336 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

adneate wrote...
Ah the old "The Ends Justify The Means" defence, how many war criminals and sociopaths have used that to get some sleep at night. The morality is irrelevant, the sacrifice is irrelevant and any crimes are irrelevant since in the end it will all be worth it.

I find it curious that your passionate defence of synthesis is in the end defended by that statement, since technically it invalidates all moral arguments by rendering morality itself an irrelevancy. If you invoke that defence you can't then say "Homophobia is wrong or Racism is wrong" because morality no longer exists in any finite sense. It exists only in a loose contextual sense, it's no longer "Thou shalt not murder" but "Thou shalt not murder unless thou has a good reason to". Since we've now made all morality contextual we also can't really claim Synthesis to be on a moral highground over destroy since the moral judgements made to evaluate each decision is contextual.

Destroy is the right choice because the ends justify the means.

I can accept that if you explain to me why you believe destroy is the right choice. Why you believe the consequences of that decision justify the means through which it was achieved and why are they preferable to Synthesis. Then, it is up to me to agree or not with you.
Morals were created by men and, naturally, they can change from person to person. Can I, objectivelly, place value in the life of a human being? No.
I do it because I'm a person with the capability to emphatize with others. As such, I view racism as wrong and would take the necessary steps to eliminating it (once again, pushing the button). But can I, objectively, determine that racism is wrong?
I don't believe so because I don't believe in moral absolutism.

Also, I don't believe I ever claimed Synthesis was, morally, preferrable to Destroy. All my arguments have been based on practical matters.

Modifié par MisterJB, 01 mai 2012 - 06:02 .

[The Angry One]

Optimystic_X wrote...

In both cases, Shepard is unilaterally making a hard choice to save as many lives as possible. How is there no comparison?

One is a situation where there is literally no choice. Relay or Reapers. Reapers or relay.
Even the Catalyst presents two other options, as asinine as they are.

Also, scale. SCALE.

And if it really sucks/people want to "opt out" later, at least they're all alive - they're chances of finding a way out are much higher than if they're reaped/have no super-smart Geth around.

Right, I'm sure they'll get right down to ALTERING THEIR DNA.
I'm sure the Yahg will be succeful in opting out with their >1950's tech.

Modifié par The Angry One, 01 mai 2012 - 06:02 .

[JBPBRC]

One reason why they didn't show Saren was probably to make it easier for newcomers.

Another is that its hard to say Synthesis is the "best" ending when you have the villain of Mass Effect 1 laughing and gloating about it while you fall into a green abyss.

[The Angry One]

JBPBRC wrote...

Another is that its hard to say Synthesis is the "best" ending when you have the villain of Mass Effect 1 laughing and gloating about it while you fall into a green abyss.

Sort of funny because every time I've watched synthesis on youtube (I'd sooner take a spacewalk without a suit than choose synthesis with any Shepard I call mine) that's basically what I saw in my mind.

[frylock23]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Sepharih wrote...

We've had this conversation before.  Like last time, I pointed out that when you speak of "speeding it up", what you're really promoting is eugenics.

Godwin yet again. Can you people really find no other way to articulate your point of view besides RAH?

And no, nanotechnology and eugenics are completely different. Eugenics has no scientific basis, merely racism. Nanotechnology has obvious benefits, as proven by our own world, the Quarians, the Salarians, and even the Human military.

The Angry One wrote...

There is no comparison. NO COMPARISON.

In both cases, Shepard is unilaterally making a hard choice to save as many lives as possible. How is there no comparison?

And if it really sucks/people want to "opt out" later, at least they're all alive - they're chances of finding a way out are much higher than if they're reaped/have no super-smart Geth around.

No, it's fundamentally the same. Both Eugenics and nanotechnology seek to "improve" people. What if people don't feel that they are being "improved"? What you may see as a benefit may not be viewed that way by others. You may find a drastically lengthened lifespan to be a benefit, but there are those who would find an arificially lengthened lifespan to be an atrocity. I would be speaking about those whose belief systems lead them to eschew the use of technology. You would be making their very bodies a violation of their deepest beliefs against their will. Your so-called benefits would be making their own lived a violation of their basic principles.

One man's treasure is another man's trash.

[Taboo]

MisterJB wrote...

adneate wrote...
Ah the old "The Ends Justify The Means" defence, how many war criminals and sociopaths have used that to get some sleep at night. The morality is irrelevant, the sacrifice is irrelevant and any crimes are irrelevant since in the end it will all be worth it.

I find it curious that your passionate defence of synthesis is in the end defended by that statement, since technically it invalidates all moral arguments by rendering morality itself an irrelevancy. If you invoke that defence you can't then say "Homophobia is wrong or Racism is wrong" because morality no longer exists in any finite sense. It exists only in a loose contextual sense, it's no longer "Thou shalt not murder" but "Thou shalt not murder unless thou has a good reason to". Since we've now made all morality contextual we also can't really claim Synthesis to be on a moral highground over destroy since the moral judgements made to evaluate each decision is contextual.

Destroy is the right choice because the ends justify the means.

I can accept that if you explain to me why you believe destroy is the right choice. Why you believe the consequences of that decision justify the means through which it was achieved and why are they preferable to Synthesis. Then, it is up to me to agree or not with you.
Morals were created by men and, naturally, they can change from person to person. Can I, objectivelly, place value in the life of a human being? No.
I do it because I'm a person with the capability to emphatize with others. As such, I view racism as wrong and would take the necessary steps to eliminating it (once again, pushing the button). But can I, objectively, determine that racism is wrong?
I don't believe so because I don't believe in moral absolutism.

Morality doesn't exist in nature. There is only chaos.

Being sentient has given us the ability to have morality and is what makes the choices so awful. It all comes down to a matter of taste.

You essentially trade one thing for another.

The more vocal majority on the BSN believe that Destroy is the best. That is a fact, at least from the poll results. I have reservations against destroy as well but without clarification who knows what really happens?

They could change the cinematics to reflect EMS and with a high enough one the geth aren't destroyed. This is what Mr. Gamble has been talking about with the EC...........

[NoUserNameHere]

JBPBRC wrote...

One reason why they didn't show Saren was probably to make it easier for newcomers.

Another is that its hard to say Synthesis is the "best" ending when you have the villain of Mass Effect 1 laughing and gloating about it while you fall into a green abyss.

... Assuming newcomers care about anything in that sequence at all. One flash to a random turian won't ruin the game for them.


People who've played game one are already hearing Saren gloating in their mind's eye (ear, whatever!) during that sequence. Hence why the green ending is considered so nonsensical on these forums.

[adneate]

MisterJB wrote...
Allow me to give you an example:

That's a "Lesser of two evils" example not a "Ends justify the means" example, one is a choice between two distasteful things while the other is that we can do "evil" or "immoral" things so long as the end result is "good" or "beneficial".

Pragia is an example of "The Ends Justify The Means"

It's not wrong to kill and torture children because the end result is stronger human biotics.

The fundamental problem with the argument is that it's a morality based argument that rejects finite morality. Which makes it less some philisophical truth and more sophistry concerned simply with winning an argument.

[richard_rider]

MisterJB wrote...

richard_rider wrote...
I'm sorry, but if the end justifies the means, then the end justifies the means, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Allow me to give you an example:

End: Save Sur'Kesh.
Means: Allow the Reapers to burn Pallaven and Thessia.
In this case, the end does not justify the means because you are losing more lifes than those you saved.

End: Save Sur'Kesh where the Crucible is being built.
Means:Same as before.
In this case, the ends justify the means because, while you are sacrificing two planets to save one, you are also saving the only thing that can end this war thus saving salarians, turians and asari.

So then, where do you draw the line? If it's useful, it's worth the sacrifice, if it's not, then screw it?

This is a very fine line to walk, and it usually doesn't end well.

Besides you're talking about planets, there's plenty of them...what about organics, would you sacrifice the Salarians, the Asari, Humans, would you sacrifice an entire species to stop the reapers, to save the crucible, to win?

If the answer is yes, then synthesis is wrong, if the answer is no, then you have no right to play god to entire galaxy and countless species.

PS With Synthesis, you're not just affecting the current galactic community, you're affecting every life in every corner of the glaaxy, new species that have yet to be discovered, new space faring aliens, you are playing a cruel god to them all.

[The Angry One]

frylock23 wrote...

No, it's fundamentally the same. Both Eugenics and nanotechnology seek to "improve" people. What if people don't feel that they are being "improved"? What you may see as a benefit may not be viewed that way by others. You may find a drastically lengthened lifespan to be a benefit, but there are those who would find an arificially lengthened lifespan to be an atrocity. I would be speaking about those whose belief systems lead them to eschew the use of technology. You would be making their very bodies a violation of their deepest beliefs against their will. Your so-called benefits would be making their own lived a violation of their basic principles.

One man's treasure is another man's trash.

Or hell, what about people like Javik? Someone who has seen the horror of hybridisation gone wrong first hand?
Someone who puts a firm line between organic and synthetic, believing the two never to be compatible.
I don't agree with him, but he has these beliefs and they are part of him.

But no let's just make him a cyborg at the genetic level! Who cares what he thinks!

[PsyrenY]

The Angry One wrote...

One is a situation where there is literally no choice. Relay or Reapers. Reapers or relay.
Even the Catalyst presents two other options, as asinine as they are.

I've already explained that those other choices are no choice for me.
If your Shepard went with them then I fully respect that decision, but it doesn't make me feel any less about Synthesis.

If it makes you feel any better about my ethics, sufficient clarification around Control would make me pick that instead (say, I can order the Reapers to help rebuild everything and then march into a black hole.)

 

The Angry One wrote... 
Also, scale. SCALE.

The scale doesn't matter when the stakes are the galaxy itself.

The Angry One wrote... 

Right, I'm sure they'll get right down to ALTERING THEIR DNA.
I'm sure the Yahg will be succeful in opting out with their >1950's tech.

I never said it would be easy, or not take a long time. But it's still more likely than if they're all dead.

[JBPBRC]

NoUserNameHere wrote...

JBPBRC wrote...

One reason why they didn't show Saren was probably to make it easier for newcomers.

Another is that its hard to say Synthesis is the "best" ending when you have the villain of Mass Effect 1 laughing and gloating about it while you fall into a green abyss.

... Assuming newcomers care about anything in that sequence at all. One flash to a random turian won't ruin the game for them. 

Well if they won't care and all previous ME fans already see him then there's no need to waste animation budget on putting him in, is there?

Artistic Integrity.

[M Hedonist]

@Optimystic_X: I'm still waiting for you to explain this:

Sauruz wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

As a transhumanist, I see it being just as possible that the synthesis will come about in the fullness of time too. If I can speed it up, and save the Geth at the same time, so be it.
 

This literally made me go 'Wait, what'. How does a) 'People can become cyborgs if they want' lead to 'everybody becomes a cyborg' in any logical way? Because if there's no logical way in which a) leads to then there's no way to 'speed up' this alleged process (???) you're talking about.

Because I'm having a hard time believing you have put any thought or inference into quoted statement.

[PsyrenY]

frylock23 wrote...

No, it's fundamentally the same. Both Eugenics and nanotechnology seek to "improve" people. What if people don't feel that they are being "improved"? What you may see as a benefit may not be viewed that way by others. You may find a drastically lengthened lifespan to be a benefit, but there are those who would find an arificially lengthened lifespan to be an atrocity. I would be speaking about those whose belief systems lead them to eschew the use of technology. You would be making their very bodies a violation of their deepest beliefs against their will. Your so-called benefits would be making their own lived a violation of their basic principles.

One man's treasure is another man's trash.

I would regret the need to impugn on their beliefs, but my own beliefs don't allow me to consider genocide as acceptable or to gamble with the lives of a galaxy.

[The Angry One]

Optimystic_X wrote...

I've already explained that those other choices are no choice for me.
If your Shepard went with them then I fully respect that decision, but it doesn't make me feel any less about Synthesis.

They're no choice for me either, but even they are still better than synthesis.

If it makes you feel any better about my ethics, sufficient clarification around Control would make me pick that instead (say, I can order the Reapers to help rebuild everything and then march into a black hole.)

I'm sorry, but there's no more clarification about synthesis than control.

Yes, we don't know Shepard can march all Reapers into a black hole, but we don't know synthesis will turn everyone into super cyborgs with double lifespans, lightspeed computing power in their brains and actual free will.
Hell it doesn't even cure Joker's disease.

 

The scale doesn't matter when the stakes are the galaxy itself.

Those were the stakes in both cases.

I never said it would be easy, or not take a long time. But it's still more likely than if they're all dead.

Some would rather die than have this imposed on them. And no, killing themselves afterwards solves nothing, they would not die as "themselves".

[PsyrenY]

Sauruz wrote...

Because I'm having a hard time believing you have put any thought or inference into quoted statement.

Why wouldn't I believe that it's coming to pass? The Quarians and Salarians are already experimenting in it, and they are the smartest races in the galaxy - do you expect them to stop?
Even humanity (and not just Cerberus) is experimenting with implants and cybernetics. Look at all the modifications you can make to Shepard in ME2. Look at the "ocular implants" that all Alliance Soldiers get to aid their targeting and reaction times. Look at the amps needed to make biotics work properly. And so on.

[M Hedonist]

Optimystic_X wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

No, it's fundamentally the same. Both Eugenics and nanotechnology seek to "improve" people. What if people don't feel that they are being "improved"? What you may see as a benefit may not be viewed that way by others. You may find a drastically lengthened lifespan to be a benefit, but there are those who would find an arificially lengthened lifespan to be an atrocity. I would be speaking about those whose belief systems lead them to eschew the use of technology. You would be making their very bodies a violation of their deepest beliefs against their will. Your so-called benefits would be making their own lived a violation of their basic principles.

One man's treasure is another man's trash.

I would regret the need to impugn on their beliefs, but my own beliefs don't allow me to consider genocide as acceptable or to gamble with the lives of a galaxy.

And changing the fundamental concept of life forever based on the 21 words Catalyst uses to establish and explain Synthesis while also leaving reapers alive is not gambling with the lives of a galaxy? What?

[M Hedonist]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

Because I'm having a hard time believing you have put any thought or inference into quoted statement.

Why wouldn't I believe that it's coming to pass? The Quarians and Salarians are already experimenting in it, and they are the smartest races in the galaxy - do you expect them to stop?
Even humanity (and not just Cerberus) is experimenting with implants and cybernetics. Look at all the modifications you can make to Shepard in ME2. Look at the "ocular implants" that all Alliance Soldiers get to aid their targeting and reaction times. Look at the amps needed to make biotics work properly. And so on.

Read my post again. If people eventually find out how to do Synthesis by themselves, it will likely be the non-space-magic kind which allows everybody to choose for themselves whether or not they want to do that to their bodies. There is no logical way in which this leads to 'everybody becomes a cyborg'.

[Wabajakka]

Ya I'm surprised as well that they didn't show Saren running into that beam.

Although considering they forgot about some characters and other things from ME2 (so pathetic lol) I should not be all that surprised I guess lol.

Modifié par Orange Tee, 01 mai 2012 - 06:19 .

[PsyrenY]

The Angry One wrote...

They're no choice for me either, but even they are still better than synthesis.

Agree to disagree then.

The Angry One wrote... 
I'm sorry, but there's no more clarification about synthesis than control.

Not true - the Catalyst provides more assurance over Synthesis. ("The cycle will end.") Over Control, he casts only doubt. ("Or do you believe you can control us?")

Synthesis is thus the surer option for saving everyone. Unless you don't believe the Catalyst, in which case you may as well roll 1d3 to decide.

 

The Angry One wrote...  
Yes, we don't know Shepard can march all Reapers into a black hole, but we don't know synthesis will turn everyone into super cyborgs with double lifespans, lightspeed computing power in their brains and actual free will.

We don't know it won't either.

The Angry One wrote...  
Hell it doesn't even cure Joker's disease.

Perhaps. Personally I chalk that up to lazy animation.

The Angry One wrote...  
Those were the stakes in both cases.

And in both cases Shepard acted unilaterally. You're getting it!

The Angry One wrote...  
Some would rather die than have this imposed on them. And no, killing themselves afterwards solves nothing, they would not die as "themselves".

Shepard can't please everyone; attempting to do so is futile.

[adneate]

MisterJB wrote...
Also, I don't believe I ever claimed Synthesis was, morally, preferrable to Destroy. All my arguments have been based on practical matters.

I can as well, let's say the morality is a non-issue we are simply looking for the most efficent ends to a problem. That problem is The Reapers killing us all. So we are presented with 3 choices now since morality is a non-issue we have to go on logic, so in that case the best logic is to weight the potential risks and benefits of each choice.

With Synthesis we are presented with a solution to our problem, though it's unclear exactly why it stops the reapers from killing us all. It's also unclear what exactly the end effect on organic and synthetic life is going to be, we don't know anything about the end state of their life or how they'll live. Their capabilities are all unknown within the context of the decision. In this case we are presented with a large amount of unknowns, we aren't even sure if or for how long the decision will end our primary problem.

Next Control, with this one we don't have all the questions about what life is going to be like since it will stay the same and that is a known quantity. Though again we have questions about how long or effective our solution to the primary problem will be. What is the extent of our new found control and how long will it last? We don't know.

Last Destroy with this one we do have a difinitive answer to our primary problem, in this case the reapers will be dead. They will not function in any way, the effects on Synthetic life is also fairly clear, they will die this is a known outcome. We may have questions about people or races with implants but in terms of solving our primary problem it's the most direct with the fewest unknowns.

So logically in that case it's the best choice with death being a more clearly understood and finite condition to the unknowns of control and synthesis. The morality of the choice of course being utterly irrelevent. Our problem being much too dire to leave to a large amount of unknown outcomes and destroy having the fewest unknowns makes it the practical choice.

[DLClol]

Keep in mind Saren was an indoctrinated phycho racist Turian.

Good job everyone we won we beat the reapers.

[PsyrenY]

Sauruz wrote...

And changing the fundamental concept of life forever based on the 21 words Catalyst uses to establish and explain Synthesis while also leaving reapers alive is not gambling with the lives of a galaxy? What?

It's the one ending where the guy controlling the Reapers says the cycle will end. The same guy that, if he simply wanted to win, didn't have to bring me up in the space elevator or talk to me at all.

They're all a gamble, but Synthesis less so than Control, and doesn't result in genocide unlike Destroy.

[MisterJB]

adneate wrote...
That's a "Lesser of two evils" example not a "Ends justify the means" example, one is a choice between two distasteful things while the other is that we can do "evil" or "immoral" things so long as the end result is "good" or "beneficial".

Pragia is an example of "The Ends Justify The Means"

It's not wrong to kill and torture children because the end result is stronger human biotics.

The fundamental problem with the argument is that it's a morality based argument that rejects finite morality. Which makes it less some philisophical truth and more sophistry concerned simply with winning an argument.

The same can be said of your example. Without strong human biotics, humanity risks living in the shadow of the aliens or worse.
Thus, we pick the lesser of two evils. Torture a few select children to ensure that all sons and daugthers of Earth won't suffer under alien rule.

richard_rider wrote...
Besides you're talking about planets, there's plenty of them...what about organics, would you sacrifice the Salarians, the Asari, Humans, would you sacrifice an entire species to stop the reapers, to save the crucible, to win?

If the answer is yes, then synthesis is wrong,

I am failing to see the correlation between these two.

[Sepharih]

Optimystic_X wrote...
Godwin yet again. Can you people really find no other way to articulate your point of view besides RAH?

Once again, you invoke Godwin, not me.  Eugenics /=/ Hitler. Eugenics is an accurate description of what you are talking about.

Optimystic_X wrote... 
And no, nanotechnology and eugenics are completely different. Eugenics has no scientific basis, merely racism. Nanotechnology has obvious benefits, as proven by our own world, the Quarians, the Salarians, and even the Human military.

Of course Eugenics has a scientific basis.  We've been doing selective breeding in livestock and animals for years.  Last I checked, the space brat's promotion of synthesis included crafting "new DNA".   Reshaping the entire genetic structure of all life everywhere to fit a framework that it finds to be preferable and ideal is EUGENICS, period.