MisterJB wrote...
What is wrong to one person may not be wrong to another and we judge people and situations based on the values that we were taught. It's the sad truth.
Moral Relativism is complete crap. I know this because there are actions that are equally repugnant across almost every civilization ever to arise (ie. murder). If Moral Relativism holds true, that wouldn't be so.
I consider that making a decision for other people is morally sound as long as the decision is for their good and I don't believe we should thake their opinion into consideration. You might disagree and judge this as wrong which I will acept.
Then you are arrogant. This is the worst kind of infantilization of others because you would believe that you are better equipped to decide for other what is in there best interests based simply on the idea that you think it's better.
Ask the gays how being told who they could and couldn't love felt. After all, the people in power also thought they knew what was better for gays than gay people did. But, since those in power made that decision for homosexuals own good, then the opposing opinion shouldn't be considered. Why bother right? What could they possibly know about that topic?
See the problem?
The StarChild spoke the truth when it said Reapers preserve organic civilizations, we've seen it happen.
Cite your sources. The Reapers liquify members of a civilization in order to build new Reapers. That's not the same as preserving. Not by any stretch.
Its words make sense(synthetics will, eventually, destroy organics) and the alternative is to believe it created a solution for a problem that doesn't exist which is nonsensical. Clearly, it doesn't want to wipe out organics or the Reapers could easily transform the galaxy into a wasteland and it is also the oldest form of counsciousness is the galaxy so, it could have seen synthetics destroy organic civilizations.
Therefore, I'm willing to believe in what it says.
How does its words make sense? It is advocating a pre-emptive strike on the victims. If synthetics are the aggressors (and the phrase "Synthetics will eventually destroy organics" makes clear that they are) then the LOGICAL thing to do would be to kill the Synthetics. The organics would be the victims, so you should be protecting them.
There is evidence to the counter what this kid is saying right outside the window. The brat has been in existance for who knows how long, is a synthetic, and hasn't wiped out all organic life ... so he is also his own counter-point. Yet, ignoring all of that, you're willing to believe what the brat says, based on fourteen lines of dialogue?
On one hand, you ovewrite the free will of every creature in the galaxy just once but you give them a much stronger possiblity of preventing a war.
Committing a massive crime is OK, as long you only do it once? Good to know.
The Geth have made no aggressive moves after they defended themselves from the Quarians. EDI has also made zero aggressive moves since she tried to defend herself on Luna. Again, the brat's logic is refuted.
On the other hand, you uphold free will but also risk the complete extinction of organic life at the hands of synthetics. I am not willing to take that risk and I also see ways of not just saving, but improving the galaxy through Synthesis.
Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
1-Shepard is partially synthetic and he seems to be doing fine.
2-Unlike true Synthesis, that was organics trying to use synthetics for their own ends, not that different from what happened between the geth and quarians. Synthesis would be a symbiotic relationship, they would become as much a part of us as our DNA.
1. Shepard is the only example of a being that is merged with synthetics and having no ill effects.
2. Javik's example specifically mentioned that the synthetics in his cycle used implants to enhance their intelligence. They tried to go for True Synthesis, even giving the implants the ability to shape the genetic structure at the deepest level. Look what happened to them.
I think I'm bowing out of this. I've articulated exactly why I believe Synthesis to be disgusting. Trading away one of the defining characteristics of life for some shiny, synthetic toys is monstrous. The concept that one person, or group of people, know better than I do what is good for me is just abhorrent. I don't think I can explain it any better.
Retour en haut
