9087 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Lugaidster wrote...

Heeden wrote...
Blood for the blood god? My ethics say a balance needs to be found with chaos to allow the growth and diversification of life.

I agree to a certain extent. The thing is, balance should be found by it's own, not forced. That's why synthesis is unethical (to the people that believe in free-will and self-determination).

Well, if the other options lead to multiple genocide and enslavement of entire species things get a little muddy in the morality department. Also, if you're a consequentialist it's perfectly acceptable anyway. Deontological morality is not the ultimate arbiter of things. Even today, public decision making follows a partly consequentialist mindset.

[Taboo]

None of the choices are ethical. Don't ever think I like picking Destroy.

I choose the one I feel violates the least amount of people.

[The Night Mammoth]

Taboo-XX wrote...

None of the choices are ethical. Don't ever think I like picking Destroy.

I choose the one I feel violates the least amount of people.

So control then, since it violates no one. 

[antares_sublight]

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

A bodies cells nature is to be part of the order of the body...That alone negates your arguement.

But it was once the nature of cells to be individual, at some point a change came where multi-cellular organisms came about. The only reason it is in a body cell's nature to be part of the body is because they share a common DNA - Synthesis will allow life in the galaxy to share a common "DNA" (Shepard's life-force).

Aside from your point still being a false comparison (cells are created based on a single DNA, built to function as a part of a whole, never at any time being individual)... are we changing the understanding of Synthesis now to mean not only is existing life modified to be hybridized, but it's modified such that all life shares the same DNA (or "DNA-analog")? How far out is this going?

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Well, if the other options lead to multiple genocide and enslavement of entire species things get a little muddy in the morality department. Also, if you're a consequentialist it's perfectly acceptable anyway. Deontological morality is not the ultimate arbiter of things. Even today, public decision making follows a partly consequentialist mindset.

Synthesis will eliminate countless species across the galaxy, not just one synthetic species.

Modifié par antares_sublight, 23 mai 2012 - 07:14 .

[Taboo]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

None of the choices are ethical. Don't ever think I like picking Destroy.

I choose the one I feel violates the least amount of people.

So control then, since it violates no one. 

No, it allows the cycle to exist as it does now, with Shepard at the helm.

What happens if Shepard has to continue the cycle due to a singularity? Flinging all the Reapers into a star won't do much good if the Geth become all powerful, as everyone claims.

[Heeden]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

None of the choices are ethical. Don't ever think I like picking Destroy.

I choose the one I feel violates the least amount of people.

So control then, since it violates no one. 

Having Shepard command that level of power would (I believe) lead to either stagnation or tyranny (depending on both your character and the state of the galaxy). There's also the risk of Shepard eventually coming to the same conclusions as the Catalyst and starting the whole process over.

Also you'll be violating the Reapers in much the same way you can choose to violate the Geth heretics if you reprogram them to rejoin the main consensus.

[The Night Mammoth]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

None of the choices are ethical. Don't ever think I like picking Destroy.

I choose the one I feel violates the least amount of people.

So control then, since it violates no one. 

No, it allows the cycle to exist as it does now, with Shepard at the helm.

What happens if Shepard has to continue the cycle due to a singularity? Flinging all the Reapers into a star won't do much good if the Geth become all powerful, as everyone claims.

You lend credence to that? 

Wow. 

I don't. There's no reason to. The problem is baseless, illogical, flawed at the very basics. I ignore the problem, synthetics wont try to annihilate organic life, no proof exists except the word of the Catalyst, the word of that f*cking glowing serpent. 

No, I choose to use the Reapers for good. Build this galaxy again, let everyone choose their own paths, free of tyranny and despair, of war and sacrifice for their basic survival. 

[Taboo]

Heeden wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

None of the choices are ethical. Don't ever think I like picking Destroy.

I choose the one I feel violates the least amount of people.

So control then, since it violates no one. 

Having Shepard command that level of power would (I believe) lead to either stagnation or tyranny (depending on both your character and the state of the galaxy). There's also the risk of Shepard eventually coming to the same conclusions as the Catalyst and starting the whole process over.

Also you'll be violating the Reapers in much the same way you can choose to violate the Geth heretics if you reprogram them to rejoin the main consensus.

You said it better than I could.

Just use what he said for my answer.

[Lugaidster]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Heeden wrote...
Blood for the blood god? My ethics say a balance needs to be found with chaos to allow the growth and diversification of life.

I agree to a certain extent. The thing is, balance should be found by it's own, not forced. That's why synthesis is unethical (to the people that believe in free-will and self-determination).

Well, if the other options lead to multiple genocide and enslavement of entire species things get a little muddy in the morality department. Also, if you're a consequentialist it's perfectly acceptable anyway. Deontological morality is not the ultimate arbiter of things. Even today, public decision making follows a partly consequentialist mindset.

That depends on what your idea of mass genocide is. Furthermore, if I could choose neither of them I would, but if not, then the lesser of all evils is, in my opinion, destroy. For you to consider killing geth as mass genocide you have to first consider them people, and you have to put the safety of a few against the rights of the many. It has nothing to do with consequences and more about defending the rights of those I stand for. After all, it's not the synthetics that are doomed (if you believe in the inevitability of singularity, which I don't) it's organics, so it's their rights to self determination which should prime as synthetics will rise again.

[The Night Mammoth]

Heeden wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

None of the choices are ethical. Don't ever think I like picking Destroy.

I choose the one I feel violates the least amount of people.

So control then, since it violates no one. 

Having Shepard command that level of power would (I believe) lead to either stagnation or tyranny (depending on both your character and the state of the galaxy). There's also the risk of Shepard eventually coming to the same conclusions as the Catalyst and starting the whole process over.

That's not how I beleive it. Shepard is pure of motivation, selfless. The Illusive Man wanted the power for his own selfish reasons. The Reapers will be subjugated, turned into a force of good in this universe before being incinerated in the heart of the nearest sun. 

No, this is not what exclusively what happens with control, it's the liberal interpretation I choose to believe, on account of the others being more unethical than it. 

Also you'll be violating the Reapers in much the same way you can choose to violate the Geth heretics if you reprogram them to rejoin the main consensus.

You assume I care whether the Reapers are violated or not. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 23 mai 2012 - 07:24 .

[Uncle Jo]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

So control then, since it violates no one. 

Control, aside from following TIM's path, does not end the cycle (if you think for whatever retarded reason, that a mere human is able to control a super powerful, incredibly intelligent race like the Reapers).

[Lugaidster]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

None of the choices are ethical. Don't ever think I like picking Destroy.

I choose the one I feel violates the least amount of people.

So control then, since it violates no one. 

No, it allows the cycle to exist as it does now, with Shepard at the helm.

What happens if Shepard has to continue the cycle due to a singularity? Flinging all the Reapers into a star won't do much good if the Geth become all powerful, as everyone claims.

You lend credence to that? 

Wow. 

I don't. There's no reason to. The problem is baseless, illogical, flawed at the very basics. I ignore the problem, synthetics wont try to annihilate organic life, no proof exists except the word of the Catalyst, the word of that f*cking glowing serpent. 

No, I choose to use the Reapers for good. Build this galaxy again, let everyone choose their own paths, free of tyranny and despair, of war and sacrifice for their basic survival. 

You don't need evidence to prove it. It sufices that singularity is a possibility (yes it might seem I'm contradicting myself here, but bare with me). With enough time everything should become a certainty, so in that case, a singularity is inevitable. Which also means that if a way to circunvent singularity ever arises without it imposing change, it will also become a certainty (given enough time), making singularity irrelevant.

Modifié par Lugaidster, 23 mai 2012 - 07:27 .

[Heeden]

The Night Mammoth wrote...



I don't. There's no reason to. The problem is baseless, illogical, flawed at the very basics. I ignore the problem, synthetics wont try to annihilate organic life, no proof exists except the word of the Catalyst, the word of that f*cking glowing serpent.

The Catalyst is himself an example of a synthetic gone beyond the singularity, sure he only chooses to destroy most organic life every 50,000 years but I'm sure his original creators didn't anticipate that.

No, I choose to use the Reapers for good. Build this galaxy again, let everyone choose their own paths, free of tyranny and despair, of war and sacrifice for their basic survival. 

Stagnation it is then.

[The Night Mammoth]

Uncle Jo wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

So control then, since it violates no one. 

Control, aside from following TIM's path, does not end the cycle (if you think for whatever retarded reason, that a mere human is able to control a super powerful, incredibly intelligent race like the Reapers).

Doesn't it? 

On what grounds? 

That's also a fallacy of association. He proved control was possible, his motivations and means to aquire the knowledge was questionable, no, downright wrong. Just because he wanted to doesn't mean it's wrong. 

I also question why Shepard is being referred to as 'a mere human'. Since when has Shepard been anything but normal?

[The Night Mammoth]

Lugaidster wrote...

You don't need evidence to prove it. It sufices that singularity is a possibility (yes it might seem I'm contradicting myself here, but bare with me).

You need to prove it for me to care or base a decision on it. 

With enough time everything should become a certainty, so in that case, a singularity is inevitable. Which also means that if a way to circunvent singularity ever arises without it imposing change, it will also become a certainty (given enough time), making singularity irrelevant.

Which is flawed reasoning. The notion of 'anything is possible given infinite time' proves nothing.

[The Night Mammoth]

Heeden wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...



I don't. There's no reason to. The problem is baseless, illogical, flawed at the very basics. I ignore the problem, synthetics wont try to annihilate organic life, no proof exists except the word of the Catalyst, the word of that f*cking glowing serpent.

The Catalyst is himself an example of a synthetic gone beyond the singularity, sure he only chooses to destroy most organic life every 50,000 years but I'm sure his original creators didn't anticipate that.

Complete speculation. If indeed the Catalyst is some synthetic gone beyond the singularity then his premise is undermined straight out the starting block. 

No, I choose to use the Reapers for good. Build this galaxy again, let everyone choose their own paths, free of tyranny and despair, of war and sacrifice for their basic survival. 

Stagnation it is then.

On what terms? 

[dreman9999]

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
But the change happen natually...Of the will of the cells. They became one on there own, not force. We still have dells that are on their own.
That what your missing here. Your imposing change. 

I'm not missing that, I've already explained that I'm against choosing Synthesis for almost that exact same reason but that is for my own personal feelings about the state of the galaxy.

It does not mean Synthesis is objectively wrong, stupid or harmful.

But we are doing it on are own accord. Look at Shepard, Kasumi, Gray boxes, and Salarian with there open exceptace of trans-organics. It's not bad, just focring it on everyone is.
A guy choosing to do it is find, trick people into it with the lure of safety is not.

[Lugaidster]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

That's not how I beleive it. Shepard is pure of motivation, selfless. The Illusive Man wanted the power for his own selfish reasons. The Reapers will be subjugated, turned into a force of good in this universe before being incinerated in the heart of the nearest sun.

Shepard is also a human being, flawed just like the rest. I wouldn't trust him that kind of power as I wouldn't trust it to anyone. No single entity should hold the fate of the galaxy at the palm of their hands, the posibilities for imposition and limit of free will are endless. 

The Night Mammoth wrote... 

No, this is not what exclusively what happens with control, it's the liberal interpretation I choose to believe, on account of the others being more unethical than it.

 
Throughout history, many dictators started as selfless individuals, which is how they got the masses to approve them. South-america's short history (and Africa's) is filled with examples. Trust me, I know, I'm from South America.

[dreman9999]

Uncle Jo wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

So control then, since it violates no one. 

Control, aside from following TIM's path, does not end the cycle (if you think for whatever retarded reason, that a mere human is able to control a super powerful, incredibly intelligent race like the Reapers).

Add there's a line"You will die. You will control us but lose everything have" you have to understand what control means.

[dreman9999]

Lugaidster wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

That's not how I beleive it. Shepard is pure of motivation, selfless. The Illusive Man wanted the power for his own selfish reasons. The Reapers will be subjugated, turned into a force of good in this universe before being incinerated in the heart of the nearest sun.

Shepard is also a human being, flawed just like the rest. I wouldn't trust him that kind of power as I wouldn't trust it to anyone. No single entity should hold the fate of the galaxy at the palm of their hands, the posibilities for imposition and limit of free will are endless. 

The Night Mammoth wrote... 

No, this is not what exclusively what happens with control, it's the liberal interpretation I choose to believe, on account of the others being more unethical than it.

 
Throughout history, many dictators started as selfless individuals, which is how they got the masses to approve them. South-america's short history (and Africa's) is filled with examples. Trust me, I know, I'm from South America.

Which is why what happened to TIM is not surprising..

[PsyrenY]

Heeden wrote...

Also you'll be violating the Reapers in much the same way you can choose to violate the Geth heretics if you reprogram them to rejoin the main consensus.

It's not at all the same as the Heretics, for multiple reasons:

1) The Heretics can be destroyed with no collateral damage to innocents; the Reapers cannot.
2) The Heretics, post-rewrite, would rejoin the Geth, causing the latter to inherit all of their memories (including the memory of being rewritten.) Legion admits to you that he does not know what the long-term effects of this would be.
3) If you believe the "Catalyst as controller" theory, the Reapers are already being held in thrall. In this case, all Control would do is transfer their leash from the Catalyst to Shepard. This is not the same as newly leashing a currently free-willed race.

[The Night Mammoth]

Lugaidster wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

That's not how I beleive it. Shepard is pure of motivation, selfless. The Illusive Man wanted the power for his own selfish reasons. The Reapers will be subjugated, turned into a force of good in this universe before being incinerated in the heart of the nearest sun.

Shepard is also a human being, flawed just like the rest. I wouldn't trust him that kind of power as I wouldn't trust it to anyone. No single entity should hold the fate of the galaxy at the palm of their hands, the posibilities for imposition and limit of free will are endless.

So I should commit mass murder or impose a similar action on the entire galaxy instead? No thanks, I'd rather place a bet, the odds are good. 

I never said it wasn't a gamble. I never said it was good, or right. It's a liberal interpretation.

The Night Mammoth wrote... 

No, this is not what exclusively what happens with control, it's the liberal interpretation I choose to believe, on account of the others being more unethical than it.

 
Throughout history, many dictators started as selfless individuals, which is how they got the masses to approve them. South-america's short history (and Africa's) is filled with examples. Trust me, I know, I'm from South America.

Does that mean everyone given power will become an unethical dictator? Nope. 

[Lugaidster]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

You need to prove it for me to care or base a decision on it. 

[...]

Which is flawed reasoning. The notion of 'anything is possible given infinite time' proves nothing.

Apparently your logic is failing or you are suffering a mild case of stubbornness. Singularity is a posibility, that's a given, it's not a certainty, but is a possibility at any time. With enough time, then, every possibility becomes a certainty. That's a corollary, if you can't see it then you have bigger issues. People that are much more knowledgeable than both of us give it a serious thought in the field of Artificial Inteligence. I don't it's so easy to dismiss that possibility.

[Lugaidster]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

That's not how I beleive it. Shepard is pure of motivation, selfless. The Illusive Man wanted the power for his own selfish reasons. The Reapers will be subjugated, turned into a force of good in this universe before being incinerated in the heart of the nearest sun.

Shepard is also a human being, flawed just like the rest. I wouldn't trust him that kind of power as I wouldn't trust it to anyone. No single entity should hold the fate of the galaxy at the palm of their hands, the posibilities for imposition and limit of free will are endless.

So I should commit mass murder or impose a similar action on the entire galaxy instead? No thanks, I'd rather place a bet, the odds are good. 

I never said it wasn't a gamble. I never said it was good, or right. It's a liberal interpretation.

The Night Mammoth wrote... 

No, this is not what exclusively what happens with control, it's the liberal interpretation I choose to believe, on account of the others being more unethical than it.

 
Throughout history, many dictators started as selfless individuals, which is how they got the masses to approve them. South-america's short history (and Africa's) is filled with examples. Trust me, I know, I'm from South America.

Does that mean everyone given power will become an unethical dictator? Nope. 

Then your subjective interpretation that control is better is just that, your subjective interpretation. So, again, what are you trying to prove?