270 réponses à ce sujet

[Jassu1979]

Just because Reapers operate by a completely different mindset and norm does not mean that we must not relate to them by applying our own, and judging them in relation to ourselves.

Let's say that there was a species that needed human flesh to sustain itself: it would not be morally wrong for them to hunt and kill us for food. However, that hardly means that we'd have to lie down and calmly wait for them to consume us. Quite the contrary - it'd be perfectly reasonable and moral for us to try to escape such a fate.

[Zine2]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Never said that you were making a moral argument.

Never said it was you. I was referring to chickens man

What we are saying is that you are trying to remove the morality from the Reapers argument, in order to make them seem illogical.  The problem is that their morality (and any relativism thereof) is central to their actions in the first place.

Now that's certainly a more interesting take. "Reapers are illogical because they are following a certain morality".

That is a valid counter-point, but again this is why I said moral relativism must ultimately be trumped by actual facts. Any moral systems must be based on reality, not imagined ramblings.

When you take the stand that chickens should not be killed and eaten, you cannot claim it's because "They have human DNA!". That is factually wrong and will discredit your moral system.

What you CAN do is to say "all life is precious". Bio-diversity must be respected. Chickens can feel too. These are all factual arguments.

The Reapers are not just going around killing EVERYTHING, and then try to make up for the fact by "storing" us in Reaper shells.

Except that storing your component parts does not constitute preserving "life". It is again not "saving", at least without several levels of self-delusion.

Someone put it succintly up above (forgot who and too late to go looking up posts) it is more like having a limb go gangrene - rather than allow the limb to fester for the sake of the "limb", it is amputated.  Keeping the limb, no matter how useful and wonderful it may have been before the gangrene, would have led to the death of the limb's owner.  In these cases, the Doctors make a MORAL decision in that they "sacrifice" the limb in order to save the life.  Oftentimes the now limb-less person will protest the loss of the limb.  They may believe that they could have saved it.  The Doctors, however, are the one's that went to medical school, and knew that the limb had to go, even though you might deny the fact that it kept you alive for the rest of your life.

Here's the thing though: We don't actually know if they're making the right call. And bluntly, technological singularity is so utterly discredited in real science it is not even worth calling a theory.

It'd be the equivalent of cutting off your right arm because of "Zombie disease!" that only exists in fiction books.

[LilyasAvalon]

...I want apple pie now.

[Orthodox Infidel]

Zine2 wrote...

"I stand for something" is different from "That is factually wrong". This is an argument about the latter. Hume is playing games and trying to make it about the former.

I don't care what you stand for or don't stand for; things have a moral status regardless of whether we make stands or not. What that status is is what we're talking about here, because you've gone from saying "it's not realtive" to "it's not relevant" and you've done it in a very problematic and contradictory fashion.

Implict is that "killing" is problematic to you. Why?

Because it is the opposite of what they say they wish to achieve. Again: If you claim to be doing "A", but in fact do "B", you are either lying or your are deranged.

Apples are apples. Apples are not oranges.

Ok, so "saving" isn't "killing." What if the Reapers say that "saving" means "preventing these people from ever experiencing the effects of a technological singularity." Or, if you attack that on claiming a literal reading of the existing script, then say that the Reapers are "saving" means "saving people from death at the hands of other machines." This is essentially what they state they're doing. Note that this "interpretation" of their statement makes no metaphysical assumptions about what happens to Kelly Chambers after she gets liquified. 

Do you still have a problem now? If so, what is it? If not, then how was your argument relevant to begin with?

[Sisterofshane]

Zine2 wrote...

sladevii wrote...
The statement in and of itself is not factually wrong.  Secondly, to answer your question, there are two possibilities:
a) the Reapers believe they are saving organic life, by wiping the more advanced forms of organic life under the assumption that those more advanced forms would eventually bring about the death of all organic life.
the Reapers believe they capture the essence/soul/consciousness of the beings they process, and therefore they are saving that essence by processing beings before the presumed self-inflicted death of all organic life.

Again, the issue is that "belief" does not matter; that is why I am removing morality from the equation in this particular thread.

Killing is killing. Apples are apples. They are not oranges.

When you claim that apples are in fact oranges, you are either lying, or you are deluding yourself and are therefore clinically insane. This is exactly what you claim the Reapers are doing in case a) and .

Alright then.  Killing is killing.
From this standpoint, then, I can say that killing another human being is no worse than stepping on an ant.  Both are lifeforms.  Trying to justify either as better or worse from a moral standpoint makes me either a liar, or clinically insane.

^The problem with the above statement?  It's just the opposite.  Killing without some sort of moral justification, whether it be relative (ants are clearly inferior beings that just exist to get into my kitchen and annoy the crap out of me) or repulsive (that human would have outed me for whatever crime I just commited, so for the sake of self-preservation I have to "off" them), is really what people view as "insanity".

If the catalyst had told me "We kill for no reason. Life and death have no meaning."  At THIS point, I would have said it was either crazy, or it was lying to me.  This isn't to say that the catalyst is superior in it's moral reasoning, but we can't take it's morality as an indiciation as to whether it is a liar or insane.  That is the very point in considering moral relativism.

[Made Nightwing]

Moral relativism is a lie promulgated by those who would hold that we are not responsible for evil actions.

[sladevii]

Zine2 wrote...

sladevii wrote...
The statement in and of itself is not factually wrong.  Secondly, to answer your question, there are two possibilities:
a) the Reapers believe they are saving organic life, by wiping the more advanced forms of organic life under the assumption that those more advanced forms would eventually bring about the death of all organic life.
the Reapers believe they capture the essence/soul/consciousness of the beings they process, and therefore they are saving that essence by processing beings before the presumed self-inflicted death of all organic life.

Again, the issue is that "belief" does not matter; that is why I am removing morality from the equation in this particular thread.

Killing is killing. Apples are apples. They are not oranges.

When you claim that apples are in fact oranges, you are either lying, or you are deluding yourself and are therefore clinically insane. This is exactly what you claim the Reapers are doing in case a) and .

Only if you can prove without a doubt that the belief is wrong.  If I say I believe 1+1 is 3, you can say I'm factually wrong, but if I say I believe in God, you cannot prove me wrong, therefore it comes down to opinion rather than fact.  In this case I would say there is no way to prove either option wrong:

a) the question here is whether organic life would destroy itself if the reapers did not take action - there is no way to know, so this is opinion and not fact one way or the other.
the question here is whether the reapers capture and preserve the essence/soul/consciousness of the beings they process.  We again don't have enough information to disprove this, so it is opnion and not fact.  The fact that we have seen humans die when being processed by them does not prove that consciousness is not preserved, just as seeing someone die in real life does not disprove the possibility of a soul and an afterlife.  "Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense."

Thus it is a difference of opinion and not a factual discrepancy.

[Meltemph]

The fact that we have seen humans die when being processed by them does not prove that consciousness is not preserved

You just reminded me why I hated that part in ME2. Thanks.

[RaptorV1982]

Awww yeah, I could really go for some apple pie. I will hold my knife high and whisper softly to the apple, "We are your salvation through your destruction" before chopping it into little pieces. IN a way, I save them, and unlock their true culinary potential of deliciousness.

Modifié par RaptorV1982, 16 avril 2012 - 07:40 .

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...
You're the one bluntly arguing the Reapers are non compos mentis, and comparing them to people who must be separated from society for the sake of safety. That has a dramatically higher burden of proof than simply having a clinical disorder such as synesthesia, dyslexia, autism, schizotypal, all of which impact a person's ability to understand and perceive the world around them and interact with it in a normative way.

Generally, in order to commit someone they must be a danger to themselves or others. Which means they are likely to accidentally or not harm another or themselves. Of course, you're not merely suggesting by your choice of words they're merely a danger by accident but rather by purpose as would be a sadistic, anti-social, narcissistic, and/or negativistic individual. That is to say, they either cannot tell the difference between an act that is morally permissible and one that is impermissible (or, just for the sake of disclosure, can and simply don't care) and as a result commit morally impermissible actions. And, to suggest they lie about it indicates they're aware their actions are morally impermissible and as a result seek justification; otherwise, there would be no need for justification.

This is the most idiotic argument I've ever seen.

You are seriously arguing that Reapers are "not a danger to others", so they can't be considered clinically insane?

Really? Did you miss the burning Galaxy over to the right?

Also, you again fail to address that the Reapers may be lying. Bzzzt. Sorry, thank you for failing. Again.

And all of that boils down to the fact you're still hiding the premise that killing is wrong. Because if killing wasn't wrong, why would you need to lie about it? Why would someone need be "committed" for it, being unable to recognize it for what it is, and that being wrong?

This is the second most idiotic argument yet.

You DO realize that lifeforms do NOT want to die, yes? And try to run and avoid being killed? Like what we see in the game?

So lying to them can make it easier to mass-murder them, yes? Like how TIM lied to everyone and said Sanctuary was safe, when it was in fact a processing center?

[RaptorV1982]

What about people who kill themselves? They kinda want to die. They even go out of their way to get killed! Like running into oncoming vehicles, or not eating apple pie.

[sladevii]

Zine2 wrote...

Here's the thing though: We don't actually know if they're making the right call. And bluntly, technological singularity is so utterly discredited in real science it is not even worth calling a theory.

It'd be the equivalent of cutting off your right arm because of "Zombie disease!" that only exists in fiction books.

This is opinion.  You've gone from saying "an apple is not an orange" to saying "we don't actually know if this apple is an orange or not".  This is a perfectly valid discussion to have, but it is not the factual discrepancy you were pointing out in the first post.

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

What you CAN do is to say "all life is precious". Bio-diversity must be respected. Chickens can feel too. These are all factual arguments.

No.

Of those three assertions you just made, one is a borderline factual statement, but needs clarification. The others are values statements.

If "chickens can feel" you mean that chickens have central nervous systems and are capable of receiving and processing physical stimuli, then yes that is a fact. If by "chickens can feel" you mean experience emotion, think, and learn (develop preferences and aversions to certain stimuli), okay I'll buy that as a factual statement as well. Hell, why not. I've been around chickens long enough to know they'll learn to stay away from an electric fence after being zapped a few times. If by "chickens can feel" you mean they are thinking, sapient creatures then no, that is not a factual statement.

"All life is precious" is a value statement. You make that assertion because you believe life has intrinsic value.

"Biodiversity must be respected" is again a value statement, most likely stemming from the statement I just addressed probably coupled with a deeper understanding of ecosystems and environments, food chains and such. I don't feel like discussing the details, rather pointing out that it is a value statement opposed to fact.

You may base those values statements upon fact, and would be correct to do so, but that does not change that they are value statements merely derived from fact rather than facts themselves.

[Meltemph]

>.> Humes... It sounds like you are trying to bring Nihilism in this conversation(ninja like)... While I think most of your points so far have been solid, please dont let it creep in. I swear every person on the internet loves that stuff. My bad if I am way off.

[RaptorV1982]

sladevii wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Here's the thing though: We don't actually know if they're making the right call. And bluntly, technological singularity is so utterly discredited in real science it is not even worth calling a theory.

It'd be the equivalent of cutting off your right arm because of "Zombie disease!" that only exists in fiction books.

This is opinion.  You've gone from saying "an apple is not an orange" to saying "we don't actually know if this apple is an orange or not".  This is a perfectly valid discussion to have, but it is not the factual discrepancy you were pointing out in the first post.

The notion that man could achieve assisted flight was believed to be an impossible notion. Who are we to judge  what is and what isn't possible regarding technological singularity?

Modifié par RaptorV1982, 16 avril 2012 - 07:50 .

[Meltemph]

The notion that man could achieve assisted flight was believed to be an impossible notion. Who are we to judge  what is and what isn't impossible regarding technological singularity?

I dunno about that one... I think it is pretty clear we have been trying too since forever.  I mean we have images with the Inca's, Mayans, ancient India and ect. I think we have dared to fly for a very very long time. 

[Credit2team]

why should Shepard accept the moral perspective of the reapers if they don't accept his/humanity's moral perspective that killing/harvesting is not saving. (in other words I agree with the OP)

[Zine2]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

I don't care what you stand for or don't stand for; things have a moral status regardless of whether we make stands or not. What that status is is what we're talking about here, because you've gone from saying "it's not realtive" to "it's not relevant" and you've done it in a very problematic and contradictory fashion.

Again, Orthodox, you're misunderstand.

"It's not relevant in this discussion", does not mean "Absolute morality is now false".

Sometimes you need to split arguments down into its component parts, because discussing moral relativism will add a lot of other chatter (like all of the pointless talk of chickens) that is not relevant to discussing the simple, factual consistency of the Reaper's position.

Which is why I find all of this "Zine2 is being hypocritical and inconsistent!" talk silly. It is not at all inconsistent. To say "We believe in an absolute moral code wherein killing is bad", and then to say later "Even if we ignore this absolute morality in a hypothetical scenario, the Reaper's maxim is either a lie or the product of a deranged mind".

They are NOT contradictory. At all.

Ok, so "saving" isn't "killing." What if the Reapers say that "saving" means "preventing these people from ever experiencing the effects of a technological singularity."

Then that's what they should actually say, and then they will find themselves getting shouted down at how technological singularity is a complete fabrication of dunderheads who have no idea how computers or sentience works.

Which STILL makes them clinically insane, because they believe in a concept (technological singularity), that is about as real as the Zombie Apocalypse or Cthulhu in real life.
 

Or, if you attack that on claiming a literal reading of the existing script, then say that the Reapers are "saving" means "saving people from death at the hands of other machines."

Then they will get shouted down for being retards.

After all - They're just doing the work of the other machines for them.

This is essentially what they state they're doing. Note that this "interpretation" of their statement makes no metaphysical assumptions about what happens to Kelly Chambers after she gets liquified. 

Do you still have a problem now? If so, what is it? If not, then how was your argument relevant to begin with?

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.

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

This is the most idiotic argument I've ever seen.

You are seriously arguing that Reapers are "not a danger to others", so they can't be considered clinically insane?

Really? Did you miss the burning Galaxy over to the right?

Also, you again fail to address that the Reapers may be lying. Bzzzt. Sorry, thank you for failing. Again.

No, I suggest you reread my post for what I actually said -- that you set the burden of proof that Reapers are not merely sufferers of a disorder, but criminally so -- and stop building straw men of my posts based upon your own selective reading.

And again, you distract from the key issue here, and the assertion I'm asking you to defend by explaining why their actions elevate them to this higher standard of "insanity".

This is the second most idiotic argument yet.

You DO realize that lifeforms do NOT want to die, yes? And try to run and avoid being killed? Like what we see in the game?

So lying to them can make it easier to mass-murder them, yes? Like how TIM lied to everyone and said Sanctuary was safe, when it was in fact a processing center?

Ah, calling me an idiot now on top of a liar and charlatan? You're so charitable. I'm sure that in no way speaks to your capability to argue and the solidity of your own position.

And, I thought the Reapers were engaged in only self-delusion,

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

Except that storing your component parts does not constitute preserving "life". It is again not "saving", at least without several levels of self-delusion.

which was the core of your argument for Reaper malevolence regardless of "moral relativism", was it not? Or is this merely a case of best-fitting your own words to suit your argument as necessary?

Modifié par humes spork, 16 avril 2012 - 07:59 .

[Zine2]

RaptorV1982 wrote...
The notion that man could achieve assisted flight was believed to be an impossible notion. Who are we to judge  what is and what isn't possible regarding technological singularity?

There are a lot of things that we couldn't do in the past. However, that does not mean we will be able to violate pre-existing physical laws.

For instance, powered flight ultimately revolves round controlling the air flow around a machine/object - like how the birds do it. We can't do it by cancelling out gravity for instance - because we've never seen an object unaffected by gravity.

Similarly, computer scientists and those who study sentience can already make informed guesses on how an AI will look like. And the concept of technological singularity is, frankly, one developed by complete idiots with no knowledge of how computers or sentience works.

At the heart of sentience is an underlying function that receives data (senses), processes it, which then modifies the basic function. This happens iteratively over countless cycles, until a specific "personality" or "intelligence" emerges.

Increased processing power - which the technological singularity idiots claim will result in runaway intelligence - is IRRELEVANT to how the base function develops. It might develop faster, or it will have better reaction time. But how the sentience develops ultimately revolves around the basic core function and what data you put into it.
 
So when an AI is developed in the near future, it will not suddenly become exponentially intelligent because it has the most powerful CPU ever. It will still be limited by what data is fed, and what it "learns" from its peers / human controllers.

So ultimately, an AI will become "good" or "bad" is based on how well the core function was designed, and how we treat and teach it. It is NOT about processing power; and it will not grow exponentially out of control just because we give it a new CPU. The people who come to that conclusion are idiots who've never taken a computer science course on AI and don't understand how software works.

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

No, I suggest you reread my post for what I actually said -- that you set the burden of proof that Reapers are not merely sufferers of a disorder, but criminally so -- and stop building straw men of my posts based upon your own selective reading.

I said clinically insane, not criminally. But if you want to nitpick, a simple "insane" will do, because again the mere fact you made that argument was idiotic to the extreme - it's totally irrelevant when YOU are the one who is arguing "human morality does not apply!". The mere fact that it cannot tell an apple from an orange will tell you the Reapers are insane.

Ah, calling me an idiot now on top of a liar and charlatan? You're so charitable. I'm sure that in no way speaks to your capability to argue and the solidity of your own position.

Absolutely. I'm not an idiot, and I didn't miss your own subtle little jabs, so don't go crying when you get hit by some.

BTW, you completely failed to address what I said. Are you seriously so ignorant to realize that lying to lifeforms who don't want to die will help in exterminating them? Are you that naive?

which was the core of your argument for Reaper malevolence regardless of "moral relativism", was it not? Or is this merely a case of best-fitting your own words to suit your argument as necessary?

Nope, it's the reason why I said the only two possibilities are insanity or lying. Do you deny this is lying?

Modifié par Zine2, 16 avril 2012 - 08:05 .

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

Which is why I find all of this "Zine2 is being hypocritical and inconsistent!" talk silly. It is not at all inconsistent. To say "We believe in an absolute moral code wherein killing is bad", and then to say later "Even if we ignore this absolute morality in a hypothetical scenario, the Reaper's maxim is either a lie or the product of a deranged mind".

Except for the fact you're claiming to ignore the maxim that killing is wrong for the purpose of a hypothetical scenario and proceeding to use the premise anyways. Otherwise, in a "hypothetical scenario" were killing morally permissible there would be no need to engage in self-delusion whether intentionally or the result of derangement, which is the very heart of your argument.

This is the question to which you absolutely, positively must answer for that point to be cogent and relevant: why would an actor lie, or need to lie, about an action that is not wrong?

That is not a rhetorical question. That is an actual, straightforward challenge to your argument. I am specifically calling you out to answer that question without misdirection or deflection. Consider the gauntlet on the ground. Like a bawss.

[Heretic19]

I think you got it all wrong. I always saw it as the salvation of all organic life. Not just specific beings, but the beings to come in the future. If organic life created synthetic life that could end ALL organic life ever possible in the galaxy... then you would need the salvation business.

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

Nope, it's the reason why I said the only two possibilities are insanity or lying. Do you deny this is lying?

Oh no, I fully cede the Reapers are lying their shiny, metal asses off to their victims. I have no qualms admitting that. That's facially factual. And honestly, rather irrelevant to the point considering you initially were and consistently have been arguing they're engaging in self-delusion, which is completely separate from lying to others, and trying to deflect attention from that assertion by now alleging they're lying to their victims.

Now, as I just said,

This is the question to which you absolutely, positively must answer for that point to be cogent and relevant: why would an actor lie, or need to lie, about an action that is not wrong?

Or rather, taking to heart your attempts to deflect,

Why would an actor engage in self-delusion, or need to engage in self-delusion, over an act that is not wrong?

Modifié par humes spork, 16 avril 2012 - 08:14 .

[Meltemph]

Heretic19 wrote...

I think you got it all wrong. I always saw it as the salvation of all organic life. Not just specific beings, but the beings to come in the future. If organic life created synthetic life that could end ALL organic life ever possible in the galaxy... then you would need the salvation business.

That doesnt make sense either though(not saying agree pruely with this guys logic).  All those organics they are "saving" are about to be murdered by them next... Sure they are not killing off all life at the same time, they are doing in phases... Not much of a difference.