644 réponses à ce sujet

[wantedman dan]

Glad to see that this thread is a haven of racism and proponents for genocide.

/sarcasm

[Jayleia]

The Irish Man wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

shepard1038 wrote...

How can a synthetic being have a soul?

How can an organic being have a soul?

Your questioning if you have a soul?

Well, I have yet to see confirmation of a soul's existence.  And more importantly, I've seen no proof that a highly sophisticated computer does not have the potential of a soul.

And no, you cannot reference religion as confirmation of a soul's existence

[TheMerchantMan]

If you don't consider Geth to be fully fledged "life" with a soul, then no it's not genocide. The point however is that any resolution of the Rannoch mission which leaves the Geth, implies they become more than just soulless machines, and even if the Geth die, Tali still tells Legion, the answer is yes.
It may be true that you don't think they have souls, but I do and so do many, for us it is genocide.

[Mobius-Silent]

Silpheed58 wrote...

I disagree, sentient or not, they are still software and can be replicated.  The Geth could be recreated, I do not hold to the opinion Genocide is possible for beings that can be replicated.  

Once the repercode update went out the Geth VIs became fully actualised AIs. Legion could not be "backed up" or he would have simply returned to his platform after dissemination of the reaper code.

The Geth were no longer "just software" after that point, call it what you will but in some way they have tied themselves to their physical platform or constructed a quantum waveform that colapses when duplicated or when stored in an inactive manner or something similar, however it happened it did happen.

Also please understand that there is a difference between "synthetic" (made of 2 or more components) and "synthetic sapience" (Sapience created from 2 or more components, ofterns mislabled AI)

Genocide implies sapience in the victim (Sapience is the property of "personhood" ) and that they belong to a logical grouping, nothing more. You can question the Geths sentience but not its sapience, hence Genocide applies

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 11 avril 2012 - 04:28 .

[Xenite]

Mesmurae wrote...

Targeting a specific group for extinction = Genocide.

In this case, synthetics.

Except the narative was so sloppy it wasn't just the Geth. For all we know anyone who had life dependant technology just got hossed. Bioware will say no, but that's what the shoddy writing gave us.

Modifié par Xenite, 11 avril 2012 - 04:25 .

[Foxbat Killer]

The Geth and EDI, in my opinion are imitations of life. Extremely realistic imitations. They are highly advanced machines but they are still machines.

Now, I do feel bad that I had to wipe them out. I did become fond of EDI and the Geth. However, I still believe that they could be "recovered" some day.

[Estelindis]

DTHD wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

No. You murdered your friend to save a million lives.

For it to be a true sacrifice your friend would have to make the choice to die themselves.

A sacrifice must primarily be OF YOURSELF. No one else has the right to make that choice for you.


I'm actually a bit shocked that you'd ever consider choosing to kill another living being a sacrifice because of the emotional hurt you may feel. Your feelings are irrelevant in the face of what you've just done. it becomes a slippery slope....

Yes.  I'm genuinely appalled by Allan's post.  I'm a big fan of most of his interaction with us re. the ending, but what he describes is murder, unequivocally; it's not just a matter of opinion.  One could argue that it's justified murder, but murder it remains.

On the question of the definition of sacrifice: human sacrifice has occurred at many different times and places during our history, but if said sacrifice was not willing, we would surely define it as murder.  

Accordingly, my Shepard cannot and will not take the "destroy" choice on any playthrough where she believes that the Catalyst is telling the truth, only on ones where she believes it's an illusion / indoctrination.  It's not acceptable to murder innocents to advance your cause.  We didn't get a choice in Arrival (though, arguably, that's a different situation), but we do get one here.

[Iakus]

TheMerchantMan wrote...

If you don't consider Geth to be fully fledged "life" with a soul, then no it's not genocide. The point however is that any resolution of the Rannoch mission which leaves the Geth, implies they become more than just soulless machines, and even if the Geth die, Tali still tells Legion, the answer is yes.
It may be true that you don't think they have souls, but I do and so do many, for us it is genocide.

"If the people I've sworn to protect can't trust me, then I don't deserve to be the one protecting them"

Garrus Vakarian, Mass Effect 1

[Xandurpein]

Foxbat Killer wrote...

The Geth and EDI, in my opinion are imitations of life. Extremely realistic imitations. They are highly advanced machines but they are still machines.

Now, I do feel bad that I had to wipe them out. I did become fond of EDI and the Geth. However, I still believe that they could be "recovered" some day.

So what exactly is the difference between life and the imitation of life? And incidently, Shepard got "recovered" too in Mass effect 2. Is Shepard alive or just an imitation of life?

[Pulletlamer]

The Irish Man wrote...

 When the relays blew up it wasn't like the exposion from the arrival relay. The relays simply fell apart leaving all the races stranded in their own systems. During the destroy ending Shepard only kills all synthetics. The star child never said he would kill all life. The explosions from the individual relays most likely transported everyone to different places as seen with the Normandy. I'm pretty sure everyone didn't die because the alliance soldiers were stil on Earth after the blast.

In-game source?

[Kandon Arc]

Some really interesting questions raised by this thread:

1) If you can rebuild the Geth, is it still genocide?

I think a good parallel here is the Kalikosaurs that are brought back by the Salarians. If someone exterminated an organic race that were later brought back, would he have still committed genocide? I would argue that it still is.

2) Is it possible to rebuild the Geth?

As a clarifying point, I take it as a given that these would be "children" of the Geth that died, not those Geth themselves. However, if the Geth are destroyed completely, could any new AI built be called Geth? EDI certainly seems not to be; and the cultural identity of the Geth seems heavily rooted in the collective - without that I can't see how anything could truly call itself Geth. Any new AI would be part of a new race to my mind.

3) Is destroying the Reapers genocide?

Before we met the Catalyst, I would say undoubtedly. With the Catalyst, it is much more murky. To what extent does the Catalyst control the Reapers? Do the Reapers have free will? Are the Reapers simply a tool that can only fulfil their purpose? Without these answers, I couldn't say for sure.

4) Is it appropriate to call the destruction of the Geth a sacrifice?

I would argue that it is. Sacrifice is not a moral term - it can be a good or a bad thing. Sacrificing others for the greater good, while being objectionable to many, is a well recognised use of the term.

5) Can genocide be justified?

This is the one that matters the most I suspect. I would argue that it can - while genocide is always wrong, it is a prima facie wrong, that is, it is wrong on the face of it. All things considered however, it may be a greater wrong not to commit genocide. If killing the Reapers is genocide, most would have no problem with it - for myself, I would have to be sure there was no peaceful resolution first. A hypothetical example could be killing a village of 100 people to save a billion others. Many would say that is justified, even if those were the last 100 Japanese people in existence.

I guess the most pertinent question is -

6) Is the genocide of the Geth justified?

[NM_Che56]

Mesmurae wrote...

Targeting a specific group for extinction = Genocide.

In this case, synthetics.

That's if you take what spacebrat said at face value...

Remember, he IMPLIED that Shepard could die from this choice too since he's partly synthetic, but because I had an EMS well over 5000, I saw evidence that Shepard didn't die.  So, if Shepard didn't die, then there is a chance that all synthetics did not die.  Other than seeing a few reapers topple over, you didn't see any scenes of Geth or EDI getting a fatal error or anything like that. 

I know this is a bit of ad hominem, but Space Brat IS the brainiac behind the Reapers...

[Xandurpein]

About bringing back the Geth. I think it clarifies things if you think in individual terms. If you kill a man and then clone him, is it still murder? I would think so.

[Baronesa]

Cannot destroy and then rebuilt the Geth... every AI is unique, and even if you copy all the data to another hardware, they would have different personalities, that is explained in codex.

"An Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a self-aware computing system capable of learning and independent decision making. Creation of a conscious AI requires adaptive code, a slow, expensive education, and a specialized quantum computer called a "blue box"."

"An AI cannot be transmitted across a communication channel or computer network. Without its blue box, an AI is no more than data files. Loading these files into a new blue box will create a new personality, as variations in the quantum hardware and runtime results create unpredictable variations."

"The geth serve as a cautionary tale against the dangers of rogue AI, and in Citadel space they are technically illegal. Advocacy groups argue, however, that an AI is a living, conscious entity deserving the same rights as organics. They argue that continued use of the term "artificial" is institutionalized racism on the part of organic life; the term "synthetic" is considered the politically correct alternative."

Modifié par Baronesa, 11 avril 2012 - 05:03 .

[Jayleia]

Kandon Arc wrote...

6) Is the genocide of the Geth justified?

Insufficient information to answer.
Information provided unverifiable.
Information provided through untrustworthy source.

Even if I trusted starbrat, I can't verify anything he says, and even if I could verify what he says, there's umpty zillion variables that I'm not even allowed to ask about.

[Iakus]

Master Che wrote...

Mesmurae wrote...

Targeting a specific group for extinction = Genocide.

In this case, synthetics.

That's if you take what spacebrat said at face value...

Remember, he IMPLIED that Shepard could die from this choice too since he's partly synthetic, but because I had an EMS well over 5000, I saw evidence that Shepard didn't die.  So, if Shepard didn't die, then there is a chance that all synthetics did not die.  Other than seeing a few reapers topple over, you didn't see any scenes of Geth or EDI getting a fatal error or anything like that. 

I know this is a bit of ad hominem, but Space Brat IS the brainiac behind the Reapers...

I'd rather not be forced to do MP to be just to be hinted at that Starkid was in fact lying

[wantedman dan]

TheMerchantMan wrote...

If you don't consider Geth to be fully fledged "life" with a soul, then no it's not genocide. The point however is that any resolution of the Rannoch mission which leaves the Geth, implies they become more than just soulless machines, and even if the Geth die, Tali still tells Legion, the answer is yes.
It may be true that you don't think they have souls, but I do and so do many, for us it is genocide.

You're ignoring the obvious problem in those people who DON'T believe this is genocide.

[TheCrazyHobo]

Rannoch:

Legion: Creator Zor'ah, Does this unit have a soul?

Tali: Yes Legion, it does.

Such beautiful writing which made me cry. If you don't consider the Geth people after this section, you played the game wrong. Killing all the Geth and EDI felt wrong, it was a betrayal of everything Shep had fought for. It was genocide and it was wrong.

Modifié par TheCrazyHobo, 11 avril 2012 - 06:25 .

[M0keys]

Estelindis wrote...

DTHD wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

No. You murdered your friend to save a million lives.

For it to be a true sacrifice your friend would have to make the choice to die themselves.

A sacrifice must primarily be OF YOURSELF. No one else has the right to make that choice for you.


I'm actually a bit shocked that you'd ever consider choosing to kill another living being a sacrifice because of the emotional hurt you may feel. Your feelings are irrelevant in the face of what you've just done. it becomes a slippery slope....

Yes.  I'm genuinely appalled by Allan's post.  I'm a big fan of most of his interaction with us re. the ending, but what he describes is murder, unequivocally; it's not just a matter of opinion.  One could argue that it's justified murder, but murder it remains.

On the question of the definition of sacrifice: human sacrifice has occurred at many different times and places during our history, but if said sacrifice was not willing, we would surely define it as murder.  

Accordingly, my Shepard cannot and will not take the "destroy" choice on any playthrough where she believes that the Catalyst is telling the truth, only on ones where she believes it's an illusion / indoctrination.  It's not acceptable to murder innocents to advance your cause.  We didn't get a choice in Arrival (though, arguably, that's a different situation), but we do get one here.

Yay for actual morals! *highfive*

[M0keys]

iakus wrote...

TheMerchantMan wrote...

If you don't consider Geth to be fully fledged "life" with a soul, then no it's not genocide. The point however is that any resolution of the Rannoch mission which leaves the Geth, implies they become more than just soulless machines, and even if the Geth die, Tali still tells Legion, the answer is yes.
It may be true that you don't think they have souls, but I do and so do many, for us it is genocide.

"If the people I've sworn to protect can't trust me, then I don't deserve to be the one protecting them"

Garrus Vakarian, Mass Effect 1

Exactly the point I was trying to make last night.

If you pick destroy, Shepard goes from being the Guardian of the Galaxy to ... well, something's that certainly not a hero by any stretch of the imagination.

[Silpheed58]

M0keys wrote...

iakus wrote...

TheMerchantMan wrote...

If you don't consider Geth to be fully fledged "life" with a soul, then no it's not genocide. The point however is that any resolution of the Rannoch mission which leaves the Geth, implies they become more than just soulless machines, and even if the Geth die, Tali still tells Legion, the answer is yes.
It may be true that you don't think they have souls, but I do and so do many, for us it is genocide.

"If the people I've sworn to protect can't trust me, then I don't deserve to be the one protecting them"

Garrus Vakarian, Mass Effect 1

Exactly the point I was trying to make last night.

If you pick destroy, Shepard goes from being the Guardian of the Galaxy to ... well, something's that certainly not a hero by any stretch of the imagination.

In a situation where you have a better option, Yes.

[M0keys]

Except there was a better option, and Bioware didn't let us express ourselves.

And I guess that's the main flaw of it all.

[DragonRacer]

M0keys wrote...

iakus wrote...

TheMerchantMan wrote...

If you don't consider Geth to be fully fledged "life" with a soul, then no it's not genocide. The point however is that any resolution of the Rannoch mission which leaves the Geth, implies they become more than just soulless machines, and even if the Geth die, Tali still tells Legion, the answer is yes.
It may be true that you don't think they have souls, but I do and so do many, for us it is genocide.

"If the people I've sworn to protect can't trust me, then I don't deserve to be the one protecting them"

Garrus Vakarian, Mass Effect 1

Exactly the point I was trying to make last night.

If you pick destroy, Shepard goes from being the Guardian of the Galaxy to ... well, something's that certainly not a hero by any stretch of the imagination.

I am so glad to finally see this topic. After seeing so many pro-Destroy folks openly gawk at and belittle those who chose synthesis, as if we're monsters, it's nice to see a topic that shows "destroy" isn't exactly a better option.

[Silpheed58]

In all war, monstrosities come in all forms, it does make one any less monstous than the other. The only difference is which monstrosity you believe you can live with better and will give you the best out come.

[Sanrei]

DragonRacer wrote...


I am so glad to finally see this topic. After seeing so many pro-Destroy folks openly gawk at and belittle those who chose synthesis, as if we're monsters, it's nice to see a topic that shows "destroy" isn't exactly a better option.

The whole thing that makes this a terrible ending is that ALL the choices make you a monster in some form. You're a monster for choosing destroy, a monster for choosing synthesis, a monster for choosing control(admittedly, the choice with the weakest argument for being a monster would be control, if you think about it. Based on previous themes presented in the games, though, it's still a choice you want to stay away from)

I know Bioware wanted to do something artistic and force you into terrible choices but they should have saved it for a different series, because it doesn't line up with the rest of the games. If they wanted to shoehorn us into decisions that were always morally questionable they should have started off with the very first game.

Saving the council at the loss of SOME willing Alliance forces is different than saving the council at the loss of humanity, before anyone tries to say that it was a morally trying decision.

Modifié par PedEgg, 11 avril 2012 - 07:23 .