270 réponses à ce sujet

[JShepppp]

humes spork wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Except that it is a moral argument.  They're not killing us just to kill.  They believe that killing us allows for all of organic life to continue by avoiding the singularity.

It is and he knows it, that's why he's dodging my question.

Because if he answers yes, killing a chicken is morally equivalent to killing a human, then humans are no better than Reapers and hypocrites for condemning the Reapers for engaging in mass murder while turning a blind eye to humans' own industrial-scale animal slaughter.

If he answers no, then he engenders the question of why killing a chicken is not morally equivalent to killing a human. The natural answer is then because chickens are a lower order of life with less value then humans, which in turn engenders the questions of what moral authority do animals of a "higher order" have to engage in mass slaughter and how are humans of an equal or higher order of life than Reapers, that the latter has no moral authority to slaughter the former.

In the case of answering yes, he's demonstrated hypocrisy. In the case of answering no he's demonstrated bias. Either one is the consequence of an inherently relative viewpoint, which shoots his little theory that moral relativism has no place in this argument all to hell. Is it any wonder he buggered out of the thread when pressed for an answer?

I just read the last few pages and have been following your chicken question intently. The only way to back out of the question is to say the chicken argument is irrelevant. But your persistence and post has deserved this:

*slow clap*

Moral statements are intertwined with the ending and interpreting the Reapers' goals. 

[humes spork]

JShepppp wrote...

I just read the last few pages and have been following your chicken question intently. The only way to back out of the question is to say the chicken argument is irrelevant. But your persistence and post has deserved this:

*slow clap*

Moral statements are intertwined with the ending and interpreting the Reapers' goals. 

Why, thank you. I have no patience for philosophical bloviation any more, especially the particular flavor in this thread.

[RaptorV1982]

Rather than taking a reaper perspective, let us imagine such a scenario through ourselves. I am a human being currently eating chicken, and a piece of broccoli. Let us consider;

By my eating of chicken and Broccoli, I have terminated their lives so that I may obtain nourishment from their demise. Their unique perspectives upon this 'reality' (if we are to assume what we see is not in fact a fabrication) are forever destroyed so that we may continue our existence. In a way, my biological processes mush this organic matter into it's individual pieces--and rebuild part of it so that it becomes human. The foreign organic matter literally has transcended into becoming human cells--My cells. Do I feel pity for the Chicken, Eh. Not really. Or the Broccoli too, their deaths, although lamentable, are necessary for the continuation of my existence. It is but my nature to eat things, and then make more mini-me's. Regardless of the lofty philosophy that may be brimming within my mind, I am guided by urges beyond my control--and most probably will act upon them.

The reapers motivations are best left unexplained--and though their logic may seem flawed by our human perspective it simply is because our values are probably utterly alien and inconceivable to the reapers. Regardless of their logic, they continue to 'reap' every 50k years or so, and I doubt pointing out their 'flawed'/'insane' logic would do very little to sway them, OP, as you face the incoming onslaught of husks which proceed to huddle upon you and maul you to a bloody heap.

[Madmoe77]

Riion wrote...

-Philosophy Mode, ACTIVATE-
It is only a physical reality to you because you perceive it as so... take away your senses, and your reality ceases to exist...

Brain in a vat. Supporting indoctination theory? 

Brain in a vat does not fit the reapers as long as their construct indeed operates within a physical world. They have sensors and detectors along with a physical form to cohabitate. They even have a vocalization to communicate in a physical world. Therefor brain in a vat does not work here. 

[webhead921]

humes spork wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Except that it is a moral argument.  They're not killing us just to kill.  They believe that killing us allows for all of organic life to continue by avoiding the singularity.

It is and he knows it, that's why he's dodging my question.

Because if he answers yes, killing a chicken is morally equivalent to killing a human, then humans are no better than Reapers and hypocrites for condemning the Reapers for engaging in mass murder while turning a blind eye to humans' own industrial-scale animal slaughter.

If he answers no, then he provokes the question of why killing a chicken is not morally equivalent to killing a human. The natural answer is, regardless how you phrase it or gussy it up, because chickens are a lower order of life with less value then humans, which in turn provokes the questions of what moral authority do animals of a "higher order" have to engage in mass slaughter and how are humans of an equal or higher order of life than Reapers, that the latter has no moral authority to slaughter the former. That's a question that has no objective answer, and ultimately boils down to ceding there is no moral authority to kill "lower orders" of life, or moral authority stems from some derivation of might makes right.

In the case of answering yes, he's demonstrated hypocrisy. In the case of answering no he's demonstrated bias. Either one is the consequence of an inherently relative viewpoint, which shoots his little theory that moral relativism has no place in this argument all to hell. Is it any wonder he buggered out of the thread when pressed for an answer?

Best post of the thread.  OP better fess up!

[deakka562]

RaptorV1982 wrote...

Rather than taking a reaper perspective, let us imagine such a scenario through ourselves. I am a human being currently eating chicken, and a piece of broccoli. Let us consider;

By my eating of chicken and Broccoli, I have terminated their lives so that I may obtain nourishment from their demise. Their unique perspectives upon this 'reality' (if we are to assume what we see is not in fact a fabrication) are forever destroyed so that we may continue our existence. In a way, my biological processes mush this organic matter into it's individual pieces--and rebuild part of it so that it becomes human. The foreign organic matter literally has transcended into becoming human cells--My cells. Do I feel pity for the Chicken, Eh. Not really. Or the Broccoli too, their deaths, although lamentable, are necessary for the continuation of my existence. It is but my nature to eat things, and then make more mini-me's. Regardless of the lofty philosophy that may be brimming within my mind, I am guided by urges beyond my control--and most probably will act upon them.

The reapers motivations are best left unexplained--and though their logic may seem flawed by our human perspective it simply is because our values are probably utterly alien and inconceivable to the reapers. Regardless of their logic, they continue to 'reap' every 50k years or so, and I doubt pointing out their 'flawed'/'insane' logic would do very little to sway them, OP, as you face the incoming onslaught of husks which proceed to huddle upon you and maul you to a bloody heap.

This.  Also, wtb pics of husks raiding the Harvard philosophy department.  Or UC Santa Cruz... I've learned how to settle

[ctdmz]

Killing humans (and salarians and krogan and so on) is wrong because these species have intrinsic moral value. You could take the position that a chicken does not have intrinsic moral value and therefore it is not wrong to kill it. These aren't inconsistent positions.

[Madmoe77]

spartan5127 wrote...

FS3D wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Riion wrote...

-Philosophy Mode, ACTIVATE-
It is only a physical reality to you because you perceive it as so... take away your senses, and your reality ceases to exist...

What you're describing is called Solipsism, and that is a completely and utterly useless perspective to apply in a world wherein there are multiple actors beyond your control. If you act as though only your mind exists and nothing else is real, you would simply be described as someone with a mental disorder - which again puts you in the "clinically insane" category.

We live in a real world. We should treat the game as a "real" world with a setting and other actors. Deal with it.

Otherwise, resorting to this argument is a tacit admission that the Indoctrination Theory is not only plausible, but it is the correct ending. That it really was all a dream in Shepard's head, because the only thing that matters is what's in your head and not "reality". 

Yup... This is one of those +1 posts ;-)

Solipsism renders any conversation about what's going on around you completely useless.

Solipsism is awesome.  It's one of those wacky views that is internally consistant (i.e. you can't prove to me that I am not the only agent), which is facinating.

The slang 'Machivellous' comes to mind.

[humes spork]

ctdmz wrote...

Killing humans (and salarians and krogan and so on) is wrong because these species have intrinsic moral value.

Why? You made the assertion, defend it. We'll handle the second part of your statement here in a minute.

[RaptorV1982]

By destroying reapers, am I not committing wrong doing as they have moral intrinsic value? Alternatively, if I view that human beings do not have moral intrinsic value, then by all means turning them into a goo and feeding it to a proto-reaper-fetus is just the circle of life--with humanity being at the bottom of the food chain.

[sladevii]

This Zine2 guy is ridiculous... As Sisterofshane mentioned, hunters thinning a population to prevent overpopulation which would result in collapse of the entire ecosystem, is a perfect example of "salvation through destruction"...

[Boneyaards]

I hate to be the guy who ultimately sides with the Reapers when they claim that they yield "salvation through destruction" but you must admit, that their logic is correct, especially when viewed from their perspective.

You can either have synthetics completely wipe out organics resulting in the extinction of biological life, or you have the Reapers wipe out MOST of your species to prevent you from reaching such a point in evolution. This way, even though billions die, you are not faced with the extinction of your race and the consequence of having your entire species become extinct, and forgotten. FOREVER.

And coming from the Reapers point of view, an apple IS an orange. We, as humans, only view an apple as an apple because that is the strict perspective that we have come to adhere to. A Reaper, who possesses an entirely different mindset, may be able to see an apple as an orange.

To humans, death is always black and white, but to a race that has seen countless cycles of bloodbath, they may be able to address the complexity of death. There are many grey areas that we are yet to explore.

[Orthodox Infidel]

JShepppp wrote...

humes spork wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Except that it is a moral argument.  They're not killing us just to kill.  They believe that killing us allows for all of organic life to continue by avoiding the singularity.

It is and he knows it, that's why he's dodging my question.

Because if he answers yes, killing a chicken is morally equivalent to killing a human, then humans are no better than Reapers and hypocrites for condemning the Reapers for engaging in mass murder while turning a blind eye to humans' own industrial-scale animal slaughter.

If he answers no, then he engenders the question of why killing a chicken is not morally equivalent to killing a human. The natural answer is then because chickens are a lower order of life with less value then humans, which in turn engenders the questions of what moral authority do animals of a "higher order" have to engage in mass slaughter and how are humans of an equal or higher order of life than Reapers, that the latter has no moral authority to slaughter the former.

In the case of answering yes, he's demonstrated hypocrisy. In the case of answering no he's demonstrated bias. Either one is the consequence of an inherently relative viewpoint, which shoots his little theory that moral relativism has no place in this argument all to hell. Is it any wonder he buggered out of the thread when pressed for an answer?

I just read the last few pages and have been following your chicken question intently. The only way to back out of the question is to say the chicken argument is irrelevant. 

No there are other ways to back out of the question besides that.  Unfortunately, they would all eventually lead to a larger debate on what the nature of morality itself is. I think Zine2 would lose that argument, based upon his opening post, because he's proceeding from a significant contradiction that I'm going to detail in my next post.

[Madmoe77]

JShepppp wrote...

sistersafetypin wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Taxonomy wrote...

The Reapers are entirely aware that they're killing people. But they're not just killing people; they're creating an "archive" of sorts from them.

Factually wrong. Stop imagining things that never actually happened in the game.

We see exactly what happens when you are "harvested". They dump nano-machines on you and turn you into paste. The paste is then used to build identical crablike machines. 

Nothing that resembles life or the previous civilization remains.

Not to mention that they do not even harvest everyone. Sometimes they just dump a few nukes and kill everyone.

Hence, there is no "archive". There is not even a "memorial". The process can be only factually described as the Reapers simply eating people. Again, we are talking about REALITIES, not the stupid and pointless connections that you can come up with in your head.

It is like someone killing and eating a chicken, and then claiming you saved the chicken because it is now part of you forever. Some people may claim that this is a "deep" and "clever" interpretation, but they're just lying to themselves. Because that "interpretation" relies PURELY on making imaginary connections in your head. It has ZERO basis in actual fact.

I completely agree with this and your original post OP. Logical errors made in the ending are numerous

Thank you for bolding that statement. Therein lies the flaw in the OP's argument, IMO - about the chickens. Lol. Imagine you kill a chicken but keep a tiny sliver of its DNA for posterity and then say you've saved the chickens while stopping them from stopping new species to evolve. 

Saving = keeping them alive is subjective.
Saving = keeping their DNA is subjective. 

There are no "facts" when the word "saving" is used. 

Serial Killers save parts of their victims too. They call them trophies. The OP isn't arguing tropies or leaving much room to argue anything in the terminology based on fact versus non-fact. A serial killer saves only the part that empowers their insane drive to commit the act. They do not have any intention of using that material to reconstruct an original copy to undo which cannot be undone. 

This further supports the OP's foundation that murder or killing is approximate. It cannot be undone. It is final. Nothing is saved but the trophy. 

[ctdmz]

humes spork wrote...

ctdmz wrote...

Killing humans (and salarians and krogan and so on) is wrong because these species have intrinsic moral value.

Why? You made the assertion, defend it. We'll handle the second part of your statement here in a minute.

Moral objectivism entails a moral law which entails a moral lawgiver. For many inviduals that lawgiver is a god (or gods).  Some believe the universe came hardcoded with morals although I personally don't. 

So the easy way to answer your question is to refer you to the law and the lawgiver. 

[Madmoe77]

JShepppp wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

Nobody said accepting the Reapers' operate with different normative perspectives means you have to agree with them. If they did it's their opinion and there's nothing wrong with that.

Some opinions are, in fact, factually wrong. And should not be given the honor of being called an "opinion". They should simply be called lies.

The Reapers believe they're ascending and we're not given enough evidence to go either way other than that people don't want to be ascended.

 
Wrong. We have evidence. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. When you are "ascended", you are turned into nano paste and made part of a giant crab.

Again, you have to intentionally delude and lie to people in order to justify "ascension"; when it is in fact simply murder. We get a first-hand view of the process with Kelly Chambers if you fail to rescue her. There is no "Ifs" or "Buts" about it.

You're applying your own moral code to everything and calling people who disagree with it as stupid.

No, I am saying that I am factually correct, and that you are lying by continually pretending it's a "moral" stand. Killing is killing. Killing is not saving. An apple is not an orange.

You can pretend it didn't happen. You can pretend it's ascension. That only makes you a liar. Again, opinions that are based on falsehoods are not opinons, they are simply LIES.

You didn't address the part about Overlord/EDI/Geth comments about the conciousness and uploading to the consciousness which if taken to be true indicate that the Reapers save minds but not bodies. Then the whole thing becomes subjective again. 

I'm not pretending it's ascension. 

Look, dude, I've clashed heads with you over the forums a lot and you've been a bit of a **** about your reasonings. I'm very open minded about things and respect your opinion - because that's what it is, an opinion.

You are confusing positive and normative statements. I'm giving you the dignity of an opinion even though you're wrong to mix the two (which by your admission would mean I would say your opinion is worthless).

I'm still confused as to how me saying accepting the Reapers' different normative stances does not mean you have to agree with them = you saying some opinions don't deserve to be respected and are lies. 

Normative statements cannot be false. Period. 

"The Reapers 'should' reap" = normative. 

Anyways, I love how you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid, a liar, a combination, or just not worthy of the dignity or respect of having an opinion. If this is the nature of BSN and nobody can speak without getting crude comments for it then we are indeed worthy of any indifference Bioware gives us.

Being blunt is fine but like I said I worry that you become too narrow-minded in an effort to steer the conversation towards your views. But you pride yourself in being blunt because it can indeed cut to the chase and say what you want to say, which has been both implicitly and explicitly clear with this thread and the way you treat others. 

Have fun with your post and Hitler-style eradication of free thought. You can message me if you want to continue our conversation (I'm sure you can say more there without being censored) but I doubt you will want to come to an agreement anyways. 

I hope you eat some ice cream to cool down over the furor you have over the game lol. Life moves on.

Cheers. Well, at least I hope cheerfulness gets around. 

The Overlord thing is like the brain in a vat argument. But as I mentioned above that doesn't work. The entire brain in a vat allegory is that your mind is trapped and all of your interactions are but stimulations without a single physical sensation. It falls apart the moment that that conscience is involved in a physical realm. No matter the contact the operation is still contained in a real world reality. At the point of brain in a vat-the truth that there is a grand operator controlling sensations also argues that nothing exists without interacting in a real world. 

So the OP points out that you have to deal in real world realizations. I can't vouch for tone though  

[Zine2]

[quote]webhead921 wrote...
It is and he knows it, that's why he's dodging my question.

Because if he answers yes, killing a chicken is morally equivalent to killing a human, then humans are no better than Reapers and hypocrites for condemning the Reapers for engaging in mass murder while turning a blind eye to humans' own industrial-scale animal slaughter.
[/quote]

Best post of the thread.  OP better fess up!

[/quote][/quote]

Actually, I was writing up a parody thread. Because the pathetic attempts of the moral relativists to claim that I am making a moral argument inspired a bout of humor.

Anyway, as I have said, I am not making a moral argument. I am making a factual argument.

The Reapers say that what they are doing is "Salvation through destruction"

Salvation and destruction are two different things. Apples and oranges.

And this is before ANY morality comes into view.

So the people arguing that it's a case of moral relativism are ignoring the actual stated reasons of the Reapers.

So again, let's put up the OP:

[quote]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.

The problem is this: The Reapers aren't just operating on a different set of morals. They are so factually retarded that they can be considered clinically insane; or they are lying. Either way, they are not worthy of support or sympathy.

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.

So when the Reapers equate "killing" with "saving" ("We are your salvation through destruction"), what they are saying is simply factually wrong. They are saying an "Apple" is an "Orange". Thus, only two conclusions are possible:

1) They are lying - they know it's an apple but insist on calling it an orange.

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.

There is no other room for other "interpretations". This is the harsh reality of the ending. You can close your eyes, cover your ears, and go LALALALA, but that's the truth of it. The Reapers are lying or clinically insane.

So when they say they are "beyond our understanding", we shouldn't look at them with awe or wonder. They just can't admit that they're so monumentally stupid or dishonest that their arguments have absolutely no merit.

Factual analysis always trumps moral relativism. Reality always trumps the voices in your head. Until people who like the ending open their eyes and stop covering their ears and realize how wrong the Reaper's argument is - on a factual level; not just a "moral" one - then they're never going to understand why 92% of the people polled hated the ending.[/quote]

Anyone who claims I made a moral argument is lying. Anyone who insists that we should talk about it as a moral argument is being off-topic. I am talking about the FACTUAL inaccuracies of the Reaper's actual stated goals.

Modifié par Zine2, 16 avril 2012 - 06:33 .

[JShepppp]

Madmoe77 wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

sistersafetypin wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Taxonomy wrote...

The Reapers are entirely aware that they're killing people. But they're not just killing people; they're creating an "archive" of sorts from them.

Factually wrong. Stop imagining things that never actually happened in the game.

We see exactly what happens when you are "harvested". They dump nano-machines on you and turn you into paste. The paste is then used to build identical crablike machines. 

Nothing that resembles life or the previous civilization remains.

Not to mention that they do not even harvest everyone. Sometimes they just dump a few nukes and kill everyone.

Hence, there is no "archive". There is not even a "memorial". The process can be only factually described as the Reapers simply eating people. Again, we are talking about REALITIES, not the stupid and pointless connections that you can come up with in your head.

It is like someone killing and eating a chicken, and then claiming you saved the chicken because it is now part of you forever. Some people may claim that this is a "deep" and "clever" interpretation, but they're just lying to themselves. Because that "interpretation" relies PURELY on making imaginary connections in your head. It has ZERO basis in actual fact.

I completely agree with this and your original post OP. Logical errors made in the ending are numerous

Thank you for bolding that statement. Therein lies the flaw in the OP's argument, IMO - about the chickens. Lol. Imagine you kill a chicken but keep a tiny sliver of its DNA for posterity and then say you've saved the chickens while stopping them from stopping new species to evolve. 

Saving = keeping them alive is subjective.
Saving = keeping their DNA is subjective. 

There are no "facts" when the word "saving" is used. 

Serial Killers save parts of their victims too. They call them trophies. The OP isn't arguing tropies or leaving much room to argue anything in the terminology based on fact versus non-fact. A serial killer saves only the part that empowers their insane drive to commit the act. They do not have any intention of using that material to reconstruct an original copy to undo which cannot be undone. 

This further supports the OP's foundation that murder or killing is approximate. It cannot be undone. It is final. Nothing is saved but the trophy. 

Killing is a fact.

Murder being intentional killing is a fact.

Killing and/or murder being wrong involves morals. 

Nobody disagrees with you that killing is final. Ask someone if killing someone is final then they'll agree.

The point many people are making is that there is a chance Reaper-fication is not the same as shooting someone in the head.

The definition of when someone is dead or what constitues them being alive is another topic open to debate. ME tells us the mind can be separate from the body (post about Reapers consisting of a lot of minds, Shep's experiences with Overlord/Geth collective). 

Turning someone into genetic mush is death.

Turning someone into genetic mush but absorbing their mind into a Reaper...dunno because life and death weren't defined enough.

The question of life/death is a different track to introducing the idea that moral relativism is inherent in the Reapers' goal. Look in this thread for all the posts about chickens. They offer a quicker and more direct solution to showing how morals are tied in here. 

[humes spork]

ctdmz wrote...

So the easy way to answer your question is to refer you to the law and the lawgiver.

Dude, Kant.

[Madmoe77]

sladevii wrote...

This Zine2 guy is ridiculous... As Sisterofshane mentioned, hunters thinning a population to prevent overpopulation which would result in collapse of the entire ecosystem, is a perfect example of "salvation through destruction"...

But the hunter is preserving even the species he is thinning. Reapers are wiping out species out of physical existence out of a twisted sense of self ordainment. If they thinned those past species-where are they 50,000 years later? 

[Torrible]

Boneyaards wrote...

I hate to be the guy who ultimately sides with the Reapers when they claim that they yield "salvation through destruction" but you must admit, that their logic is correct, especially when viewed from their perspective.

You can either have synthetics completely wipe out organics resulting in the extinction of biological life, or you have the Reapers wipe out MOST of your species to prevent you from reaching such a point in evolution. This way, even though billions die, you are not faced with the extinction of your race and the consequence of having your entire species become extinct, and forgotten. FOREVER.

And coming from the Reapers point of view, an apple IS an orange. We, as humans, only view an apple as an apple because that is the strict perspective that we have come to adhere to. A Reaper, who possesses an entirely different mindset, may be able to see an apple as an orange.

To humans, death is always black and white, but to a race that has seen countless cycles of bloodbath, they may be able to address the complexity of death. There are many grey areas that we are yet to explore.

This. Killing humans is wrong from a humanistic perspective. But if we were to assign no subjective preference to humans over other living things, if we were able to look at things from a god's eye perspective, it's easy to agree that humans offer no value to other living things apart from themselves. They pollute the environment and drain the Earth of resources a mllion times faster than accumulated. They abuse and kill animals in unnatural ways and numbers. From an utilitarian moral perspective, humans being extinct would be a very good thing indeed for all other species.

Modifié par Torrible, 16 avril 2012 - 06:42 .

[Zine2]

daecath wrote...

Zine2 wrote...
So when the Reapers equate "killing" with "saving" ("We are your salvation through destruction"), what they are saying is simply factually wrong. They are saying an "Apple" is an "Orange". Thus, only two conclusions are possible:

1) They are lying - they know it's an apple but insist on calling it an orange.

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.

There is no other room for other "interpretations". This is the harsh reality of the ending.

As much as I hate to disagree with anyone who is ragging on the endings, I'm afraid I'm going to have to.

Let's say you have a baby chick that is just about to hatch. You want to help it out, so when you see it's little beak poke out, you start removing the shell from around it. You believe you are helping this little baby creature come into the world, but in reality, you are harming it. There are plenty of other examples in the animal kingdom where humans attempting to help actually do more harm than good. We see a creature in need, and so we help it in the best way we know how. The animal however sees it differently. Perhaps by helping, we are preventing it from learning a vital skill. Perhaps we are somehow "tainting" it so that it will no longer be accepted by its society.

Even in our own society, we have less dramatic versions of this. You might open a door for a woman because you think it's chivalrous, only to have her get upset at you for sexism. You might offer to pay for a meal for a friend you know is struggling, only for them to get upset at your handout. Perspective does change things.

Now I'm not saying they're right. But I'm saying there is a third option beyond either them lying, or them being insane. They could honestly believe, either because they are deluded, or because they know something we don't, that they are helping us. That doesn't make them insane, and it doesn't make them liars.

Except that it's not as subtle as "You're actually helping the chick instead of harming it". It's actually pretty clear: Saving vs Killing.

A subtle difference can be excused as a dumb move, but when the the difference is like that between night and day you have to chalk it up to clinical insanity.

[Madmoe77]

JShepppp wrote...

Madmoe77 wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

sistersafetypin wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Taxonomy wrote...

The Reapers are entirely aware that they're killing people. But they're not just killing people; they're creating an "archive" of sorts from them.

Factually wrong. Stop imagining things that never actually happened in the game.

We see exactly what happens when you are "harvested". They dump nano-machines on you and turn you into paste. The paste is then used to build identical crablike machines. 

Nothing that resembles life or the previous civilization remains.

Not to mention that they do not even harvest everyone. Sometimes they just dump a few nukes and kill everyone.

Hence, there is no "archive". There is not even a "memorial". The process can be only factually described as the Reapers simply eating people. Again, we are talking about REALITIES, not the stupid and pointless connections that you can come up with in your head.

It is like someone killing and eating a chicken, and then claiming you saved the chicken because it is now part of you forever. Some people may claim that this is a "deep" and "clever" interpretation, but they're just lying to themselves. Because that "interpretation" relies PURELY on making imaginary connections in your head. It has ZERO basis in actual fact.

I completely agree with this and your original post OP. Logical errors made in the ending are numerous

Thank you for bolding that statement. Therein lies the flaw in the OP's argument, IMO - about the chickens. Lol. Imagine you kill a chicken but keep a tiny sliver of its DNA for posterity and then say you've saved the chickens while stopping them from stopping new species to evolve. 

Saving = keeping them alive is subjective.
Saving = keeping their DNA is subjective. 

There are no "facts" when the word "saving" is used. 

Serial Killers save parts of their victims too. They call them trophies. The OP isn't arguing tropies or leaving much room to argue anything in the terminology based on fact versus non-fact. A serial killer saves only the part that empowers their insane drive to commit the act. They do not have any intention of using that material to reconstruct an original copy to undo which cannot be undone. 

This further supports the OP's foundation that murder or killing is approximate. It cannot be undone. It is final. Nothing is saved but the trophy. 

Killing is a fact.

Murder being intentional killing is a fact.

Killing and/or murder being wrong involves morals. 

Nobody disagrees with you that killing is final. Ask someone if killing someone is final then they'll agree.

The point many people are making is that there is a chance Reaper-fication is not the same as shooting someone in the head.

The definition of when someone is dead or what constitues them being alive is another topic open to debate. ME tells us the mind can be separate from the body (post about Reapers consisting of a lot of minds, Shep's experiences with Overlord/Geth collective). 

Turning someone into genetic mush is death.

Turning someone into genetic mush but absorbing their mind into a Reaper...dunno because life and death weren't defined enough.

The question of life/death is a different track to introducing the idea that moral relativism is inherent in the Reapers' goal. Look in this thread for all the posts about chickens. They offer a quicker and more direct solution to showing how morals are tied in here. 

What I gather from the OP is that it is illogical to say "kill all dolphins to save them from tuna nets."  Even if slapping their name on the side of a starfish tuna can preserves their subconscious in each bite. 

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

Anyway, as I have said, I am not making a moral argument. I am making a factual argument.

No you're not, you're making a pedantic argument stemming from how Reapers justify and/or codify their actions. That the Reapers' actions are morally condemnable is a hidden premise of your judgment of their actions.

Modifié par humes spork, 16 avril 2012 - 06:43 .

[RaptorV1982]

Unless if they are not merely preserving species, but of sentient life irregardless of its shape or form. If they are our salvation through destruction, they may not be referring to a singular species--but life in general. Regardless, its all speculation at this point.