9088 réponses à ce sujet

[Kreid]

One question here, taking the Catalyst's words as face value (bear with me) if what it says is true, and synthesis is the only way to achieve true peace in the Galaxy even if we don't really know the specifics, wouldn't it take the most absolute priority whether it would or not be morally reprehensible?

Think about all thousands civilizations lost to the Reapers, and all the civilizations to be yet born in the Galaxy, if synthesis can guarantee the coexistence of organic and synthetic life wouldn't it override something so feeble and temporary as human morality?

Think that we are changing the whole Galaxy forever here, we can't limit our judgements to the immediate consequences or just the races and individuals living in the galaxy now, we have to think in a broader sacle than that.

Modifié par Creid-X, 24 mai 2012 - 08:37 .

[Thalador]

antares_sublight wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Again, with the information Shepard has up to that point in the game, choosing Synthesis would be the most rash and irresponsible decision in the history of the galaxy. The fact that BioWare waves their hands and says it's a winning ending (they all are, "anyone can do it"), doesn't change that. In that situation, it would be incredibly irresponsible.

Only if you don't believe the Catalyst, who has no reason to lie to you. Otherwise he would have been better served leaving you on the floor to bleed out while he kept on reaping.

That has NOTHING to do with believing the Catalyst is lying. His few sentences to you about Synthesis are almost entirely content-free, you know absolutely nothing about what you're about to impose on EVERY LIFE FORM in the galaxy. Nothing. Maximum irresponsibility.

But to your point, why doesn't the Catalyst have a reason to lie? If he has a survival instinct and you might end him, of course he has a reason to lie. If he has any self-motivation, then he has reason to lie. Notice how negatively he speaks about destroy and how positively he speaks of the other two options.

While we can only speculate on why he would lie, he definitely lies about how Destroy works - well, the brutal logical contradictions and flaws very much imply he's not telling/distorting the truth (or it's just bad writing and artistic integrity at work again, not sure).

Scroll down to point 6.) Destroy in this thread of mine to read more about his "lie."

Modifié par Thalador, 24 mai 2012 - 08:38 .

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

That has NOTHING to do with believing the Catalyst is lying. His few sentences to you about Synthesis are almost entirely content-free, you know absolutely nothing about what you're about to impose on EVERY LIFE FORM in the galaxy. Nothing. Maximum irresponsibility.

I know two things actually:
1) that there will be peace.
2) that the Geth will live.

More than enough info for my Shepard, even without the appealingly transhumanist overtones.

antares_sublight wrote... 

But to your point, why doesn't the Catalyst have a reason to lie? If he has a survival instinct and you might end him, of course he has a reason to lie.

Clearly he has no such thing or he wouldn't have told you about Destroy. Are you serious?

antares_sublight wrote... 
If he has any self-motivation, then he has reason to lie. Notice how negatively he speaks about destroy and how positively he speaks of the other two options.

He's negative about it because he doesn't think it solves the cycle. If self-preservation was his goal, he would have done one of two things:

1) Crucible cannot Synthesis: Don't wake you up, because there's no point.
2) Crucible can Synthesis: Wake you up, and only tell you about Synthesis. "Thank you organic, for building the Synthesizer!"

[Taboo]

I would think a greater number of Batarians would have made it off, yes. It's a possibility.

Prisoners still retain the right to bodily sovereignty, regardless of what may or may not happen (we'll keep rape out of this). You still have rights as a prisoner. Have you ever toured a prison? I have, it's a ****hole, but they are still allowed BASIC human rights.

As for self defense, yes you still have to take ethics into account. I would shoot to injure, not kill. Always. I will allow that person to have the right to live, ALWAYS.

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I would think a greater number of Batarians would have made it off, yes. It's a possibility.

A greater number, of course. But all of them? Flatly impossible. You would be a mass-murderer no matter what. 2 hours to evacuate 300,000 people is impossible, and it would likely be even less than 2 hours due to folks not believing you etc.

Taboo-XX wrote... 

Prisoners still retain the right to bodily sovereignty, regardless of what may or may not happen (we'll keep rape out of this). You still have rights as a prisoner. Have you ever toured a prison? I have, it's a ****hole, but they are still allowed BASIC human rights.

Which of those rights does Synthesis remove?
Joker and EDI didn't seem to be missing any.

Taboo-XX wrote... 
As for self defense, yes you still have to take ethics into account. I would shoot to injure, not kill. Always. I will allow that person to have the right to live, ALWAYS.

Using the right amount of force to incapacitate/disable without lethality is actually much harder than it sounds. Police officers are trained for body shots, because legs/hands are much harder targets to hit even if they are less likely to be lethal. Often, you only get one chance to drop an attacker, and if doing so results in their death - it is unfortunate but less so than them being able to kill you.

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

That has NOTHING to do with believing the Catalyst is lying. His few sentences to you about Synthesis are almost entirely content-free, you know absolutely nothing about what you're about to impose on EVERY LIFE FORM in the galaxy. Nothing. Maximum irresponsibility.

I know two things actually:
1) that there will be peace.
2) that the Geth will live.

More than enough info for my Shepard, even without the appealingly transhumanist overtones.

Good for you then. Don't live your real life that nonchalantly.

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote... 

But to your point, why doesn't the Catalyst have a reason to lie? If he has a survival instinct and you might end him, of course he has a reason to lie.

Clearly he has no such thing or he wouldn't have told you about Destroy. Are you serious?

It's a game. You're saying the Catalyst is purely without motive or survival instinct whatsoever?

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote... 
If he has any self-motivation, then he has reason to lie. Notice how negatively he speaks about destroy and how positively he speaks of the other two options.

He's negative about it because he doesn't think it solves the cycle. If self-preservation was his goal, he would have done one of two things:

1) Crucible cannot Synthesis: Don't wake you up, because there's no point.
2) Crucible can Synthesis: Wake you up, and only tell you about Synthesis. "Thank you organic, for building the Synthesizer!"

You're quite naive. Within the confines of it being a game, and Destroy is a valid "winning" option because BioWare wanted it to be, the Catalyst tells you about Destroy as well. However, it's foolish to say he is pure of motive.

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Which of those rights does Synthesis remove?
Joker and EDI didn't seem to be missing any.

I missed the post-synthesis interview with them. You're assuming a whole lot out of 2-seconds of silent video. Naive.

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

Which of those rights does Synthesis remove?
Joker and EDI didn't seem to be missing any.

I missed the post-synthesis interview with them. You're assuming a whole lot out of 2-seconds of silent video. Naive.

A few seconds can tell you a lot if you use observation. They were alive, unrestrained, and quite positive/hopeful.

When Joker steps out of the Normandy with a wondrous look, EDI pauses in the threshold. He turns and extends a hand to her as if to say "come on out, it's okay." (She does.) They look around at their lush surroundings and both bear wide grins. Finally, they hold each other close, for the first time free of concerns of war and death.

What missing rights was I supposed to have seen from that?

[Xandurpein]

Creid-X wrote...

One question here, taking the Catalyst's words as face value (bear with me) if what it says is true, and synthesis is the only way to achieve true peace in the Galaxy even if we don't really know the specifics, wouldn't it take the most absolute priority whether it would or not be morally reprehensible?

Think about all thousands civilizations lost to the Reapers, and all the civilizations to be yet born in the Galaxy, if synthesis can guarantee the coexistence of organic and synthetic life wouldn't it override something so feeble and temporary as human morality?

Think that we are changing the whole Galaxy forever here, we can't limit our judgements to the immediate consequences or just the races and individuals living in the galaxy now, we have to think in a broader sacle than that.

If it's true that Synthesis will create true everlasting peace, then I personally believe it is likely to be something quite frightening involved. At the very least everlasting peace means that people's freedom and diversity has been severely limtied, or sooner or later someone would chose war. If you stop to think about the implications of a promise of eternal peace, it doesn't look so good anymore, imo.

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

Good for you then. Don't live your real life that nonchalantly.

I'll keep that in mind if I build any crucibles. :innocent:

antares_sublight wrote... 

It's a game. You're saying the Catalyst is purely without motive or survival instinct whatsoever?

What does "it's a game" even mean? Is it somehow a lesser form of art/media to you as a result? 
The Catalyst does have a motive - to protect organics from total annihilation by tech singularity. He believes Synthesis is the way to get there, but is honest to you about Destroy in case you are set on that path.

antares_sublight wrote...
You're quite naive. Within the confines of it being a game, and Destroy is a valid "winning" option because BioWare wanted it to be, the Catalyst tells you about Destroy as well. However, it's foolish to say he is pure of motive.

He's a shackled AI. His motives are whatever his programming says they are, not some diabolical fiend cackling on a throne, no matter how much you wish him to be one for your own 2-dimensional cathartic wants.

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...
He's a shackled AI. His motives are whatever his programming says they are, not some diabolical fiend cackling on a throne, no matter how much you wish him to be one for your own 2-dimensional cathartic wants.

And where do you get that from?

[Taboo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

Which of those rights does Synthesis remove?
Joker and EDI didn't seem to be missing any.

I missed the post-synthesis interview with them. You're assuming a whole lot out of 2-seconds of silent video. Naive.

A few seconds can tell you a lot if you use observation. They were alive, unrestrained, and quite positive/hopeful.

When Joker steps out of the Normandy with a wondrous look, EDI pauses in the threshold. He turns and extends a hand to her as if to say "come on out, it's okay." (She does.) They look around at their lush surroundings and both bear wide grins. Finally, they hold each other close, for the first time free of concerns of war and death.

What missing rights was I supposed to have seen from that?

You also miss the key idea behind observation. Film is a lie. A lie at twenty four frames a second (or twenty five if you have PAL speed-up). An image can mean a great deal or very little and given the context of our ending, we are given the right to intepret it however we wish.

You assume that that scene is to be taken literally. Such a scene insults everyone. It is innocuous to the plot. It has bearing on anything as far as I'm concerned. Being "happy" doesn't mean you are free. They had no choice in the matter. You are incredibly naive when you say things like this. You assume BILLIONS of people are happy with what happened based upon an incredibly poor cutscene.

I don't see as anything other than a very poor substitute for deep philospohical thinking. It's a freaking joke. It isn't thoughtful and it isn't deep. It's a first year film student thing. I remember seeing **** just like this when I was in school. Do you know what the teacher did? He marked students down that did this? Why? Because it isn't new and it isn't deep.

As for shooting people? Yes, I have worked with a police department and have friends inside it. They use tazers now, because shooting is deemed to be a LAST RESORT. It is a myth that people are grievously wounded whenever they are shot. It's  a wound but depending on where you're shot you can certainly receive medical aid. My home state is notrorious for it's gun rights. People are shot ALL the time here.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 24 mai 2012 - 09:20 .

[Xandurpein]

Optimystic_X wrote...

A few seconds can tell you a lot if you use observation. They were alive, unrestrained, and quite positive/hopeful.

When Joker steps out of the Normandy with a wondrous look, EDI pauses in the threshold. He turns and extends a hand to her as if to say "come on out, it's okay." (She does.) They look around at their lus:)h surroundings and both bear wide grins. Finally, they hold each other close, for the first time free of concerns of war and death.

What missing rights was I supposed to have seen from that?

Do you realize just how much you are reading into those images that are just assumptions. Personally I was so put off by the Normandy crash scene, as it clashed badly with everything I've seen before, that I felt like I was watching a scene from the "Stepford wives". That is not imply anything else than our preconceptions color any such interpretation.

[Taboo]

He doesn't understand how bad it is.

We call those people "bots" where I come from.

They take things far too literally.

THEY MUST BE HAPPY BECAUSE THEY"RE SMILING.

No. Jesus freaking Christ no.

[Kreid]

Taboo-XX wrote...
You assume that that scene is to be taken literally. Such a scene insults everyone. It is innocuous to the plot. It has bearing on anything as far as I'm concerned. Being "happy" doesn't mean you are free. They had no choice in the matter. You are incredibly naive when you say things like this. You assume BILLIONS of people are happy with what happened based upon an incredibly poor cutscene.

I agree with this, specially because the Normandy crash scene is the most flagrant case of taking us for fools in the whole ending, it's pretty much insulting, from it's premise to it's implications.

I'm still trying to figure the line of thought here, must've been something like this.

Earth is destroyed>Relays are destroyed>Companions need a happy ending>Let's stary them in some paradise-like planet and damn the implications, people won't complain as long as they're safe.

That's said, the scene is made to convey the message that they're ok, even with synthesis so i wouldn't blame anyone for taking the narrative message at face value. *shrug*

[Taboo]

You're pretty easy to please if you swallow that nonsense on the jungle planet with a straight face. It's like Showgirls. No sane person takes it seriously.

It's a lot like that. It's about as deep as monkey putting on lipstick.

[Xandurpein]

The argument that it's fine to force Synthesis on everyone because it's for everyone's best is an incredibly dangerous one. It presupposes perfect knowledge of what will happen. Synthesis is just to wide-reaching. Just as Mordin would say, we don't have the right to play god, because there are too many variables involved. The history of the last century is full of tyrants who caused untold misery, because they "knew" their plan was the best.

Note that I don't oppose the idea of transhumanism as such, just enforcing it like this. How long would it take for us to replicate the technology involved, but on a smaller scale? We can already build the Crucible. It shouln't take many generations to figure out a way to produce the same effect but on a lower scale so everyone can chose. There's no reason to assume this is the only time in the Galaxy that this option will exist.

[Kreid]

Xandurpein wrote...

The argument that it's fine to force Synthesis on everyone because it's for everyone's best is an incredibly dangerous one. It presupposes perfect knowledge of what will happen. Synthesis is just to wide-reaching. Just as Mordin would say, we don't have the right to play god, because there are too many variables involved. The history of the last century is full of tyrants who caused untold misery, because they "knew" their plan was the best.

Note that I don't oppose the idea of transhumanism as such, just enforcing it like this. How long would it take for us to replicate the technology involved, but on a smaller scale? We can already build the Crucible. It shouln't take many generations to figure out a way to produce the same effect but on a lower scale so everyone can chose. There's no reason to assume this is the only time in the Galaxy that this option will exist.

It's a tricky argument, because we don't know how the Crucible works, neither if we can even replicate the energy emission without the Catalyst, the Crucible decision is itself much more complex than people give it credit for.

Many people hate the Catalyst, call him war criminal and genocidal, and non-sympathetic figure for sure, but, what most fail to see is that the Catalyst is simply out of our moral framework, he sees things on such a wide scale it's pretty much impossible to discern his thought proccess, but the trap is that in the last decision of the game we are pretty much propelled to take a stance looking a things in similar terms as he does, and in less than five minutes no less.

Is synthesis morally reprehensible? Certainly, it violates most indivuals rights on a fundamental level and it imposes Shepard's will on everything in the Galaxy without consent, the question is, should we make this choice judging by our own (human, limited) moral framework, or must we adopt a most trascendental point of view and let the common good impose above alll?

Modifié par Creid-X, 24 mai 2012 - 09:54 .

[Heeden]

Xellith wrote...

The crucible shows that their existance can be threatened.  And as far as im aware - since when did a race ever need a reason to want to try and defend itself.  Its entirely reasonable for a species to want to control everything around it in order to make sure that its continued survival and species propagation is continued.  In the case of the reapers - its entirely plausable that the reapers want to control all life because they are an unstable element.  Controling that element would ensure their species survival under the end of time.

But there are far more easier ways of controlling all life than attacking everything in space-squid bodies. Galaxy wise indoctrination would work, and if a species seems immune you could vapourise it before even reaching black powder tech. Monitoring the whole galaxy would be child's play as you would receive a notification whenever a mass relay is activated, and that's ignoring the fact if survival was the key concern the Reapers could kill everything forever. Then there's the tactics they use - if it wasn't portrayed so horrificly the very idea of them attacking with giant space-monsters and zombifying the population to engage in a land war would be laughable. Given the tech level they are operating at even a Krogan could come up with a better plan than "drop out of sky and fire lasers".

Then there's the fact the Reapers pretty much allowed the Crucible to dock with the Citadel. Sure we had to fight our way there but Shepard was still allowed to beam up, the atmosphere was an oxygen-nitrogen mix (as opposed to the nerve-gas that would be much more effective defensively) and there was a handy control to open the arms. Pointing the Crucible-input end towards the earth would also have enhanced security.

Altogether the Reapers were not acting to their full abilities to ensure victory against the organics, and whenever I see supposedly advanced AI making those sorts of blunders my first instinct is not *HA, a weakness to exploit" but "What the hell are they trying to achieve?".

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

And where do you get that from?

He can neither come up with the Crucible on his own, nor operate it without you. He can't even stop you from killing him and his solution, despite his firm belief that this would leave the larger problem unaddressed. Hence, shackles.

Taboo-XX wrote...

You also miss the key idea behind observation. Film is a lie. A lie at twenty four frames a second (or twenty five if you have PAL speed-up). An image can mean a great deal or very little and given the context of our ending, we are given the right to intepret it however we wish.

So films can never, ever convey truthful events?  I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Taboo-XX wrote... 
You assume that that scene is to be taken literally. Such a scene insults everyone. It is innocuous to the plot. It has bearing on anything as far as I'm concerned. Being "happy" doesn't mean you are free. They had no choice in the matter. You are incredibly naive when you say things like this. You assume BILLIONS of people are happy with what happened based upon an incredibly poor cutscene.

This goes back to the tone of the endings. If they wanted  your choice to be dark and bleak they could have easily portrayed it that way. They deliberately did not.

Look at the truly "bad endings." Running out of time in Arrival, sex with Morinth, Shepard dying in the SM, Vaporize. All had extremely negative connotations and imagery, with that last one having the sole bright spot of the Reapers dying too.

Synthesis has none of that. You get bright colors, vibrant nature, wonder and love. Reading negativity into that requires willfull blindness to artistic themes - blindness I am unwilling to subject myself to.

 

Taboo-XX wrote...  
As for shooting people? Yes, I have worked with a police department and have friends inside it. They use tazers now, because shooting is deemed to be a LAST RESORT. It is a myth that people are grievously wounded whenever they are shot. It's  a wound but depending on where you're shot you can certainly receive medical aid. My home state is notrorious for it's gun rights. People are shot ALL the time here.

Arrival was a last resort too. It was no less a removal of rights. The situation warranted it.

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Synthesis is a violation of bodily sovreignty without consent on a galactic scale.

How is keeping your DNA purely organic "bodily sovereignty?"

Then what does Synthesis do you boob?

Does it simply inject me with a large amount of things like Nanites?

I'm pretty sure that violates my bodily sovreignty.

You do not have the right to force that on anyone.

Learn to accept that.

You have NO right.

We have NO right to kill the Geth either, the difference is that the people who favor Destroy have admitted as such.

Do you have an argument against a form of Synthesis that doesn't change the physical bodies people inhabit?

[Demoiselle]

This thread. So much.

The people who steamroll their way into every thread telling people that if they didn't choose destroy then they clearly failed the game ruin the credibility of all the other Destroy supporters and ITers.

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

And where do you get that from?

He can neither come up with the Crucible on his own, nor operate it without you. He can't even stop you from killing him and his solution, despite his firm belief that this would leave the larger problem unaddressed. Hence, shackles.

Who even says he's an AI in the first place? All assumptions.

Optimystic_X wrote...
Synthesis has none of that. You get bright colors, vibrant nature, wonder and love. Reading negativity into that requires willfull blindness to artistic themes - blindness I am unwilling to subject myself to.

That's your right to have willful blissful naivete, you just can't justify it as anything beyond that.

[Xandurpein]

Creid-X wrote...

It's a tricky argument, because we don't know how the Crucible works, neither if we can even replicate the energy emission without the Catalyst, the Crucible decision is itself much more complex than people give it credit for.

I was being generous and said 10 generations, but change to a hundred; that's the time it took us to get from the Roman Empire to Space. We know the Protheans could already build primitive Mass relays and we can reverse engineer things. If it can be done once, it can be done again. It's ridiculous to assume that the Crucible can only be built once.

Creid-X wrote...

Is synthesis morally reprehensible? Certainly, it violates most indivuals rights on a fundamental level and it imposes Shepard's will on everything in the Galaxy without consent, the question is, should we make this choice judging by our own (human, limited) moral framework, or must we adopt a most trascendental point of view and let the common good impose above alll?

If the Catalyst views things in a way that is impossible to grasp, then why should we even listen to it? If my moral code is too limited to grasp the situatuon isn't that reason enough to not make a choice that affects the whole Galaxy? How can you even claim that something is for the greater good if you can't tie it to a moral code?

[Heeden]

antares_sublight wrote...

Who even says he's an AI in the first place? All assumptions.

I assume he's an AI because he's presented as an AI, the alternative would be "don't believe anything you've seen" and the whole exercise becomes nonsense,