1482 réponses à ce sujet

[JGray]

The question of Cerberus's ethical standards when it comes to experimentation is based on real concerns. A number of rather brutal experiments were performed on captives in concentration camps by **** doctors and scientists during WWII. There have been those who want to use the data generated by this research. Others are convinced that the research is tainted because it involves murder and torture.

Personally, I think Mordin says it best. Researching on humans (or any sapient) the way organizations like Cerberus does (though he says it in relation to Clan Werlock trying to find a genophage cure) is best. Its unethical. Cerberus has been known to perform experiments that are painful and savage. They have released toxic chemicals that cause birth defects and cancer into the environment. They have stolen children from their parents.

So, I'll ask two questions to the people who defend Cerberus.

1. If a black ops organization dedicated to promoting your country's interests above others came to you and said 'We can make super psychics. All you have to do is give us your just born child so we can experiment on her and raise her in a facility where she won't receive any love, attention, or social intereaction.' would you say yes?

2. If that same organization came to you and said 'we want to dose your town's water supply with a toxic chemical that may develop psychic powers in a small percentage of children. The majority of the children born in the town will develop birth defects akin downs syndrome, missing limbs, or fetal alcohol syndrome.' Would you do allow it?

[Poison_Berrie]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Like what? 

Kidnapping Paul Grayson to implant Reaper tech in. 
Is he seriously expecting me that in his organization in which he is able to amass an army (by the looks of ME 3) and where he can get fanatical people to join him, there is not a single person who would volunteer or be tricked into getting it?

Or the engineered Eezo explosion. Yes, let's do that instead of carefully upping the scale.
And while we are at it, let's use this moment to kidnap children for our experiments, since we couldn't possible set up a legitimate front to more to test biotic potential, no we need a far away facility in which we can have biotic **** fights.

Point is: sometimes unpleasant things need to be done but nobody would ever volunteer so it falls upon someone else to make the choice for them.

Except those two situations  are quite a bit different. One is an emergency situation and the other one is a job, you might not like it but if cleaning the toilets is part of your job description you agreed to it.
The Cerberus experiments weren't needed to be preformed in such unethical ways. It would probably have taken them longer, but that still doesn't neccesate nor grant them (Cerberus) making that decision for you.

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 24 janvier 2012 - 07:46 .

[Blacklash93]

Cerberus is not supervised by a government and Spectres don't generally torture people for experiments, poison unborn babies, or try to brainwash sentient races.

Paragons (at least in Shepard's role) find another way that saves the few that would have had to be sacrificed from such a fate while STILL saving everyone.

Really I'd say paragons put more effort in their job as they need to be persuasive and tactful and think outside the box to save as many lives as possible.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 24 janvier 2012 - 07:49 .

[Blacklash93]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Make no mistake, the dilemma in Arrival was the same as the one at the Battle of the Citadel so I'm certain a Paragon would have chosen not to destroy the system.

You're actually killing more people if you don't save the council. Not to mention stirring up bad politics.

[G3rman]

Playing Paragon myself its clear that the only option was to save the many against the few. Its just that Paragons actually felt the impact of killing those Batarians, Renegades took it as a matter-of-course.

Don't immediately lump Paragons as the ultimate good decision every time. Its "Paragon" and "Renegade" not "Good" and "Evil".

[TheCreeper]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

...one can wonder why these blind idealists were made Spectres in the first place. 

Politics and PR. Paragon Spectres look good in the press as long as you keep them away from anything important.

I think Bioware realized this problem and that's why they railroaded you in Arrival and forced the Paragon Shepards to do something Renegade.

Make no mistake, the dilemma in Arrival was the same as the one at the Battle of the Citadel so I'm certain a Paragon would have chosen not to destroy the system.

What? The choice was "Destory the system" or "Let the reapers come, all of them." it's nothing like the battle of the Citadel, nothing at all. You weren't railroaded, you had no choice because Shepard had no choice. Letting the reapers come would kill the people in the system almost as quickly as blowing up the alpha relay.

Modifié par TheCreeper, 24 janvier 2012 - 07:58 .

[Blacklash93]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Cerberus is not supervised by a government and Spectres don't generally torture people for experiments, poison unborn babies, or try to brainwash sentient races.

No, Spectres torture people for information, they poison babies with eezo out of lack of concern for collateral damage, and they help the Council keep sentient races under their thumb.

Maybe I should clarity, torturing for pointless experiments on children, no less.

And they don't poison babies just so their race can get a few people who can swing object around with their minds. They'd do it for a good reason.

And the Spectres keep peace and keep order and save lives under lawful government. Not like Cerberus who wants slaves.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 24 janvier 2012 - 07:58 .

[Poison_Berrie]

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, Spectres torture people for information, they poison babies with eezo out of lack of concern for collateral damage, and they help the Council keep sentient races under their thumb.

I don't really think every Spectre out there is one that doesn't care about collateral damage.
They sometimes have little choice, but a succesfull Spectre mission actually is supposed to go mostly unnoticed. 

It's rather silly that we are arguing whether Renegades or Paragons should be Spectres, because the obvious preference would be one that's both willing to do what needs to be done, while also trying to keep a mission neat (no atrocities) and be diplomatic.

[G3rman]

Saphra Deden wrote...

A "lawful government"? YOu mean the same government that created the Spectres to be free to break the law and who answer ONLY to the Council itself? That lawful government?

You need a wider perspective.

I get the feeling you didn't get your Spectre reinstatement in ME2..

[Blacklash93]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Yes, but by allowing the Council to die I'm helping to ensure Sovereign does not succeed. If Sovereign wins then the Reapers enter the galaxy and everyone dies. When you save the Council you are risking the survival of life in the galaxy for a little political stability.

It'd be the same in Arrival. You spare that system and thus don't provoke a war with the batarians or have to kill people but now you've got to fight the Reapers.

At least your moral compass is intact and that's what really counts, right?

But you can stop Sovereign while saving the council.

And the events of Arrival had to be done. There was simply no other way with so little time.

[Phaedon]

King Minos wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

King Minos wrote...

I say that is a good thing.

Hey what do you know.

You also thought that it was a good thing to have a palace-centric collective economy and not bother to build walls because you had wooden ships. The Mycenaeans are pretty grateful, though.

Still joking about my empire?

Did i ever tell you i hate you? Well i am going to tell you now, incase you did not know. I hate you.

To your other post:

I did not mean cool as in oh wow, it's so shiny!

Cool as in what they can do with technology and science these days. The LHC is amazing, no denying that. The space station, tunnels under the ocean, cloning and possibly bring back extinct animals.

On augmentations, i don't understand how it is agaisnt ethics. I am not a god person so i personally find the arguement 'goes agaisnt god's deisng or creation' stupid.

Batman is serious business, don't laugh.

CERN, SSs, underwater tunnels are not ethically questionable subjects. Okay, some of the work done in the LHC was considered by few as too dangerous, but I haven't heard of any actual, official organizations making any move.

Cloning and especially bringing back extinct animals, is quite questionable, and this has nothing to do with conservative viewpoints. Think of all the mess cloning could cause, and how it could be exploitted by world leaders. Besides, giving birth to a child who will face some of the negative effects of aging (including death), 20 years before anyone else is quite questionable by itself. The applications of Science can be dangerous, and therefore, it needs to be regulated.

There is nothing unethical about augmentantions and some rather primitive ones are already utilized for handicapped people.

Oh, and also:

King Minos wrote...

Human Hybrids

Oh, you would sure know of hybrids, wouldn't you? Mwahahahahahahahahhah. 

Modifié par Phaedon, 24 janvier 2012 - 08:12 .

[Aimi]

I approve of derailing topics onto the subject of Sea Peoples, Mykenaians, and related mythical subjects

[Blacklash93]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Why do you say those experiments were pointless?

You honestly think Cerberus did it for fun?

"Breaking mental barriers" sounds like a very dumb excuse to torture children. It would not increase their biotics significantly as biotic potential is mostly decided from birth and imlpants. It was pointless and stupid.

What would that reason be?

Any reason is better than that. Spectres would do it only if it was absolutely necessary.

Oh wow, you are a riot.

A "lawful government"? YOu mean the same government that created the Spectres to be free to break the law and who answer ONLY to the Council itself? That lawful government?

You need a wider perspective.

It keeps the greater order stable and is always meant to be for the welfare of everyone and not just one small group of people.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's nowhere near as terrible as stripping sentient races of their free will.

[Phaedon]

daqs wrote...

I approve of derailing topics onto the subject of Sea Peoples, Mykenaians, and related mythical subjects

Man, that Minotaur guy was a douchebag.

Totally ruined our rites of passage to adulthood.

"Ay caramba! How am I supposed to ride his back when he is standing up? TAUROKATHAPSIA RUINED FOREVER!"

[Poison_Berrie]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Well I've never met one that does other than Shepard.

If Spectres were all law-abiding nice people they wouldn't need those special law-breaking and no-accountability super-powers.

I've met three other so far. 
One was a pretty much a bastard (Saren) who did indeed not care about collateral damage (but did like to shift the blame so there's something to be said about that), the other was doing the dirty work of the Shadow Broker but it'not know how she conducted on her Spectre missions (and she was rather sloppely there with collateral damage which is in part why she failed) and the only honorable one so far seemed to be Nilhus, but he's not around long enough to get a good sense of him.

That said there are others out there and there's little need to pit Shepard against a good Spectre from a story perspective.