270 réponses à ce sujet

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

No, I laugh that you think it's needed for a finite game world.

Trust me, my suggestion that you read Popper has nothing to do with the Mass Effect universe.

[sladevii]

StElmo wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

you can't decide if someone's morals are right or wrong, based on the fact they are not the same as your own.

You can say someone is wrong if they refer to an apple as anything other than an apple.
You can't say someone is wrong for not wanting to eat that apple, because it provides food for the animals in their garden.

Yes you can, actually. Unless you're really lazy. Cultural relativism is a prime example of moral philosophy that constantly gets paraded about by people because it's "popular" without actually analyzing the situation.

We're trying to avoid the moral relativism question here.  That's a whole different can of worms.

[Zine2]

Ziggeh wrote...

Zine2 wrote...
Killing ain't saving. Unless it's a translator error. See above.

Dude A is about to kill Dude B. If I kill Dude A, has Dude B been saved?

LIke I said, they ain't lying.

Zine2 wrote...
No, it proves them to be incredibly stupid to the point of insanity, the other point.

Doing something potentially (because we don't know a number of other variables) suboptimally makes you insane?

I'm communicating through an inefficient language, to the madhouse with me!

You call it "suboptimally". I call it insane to provide races with the tools to kill each other... when your stated goal is apparently to prevent them from killing each other. That's not merely "suboptimal". That's glaringly contradictory.

[Ziggeh]

humes spork wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

You're relying on a specific interpretation there.

Yep, hence Asimov's third law. If you accept synthetic life has no right to defend itself against its own creators (which is what the third law specifically evokes), then synthetic life defending itself against its creators alone is an act of rebellion.

True, but I rather meant the "always" part. "It will continue to happen" is an entirely valid interpretation. The "always" doesn't need to be literal, just as we're all clear he's not implying pencils will rise up against the oppressive stationary manufacturer.

Also the problem to which he requires a solution only exists outside of the cycle, something of which we have no examples, but that's more of an aside.

[joiushdfoubsndpovn]

Am I the only one here that feels like i'm taking crazy pills arguing with this guy? I mean he SERIOUSLY has some ego problems, and is quite clearly ignoring very obvious things in order to make his rather shaky argument valid. I mean, his entire argument is based on "apples are NOT oranges" but fails to show any evidence that proves this foundational assertion about the reapers killing organics. I mean, your very premise is flawed, but he can't even see it. It's quite amazing the lengths someone will delude themselves in order to make themselves feel right. But am I the only one here?

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

No, I laugh that you think it's needed for a finite game world.

Trust me, my suggestion that you read Popper has nothing to do with the Mass Effect universe.

Trust me, if you do not reject technological singularity after you've done actual computer science schooling and AI work, then I can call your university and have your diploma REVOKED.

No amount of lying, philosophical twisting, or self-delusions will not change the fact that technological singularity has already undergone critical analysis by the computer science world (what Popper wants), and it got LAUGHED at. It was created by idiots, propagated by idiots, and believed in only by idiots.

Modifié par Zine2, 16 avril 2012 - 10:42 .

[Ziggeh]

Zine2 wrote...
LIke I said, they ain't lying.

Okay, now I'm confused. You agree killing can be saving?

Zine2 wrote...
You call it "suboptimally". I call it insane to provide races with the tools to kill each other... when your stated goal is apparently to prevent them from killing each other. That's not merely "suboptimal". That's glaringly contradictory.

That's not there stated objective! We literally just had a conversation about what their stated objective was! In this thread!

[sladevii]

Zine2 wrote...

humes spork wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

I speak in absolutes because of what I know.

...and you probably wonder why I suggest you read Popper.

No, I laugh that you think it's needed for a finite game world.

Popper's work was meant to expand real-world knowledge, not provide justifications for people who don't know computer science to use the technological singularity argument (which isn't in the game, BTW) to justify how "Anything is possible! Therefore it's okay for the reapers to kill for the supposed greater good!"

No one is saying it is ok for them to kill for the greater good, we are saying they don't have to be lying or insane to do so.  Also, you are the one trying to invoke absolutes about things you cannot know for certain in the real world, much less in the game world, which is defined to be different from the real world.  The fact that it is not mentioned (aside from being strongly implied by the reapers...) does not mean it does not exist, and I don't know why you assume that your knowledge of AI has any relevance on the ME world, where true AI exists...

[Ziggeh]

Zine2 wrote...

No amount of lying, philosophical twisting, or self-delusions will not change the fact that technological singularity has already undergone critical analysis by the computer science world, and it got LAUGHED at. It was created by idiots, propagated by idiots, and believed in only by idiots.

Would you mind expanding on that beyond arguing to authority?

[Nimrodell]

Zine2 wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...
... (Snipping for space)
 

I'll be honest - I don't have an easy answer for you. I'm familiar with your country and the conflicts it's been through... and it's really one of the most complicated conflicts in recent times.

My own country for instance has suffered through colonialism and imperialism, albeit I never experienced it on such a level to make it personal. I can only understand what you went through on a very superficial level.

As a rule however, I've made it a point to always just people by who they are, rather than what country they belonged to. There is always some degree of cupability (i.e. Americans elected the president who bombed your country), but by and large most people are so far away from these actions that it is neither healthy nor productive to judge them by the actions of their government.

Similarly, it's difficult to judge a soldier's culpability in a war. If they violated orders and bombed civilians gleefully, then they should be charged as war criminals - which is why we have an International Criminal Court. If they simply followed orders, then the Nuremberg standard is to charge those above them as well.

But reality is not so simple, or clear-cut. And people DO get away for doing bad things oftentimes. Evil prevails more often than not. It's no longer simply about seperating apples from oranges. It's trying to figure out the merits and faults of each individual apple in an enormous barrel.

So all I can say is that in the real world - unlike in video games, where villain can be easily made into one-dimensional machines following one-liner maxims like "We are your salvation through destruction" - one should really make an effort to find out the truth from all parties, because the truth is far more complicated in real life.
 
One thing that I try to stress, for instance, is that while people should all acknowledge that "killing is wrong", there are various degrees of it. Killing in self-defense is different from killing for sport or pleasure. Genocide is a completely different level of evil from simple murder.

On a personal level, I truly believe that there is an emerging universal set of core values that civilized humanity subscribes to - which involves peace and goodwill to all, and placing a premium on forgiveness over hatred, and the rejection of the use of violence except as a last resort.

From an objective level, I know that some people will disagree. For instance in any conflict there will be some nationalists demanding blood on one side, and other nationalist on the other side demanding the same. So all I can really do is to put forward what I believe in, and hope that we can someday more forward in that direction.

Anyway, I think I'm rambling now and I'm not entirely sure if I answered your question directly. But I hope that you'll forgive me because real life truly is much more complicated than the realities of a story or a videogame, and therefore it deserves a far more considered and respectful answer than simple apples and oranges.

It is one thing to talk about the flawed factual logic of fictional crab monsters from outerspace. It is entirely another to talk about the complexities of a real world conflict such as the one your experienced, and of the real people who went through it.

Thank you for answer and it was well one . I do agree with you. As for the Reapers, being from a story of one video game - basically, we have pretty similar situation with pre New Testament Jahveh - we could even apply Jahveh that had wife Asherah - to make things less religious sounding, less offensive for those who claim that this type of examples are forbbiden and offensive - to watch them just as interpreters, scientists (so to look at story itself not the dogma part). That Jahveh was a creator of the new cycle, new order in this universe, order, but his order, from chaos - and that same Jahveh sent Great Flood to purge the world when the cycle stepped out from his vision of what he calls order thus killing almost everyone except for the chosen ones (Noah and his family) and then again he had the same pattern developing, a new cycle but with a premise of the old one. Ofc Jahveh made a pact with Noah that he'll never do this again, but it was his order imposed again (again - New Testament Jahveh should not be considered here, because it is utterly different). But also, even if he did promise not to perform mass destruction anymore, he did destroy and erased two cities that were stepping out from his pattern of order escaping to what he would consider a chaos - Sodom and Gomorrah. Again, this should not be considered as something offensive, this is depiction of events from exclusively story interpretation view.

So, can we claim that Jahveh can be judged from the perspective of Men that are his creations, can humanity's rules of conduct and morality can be applied to him assuming that humanity can even understand his being and his existence, laws to which he abides if there are any, is he even abiding by laws of our universe or he can actually perceive more of them, with utterly different laws of physics and what not? Can we say he's mass murderer and fully understand his reasons and say - yes, you are wrong, you're a villain. The problem with this is that is wrong to even apply morality to a being and human reasoning that Albert Camus would describe as phylosophy of the absurd.

And that's the major problem with Catalyst character - we can say it's evil but that would imply we actually have knowledge on it and we fully understand its reasoning and have knowledge of universe and things as it does. And of course we have to assume that it behaves and has anthropocentric features - meaning, its capable of having emotions, having 3-dimensional reasoning, has mortality as we do, etc.

You're 100% right from human point of view - all we know is that that entity is responsible for countless deaths, for extinction - and its claims of preserving old life in Reaper form is something that violates are basic instincts for survival and free will - and if we don't perceive it as deity, thus not having feelings of admiration and love or fear - of course that our judgement is 100% correct from our point of view that negates all other possibilities - it violates our own self-preservation need as well the laws we created and to which we abide.

But from universe and the whole 'that we don't understand and don't know' point of view, we can't claim that nor we can apply our laws to something that doesn't even have system of good and evil as we do - it just is, if you know what I mean. And, it just being, existing, has nothing to do with moral relativism - because it exists in entirely different system from ours - just like Jahveh is described (not taking Zeus or Marduk as examples, because those deities are anthropocentric in their very being, they feel, behave, think very often as humans do). Catalyst is more similar to dark energy than to anything that resembles our existence, our features of thought - dark energy will break our universe in some 20 billion years (first it was 45, now it's 20) thus creating new pattern, new cycle even, but thus obliterating every living being in all those galaxies that are present in our universe. It exists but it doesn't behave according to our laws, it just is and we don't comprehend it yet. Is it evil, can it be defined as evil or good? No, it just is.

And this is the reason why BW writers made huge mistake by introducing entity, force like Catalyst at the very end - because through 3 games we had to deal and abide by our own morality laws, all our decisions had practical and moral implications - but with Catalyst introduced, we were rendered powerless, thrown into system of chance and something we can't comprehend nor reason logically - it was dirty and cheap trick to introduced futuristic Jahveh and expecting from players to accept it as such. And it really didn't happen - because players, until that moment, were abiding by laws that are familiar to their own existence and Reapers characters were to cryptic but also dressed in something familiar - familiar form - machines that can be broken - that the awe, respect for something we don't understand, fear of unknowable were excluded from the equation. Introducing Catalyst at the very end as the Reapers' guiding hand and thought, godlike force, did the opposite of what was intended, unless utter confusion was leading thought of narrators. So, there's no moral relativism truly when we talk about Catalyst, Reapers and decisions at the end - there's only necessity for self-preservence, depending on one's understanding, the outcome will be determined and in the moment of that imposed decision, with such lack of knowledge and understanding what we're deciding - there's no morality at all - only instinct to survive somehow.

And thanks again for answering and good discussion .

[Zine2]

joiushdfoubsndpovn wrote...

Am I the only one here that feels like i'm taking crazy pills arguing with this guy? I mean he SERIOUSLY has some ego problems, and is quite clearly ignoring very obvious things in order to make his rather shaky argument valid. I mean, his entire argument is based on "apples are NOT oranges" but fails to show any evidence that proves this foundational assertion about the reapers killing organics. I mean, your very premise is flawed, but he can't even see it. It's quite amazing the lengths someone will delude themselves in order to make themselves feel right. But am I the only one here?

Uh-huh. You call that post filled with nothing but personal attacks, and highly ambiguous commentary about "reapers killing organics" an argument?

And you accuse me of an ego problem?

Hilarious.

[Legion is Skynet]

Zine2 wrote...

Legion is Skynet wrote...
Of course, this also presupposes that the Reapers don't have a different interpretation of the word Salvation. If they do, that fact alone does not immediately render them liars or insane.

Actually, it does make them liars. Because their words are translated to human parlance. Therefore, the word must conform to its human meaning, and to admit that they aren't using the word salvation as we do is to admit they're lying.

Unless of course it's a translator error. In which case it would be hilarious.

<Reapers> We will eat you, through killing.

<Translator> We are your salvation through destruction

<Players> ... That makes no sense! ;_;

I thought about the translation error bit, and it would be absolute gold if that were the case. However based on the information we have, I don't suppose that would be a defendable argument.

That being said, let's go back to our definitions. As stated before, one definition of Salvation is the deliverance from the power and penalty of sin.

One definition of Sin (again from dictionary.com): any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc. ; great fault or offense.

So, if I refer to an act as being one of "salvation" for a person, another way to say it is that I am "delivering a peson from the power and penalty of a reprehensible or regrettable action".

The "regrettable action" in this instance is the creation of a synthetic species that will wipe out all organics. The decision is made to harvest advanced organic life as part of a cycle to prevent this from happening. Thus, "salvation through destruction".

Whether or not harvesting is actually the optimal solution to this problem is certainly questionable, but the fact is that it is a solution, and so they aren't lying. 

[sladevii]

joiushdfoubsndpovn wrote...

Am I the only one here that feels like i'm taking crazy pills arguing with this guy? I mean he SERIOUSLY has some ego problems, and is quite clearly ignoring very obvious things in order to make his rather shaky argument valid. I mean, his entire argument is based on "apples are NOT oranges" but fails to show any evidence that proves this foundational assertion about the reapers killing organics. I mean, your very premise is flawed, but he can't even see it. It's quite amazing the lengths someone will delude themselves in order to make themselves feel right. But am I the only one here?

So true... why am I bothering haha.  There are valid complaints about the story and the endings, but this is not one of them.

[joiushdfoubsndpovn]

Zine2 wrote...

joiushdfoubsndpovn wrote...

Am I the only one here that feels like i'm taking crazy pills arguing with this guy? I mean he SERIOUSLY has some ego problems, and is quite clearly ignoring very obvious things in order to make his rather shaky argument valid. I mean, his entire argument is based on "apples are NOT oranges" but fails to show any evidence that proves this foundational assertion about the reapers killing organics. I mean, your very premise is flawed, but he can't even see it. It's quite amazing the lengths someone will delude themselves in order to make themselves feel right. But am I the only one here?

Uh-huh. You call that post filled with nothing but personal attacks, and highly ambiguous commentary about "reapers killing organics" an argument?

And you accuse me of an ego problem?

Hilarious.

Glad you find it so funny  I do'nt need to show any arguments, since everyone else on this thread, except you, disagrees with you and your "absolute truths" i would simply be adding stuff that is not needed.  You are proving my point for me, as well as everyone else here.  

[Mobius-Silent]

Legion:
"One will, many minds, Like the Geth, We study your records, Sovereign told you this on Ilos" (Actually Virmire, Bioware mistake)
"We are Each a nation, independent, free of weakness" Legion considered this factual enough to restate.

So, the Reapers definitely have multi-part gestalt minds. There are 2 possibilities.
1. The reapers are pure AI and their gestalt minds are just programs and nothing is stored, they lie.
2. The gestalt minds are constructed from the aggregate consciousnesses of the processed minds. "Salvation" is an understandable term (though loaded) due to functional immortality.

If #1 OP is right.
If #2 OP is wrong,

#2 Is strongly suggested as being true in game #1 has no support other than assumption of unreliable narrator.

Note, you cannot use Overlord and/or Shepard experiencing the consensus as evidence against processing not being the construction of a reaper-mind as both of the previous two are simply interfacing with an existing organic mind that is currently doing the processing. The reaping process consumes the organic material and supposedly retains memory and conciousness in the process, and yes, it probably hurts.

Simply put OP chooses to believe #1 even though there is more evidence in the game for #2.
that is the OPs choice, without "Word of God" from Bioware it's pointless to debate

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 16 avril 2012 - 10:53 .

[lillitheris]

StElmo wrote...

Yes you can, actually. Unless you're really lazy. Cultural relativism is a prime example of moral philosophy that constantly gets paraded about by people because it's "popular" without actually analyzing the situation.

Morals aren't absolute, by definition. They're always subjective. We can – and should – try to define universal basic principles, such as “respect sapient life” or probably the most basic universal principle: “do no harm”, but they're just that: human constructs. We also can and should defend those to the bitter end – but never forgetting what they are.

But, like I said, this entire thread argues the wrong point. The problem really is just that the Catalyst's solution to the problem it describes is quite poor.

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

Trust me, if you do not reject technological singularity after you've done actual computer science schooling and AI work, then I can call your university and have your diploma REVOKED.

I'd love to see you try. The people who signed off on my degrees would have a field day with someone who actually has the temerity to respond to a polite suggestion to read Popper with "I speak in absolutes because of what I know".

[Zine2]

Ziggeh wrote...

Would you mind expanding on that beyond arguing to authority?

Already did previously. Technological Singularity proposes that computers will eventually have enough processing power to grow more and more intelligent - to the point they essentially go out of control.

The problem is that AI does not work like that. Hardware power is NOT what determines intelligence. It's the underlying software function operating within it. That is why computer science is so focused on studying various architectures on how an AI can work (i.e. Neural Network, to use a popular term).

Moreover, whether or not an AI turns "good" or "bad" ultimately rests on how well the architecture was made, and of the data inputted into the system. An AI is essentially an infinite feedback loop - input data into a function; modify the function based on the data; then repeat. If you input "good" data, then you get a useful AI. Input bad data... and you get garbage in, garbage out.

So anyone worrying about the Robot Apocalypse due to increasing computing power is being an idiot. The worse that can happen really is that you'll have a few messed up AIs because their underlying function was flawed or because of bad data inputs, but there won't be a being of infinite intelligence emerging just because a computer can theoretically compute faster than a human mind. Computation speed isn't important - it's the soundness of the underlying architecture.

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Trust me, if you do not reject technological singularity after you've done actual computer science schooling and AI work, then I can call your university and have your diploma REVOKED.

I'd love to see you try. The people who signed off on my degrees would have a field day with someone who actually has the temerity to respond to a polite suggestion to read Popper with "I speak in absolutes because of what I know".

Sure. Take a comsci course and learn something. I'd consider it my favor to you .

Because you are clearly spending too much time with people who deal with philosophy and not realities.

[Zine2]

joiushdfoubsndpovn wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

joiushdfoubsndpovn wrote...

Am I the only one here that feels like i'm taking crazy pills arguing with this guy? I mean he SERIOUSLY has some ego problems, and is quite clearly ignoring very obvious things in order to make his rather shaky argument valid. I mean, his entire argument is based on "apples are NOT oranges" but fails to show any evidence that proves this foundational assertion about the reapers killing organics. I mean, your very premise is flawed, but he can't even see it. It's quite amazing the lengths someone will delude themselves in order to make themselves feel right. But am I the only one here?

Uh-huh. You call that post filled with nothing but personal attacks, and highly ambiguous commentary about "reapers killing organics" an argument?

And you accuse me of an ego problem?

Hilarious.

Glad you find it so funny  I do'nt need to show any arguments, since everyone else on this thread, except you, disagrees with you and your "absolute truths" i would simply be adding stuff that is not needed.  You are proving my point for me, as well as everyone else here.  

So, you admit that you are resorting to "I don't need to argue! We can employ mob rule!"

Witness the violence inherent in the system

[Ziggeh]

Zine2 wrote...

So anyone worrying about the Robot Apocalypse due to increasing computing power is being an idiot.

Erm. I think one of us misunderstands what the singularity represents.

[Zine2]

Legion is Skynet wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Legion is Skynet wrote...
Of course, this also presupposes that the Reapers don't have a different interpretation of the word Salvation. If they do, that fact alone does not immediately render them liars or insane.

Actually, it does make them liars. Because their words are translated to human parlance. Therefore, the word must conform to its human meaning, and to admit that they aren't using the word salvation as we do is to admit they're lying.

Unless of course it's a translator error. In which case it would be hilarious.

<Reapers> We will eat you, through killing.

<Translator> We are your salvation through destruction

<Players> ... That makes no sense! ;_;

I thought about the translation error bit, and it would be absolute gold if that were the case. However based on the information we have, I don't suppose that would be a defendable argument.

That being said, let's go back to our definitions. As stated before, one definition of Salvation is the deliverance from the power and penalty of sin.

One definition of Sin (again from dictionary.com): any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc. ; great fault or offense.

So, if I refer to an act as being one of "salvation" for a person, another way to say it is that I am "delivering a peson from the power and penalty of a reprehensible or regrettable action".

The "regrettable action" in this instance is the creation of a synthetic species that will wipe out all organics. The decision is made to harvest advanced organic life as part of a cycle to prevent this from happening. Thus, "salvation through destruction".

Whether or not harvesting is actually the optimal solution to this problem is certainly questionable, but the fact is that it is a solution, and so they aren't lying. 

That's quite a stretch though. "Salvation" is essentially to fix the sins of OTHER organics crimes against synthetics? Not saying it's an incorrect interpretation, but it is a stretch.

And I'm not entirely sure how this "solution" is actually logical and not simply "suboptimal".

[joiushdfoubsndpovn]

Zine2 wrote...

joiushdfoubsndpovn wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

joiushdfoubsndpovn wrote...

Am I the only one here that feels like i'm taking crazy pills arguing with this guy? I mean he SERIOUSLY has some ego problems, and is quite clearly ignoring very obvious things in order to make his rather shaky argument valid. I mean, his entire argument is based on "apples are NOT oranges" but fails to show any evidence that proves this foundational assertion about the reapers killing organics. I mean, your very premise is flawed, but he can't even see it. It's quite amazing the lengths someone will delude themselves in order to make themselves feel right. But am I the only one here?

Uh-huh. You call that post filled with nothing but personal attacks, and highly ambiguous commentary about "reapers killing organics" an argument?

And you accuse me of an ego problem?

Hilarious.

Glad you find it so funny  I do'nt need to show any arguments, since everyone else on this thread, except you, disagrees with you and your "absolute truths" i would simply be adding stuff that is not needed.  You are proving my point for me, as well as everyone else here.  

So, you admit that you are resorting to "I don't need to argue! We can employ mob rule!"

Witness the violence inherent in the system

LOL!!! Yes, this is "mob rule".  People showing how you are clearly wrong, and you being the only person who is to stubborn to see how completely off base you are; that is us being a mob.  I like how you are playing the victim now.  This is too funny

[humes spork]

Ziggeh wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

So anyone worrying about the Robot Apocalypse due to increasing computing power is being an idiot.

Erm. I think one of us misunderstands what the singularity represents.

...or the fact the codex pretty much already covers all those bases straight out of the box, with the typical sci-fi phlebotinum techspeak crap. He's off talking about the Kurzweil ****, which is completely off base and has little if anything to do with technological singularity as discussed in the context of ME.

That's pretty much the reason why the Citadel council outlawed AI research except for a handful of heavily-regulated and accredited corporations with a ton of oversight. You know, just in case some crappy, irresponsible coder makes a typo and accidentally compiles the overlord.

Modifié par humes spork, 16 avril 2012 - 11:08 .

[Zine2]

Anyway, last post for the night -

Nimrodell wrote...

Thank you for answer and it was well one . I do agree with you. As for the Reapers, being from a story of one video game - basically, we have pretty similar situation with pre New Testament Jahveh - we could even apply Jahveh that had wife Asherah - to make things less religious sounding, less offensive for those who claim that this type of examples are forbbiden and offensive - to watch them just as interpreters, scientists (so to look at story itself not the dogma part). That Jahveh was a creator of the new cycle, new order in this universe, order, but his order, from chaos - and that same Jahveh sent Great Flood to purge the world when the cycle stepped out from his vision of what he calls order thus killing almost everyone except for the chosen ones (Noah and his family) and then again he had the same pattern developing, a new cycle but with a premise of the old one. Ofc Jahveh made a pact with Noah that he'll never do this again, but it was his order imposed again (again - New Testament Jahveh should not be considered here, because it is utterly different). But also, even if he did promise not to perform mass destruction anymore, he did destroy and erased two cities that were stepping out from his pattern of order escaping to what he would consider a chaos - Sodom and Gomorrah. Again, this should not be considered as something offensive, this is depiction of events from exclusively story interpretation view.

So, can we claim that Jahveh can be judged from the perspective of Men that are his creations, can humanity's rules of conduct and morality can be applied to him assuming that humanity can even understand his being and his existence, laws to which he abides if there are any, is he even abiding by laws of our universe or he can actually perceive more of them, with utterly different laws of physics and what not? Can we say he's mass murderer and fully understand his reasons and say - yes, you are wrong, you're a villain. The problem with this is that is wrong to even apply morality to a being and human reasoning that Albert Camus would describe as phylosophy of the absurd.

And that's the major problem with Catalyst character - we can say it's evil but that would imply we actually have knowledge on it and we fully understand its reasoning and have knowledge of universe and things as it does. And of course we have to assume that it behaves and has anthropocentric features - meaning, its capable of having emotions, having 3-dimensional reasoning, has mortality as we do, etc.

You're 100% right from human point of view - all we know is that that entity is responsible for countless deaths, for extinction - and its claims of preserving old life in Reaper form is something that violates are basic instincts for survival and free will - and if we don't perceive it as deity, thus not having feelings of admiration and love or fear - of course that our judgement is 100% correct from our point of view that negates all other possibilities - it violates our own self-preservation need as well the laws we created and to which we abide.

But from universe and the whole 'that we don't understand and don't know' point of view, we can't claim that nor we can apply our laws to something that doesn't even have system of good and evil as we do - it just is, if you know what I mean. And, it just being, existing, has nothing to do with moral relativism - because it exists in entirely different system from ours - just like Jahveh is described (not taking Zeus or Marduk as examples, because those deities are anthropocentric in their very being, they feel, behave, think very often as humans do). Catalyst is more similar to dark energy than to anything that resembles our existence, our features of thought - dark energy will break our universe in some 20 billion years (first it was 45, now it's 20) thus creating new pattern, new cycle even, but thus obliterating every living being in all those galaxies that are present in our universe. It exists but it doesn't behave according to our laws, it just is and we don't comprehend it yet. Is it evil, can it be defined as evil or good? No, it just is.

And this is the reason why BW writers made huge mistake by introducing entity, force like Catalyst at the very end - because through 3 games we had to deal and abide by our own morality laws, all our decisions had practical and moral implications - but with Catalyst introduced, we were rendered powerless, thrown into system of chance and something we can't comprehend nor reason logically - it was dirty and cheap trick to introduced futuristic Jahveh and expecting from players to accept it as such. And it really didn't happen - because players, until that moment, were abiding by laws that are familiar to their own existence and Reapers characters were to cryptic but also dressed in something familiar - familiar form - machines that can be broken - that the awe, respect for something we don't understand, fear of unknowable were excluded from the equation. Introducing Catalyst at the very end as the Reapers' guiding hand and thought, godlike force, did the opposite of what was intended, unless utter confusion was leading thought of narrators. So, there's no moral relativism truly when we talk about Catalyst, Reapers and decisions at the end - there's only necessity for self-preservence, depending on one's understanding, the outcome will be determined and in the moment of that imposed decision, with such lack of knowledge and understanding what we're deciding - there's no morality at all - only instinct to survive somehow.

And thanks again for answering and good discussion .

Well, I think a friend of mine summed up Bioware's mistake very succintly: You do not have to meet "God" at the end of every game .

I actually totally agree with you on this one, and I'll admit that I once made a rather controversial thread that accused the Catalyst of being a major moral problem for players. Good post.