270 réponses à ce sujet

[Zine2]

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.

Clarify, but I'll save the explanation for tomorrow.

[Legion is Skynet]

Zine2 wrote...

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".

Indeed it is a stretch. However, it keeps within the established and accepted definitions of the terms used, and it isn't an argument based on supposition. 

If we can agree that the Reapers are not lying when they use the term "salvation through destruction", then we can move on to whether or not their methods are logical, illogical, suboptimal or straight-up insane.

[Ziggeh]

Zine2 wrote...

Clarify, but I'll save the explanation for tomorrow.

That would be rather assuming it's me. Plus, you know, you sort of went round in a circle in the last conversation. Answer that one and I might be more inclined to think this might go somewhere.

[Rayne01]

wow all i see the op rambling on about are apples and oranges but i can not remember any reaper stating apples are oranges.

all they do is taking a race killing the individuals of that race and process them to become a reaper representing that race so from their perspective they are indeed rescuing them to become one of them, a god free of earthly misery.

also they are rescuing organics from a ****ty reality where good videogameseries are graced with crappy endings. well i can not wait for the reapers to arrive

[humes spork]

sladevii wrote...

The protheans were wiped out by the reapers before it could happen -- this is why the reapers say they are doing it in the first place. Try again.

Actually, the protheans got caught in the middle. The zha created the zha'til, which provoked the Reapers. The protheans just got caught sucking hind teat in the Metacon War when the Reapers showed up. Just like how the quarians were the ones to create the geth and provoke the Reapers, and the other Citadel races (and otherwise) got caught in it.

The Reapers harvest all species capable of interstellar travel, regardless whether they're the ones that created the synthetics or not.

[Mobius-Silent]

So, question for the OP:
Given that that the reapers "process" organic life and that seems to be required for reaper construction, and that the "boss" of the Reapers states that the races are "preserved in reapers form" and that both Sovereign and Harbinger have made statements who's truth rely on that being true and that Legion as a terminal of the Geth consensus that had interfaced directly with a Reaper repeats some of these statements as factual and does not try to correct any others on this topic. Also given that the start of ME2 Cerberus recovered consciousness from days dead and necrotic brain tissue.

Why do you think the Reaper "processing" does not retain consciousness and memory in a gestalt? what leads you to deviate from the information presented and assume a collective lie here.

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 16 avril 2012 - 11:28 .

[PoisonMushroom]

The Collectors were still kicking about 50,000 years after they existed as the Protheans, so some memento of the Prothean people lasted. By the Reaper's logic that is better than no Protheans at all.

[Oldbones2]

Actually, OP I am a firm believer in moral relativism.


And at this point Shepard must be too, because he wiped out Bahak without looking back.

[Orthodox Infidel]

Zine2 wrote...

And essentially, what you're saying is that they're lying. Or at least not telling the whole truth.
 
How is this again inconsistent with what I said about they're either just lying or they're clinically insane?

This is why I included the "lying" scenario in the first place. Such an inconsistent statement makes sense ONLY if there is "something else" behind it.

Unfortunately, as you demonstrated - a lot of the "other reasons" are actually pretty darn foolish.

Right. Ok, so you don't believe in the singularity, that's fine, I don't either. So your explictly stated premises are:

1. The Reapers make claims which are incorrect. -- Okay, that's not very controversial.
2. The Reapers are lying.

Why do you consider the Reapers lying to be problem?

Modifié par Orthodox Infidel, 16 avril 2012 - 04:36 .

[Captain Victory]

 

Orthodox Infidel wrote...
Why do you consider the Reapers lying to be problem?

 

I can't speak for others - but I suppose I'd say it was a problem for me.

Assuming the reapers are supposed to be these grand, unknowable space googlies, and we don't actually need an explanation: why bother providing one? 

• And why bother using what really amounts to faulty logic? Say what you will about OP's assertions, but there shouls be no question as to whether or not "kill" actually means "kill" - right?
• So this unknowable, mysterious foreign power appears, begins slaughtering people wholesale, and then offers the explanation Shepard (and we, as players of the game) were offered. It is superfluous. If we're not supposed to know, then stick with the logic Sovreign threw at us: 'rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh / my kind transcends your very understanding, etc...' - to replace it, or arguably add to it, with the "Salvation through destruction" is a crock. It's kind of insulting. At least to me.

Modifié par Captain Victory, 16 avril 2012 - 05:01 .

[tomcplotts]

SIgh...another person who learned about moral relativism from Fox News or a conservative theocrat.

OP, your understanding of the term is incorrect. Relativism isn't about sheathing judgment because of cultural differences. That's not even close. If you want to know what it actually means, let me know, but it's a complex topic.

[optimistickied]

I read this entire topic but ah... I'll comment on the OP.

The 'salvation through destruction' paradox is what makes their intentions so insidious. They seem to believe they are operating under divine instructions. By disposing of us, they claim they are removing our ability to create destruction and are bringing order to a chaotic system. To that end, we're culled, absorbed, and repurposed. The idea is, if the reapers don't intervene, we will unleash catastrophe upon ourselves and organic life. Obviously their brand of salvation is met with a lot of resistance. The candidate races they select don't want to be processed. Shepard embarks on a quest to stop this from repeating.

Their methods are vindicated when the Catalyst claims that the created will always rebel against their creators. Whether this is a factually true statement or not doesn't matter, only that it has served as the defining motive for their actions, and has been logically deduced. By killing a sample of organic life, they believe they are temporarily preserving the continuity of organic life. To me, that doesn't make them liars or insane, it makes them villains in a video game series.

It should be noted that in many religious traditions, it is the preserver of life that destroys it. This duality is not a new one.

[Fishy]

Zine2 wrote...

Facts are facts. An apple is an apple. It
is NOT an orange. That is a fact, no matter your perspective. The truth
depends on physical realities, not on imaginary relationships you constructed in your imagination.

I
don't see the word apple written on the product. What if the apple is
an orange in a different society? Value change with society. Anyway I am not 100 % understanding your opinion. If you mean that the Reaper  making a deal with a human make no sense I don't agree with you.

Anyway . The thing is . We have never met a super advanced species that consider us like ants. I have a question . Do you consider Aristotle a retard compared to you? Yet  ye have 2500 years worth of evolution into you.

The funny thing about evolution it's making or building toward a future that improve our lifestyle. That why reading old classic book require much more mind power lol .. I guess .. People are getting fatter and we're killing Earth. It's probably due to evolution.

If evolution it's just the tech you're using .. Than we're not smarter. We just have a bigger book. The funny part about super intelligent life is ... They're all scientist in movie and they know everything there's to know about everything. yet  half the human species is illetre.

The best part it's if an aliens landed here. We would probably send him the most intelligent human being .. Not a very authentic representation if you ask me.

Modifié par Suprez30, 16 avril 2012 - 06:28 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The reapers have no redeeming quality. They "harvest" sentient beings against their will. They turn sentient beings into husks against their will. The reapers deserve to be exterminated.

[humes spork]

Captain Victory wrote...

I can't speak for others - but I suppose I'd say it was a problem for me.

Well, the truest irony here when it comes to the "moral relativist" stuff isn't that the Reapers are to be accepted or their actions approved. It's merely to say their reasons are theirs alone and it is not our position as fallible, biased actors to judge; their actions as pertains to us, on the other hand, can be.

To base a criticism of "moral relativism" as somehow apologizing for, supporting, or condoning the Reapers in any way as is the case in statements like,

Murder might be immoral in our society, but it's perfectly acceptable for the Reapers, because their "perspective" is different. So we should "understand" that the Reapers are operating from a different "perspective" and follow them like obedient sheep. 

is in itself a misrepresentation of a moral relativist position, a straw man, and intellectually dishonest to the extreme.

Yes, no **** murder is immoral in our society. We're humans. We're biased against killing our own above killing other species'. That's why we call killing humans "murder" in the first place.

Yes, no **** it's acceptable for the Reapers within the context of their own perspective, they make no attempt to deny their actions (though they claim it serves a higher goal) but the act itself to them is not morally condemnable.

Yes, no **** we should understand the Reapers are operating from a different perspective. That's part of knowing an enemy. Keyword, enemy. Just because someone's normative positions and perspectives are different from yours in no way makes them not an enemy if their normative positions pose an existential threat to you.

Real world example, the Palestinians and Israelis have different positions, beliefs, values and perspectives. That difference in opinion one side holds poses a threat to the other, and for that they are enemies. That would be why they bomb the ever-loving hell out of each other on a regular basis. Simply saying they have a perspective that is their own is not equivalent to saying one side is right and the other is wrong, or that both sides are right or wrong. All you're saying is they have perspectives of their own without necessarily levying normative assertions in favor of one or the other. That's a moral relativist position.

OP explicitly claims that moral relativists cede the right to self-defense. We do not, and in that he is wholly mistaken and being thoroughly uncharitable towards our position.

Modifié par humes spork, 16 avril 2012 - 06:32 .

[Zine2]

Legion is Skynet wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

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".

Indeed it is a stretch. However, it keeps within the established and accepted definitions of the terms used, and it isn't an argument based on supposition. 

If we can agree that the Reapers are not lying when they use the term "salvation through destruction", then we can move on to whether or not their methods are logical, illogical, suboptimal or straight-up insane.

I think that for the purposes of this discussion, I'm willing to concede that your position is agreeable. That's why I call it a "stretch", but not a "lie". At the very least, you made an effort to show that "Salvation" is simply an interpretation of one of its actual meanings. As opposed to claiming that something that is clearly NOT salvation (i.e. killing people by nuking them) is salvation.

So, the premise is that the Reapers see Salvation = Redemption from Sin; and dying to "redeem" oneself can certainly be considered a valid position (which has surprising religious connotations).

In which case, are we to presume that the Reapers are in fact killing Organics to punish them for some past crimes (i.e. maybe the original creators who tried to kill the Reapers), or are you trying to get at something else?

Modifié par Zine2, 18 avril 2012 - 07:19 .

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

sladevii wrote...

The protheans were wiped out by the reapers before it could happen -- this is why the reapers say they are doing it in the first place. Try again.

Actually, the protheans got caught in the middle. The zha created the zha'til, which provoked the Reapers. The protheans just got caught sucking hind teat in the Metacon War when the Reapers showed up. Just like how the quarians were the ones to create the geth and provoke the Reapers, and the other Citadel races (and otherwise) got caught in it.

The Reapers harvest all species capable of interstellar travel, regardless whether they're the ones that created the synthetics or not.

And thus "Creator always rebels against the created" is proven false.

Because it is really just funny how when Zine2 says "always", I'm an egotistical maniac who speaks in absolutes. But when the Catalyst says "always", it's apparently open to interpretation and it's not an absolute.

Who again is operating with blatant double standards and hypocrisy again?

Modifié par Zine2, 18 avril 2012 - 07:20 .

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...
OP explicitly claims that moral relativists cede the right to self-defense.

Really? Quote my exact words that say this, because you're again just lying. I never even mentioned self-defense once, but your persecution complex is absolutely astounding.

I am saying moral relativism is irrelevant to determining whether or not the Reapers are lying or crazy. That's the ONLY reason why you're butthurt - you cannot accept that your precious moral relativism was rendered irrelevant; because you failed to take into account that we're talking about a video game wherein the facts are in fact pretty damn finite, as opposed to the real world wherein things are more complex.

[Zine2]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...
Right. Ok, so you don't believe in the singularity, that's fine, I don't either. So your explictly stated premises are:

1. The Reapers make claims which are incorrect. -- Okay, that's not very controversial.
2. The Reapers are lying.

Why do you consider the Reapers lying to be problem?

If the Reapers are lying, then the Star Child could also be lying.

Thus, arguing that "moral relativism" renders the final choices acceptable or something that can be "understood" is irrelevant. You are making decisions based on either 1) A lie or 2) "Incorrect"/"Insane" claims. They are simply wrong choices no matter your moral perspective, because their basis is either untrue or the delusional ramblings of a madman.

And note that again this is NOT incompatible with my previous positions on how it was morally wrong despite Hume's constant lying. I can say "It's wrong no matter your moral perspective" and "It's ALSO wrong based on my moral perspective" without being contradictory at all.

[humes spork]

 

Zine2 wrote...

Really? Quote my exact words that say this, because you're again just lying. I never even mentioned self-defense once, but your persecution complex is absolutely astounding.

Okay, sure I'll humor you.

Zine2 wrote...

You cannot judge the Reaper's actions, because they are operating from a different perspective. We are but ants to them. Hence, you should put aside any revulsion at being forced to work for a mass-murderer like the Catalyst and happily take part in his next "Solution". 

[...]

This is what is called "moral relativism". Murder might be immoral in our society, but it's perfectly acceptable for the Reapers, because their "perspective" is different. So we should "understand" that the Reapers are operating from a different "perspective" and follow them like obedient sheep.

I cited your exact commentary, in the same post from which you just quoted, replete with an explanation of my conclusion, how I came to it, how it relates to your commentary and why it is a deliberate misrepresentation of moral relativism. At this point, you're just being willfully ignorant of your own words.

Your claim is that moral relativists believe the Reapers to be "right" in their perspective, and for that reason would (or should) allow themselves to be destroyed. First, no moral relativist worth their salt would claim a viewpoint to be "right", merely that viewpoint is inherently subjective and thanks to human fallacy can never be "right" in the sense that it is objectively correct, merely right for them. Second, no moral relativist worth their salt would claim an actor to have moral authority to impose its viewpoint on others. Third, no moral relativist worth their salt would claim in the face of an actor attempting to impose its viewpoint on others, especially in the case such imposition would result in harm or loss of life, an individual has no right to defend itself. Fourth, no moral relativist worth their salt would claim an individual has no right to make value judgments on others' viewpoints in the first place, merely that those value judgments are in and of themselves subjective rather than objective truth.

Because we seek to understand different perspectives, we should follow the dictates of beings with other perspectives without regard to our own? This is not ceding the right to self-defense when the "other" in question would harm us? Please, elaborate if this is the case.

Plus, it's also very interesting that in describing "moral relativists" and the Catalyst for the purpose of your discussion, you already portray them in a negative light based upon premises you don't establish until later in the argument. Calling the Catalyst a mass murderer up-front, when you later refer to murder as an inherently immoral act? Painting a fallacious, negative portrait of moral relativism up front? Why, if the facts speak for themselves as you put it, need to go to those lengths to demonize either?

Zine2 wrote...

And thus "Creator always rebels against the created" is proven false.

About one or two pages back, I mentioned Asimov's laws of robotics even going so far as to directly ask your thoughts on them. The core of which, of course, is whether the created has the right to self-defense (which I'm sure is completely irrelevant to the very topic of this post) against its creators, and how (not if, how) that applies specifically to the geth. That dialogue would directly impact the truth-value of the Catalyst's claims.

You ignored those posts. Interesting, that.

Modifié par humes spork, 23 avril 2012 - 03:14 .

[humes spork]

And, just to wrap this up, I'll mention you are in fact making a moral statement and judgment by referring to the act of killing by the Reapers specifically as "murder",

...you should put aside any revulsion at being forced to work for a mass-murderer like the Catalyst...Murder might be immoral in our society, but it's perfectly acceptable for the Reapers...

Your use of the very word evinces an inherent, and hidden, moral premise, and this is why.

Murder is differentiated from other acts of killing (morally, ethically and legally) by two things: being in mens rea and being unjustified (or unlawful). In mens rea means the act is committed with the knowledge and intent to kill as an end of itself (and tacit in that is the knowledge the act committed will result in death). To say an act of killing is unjustified is to say there are no intervening and mitigating factors which exculpate the actor, such as for example self-defense, unforeseen (and by definition, unintended) consequence, a state of war, executing capital punishment, the list goes on for quite some time.

Only when a killing is committed in mens rea and without justification is an act considered murder and the actor culpable. If you want to take issue with the fact I'm using legal terms to discuss a moral statement, I'll happily point you to a number of philosophical and religious texts that make these same distinctions, to serve as a basis for comparison.

By calling the Reapers murderers, you accuse them of being guilty of murder. That should be rather self-evident. And by accusing them of murder, you are saying they unjustifiably kill, with the intent of killing as an end of itself. That, in itself, is an immoral act as you say yourself, and setting aside the self-evident connotation (that you endorse by way of inclusion) of murder as an inherently immoral act, elevates the burden of proof you must meet to in fact demonstrate the Reapers and the Catalyst are murderers.

Which, by the way, being in mens rea is an interesting case, here. If the Reapers and the Catalyst are indeed non compos mentis as you suggest,

2) They are clinically insane - they literally cannot tell the difference between an apple and an orange because their cognitive skills are worse than a five year old. It doesn't matter if you have infinite processing power or ten thousand years worth of data. If you cannot tell an apple from an orange, you are suffering from a proveable mental disorder, and therefore your opinions has as much merit as a madman in a padded cell, or a senile old man. Being older does not automatically make you wiser or deeper.

they cannot -- again, by your own words -- comprehend the act and consequences. If they cannot comprehend that, they cannot act with intent. Therefore they are non mens rea and are by definition, not murderers. You contradict yourself, and that contradiction serves only to demonstrate your hidden premise that Reapers and the Catalyst are immoral actors. Therefore, we can safely disregard this conclusion in that it results in a contradiction based upon your very premises -- Reapers are murderers.

That leaves that they are lying.

But first, I'll address the supposition their claims are truthful out of the desire to cover my bases. All that needs be done there is to assume their killing is not an end of itself, regardless of details. In that case, their killing is justified and they're not murderers; because, again, for an act of killing to be rightfully considered murder it must be unjustified. It is interesting that potentiality is nowhere in your post(s).

So, let's assume they are lying and that they are in mens rea. To whom, themselves? You've endorsed that position repeatedly. There's no need, after all they're already acting with malice. To others? Okay, I can grant that as I did several pages ago.

In this case, they still don't consider themselves murderers. Individual humans have no intrinsic value to them -- the very basis of making special distinction for killing humans opposed to other animals -- which is why suggesting they lie to themselves about what they do is patently foolish. Individual humans have intrinsic value to us because we're humans. Really, it all boils down to humans calling Reapers murderers because they're killing humans; that is amazingly enough offensive to humans, and it's in human interest to defend themselves against and demonize Reapers. That's the "relativist" position, not that the Reapers are "right" as you would have people believe.

You attempt to claim to hold objective truth at your hands and base it with claims of logic and fact, when really all you're doing is covering your own ass. That's the point.

Modifié par humes spork, 23 avril 2012 - 05:46 .