal. You cannot use possible futures as an argument.

[Arkitekt]

He's referring to some utopian ideal he has in his mind, like "history" or some other drivel. I don't believe in fairies.

[111987]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

111987 wrote...

I think anything could be twisted to support the notion that Cerberus was a black-ops group. I personally don't buy it and still think it's a retcon, but I definitely understand where you're coming from.

Since Cerberus being black-ops was the first establishment, how would it be a ret-con?

Unless you meant that we were ret-coned away from it?

Yes, I meant that the black ops origin was retconned.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

111987 wrote...
1. The formation of a galactic government is very different from the formation of the government of a single nation...this should be obvious. A galactic government can only gain legitimacy if it is backed by the governments of other species. just like the UN, for example; it would be meaningless and powerless without the backing of the world's governments.

2. I'm not even going to get into this argument, about Cerberus being a government. You are smart enough to know the difference between an organization and a government.

3. You just threw out another hypothetical; 'if Cerberus is recognized in the future the point is moot'. Since that hasn't happened, Cerberus is still not legitimate and is still illegal. You cannot use possible futures as an argument.

Cerberus is an organization. However, if the organization were to establish control over a planet or two with a significant population with consent of the population then they could be considered a government. Intergalactic recognition is not necessary, only the ability to maintain control.

Example, mainland China was not internationally recognized until the 1970s even though it existed for 22 yrs. The international community still recognized the Republic of China (Taiwan) as the legitimate government even though there was no possibility of them retaking the mainland. Mainland China was recognized by all Soviet bloc nations however.

However China did have around 1/3 of the global population at the time, so that made up for the lack of recognition. Cerberus would have to get into a similar situation with a highly populated planet, which I seriously doubt would happen. They just don't have the resources.

[111987]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

111987 wrote...
1. The formation of a galactic government is very different from the formation of the government of a single nation...this should be obvious. A galactic government can only gain legitimacy if it is backed by the governments of other species. just like the UN, for example; it would be meaningless and powerless without the backing of the world's governments.

2. I'm not even going to get into this argument, about Cerberus being a government. You are smart enough to know the difference between an organization and a government.

3. You just threw out another hypothetical; 'if Cerberus is recognized in the future the point is moot'. Since that hasn't happened, Cerberus is still not legitimate and is still illegal. You cannot use possible futures as an argument.

Cerberus is an organization. However, if the organization were to establish control over a planet or two with a significant population with consent of the population then they could be considered a government. Intergalactic recognition is not necessary, only the ability to maintain control.

Which they haven't done. So while I agree with your post, I'm not sure as to its purpose as it is just another hypothetical situation.

[Arkitekt]

Of course, you are all assuming the "legitimacy" of the meaning of such words as "governments", etc. Be aware that nation states only exist since the 19th century, and these types of concepts are always mutating and changing. Revolutionary changes, like a complete redrawing of the paradigms we are used to, should not shock the audience's expectations.

Cerberus is not thinking in terms of "legitimacy" as ordained by such trivial bureaucratic institutions like the Citadel or the Alliance. They couldn't care less about that. What goes on in TIM's mind is much more about the obsession over the Reapers since the conception of Cerberus, what are they, how powerful they can be, the danger they pose to mankind and how to win them over.

TIM does what he can in order to further those goals, and he has little time.

In light of all this, to call Cerberus an "illegitimate" institution is utterly irrelevant. They exist, and there's little you can do about it except to try and fight them if you so feel inclined. They will retaliate and defend themselves. And apparently, this will become much harder to do against Cerberus in ME3. It's like calling a lion that is walking by near you an "illegitimate" presence. Well, what do you think that legitimacy matters when you become his next meal?

[Eclipse_9990]

I've never been a fan of Cerberus since the beginning, and no; I don't care that they brought me back to life. Cerberus is mostly in it for themselves under the guise of trying to help humanity.

Besides, the thought of any single race(especially humans)ruling over the others makes my stomach turn.

[Dean_the_Young]

111987 wrote...

1. The formation of a galactic government is very different from the formation of the government of a single nation...this should be obvious.

Only in terms of scale. Nations are clearly different from regions are different from cities are different from towns are different from hamlets. Legitimacy has to start at the bottom, or else there is no foundation for any higher authority.

A galactic government can only gain legitimacy if it is backed by the governments of other species. just like the UN, for example; it would be meaningless and powerless without the backing of the world's governments.

And without starting a recursion loop*, what gives those governments legitimacy?

*In this case, 'they are recognized by other nations.'

2. I'm not even going to get into this argument, about Cerberus being a government. You are smart enough to know the difference between an organization and a government.

They aren't mutually exclusive groups. All governments are organizations. Not all organizations are governments.

What I was, have been, and am still trying to do is to lead you into defining what you think makes a government.

3. You just threw out another hypothetical; 'if Cerberus is recognized in the future the point is moot'. Since that hasn't happened, Cerberus is still not legitimate and is still illegal.

That is not a hypothetical argument. It's an argument based on your definition and how it applies moving forward.

A hypothetical argument would be akin to 'if Cerberus had five secret worlds with a collective population of a half a million 'colonists',' etc. etc. etc.

You cannot use possible futures as an argument.

Yes, you can, when you have time-varying status. Which you have established in your loose definition of what makes legitimate governments (being recognized by the Citadel) even though there are groups that predate Citadel contact.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 01 décembre 2011 - 12:59 .

[ubermensch007]

Why Cerberus cannot be defended:

Perhaps it would be better to state the reasons - Why the Systems Alliance can't be defended:

Cerberus is often accused by its detractors of, incompetence and reckless endangerment of personnel.With any organization one must ask, Are they doing more harm or good? When I compare Cerberus to the Alliance in this way:

I fail to see why so many seem to think that BioWare is now playing favorites, and demonizing Cerberus in ME3.I haven't read any spoilers, but I feel that the writers at BW have always been impartial, with how they represent instituitions in Mass Effect.If we go back to ME1, we see that the Alliance needed Commander Shepard's help to clean up thier mess, just as often as he did with Cerberus later on.The Rogue VI  on Luna, The Space Probe carrying a nuke.And even before Shepard's time, it was the Alliance policy of letting explores activate any Mass
Relay that they found.Which led to the First Contact War.

The Alliance failed to protect the human colonies of Mindoir (Even Ashley says that they screwed the pooch on that one.) Eden Prime (Shepard and Co. were there to retrieve the Prothean Beacon, but ended up having to save the colony to boot.) Horizon (The Gardian Lasers that the Alliance gave the colonist didn't even work ) and Franklin (The Alliance garrison was overwhelmed by enemy forces and Shepard and Co. had to provide assistence.)

In 2185, we learn from Kasumi Goto and her deceased partner Keiji Okuda's Graybox that the Alliance has done something else that could get humanity in another war with an alien race.Oh and less I forget, it was the Alliance who is responsible for the destruction of a Mass Relay and the Batarian Hegemony, ready to go to war against us!

We've been a part of the galactic community for less than fifty years.And our central government  has gotten us in three different (potential) wars... You can say alot about Cerberus, but not that.

The Council calls them an avowed enemy.But what has Cerberus done to warrant such hostility and contempt?

Is the Council aware that Cerberus helped save the residents of the Citadel from a Bioweapon WMD. In 2185 Shepard discovers alot more about Cerberus than he ever knew before.And none of the cells he
encountered were scheming or plotting on ways to destroy the Council.

Modifié par ubermensch007, 01 décembre 2011 - 01:15 .

[111987]

@Dean_the_Young

So basically you want me to define what a government is. That really isn't the point of my argument though. The point of my argument is that Cerberus does not have the legitimacy of the Spectres, Corsairs, or STG because it is not supported by a government.

The whole topic of government I feel brought us off the real topic.

The way I see it, Cerberus is an illegal organization as they do not follow the laws laid down by both the galactic government and/or the Alliance (and all the nations that comprise the Alliance; I doubt it is legal anywhere to murder, steal, etc...).

While sometimes breaking or bending the law is necesarry for peace, who appointed Cerberus to do that job? That's what the Spectres, Asari Commandoes, STG, and Corsairs are for. And those organizations are monitored, influenced, and ultimately governed by bodies independent of those groups (i.e. the group's respective species government). Cerberus is beholden to nobody, and that makes them a very dangerous force in the galaxy.

If it is right for Cerberus to arbitrarily decide to break laws, why should other organizations, and hell, people in general, be beholden to the law? Under the logic of Cerberus, everyone should just do what they believe is right, no matter what that might entail. Such logic is detrimental to galactic stability and civilization. I realize this is rather extreme, but Cerberus is setting a dangerous precedent here.

[Dean_the_Young]

111987 wrote...

@Dean_the_Young

So basically you want me to define what a government is. That really isn't the point of my argument though. The point of my argument is that Cerberus does not have the legitimacy of the Spectres, Corsairs, or STG because it is not supported by a government.

If you can't define what a government is, however, you're arguing by fiat, not logic. I could just as well contest that the Spectres are not justified because the Council is an ilegitimate government. My basis would be because the Council system is not a product of democratic practices, and is an unelected racist caste system enforced by cabal of powers that have threatened, bribed, convinced, or destroyed all opposition away from it. All those things might give it power, but not legitimacy.

The root of legitimacy is key to what makes a legitimate government. Yet you keep skirting around what makes a government legitimate by repeating that the legitimacy of the Council derives from the submission of the species it rules over to the Council's primacy.

If it is right for Cerberus to arbitrarily decide to break laws, why should other organizations, and hell, people in general, be beholden to the law? Under the logic of Cerberus, everyone should just do what they believe is right, no matter what that might entail. Such logic is detrimental to galactic stability and civilization. I realize this is rather extreme, but Cerberus is setting a dangerous precedent here.

You're reversing it, actually. Cerberus follows in the footsteps of Council and galactic precedents. Particularly the Spectres, STG, and Turian adventures.

Cerberus is a product of the Council system as it is: species-identified, results-oriented, and willing to put collective advancement/security over individual rights as a matter of pride and policy.

[111987]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

111987 wrote...

@Dean_the_Young

So basically you want me to define what a government is. That really isn't the point of my argument though. The point of my argument is that Cerberus does not have the legitimacy of the Spectres, Corsairs, or STG because it is not supported by a government.

If you can't define what a government is, however, you're arguing by fiat, not logic. I could just as well contest that the Spectres are not justified because the Council is an ilegitimate government. My basis would be because the Council system is not a product of democratic practices, and is an unelected racist caste system enforced by cabal of powers that have threatened, bribed, convinced, or destroyed all opposition away from it. All those things might give it power, but not legitimacy.

The root of legitimacy is key to what makes a legitimate government. Yet you keep skirting around what makes a government legitimate by repeating that the legitimacy of the Council derives from the submission of the species it rules over to the Council's primacy.

If it is right for Cerberus to arbitrarily decide to break laws, why should other organizations, and hell, people in general, be beholden to the law? Under the logic of Cerberus, everyone should just do what they believe is right, no matter what that might entail. Such logic is detrimental to galactic stability and civilization. I realize this is rather extreme, but Cerberus is setting a dangerous precedent here.

You're reversing it, actually. Cerberus follows in the footsteps of Council and galactic precedents. Particularly the Spectres, STG, and Turian adventures.

Cerberus is a product of the Council system as it is: species-identified, results-oriented, and willing to put collective advancement/security over individual rights as a matter of pride and policy.

But it isn't forced submission. The other races willingly joined the Council government, knowing what that entailed when they decided to to do.

To be perfectly clear; in the case of a galactic government, its legitimacy is based on whether or not the species of the galaxy, as represented by their government, willingly join and support the insitution.

Cerberus is following those precedents illegaly. I explained all of this in my post. Please don't make me write it again

[Dean_the_Young]

111987 wrote...

But it isn't forced submission.

I didn't say it was all forced submission. Some of it is, however: the Krogan, for example. Humanity was almost. The Turians have a mangerie of conquered species.

The Council freely exercises punitive force to both keep and bring species in line. That it is also prepared and willing to offer rewards (carrots) does not negate the use of sticks to maintain its primacy.

The other races willingly joined the Council government, knowing what that entailed when they decided to to do.

Which is still submission. Now, if your definition of legitimacy is that someone else has submitted, that's sufficient to establish legitimacy.

To be perfectly clear; in the case of a galactic government, its legitimacy is based on whether or not the species of the galaxy, as represented by their government, willingly join and support the insitution.

A number of species had no choice. Few have any realistic alternative, because of the Terminus. The Council membership isn't an unpressured choice, it operates as an extortion racket. You either give them authority over you and the right for their agents to murder you at their pleasure, or you have a worse setting.

And this isn't even touching on how those species' governments are legitimate representatives. The Batarian Hegemony is a paranoid slave-holding police state. The Quarians can't control their own homeworld, or any world. The Asari are a confederation of independent city-states.

All you've really established is that legitimacy derives from submission of others.

Cerberus is following those precedents illegaly. I explained all of this in my post. Please don't make me write it again

It's only illegal by your standards until it succedes: it's not the nature of the actions, or even the goals, but merely the fact they aren't the ones in power. And since you've established that, once established in a position of power enforced and recognized by others, it becomes all right...

By your standards, Cerberus's methods are legitimate: illegal at the current time, but legitimate.

(Yes, the two words do mean different things.)

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 01 décembre 2011 - 02:46 .

[111987]

"The way I see it, Cerberus is an illegal organization as they do not follow the laws laid down by both the galactic government and/or the Alliance (and all the nations that comprise the Alliance; I doubt it is legal anywhere to murder, steal, etc...).

While sometimes breaking or bending the law is necesarry for peace, who appointed Cerberus to do that job? That's what the Spectres, Asari Commandoes, STG, and Corsairs are for. And those organizations are monitored, influenced, and ultimately governed by bodies independent of those groups (i.e. the group's respective species government). Cerberus is beholden to nobody, and that makes them a very dangerous force in the galaxy."

Cerberus's methods are the same as the other groups, but they don't have the right do use those methods.

And fine; the legitimacy of the Citadel government is based off of the (willing) submission of others.

[Dean_the_Young]

111987 wrote...

And fine; the legitimacy of the Citadel government is based off of the (willing) submission of others.

Then aiming for the submission of others is a legitimate goal, and nominally illegal actions that can be retroactively pardoned or waived from a position of power are not illegitimate.

Cerberus is illegal, which was never in question, but not illegitimate.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 01 décembre 2011 - 02:54 .

[111987]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

111987 wrote...

And fine; the legitimacy of the Citadel government is based off of the (willing) submission of others.

Then aiming for the submission of others is a legitimate goal, and nominally illegal actions that can be retroactively pardoned or waived from a position of power are not illegitimate.

Cerberus is illegal, by your reasoning, but not illegitimate.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

111987 wrote...

And fine; the legitimacy of the Citadel government is based off of the (willing) submission of others.

Then
aiming for the submission of others is a legitimate goal, and nominally
illegal actions that can be retroactively pardoned or waived from a
position of power are not illegitimate.

Cerberus is illegal, by your reasoning, but not illegitimate.

That's
what I have been saying this entire time! And until Cerberus is
retroactively pardoned or waived from a position of power, they are
illegitimate. And illegal.

And the situations are different.
Willing submission =/= Cerberus tactics. If the other species really
wanted to they could form their own government. The fact that they do
support the current government suggests to me that everyone is
reasonably content with the current system. Thus legitamizing it.

Until the Alliance says "Cerberus is great and we sanction all of their activities", Cerberus is an illegal and illegitimate authority.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

So once Cerberus takes over the galaxy, are they then legitimate and and legal?

Nope.

[DPSSOC]

111987 wrote...
But it isn't forced submission. The other races willingly joined the Council government, knowing what that entailed when they decided to to do.

It kind of is though, if you ask about it in ME1 Anderson will point out that humanity can't afford to just walk away from the Council (can't remember specifics atm).  It might not be, "Do what we say or we kill you." but that doesn't mean it's not forced.  The only way I can survive is to get a job to buy things, nobody is holding a gun to my head but I'm still forced to work.

[Phaedon]

[quote]Arkitekt wrote...
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?[/quote]
No. That's the DARN point.

You are the only one pulling a strawman here. You are stating that consequentialists care about people as a whole. That's a pile of bullcr*p. You haven't even tried to prove this, but this is besides the point.

You have already admitted by yourself that you can't calculate the consequences of your actions entirely (In fact, you can't calculate them even in the level of a single person, but that's the least of the problems in consequentialism), but rather draw a completely subjective line of what pleases you and the people around you more.

[quote]I mean, what the hell is this supposed to mean in the context of our conversation?:[/quote]
On the contrary, it has everything to do with the context of our conversation.

You have been trying to tell everyone who can read on this forum that consequentialists are nice people. You haven't even tried proving it. Not a single time.

Here's a newsflash: The person who cares about the potentially unintented actions of another person is not a humanist. He isn't sympathetic either. They don't care about the person and their intentions or reedeming qualities at all. You want to know what is left?

[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.[/quote]And once again, all that you contribute is an overglorified "NOPE IT AIN'T SO!"


Where are your arguments? Since when is "It's not red, it's blue!" an argument?

The consequences of WW2 were on many levels positive. Several economies got kickstarted, women entered the workforce and science fast forwarded its progress by 50 years or so. And as an apologist, all you can offer is "Yes, but you don't know if the consequences were good overall!". No, I don't. And neither do you. Do you see the hypocrisy in that, or do you want glasses?

[quote]"Hey I know all that, but did you know that Chewbacca lives on planet Endor? Did you account for that?"[/quote]
Yes, let's go there please.

WW2, if it had indeed positive consequences as many claim, started the Cold War. Countries that didn't get involved at all in WW2 changed forever. But we shouldn't account for that, should we. We should just draw the line wherever it is more profitable for us.

And remember kids, the consequences of an action is what is important! But only the consequences that I want you to account for!

[quote]IIt'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]
Oh yeah, and maybe your internal clock gets f*cked up for the rest of a week, and you get in a car accident. how about that?

Get the idiocy of the existence of "lesser evils" and "greater goods" out of your head. If you can tell what is the lesser or the greater evil or good, then tell the billions of ignorant yokels that need lengthy court sessions and negotiations to reach some basic level of justice.

[quote]Yeah, that's the big problem of consequentialism. Just leave the WW2 "analogy" alone and we'll be fine.[/quote]
Yes, because you don't like it, right? How about you provide some argument first?

[quote]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]I am not sure if you are aware of how the world works, but the slightest of your misdecision, can affect me, living several continents away for the rest of my lifetime, whether you realize that or not. At least the main basis of deontology isn't ridiculously flawed and self-contradictive by itself. The problem with deontologism is that not everyone in the world is a deontologist.


[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.).[/quote]
Oh, wow. I am just pointing out what the problem of looking at the "big picture" is and you go in with it? You can't look at the entire picture, no matter how big it is. The bigger you look at the picture, as a consequentialist, the more you'd realize that world would be better without someone judging you on your actions without taking your intents into account.

The other major problem is that you just said that you shouldn't look at the "big picture" when thinking in a consequentialist way. Yeah, yeah, hypocrisy again.

That's not the only issue here. You. Can. Not. Look. At the bigger picture. Your actions will have consequences long after you die. To only look at what you personally consider a reasonably big picture is a) contradictive, selfish, c) unresponsible to the rest of the world.

[quote]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]
I can't believe that most of my post was centered around telling you to look up the definition of "consequentialst". This isn't even teleological. Look, I am not going to teach you how to do a Google search. Most people make posts so that they can express their beliefs. They don't care about the consequences.

[quote]Your problem. I have no problems at all by saying that many things Plato said were utter nonsense.[/quote]Oh, shut up already. You still think that consequentialism is about caring about your actions, and you consider yourself able to solve the greatest issue in philosophy for centuries. Get ahold of yourself, and take a good cool shower.
[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]No.

1) Deontology is deontological. Just because deontology is based on an unwritten set of rules it doesn't mean that every other kind of moral code (e.g normative pragmatistic ethics) that does so too is consequentialist.

2) Nature itself has crafted moral codes, and they all originate from nature? What. I am not sure you understand teleology fully.
[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]God? Who talked about god? Plato's gods were very flawed and selfish idividuals.

The non-sensical  greater good that is being thrown around these days doesn't exist. It's not subjective either. It's either your good, or my good. If you think that your good is the greater one, then you don't want me or anyone else who disagrees with you to be as happy as you.

[quote][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]
Alright. I'll wait till you do. There is no greater good in deontology, and that realization is one the biggest achievements of that somewhat primitive code.

[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]Oh my.. I think I am getting it now.

You think that the "greater good" isn't a collective "good situation" that applies to everyone, but personal interest for profit.

What? Why? How. Surely you should have been able to deduce that by the word "greater"?

Either way, if you seriously expect me to debate against you when you say that everyone cares for their personal interest, then...don't. I am not going to tell you why you need to care about others, even if that feeling of caring is illogical. You should have learned that when you were 4.

[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[/quote]
Hence why consequentialism is stupid.

[quote]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.[/quote]
Good job on taking a small part of my post and spinning it out of proportion. If a ulitirianist could kill everyone but a few other people with the snap of their fingers, and if that were to make the few survivors happy, he would, and you know that well.

[quote]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]
It doesn't matter. You are supposed to be godlike. It's a theoretical experiment.

[quote]The reason is simple: only godlike creatures could pull of such consequentialist nightmares.[/quote]
And last time I checked, humans aren't gods, so consequentialism is irrelevant.

[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....[/quote]
Didn't you get what section of the book I was talking about? I am not talking about the existence of god. Your understanding of the entire book is not a discussion I am interested that I want to get into.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

So once Cerberus takes over the galaxy, are they then legitimate and and legal?

Nope. 

Not that they ever will, though.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Now the Reapers can infect every single ship there is except the Normandy.

They can? Since when? Proof please!

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

They can? Since when? Proof please!

Think for once.

If they can make viruses that turns machine hive minds into their slaves and jam communications, I think they can do something as simple as hack another ship (guess what happened when they activated the Reaper IFF for the first time) or access a wireless network to hack something like base defenses.

EDI is even filled with sophisticated Reaper attack programs they got from Sovereign.

Not to mention Harbinger's ability to take over and control things like the Collectors.