644 réponses à ce sujet

[Elyiia]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

The question has never been whether genocide was justified or not. The question was did Shepard commit genocide. He did, at least once during Arrival. He did it twice more (Does it count as two if you destroy two species at once?) if he picked destroy.

I actually did ask if the genocide of the Reapers is justifiable earlier.  Not precisely on topic.  Just an aside.

I meant the original question was whether or not he commited genocide, I'm doing multiple things at once so I messed up my statement

There were different core reasons, but I believe they still loose equal
amounts of evil upon the world, and it's why I'd never pick destroy in a
million years.

All the endings have equal amount of evil to me. None of it is justifyable imo. To quote Shepard "The cost is too high."

Modifié par Elyiia, 11 avril 2012 - 07:00 .

[Grasich]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Whatever you call it, my Shepard wouldn't do it. The Geth deserve a chance; Destroy is not an option for me.

Just do what I did, yell something along the lines of "You're a lying bastard." at your screen, and then choose destroy. It doesn't kill you or EDI, so chances are it doesn't kill the Geth either.

[M0keys]

Grasich wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

Whatever you call it, my Shepard wouldn't do it. The Geth deserve a chance; Destroy is not an option for me.

Just do what I did, yell something along the lines of "You're a lying bastard." at your screen, and then choose destroy. It doesn't kill you or EDI, so chances are it doesn't kill the Geth either.

Of course, it still begs the question as to why the Reapers would freaging offer you their own destruction.

[Allan Schumacher]

M0keys wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I am fine with calling the destruction of the geth genocide if we can also admit there is a clear moral difference between what Shepard chose to do and what Hitler did. That does not mean it was morally admirable, but it was not as morally heinous as the examples of genocide we have in history.

There were different core reasons, but I believe they still loose equal amounts of evil upon the world, and it's why I'd never pick destroy in a million years.

That's why I find the specific choices fascinating.  The only thing really missing is the inclusion of a choice "refuse the Catalyst" which means Shepard refuses to make a choice knowing that he dooms the cycle to repeat.

Destroying the Geth is an awful thing.  But is it as bad as risking the inability to control the Reapers, leading to future cycles?  Is it as bad as forcing every lifeform into a different state of being?  Is it as bad as doing nothing, letting the Reapers kill not only the Geth, but also the Turians, Quarians, Asari, Humans, Salarians, Batarians, Krogan, Vorcha, etc.?

[Tom Lehrer]

I personally believe that a computer that can think on its own and violate its own programming should be considered a living being. This might be hard for some people to understand but free will is what makes us human. I don't not wish to get too far off topic but to barrow a popular relegious concept 'God does not want mindless robots so he gave us free will.

This at a basic level means we have free will and a brain because God wants us to use them. If we ever reach the point were we are able to create a computer that can think for itsself it is because our own creator wanted us to.

If we apply this back to the ME world it is easy to say that the Geth are free and living beings even if they were made by organic life. They are entitled to life just as we are and to target them just for being what they are is no different then targeting the Asari because they are blue and due that weird black eye thing.

Can we consider the Destroy endding genocide though? No not really. The killing of the Geth in that endding is a nasty side effect since the true goal is to kill the Reapers. It was a matter of the few vs the many.

On a side note. I would consider killing the Reapers an act of self defense. The Reaper war was them or us.

Modifié par Tom Lehrer, 11 avril 2012 - 07:07 .

[CronoDragoon]

M0keys wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I am fine with calling the destruction of the geth genocide if we can also admit there is a clear moral difference between what Shepard chose to do and what Hitler did. That does not mean it was morally admirable, but it was not as morally heinous as the examples of genocide we have in history.

There were different core reasons, but I believe they still loose equal amounts of evil upon the world, and it's why I'd never pick destroy in a million years.

I don't know. Yes, the geth are destroyed, but it's also the only option that destroys the Reapers, who are responsible for evil on a scale so massive that nothing Shepard could do can approach it.

[acidic-ph0]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

acidic-ph0 wrote...

Technically Shepherd doesn't have the "right" to make any of the final decisions. He/she's not given any information about what he/she's doing and we have no idea what the reprecussions will be for ANY of the three choices other than the relays being destroyed. Basically it's a "leap of faith" moment that decides the future for the entire galaxy. The only logical decission to make in a situation like this is none but we weren't allowed that choice <_<

Just to make sure I'm understanding here, you feel the issue is that Shepard shouldn't make the choice because he doesn't know what the reprecussions of his choice will be?  Can you elaborate a bit on that?

In a nutshell yes. Shepherd always makes difficult decissions in the games, but I can't recall any choice that was made blindly. I guess technically you could do that, but there was always an option to investigate further to better your understanding of the consequences. At the end of ME3 we are given choices that have no explanation, and thus can not infer any of the consequences. And yes, I know that it's impossible to predict EVERY outcome, but we should at least have enough information to establish some form of educated guess.

Of course none of this would be such a big deal if we just had to arbitarily make a choice of what colored socks to wear, but when deciding the fate of the galaxy we (as Shepherd) should know full well what our choices will end up doing. Or at least be able to make an educated decision.

A good example of informed decision making is the Genophage arc. Shep made a lot of difficult decisions throughout this part of the game and each one varies based on your knowledge of the situation. You can generally infer that a cured genophage with Wrex and Eve in charge gives the highest possibilty of a positive outcome for the Krogan and the Galaxy. Conversely if Wreav is in charge and Eve is dead, the possible consquences of this scenario make sabotaging the genophage a more preferred solution for galactic (and Krogan) stability.

The situation with the geth is also similar. We interact with the Geth in all 3 games, the first being overly negative, but then we find out the truth of the Geth's intentions in the 2nd game. And in the 3rd game, by entering the mainframe and viewing the "memories" of the Geth we end up with a pretty sound knowledge bank of what they are and what they intend to do as a species. We can then make a decision regarding the fate of their species as well as the Quarians.

Basically, knowledge of the consequences reduces variables. If you have too many variables to where you have absolutely NO idea as to how a situation will turn out, then the best course of action would be to simply do nothing.

In the end, the catalyst gives us 3 flavours of space magic that are vague and poorly described. We have no idea what the consequences of any of the paths are except for the certainty of the mass relays getting blown away. These galaxy changing topics are also sprung up on us in the last 5 minutes of the game with only 14 lines of dialgue given to explain all three topics. Conversely we had 5 years and 3 games filled with tons of lore and inforamation to weigh out the pros and cons of the genophage cure, Geth conflict... etc.

Then at the end of ME3 we get 14 lines of dialogue to choose one of 3 options that literaly spring out of nowhere in a litteral deus ex machina fashion. It's the illusion of choice for truly galaxy changing consequences with the only known fact is that the relays will be destroyed. 

So I hope that explains my reasoning as to why I think taking NO action in the ending should technically be the only "right" action. At least in that scenario we could see if our own unified galactic fleet would be enough to stop the reapers, or at least go out in one AWESOME blaze of glory... To be honest, I was actually hoping for that... An ending where the reapers win but at least we could see Shep and his/her crew fighting valiently to the bitter end and dying like heroes... Rather than joker turning tail, and Shep meekly blowing him/herself up in a red, green, or blue explosion at the whim of the head reaper.

I hope this makes more sense XD

[Zine2]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I am fine with calling the destruction of the geth genocide if we can also admit there is a clear moral difference between what Shepard chose to do and what Hitler did. That does not mean it was morally admirable, but it was not as morally heinous as the examples of genocide we have in history.

See, folks? We've got a great valid point here.

The destruction of the Geth was an act of genocide. However, the reason for destroying them was to destroy another threat - the Reapers.

The Holocaust was an act of genocide against the Jews. The justification for this was some silly intolerant in HItler's head because he's a deranged lunatic.

Taken with these facts, it's easy to see that there is indeed a moral difference between what Shep does and what Hitler does, but we also see the moral pitfalls of the same act.
 
Is killing an entire race acceptable for ANY reason?

Or does killing an entire race to serve the "Greater Good" require that genocide sometimes happen?

The fact that you have to make Shepard's actions comparable to Hitler's at specific levels (namely they both commit genocide) is the reason why I insist on using blunt and unambiguous terminology. Don't try to mask the wrongs you did to make a right. Say the wrongs outright and let the bad be judged alongside the good.

Because wiping out the Geth to save the galaxy shouldn't be a choice that you should feel good about. It involves a very real moral compromise - and there are many who will refuse to stare past that particular abyss.

Modifié par Zine2, 11 avril 2012 - 07:06 .

[Xandurpein]

Some people accept , as an article of faith, that there is such a thing as a soul and that it's unique to organic beings. Whether they do so, because they have been told so by some religious figure or came up with the idea themselves is beside the point. The point is that it has nothing to do with logic or reason, it's just something some people believe in as an article of faith. Other people don't believe so. There's no "proof" that will ever convince those who believe differently because no such "proof" exist. You either accept this belief or you don't.

All arguments just become circular logic. "Killing Geth isn't genocide because I define the word genocide in a way that doesn't include killing the Geth" is a perfect example of circular logic. So is "Killing Geth is genocide, because I define the word in a way that includes killing the Geth".

Probably a good time to agree to disagree...

[Slash1667]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Euphemisms have always been used to justify genocide. It's not "genocide", it's "sacrifice". It's not "genocide". It's a "solution".

A sacrifice is one made willingly. When Mordin went up to the tower knowing he would die, that was sacrifice.

The Geth don't get a choice if Shep picks the red option. They just die. That's not sacrifice. That's murder.

Facts are facts. Playing around with definitions doesn't make it clever; it only reveals the depths of deception and self-denial required to pretend it isn't genocide.

Looking strictly at the definition, I'm still not sure why the word sacrifice isn't applicable.  Note, I'm not saying that the term "genocide" doesn't also apply.  They don't appear to be mutually exclusive words.

In this case they are mutually exclusive because if Shepard were to sacrifice the Geth he would be saying the Geth were possesions or less than humans.

Given the information that detroying the Reapers would result in the destruction of the Geth if Shepard picks Destroy then that is deliberate and systematic extermination of a cultural group.

[AnImpossibleGirl]

Riion wrote...

Poshible wrote...

Riion wrote...

Poshible wrote...

Riion wrote...

Poshible wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

The Irish Man wrote...

SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

Mesmurae wrote...

Targeting a specific group for extinction = Genocide.

In this case, synthetics.

What he said.

Synthetics aren't naturally organic beings. Your killing off robots that have enough written code in them to make their own decisions.

Yeah, that's pretty much what Hitler said.
Synthetics are people, deal with it.

Hitler liked to call it eugenics. Also was not destroying machines. Those were organics. Geth were built. Like my computer I am sitting in front of and...I liked Legion too, doesn't make it harder on me to decide to eliminate them to rid the galaxy of Reapers. Because they are not people...

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/people

First flaw: We live in an anthropocentric world, the ME universe is much more varied (and I would argue some animals deserve some sort of recognition as self aware today, although not necessarily on the same level as people as they are not capable of living in our society). No, I agree there. But, they are ORGANIC. They reproduce and the end result is more organic beings. Geth and EDI lack reproductive organs as well as all other organs. The fact that we are in an anthropocentric environment means that we would not attribute personhood to beings we don't deem "sentient". And since we haven't officially agreed on any other species meeting that requirement... we define people as "human".

Second flaw: Technically, we are each "built" by our mothers, using a "blueprint" from both parents,Why yes, exactly, we have parents. We were reproduced, not mass produced for servitude. in the form of a "code" called DNA. Why should the fact that you were not "born" naturally automatically make you not a person? What about test tube babies? Technically, they are "built" in a lab. 

We are discussing the Mass Effect Universe. In that, Shepard tells Soveriegn that he is not alive, not really, he is just a machine. Reapers are more adavanced than Geth and the entire universe actually has them to thank for thier current technology. Is killing the Reapers, in your assessment, any different from killing Geth?

No flaw within my logic, just a different understanding. Such as "corporations are people my friend'. Well no, they are comprised of people. But, the Supreme Court disagrees with my opinion. Fair enough.

Organic life has value why? Well we all value different things and THAT makes us valuable as a whole. The Geth (Because they are machines) do not. All human life is 99.9% identical yet we vary greatly. Geth do not. We choose our own path, we chose to live and love and do so how and with whom we choose. Geth...do not. EDI...maybe, but I will not get into sexbot talk.

Killing the Reapers would be the same as killing the Geth which would be the same as killing organics. Whether it's morally right or not all depends on context, e.g. war, murder, etc. But if in the same context, then I would value each the same, e.g. war with Reapers vs war with Geth vs war with Organics, would all be interpreted as the same situation to me, morally. 

The Geth are individualized after the Reaper upgrade, and Reapers are just a big unknown. But even before the upgrade, I would have counted the Geth as synthetic life. You could even count them as one "consciousness", if you want. (I would, Legion refused to recognize himself as an individual, until the influence of...organics. Also, he states they are one)

Regarding organics and "choice", that's a common debate in philosophy, which I doubt anyone wants to partake in. However, if you accept that organics CAN have choice, what prevents synthetic life from doing so as well?

I woke up this morning. I had a cup of coffee and was irritated that it was not sunny. I thought "This is California, I should feel the sunshine on my face. Ugh and I am so white; I need a tan, where is my sunshine?". Then, I got over it and jogged 4 miles because I am organic and a female with pressure from society to stay thin, blonde and tan in California. 

I am organic. I made choices within 5 minutes of being awake and had separate emotions and even complained that I could not feel something. In my dumb example (which quite sadly is true) I yearned for sunshine, because I wanted it. Geth will never feel the delight of sunshine. Everything underlined or highlighted--all things I, as an organic feel and do; Geth will never. In Mass Effect Universe all species do these such things, except Geth, the sexbot and Reapers.

I'm not sure how waking up, having a cup of coffee, or jogging proves anything. Thinking that you should -insert something- or need -something- is not mutally exclusive to organics. Perhaps the subjects of those emotions would differ, but the Geth can just as well believe they should have the right to live, or decide on the need to ally with the Reapers. Legion himself believes his race should be allowed to live, decides to upload the Reaper code anyways, because he believes that the Geth need it to survive the next ten minutes. And feeling emotion... like you said, Reapers can be annoyed, EDI is pretty emotional sometimes, and the Geth display feelings (e.g. gratitude). 

I think you mistook my point...I was expressing petty human emotion, that makes us as/who we are.
I brought up Reapers because people are listing why "Destroy" is genocide. Yet, the reasons for Geth survival is the same as Reapers survival. Every reason stated for it being Genocide of the Geth stands true for the Reapers. Yet it somehow becomes justified "for survival"--well exactly because they are harvesting races. Hell, they are programmed to do that (Actually after spacebrat, I have no idea why, honestly didn't need to know why). As a means to surivive as we are in a galaxy without that evil genocide is commited. Sacrifices are made. No, one human should not make that choice. But that is what we were handed.

I was not given the option to save everybody and hope for the best. I was given 3 even less feasable options and took the one that meant humanity and every other species in the galaxy could remain as they are. Each one unique. Knowing what I find valuable will be intact and not some galaxy of iSpecies. Knowing the threat of Reaper distruction is forever gone...

[Elyiia]

Xandurpein wrote...

Some people accept , as an article of faith, that there is such a thing as a soul and that it's unique to organic beings. Whether they do so, because they have been told so by some religious figure or came up with the idea themselves is beside the point. The point is that it has nothing to do with logic or reason, it's just something some people believe in as an article of faith. Other people don't believe so. There's no "proof" that will ever convince those who believe differently because no such "proof" exist. You either accept this belief or you don't.

All arguments just become circular logic. "Killing Geth isn't genocide because I define the word genocide in a way that doesn't include killing the Geth" is a perfect example of circular logic. So is "Killing Geth is genocide, because I define the word in a way that includes killing the Geth".

Probably a good time to agree to disagree...

"Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"" That's the commonly accepted defintion for genocide. You don't even need the Geth for the question "Did Shepard commit genocide?"

The answer is yes. The new question is was it justified?

[AnImpossibleGirl]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

M0keys wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I am fine with calling the destruction of the geth genocide if we can also admit there is a clear moral difference between what Shepard chose to do and what Hitler did. That does not mean it was morally admirable, but it was not as morally heinous as the examples of genocide we have in history.

There were different core reasons, but I believe they still loose equal amounts of evil upon the world, and it's why I'd never pick destroy in a million years.

That's why I find the specific choices fascinating.  The only thing really missing is the inclusion of a choice "refuse the Catalyst" which means Shepard refuses to make a choice knowing that he dooms the cycle to repeat.

Destroying the Geth is an awful thing.  But is it as bad as risking the inability to control the Reapers, leading to future cycles?  Is it as bad as forcing every lifeform into a different state of being?  Is it as bad as doing nothing, letting the Reapers kill not only the Geth, but also the Turians, Quarians, Asari, Humans, Salarians, Batarians, Krogan, Vorcha, etc.?

Beautifully stated.

[Slash1667]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

M0keys wrote...

But nothing is worth the genocide of the Geth. Nothing. If you can not protect the Greatest Newest Symbol of The Evolution and Magic of Emergent Life in your efforts to save the galaxy, you might as well just walk away. Life isn't a vague concept, you see it all around you in Mass Effect. You're fighting for what they all are.

And remember Mordin's lesson. He made a mistake.

But this is one mistake for which Shepard will never be able to atone.

Assuming the Geth would not be destroyed, is it still right to genocide the Reapers?

In this case it is. If we don't exterminate them, they exterminate us.

[shepard1038]

Elyiia wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Some people accept , as an article of faith, that there is such a thing as a soul and that it's unique to organic beings. Whether they do so, because they have been told so by some religious figure or came up with the idea themselves is beside the point. The point is that it has nothing to do with logic or reason, it's just something some people believe in as an article of faith. Other people don't believe so. There's no "proof" that will ever convince those who believe differently because no such "proof" exist. You either accept this belief or you don't.

All arguments just become circular logic. "Killing Geth isn't genocide because I define the word genocide in a way that doesn't include killing the Geth" is a perfect example of circular logic. So is "Killing Geth is genocide, because I define the word in a way that includes killing the Geth".

Probably a good time to agree to disagree...

"Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"" That's the commonly accepted defintion for genocide. You don't even need the Geth for the question "Did Shepard commit genocide?"

The answer is yes. The new question is was it justified?

The deliberate and systematic destruction. Did Shepard destroyed the Geth with the intent of killing and exterminate them?

Modifié par shepard1038, 11 avril 2012 - 07:16 .

[Zine2]

Xandurpein wrote...

All arguments just become circular logic. "Killing Geth isn't genocide because I define the word genocide in a way that doesn't include killing the Geth" is a perfect example of circular logic. So is "Killing Geth is genocide, because I define the word in a way that includes killing the Geth".

Probably a good time to agree to disagree...

The definition of "personhood" has always been, to an extent, arbitrary. There used to be a time when having a certain skin color made you property, rather than a person.

But as science marches on and more facts are revealed, it becomes rather clear that personhood CAN be factually defined. This is why we have bio-ethicists. This is why scientists continue to study the mechanics of sentience and self-awareness. And every indication we have is that "personhood" will ultimately become a more and more inclusive definition rather than an exclusive one, because the essential elements of personhood can very possibly exist in a lifeform unlike humans.

Heck, it's been proven that elephants are self-aware, can feel emotions (including grief), and even feel empathy towards non-elephants. We may not even need to wait for aliens or for super AIs to appear before realizing that "personhood" is not an exclusively human quality.

[Provo_101]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Destroying the Geth is an awful thing.  But is it as bad as risking the inability to control the Reapers, leading to future cycles?  Is it as bad as forcing every lifeform into a different state of being?  Is it as bad as doing nothing, letting the Reapers kill not only the Geth, but also the Turians, Quarians, Asari, Humans, Salarians, Batarians, Krogan, Vorcha, etc.?

This. If you choose Control, from Shepard's perspective you don't know what could happen. You JUST argued the choice with a man who thought he could, and failed!

If you choose Synthesis, you are playing God, rewriting every lifeform into something else, without the freedom to choose for themselves. You are also going against the very reason you fought Saren.

In Destroy, you are eliminating the cycle of genocide for ALL spacefaring civilizations forever! No, you don't ASK the Geth "oh hey, are you guys cool with being killed off, if it'll stop the Reapers?", but its either that or risk the lives of everyone.

And to the folks comparing Shepard to Hitler... Hitler didn't kill Jews to prevent all life from being extinguised, he did it because he wanted to take them out of the gene pool, to create a "master race of people"...

Kinda like Synthesis, no? 

[Riion]

Poshible wrote...

I think you mistook my point...I was expressing petty human emotion, that makes us as/who we are.
I brought up Reapers because people are listing why "Destroy" is genocide. Yet, the reasons for Geth survival is the same as Reapers survival. Every reason stated for it being Genocide of the Geth stands true for the Reapers. Yet it somehow becomes justified "for survival"--well exactly because they are harvesting races. Hell, they are programmed to do that (Actually after spacebrat, I have no idea why, honestly didn't need to know why). As a means to surivive as we are in a galaxy without that evil genocide is commited. Sacrifices are made. No, one human should not make that choice. But that is what we were handed.

I was not given the option to save everybody and hope for the best. I was given 3 even less feasable options and took the one that meant humanity and every other species in the galaxy could remain as they are. Each one unique. Knowing what I find valuable will be intact and not some galaxy of iSpecies. Knowing the threat of Reaper distruction is forever gone...

I'm not sure why it's such a stretch to believe that synthetic life could suffer those same petty emotions. 
Justifiability is based on morals and ethics, which like I said, can be iffy. However, that does not mean that the action being justified does not occur, even if it is considered justifiable. 
Yes, I agree, all the choices are bad, and I can't honestly say which ones are better than the other. However, I disagree with people who say the destroy ending is the best because "only machines are destroyed". It may be the best in terms of cost/benefit, but I cannot agree with the reasoning it is the best because "nothing of value was lost". 

Modifié par Riion, 11 avril 2012 - 07:17 .

[shodiswe]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Wrong. That's semantic wordplay. If you're saying "sacrifice" can be unwilling, then your definition of sacrifice is actually no different from murder or genocide.

Because if I decide to kill a friend of mine to save a million people, I sacrifice my friend.  I'm actually a bit shocked that you'd unequivocally declare it murder.  It becomes a slippery slope.

I have absolutely no need to play around with words. Why use "sacrifice" when it has other implications, when what is actually truly being committed is "murder" and "genocide"?

Because refusing to acknowledge the term sacrifice implies that Shepard pays nothing for making the decision.  It means that when choosing destroy, Shepard equivalently goes "Whatever" to the Geth.  As far as I'm concerned, that is wrong.

Using the word "sacrifice" is nothing more than an attempt to muddle the issue. It's semantic wordplay. It's lying to people about the reality of the situation.

It really more seems like you're refusing to allow the usage of the word because you feel people are using it as a scape goat and your perception of the event should be applied to others.  Especially when I have not found a single definition that actually supports your rigid definition of the term sacrifice.  In fact, when presented with one that didn't have it, you were casually dismissive of it.

There is a difference between volunteering and being volunteered.

[Elyiia]

shepard1038 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Some people accept , as an article of faith, that there is such a thing as a soul and that it's unique to organic beings. Whether they do so, because they have been told so by some religious figure or came up with the idea themselves is beside the point. The point is that it has nothing to do with logic or reason, it's just something some people believe in as an article of faith. Other people don't believe so. There's no "proof" that will ever convince those who believe differently because no such "proof" exist. You either accept this belief or you don't.

All arguments just become circular logic. "Killing Geth isn't genocide because I define the word genocide in a way that doesn't include killing the Geth" is a perfect example of circular logic. So is "Killing Geth is genocide, because I define the word in a way that includes killing the Geth".

Probably a good time to agree to disagree...

"Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"" That's the commonly accepted defintion for genocide. You don't even need the Geth for the question "Did Shepard commit genocide?"

The answer is yes. The new question is was it justified?

The deliberate and systematic destruction. Did Shepard destroy the Geth with the intent of killing and exterminate
them?

If he chooses destroy he deliberately chose the option that destroyed the Geth because it destroys the Reapers.
Even if you don't count the Geth, he destroys the Reapers.
Even if you don't count the Reapers, he destroyed a colony of Batarians in Arrival.

You can't deny that Shepard has commited genocide.

[CronoDragoon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

M0keys wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I am fine with calling the destruction of the geth genocide if we can also admit there is a clear moral difference between what Shepard chose to do and what Hitler did. That does not mean it was morally admirable, but it was not as morally heinous as the examples of genocide we have in history.

There were different core reasons, but I believe they still loose equal amounts of evil upon the world, and it's why I'd never pick destroy in a million years.

That's why I find the specific choices fascinating.  The only thing really missing is the inclusion of a choice "refuse the Catalyst" which means Shepard refuses to make a choice knowing that he dooms the cycle to repeat.

Destroying the Geth is an awful thing.  But is it as bad as risking the inability to control the Reapers, leading to future cycles?  Is it as bad as forcing every lifeform into a different state of being?  Is it as bad as doing nothing, letting the Reapers kill not only the Geth, but also the Turians, Quarians, Asari, Humans, Salarians, Batarians, Krogan, Vorcha, etc.?

I can't agree with this. What is the moral lesson of this game, then? That the only way to win is to compromise your morals? That standing by your moral beliefs can only lead to one outcome - death? It should absolutely be an option to maintain your moral integrity and win.

[Icinix]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

M0keys wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I am fine with calling the destruction of the geth genocide if we can also admit there is a clear moral difference between what Shepard chose to do and what Hitler did. That does not mean it was morally admirable, but it was not as morally heinous as the examples of genocide we have in history.

There were different core reasons, but I believe they still loose equal amounts of evil upon the world, and it's why I'd never pick destroy in a million years.

That's why I find the specific choices fascinating.  The only thing really missing is the inclusion of a choice "refuse the Catalyst" which means Shepard refuses to make a choice knowing that he dooms the cycle to repeat.

Destroying the Geth is an awful thing.  But is it as bad as risking the inability to control the Reapers, leading to future cycles?  Is it as bad as forcing every lifeform into a different state of being?  Is it as bad as doing nothing, letting the Reapers kill not only the Geth, but also the Turians, Quarians, Asari, Humans, Salarians, Batarians, Krogan, Vorcha, etc.?

All three choices were a no-win scenario.

Which is why its odd there was not a refuse ending. Hammer retreated from the beam (what was left of Hammer), the fleet was clearly still sticking around while Shepard played silly buggers with TIM and Anderson. They weren't prepared to turn and run.

Why wasn't a refuse option present? Why couldn't Shep put a bullet in the Starchilds head and say screw you. Lets see what a united Galaxy can do to the Reapers main force.

I don't believe anyone should have had the power of those three choices. Not even Shepard.

[Provo_101]

shepard1038 wrote...

The deliberate and systematic destruction. Did Shepard destroyed the Geth with the intent of killing and exterminate them?

He did it with the intent of destroying constructs that DID have the intent of genocide on their minds.

Is the extermination of the Reapers justified? Absolutely. Especially with the fanaticism of the Starkid in mind. The Reapers exterminate organics JUST so they don't make synthetics, thats ludicrous! 

[shepard1038]

Elyiia wrote...

shepard1038 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Some people accept , as an article of faith, that there is such a thing as a soul and that it's unique to organic beings. Whether they do so, because they have been told so by some religious figure or came up with the idea themselves is beside the point. The point is that it has nothing to do with logic or reason, it's just something some people believe in as an article of faith. Other people don't believe so. There's no "proof" that will ever convince those who believe differently because no such "proof" exist. You either accept this belief or you don't.

All arguments just become circular logic. "Killing Geth isn't genocide because I define the word genocide in a way that doesn't include killing the Geth" is a perfect example of circular logic. So is "Killing Geth is genocide, because I define the word in a way that includes killing the Geth".

Probably a good time to agree to disagree...

"Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"" That's the commonly accepted defintion for genocide. You don't even need the Geth for the question "Did Shepard commit genocide?"

The answer is yes. The new question is was it justified?

The deliberate and systematic destruction. Did Shepard destroy the Geth with the intent of killing and exterminate
them?

If he chooses destroy he deliberately chose the option that destroyed the Geth because it destroys the Reapers.
Even if you don't count the Geth, he destroys the Reapers.
Even if you don't count the Reapers, he destroyed a colony of Batarians in Arrival.

You can't deny that Shepard has commited genocide.

Sacrificing a colony to delay the reapers isn't worth it and also the reapers wouldn't have destroyed the colony
anyway?Another thing the asteroid was alredy on a collision course with relay and you can chose to warn the
colony.

[Xandax]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
That's why I find the specific choices fascinating.  The only thing really missing is the inclusion of a choice "refuse the Catalyst" which means Shepard refuses to make a choice knowing that he dooms the cycle to repeat.
<snip>

Actually - by refusing you don't know he's dooming the cycle to repeat. He's just refusing the chocies given by some 'deity' and stands up in defiance of the no-win situation.
Afterall - that is the Shepard character at the core, right back to ME1 and the background traits you select, over to ME2 and the ressurection and 'suicide' mission.