529 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dreadwing 67 wrote...

SykoWolf wrote...

In real life I would never justify my actions by the resulting outcome, its like saying "hey you murdered 70 people" " oh, but I did it to get rid of a serial killer who had the potential to kill more then 70 people"

That is counter productive......<_<

If someone say like Osama Bin Laden gave you a choice to save 70 people, or bring him down and save countless more people what would you do. I would hopefully stop him and save many more lives, but once more a complicated subject as how would I know he was going to do anything else after these 70 people that he put in mortal danger.

Save 70 now. Nothing to stop people from tracking down and killing Osama later!

A lack of any sure opportunity to do so.

[Swampthing500]

Bad King wrote...

In certain situations they do e.g destroying the alpha relay to delay the reapers or sparing the collector base to gain an advantage over the reapers (I probably shouldn't have said that!)

Destroying the Alpha Relay was the only choice versus galactic extinction.

Plus the death of the 300,000 Batarians was an unintended side-effect. It was hardly a case of killing and experimenting on all of them to advance the cause of the Batarian people in the future.

Modifié par Swampthing500, 24 décembre 2011 - 03:58 .

[SykoWolf]

Hey but if this was rl we all know that humanity comes first

[Dreadwing 67]

SykoWolf wrote...

Ok say the ends were that u save the human race and majority of the galaxy. BUT in the process u sacrifice millions of lives and the extinction of the quarians? Does that justify the ends?

But if humanity is shoved into a blender and everyother species is huskified because you didn't, what then.

[Swampthing500]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dreadwing 67 wrote...

SykoWolf wrote...

In real life I would never justify my actions by the resulting outcome, its like saying "hey you murdered 70 people" " oh, but I did it to get rid of a serial killer who had the potential to kill more then 70 people"

That is counter productive......<_<

If someone say like Osama Bin Laden gave you a choice to save 70 people, or bring him down and save countless more people what would you do. I would hopefully stop him and save many more lives, but once more a complicated subject as how would I know he was going to do anything else after these 70 people that he put in mortal danger.

Save 70 now. Nothing to stop people from tracking down and killing Osama later!

A lack of any sure opportunity to do so.

In my scenario, I have a back-up team with GPS and exclusive access to spy satellites. Osama will be followed.

[Bad King]

SykoWolf wrote...

Ok say the ends were that u save the human race and majority of the galaxy. BUT in the process u sacrifice millions of lives and the extinction of the quarians? Does that justify the ends?

It's certainly preferable to all advanced life dying out (and all later advanced organic life dying out at the hands of the reapers).

[Dreadwing 67]

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dreadwing 67 wrote...

SykoWolf wrote...

In real life I would never justify my actions by the resulting outcome, its like saying "hey you murdered 70 people" " oh, but I did it to get rid of a serial killer who had the potential to kill more then 70 people"

That is counter productive......<_<

If someone say like Osama Bin Laden gave you a choice to save 70 people, or bring him down and save countless more people what would you do. I would hopefully stop him and save many more lives, but once more a complicated subject as how would I know he was going to do anything else after these 70 people that he put in mortal danger.

Save 70 now. Nothing to stop people from tracking down and killing Osama later!

A lack of any sure opportunity to do so.

In my scenario, I have a back-up team with GPS and exclusive access to spy satellites. Osama will be followed.

Took us 10 years, but you can do better? Sounds great on paper......er forum paper:?

[SykoWolf]

Let's all agree that this is a complicated issue and no one really knows how they would act unless they were put through a scenario like this

[Swampthing500]

Dreadwing 67 wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dreadwing 67 wrote...

SykoWolf wrote...

In real life I would never justify my actions by the resulting outcome, its like saying "hey you murdered 70 people" " oh, but I did it to get rid of a serial killer who had the potential to kill more then 70 people"

That is counter productive......<_<

If someone say like Osama Bin Laden gave you a choice to save 70 people, or bring him down and save countless more people what would you do. I would hopefully stop him and save many more lives, but once more a complicated subject as how would I know he was going to do anything else after these 70 people that he put in mortal danger.

Save 70 now. Nothing to stop people from tracking down and killing Osama later!

A lack of any sure opportunity to do so.

In my scenario, I have a back-up team with GPS and exclusive access to spy satellites. Osama will be followed.

Took us 10 years, but you can do better? Sounds great on paper......er forum paper:?

Osama never personally went and set of bombs. There was always support staff, logistic staff, recruitment, training.

All of those are watched and arrested by my teams!

[JeffZero]

Almost every unintended side effect, and I say this as someone with a primarily Paragon mindset, even, would be worth the eradication of the Reapers. If the only way to end their terror were to end ourselves and everyone we've ever known, so be it.

This is one matter where I may seem at odds with the rest of my outlooks, both in the games and in real life. But the cycle must be broken. For all the unsung trillions that could be saved in the untold millions of years to come.

Modifié par JeffZero, 24 décembre 2011 - 04:04 .

[knightnblu]

Some would say that the ends do in fact, justify any means. Some say no and then there are points all in between. This is because morality is not a strictly defined construct. We are born with some innate morals which are shared universally. Other morals are constructed because each individual society requires them. But there is also a point at which a human being wounds his soul because he has crossed some line.
 
I do not speak of the soul in the religious sense, but as the essence of a human being. While we are familiar with the dark hero archetype haunted by his past actions, what we are not so familiar with is that this effect can extend to entire nations of people and if it can impact an entire nation, then it must be possible to so wound an entire race.
 
On this basis, I posit that the ends do not justify the means and that by so doing one does damage to one's own soul. If the damage is great enough and the participation wide enough, then one can damage the soul of a nation. Go up another couple of magnitude and I am positive that one can wound the soul of humanity.

[Dreadwing 67]

@swampthing, the person is not important, it's the scenario. Osama is dead now, but I'm saying someone as powerful letting them walk and destroy entire cities or let 70 people die and save millions. But on the flip side of the coin I save 70 people and his plane or something crashes or someone in his own faction kills him. Its complicated is my point so in order to do terrible things, I have to have context and hopefully a reasonable outcome of things to come.

I could have come up with a more detailed scenario, but I'm just giving a broad idea of what it would take.

[Swampthing500]

Dreadwing 67 wrote...

@swampthing, the person is not important, it's the scenario. Osama is dead now, but I'm saying someone as powerful letting them walk and destroy entire cities or let 70 people die and save millions. But on the flip side of the coin I save 70 people and his plane or something crashes or someone in his own faction kills him. Its complicated is my point so in order to do terrible things, I have to have context and hopefully a reasonable outcome of things to come.

I could have come up with a more detailed scenario, but I'm just giving a broad idea of what it would take.

There is no guarantee that the plot would suceed, that other countries or intelligence agencies are not monitoring him, or that he even has the bombs to begin with.

Seeing as how the future is not set in stone, I would rescue the people.

[paul165]

If the end being talked about is the destruction of the Reapers then yes it does because nothing it is conceivable that you, humanity or even the entire galaxy can do will or could be worse than what the Reapers have done again and again and again.

In the real world it depends on both the means and the end you're talking about would I kill 10 people to save a hundred - yes. I concede absolutely that it is evil and I would probably (I hope) aim to be one of the ten but I would still do it.

More interesting if you had a solution that would provide clean endless power for the planet but the fuel source was the constant agony of an innocent child do you still do it?

[Dreadwing 67]

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dreadwing 67 wrote...

@swampthing, the person is not important, it's the scenario. Osama is dead now, but I'm saying someone as powerful letting them walk and destroy entire cities or let 70 people die and save millions. But on the flip side of the coin I save 70 people and his plane or something crashes or someone in his own faction kills him. Its complicated is my point so in order to do terrible things, I have to have context and hopefully a reasonable outcome of things to come.

I could have come up with a more detailed scenario, but I'm just giving a broad idea of what it would take.

There is no guarantee that the plot would suceed, that other countries or intelligence agencies are not monitoring him, or that he even has the bombs to begin with.

Seeing as how the future is not set in stone, I would rescue the people.

Have I been hunting him for god knows how long. Do I know his tactics and do I know what hes done and what he will do. If not, I would save the people most definetly.

[Dreadwing 67]

paul165 wrote...
More interesting if you had a solution that would provide clean endless power for the planet but the fuel source was the constant agony of an innocent child do you still do it?

Guaranteed most businesses would only for profit. I would if it meant the rest of the planet could be saved by this unlimited clean energy source (think long term). I would feel dirty in the process most definetly.

Modifié par Dreadwing 67, 24 décembre 2011 - 04:19 .

[Swampthing500]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...


Destroying the Alpha Relay was the only choice versus galactic extinction.

The same argument applies at the Battle of the Citadel but countless people will still justify gambling with galactic extinction to save the Council.

Not quite. Even during the saving of the council Nazara was still under fire and being attacked, and Shepard and Co were racing to stop Saren.

[Dean_the_Young]

JeffZero wrote...

Almost every unintended side effect, and I say this as someone with a primarily Paragon mindset, even, would be worth the eradication of the Reapers. If the only way to end their terror were to end ourselves and everyone we've ever known, so be it.

This is one matter where I may seem at odds with the rest of my outlooks, both in the games and in real life. But the cycle must be broken. For all the unsung trillions that could be saved in the untold millions of years to come.

I knew there was a reason I respected you.

So few people recognize that a loss against the Reapers isn't our own destruction as part of the galaxy: it is the re-application of the entire extinction cycle and the death of those who follow us as well.

[King Minos]

I will do what ever is possible to save the most, will think with logic first, no matter how questionable, I will deal with the guilt.

[Dean_the_Young]

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dreadwing 67 wrote...

SykoWolf wrote...

In real life I would never justify my actions by the resulting outcome, its like saying "hey you murdered 70 people" " oh, but I did it to get rid of a serial killer who had the potential to kill more then 70 people"

That is counter productive......<_<

If someone say like Osama Bin Laden gave you a choice to save 70 people, or bring him down and save countless more people what would you do. I would hopefully stop him and save many more lives, but once more a complicated subject as how would I know he was going to do anything else after these 70 people that he put in mortal danger.

Save 70 now. Nothing to stop people from tracking down and killing Osama later!

A lack of any sure opportunity to do so.

In my scenario, I have a back-up team with GPS and exclusive access to spy satellites. Osama will be followed.

What about OBL's scenario?

The enemy gets a vote too, you know.

[Swampthing500]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dreadwing 67 wrote...

SykoWolf wrote...

In real life I would never justify my actions by the resulting outcome, its like saying "hey you murdered 70 people" " oh, but I did it to get rid of a serial killer who had the potential to kill more then 70 people"

That is counter productive......<_<

If someone say like Osama Bin Laden gave you a choice to save 70 people, or bring him down and save countless more people what would you do. I would hopefully stop him and save many more lives, but once more a complicated subject as how would I know he was going to do anything else after these 70 people that he put in mortal danger.

Save 70 now. Nothing to stop people from tracking down and killing Osama later!

A lack of any sure opportunity to do so.

In my scenario, I have a back-up team with GPS and exclusive access to spy satellites. Osama will be followed.

What about OBL's scenario?

The enemy gets a vote too, you know.

Hence my opinion that future outcomes are not fixed. Autonomous individuals and groups are constantly struggling against one another and altering the dynamics.

[Swampthing500]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Not quite. Even during the saving of the council Nazara was still under fire and being attacked, and Shepard and Co were racing to stop Saren.

Here we go, just like I said.

The Alpha Relay is the Citadel. The Batarians are the Council.

Destroying the Alpha Relay is akin to destroying Sovereign.

If the Reapers are allowed to reach the Alpha Relay/Citadel then they will pour into the galaxy and it is all over.

When you save the Council you risk this happening.

So tell me then, why aren't you willng to save the batarians and just fight the war now? You Paragon-types think we all need to be worth saving, don't you? If we have to murder 300,000 people just to survive a few more months is it worth it?

You see, it's the same situation entirely but you won't admit it because you don't want to confess that you're a hypocrite.

But there are a multitude of forces operating within the Citadel, meaning that saving the council can be done at the same time as killing NAzara.

Which obviously happened, because I saved the Council and Soverign is now dead.

[SykoWolf]

Is it just me or is my post literally in the middle of ur "scenario"