55 réponses à ce sujet

[memorysquid]

Why does the final choice in the game move from a two to three valued decision tree?  Why are both paragon and renegade choices always presented as sub-optimal and why is conflict with synthetics presented as inevitable?

My theory is that the ethics of ME is founded on Hegel's theory of conflict resolution.  The popular understanding of Hegel is that History [with a big "H"] proceeds through a dialogue-like process starting with a Thesis, organic life for instance, which is flawed and contains the seeds of an opposing force, an antithesis e.g. synthetic life, which can only be resolved through a process of synthesis, melding the two and creating something which transcends the old dichotomy.  The process of thesis/antithesis/synthesis [Hegel actually used different terms but this is how it is popularly characterized] is called Hegelian dialectic.

This also plays out in the paragon/renegade opposition.  Paragon is portrayed as avoiding short term ethical problems at the cost of long term practical problems.  Renegade is portrayed as incurring short term ethical costs to avoid long term practical difficulties.  Both are presented as sub-optimal; the problems of one generating the backlash from the other.

The last choice in the game, I think not coincidentally called "synthesis", is a choice to overcome the old paragon/renegade, organic/synthetic dichotomy. 

The final renegade choice is to off yourself possibly, your allies and the Reapers definitely, for relative short term stability and peace until a new race of synthetics arises.  A practical solution at the expense of ethics, but ultimately futile.

The final paragon choice is to off yourself while saving your allies and the Reaper stored consciousness while risking them coming right back, as you've seen so many attempts to control AI fail - also until a new race of synthetics arises and then who knows?  An ethical solution at the expense of practice, again ultimately futile.

The synthesis choice is to off yourself while saving your allies and the Reapers in an attempt to transcend the old paradigms and resolve the dichotomy, the tension between organic and synthetic completely, eliminating the cause for the Reaping altogether.

Points favoring the theory:

1)  Hegel would be known by people who've taken starter courses in philosophy and also people who study socialism/Marxism.  Not a big stretch to assume someone at Bioware would be one of the two or both.

2)  The green choice is called synthesis and matches the synthesis choice in Hegelian dialectic.

3) Hegel himself labels red "masculine, dominant" blue as "tranquil, milder, sensuous."

4) The diagram with red and blue in opposition and green above looks like diagrams from a philosophy text of the Hegelian dialectic with thesis and antithesis opposing at either side and the synthesis of the two above and between.

5) The third choice of synthesis is presented only once and only as the ultimate choice.  This is coherent with synthesis resolving the old tensions and moving into a different paradigm.  You wouldn't need to shift paradigms frequently.  Once it is done, all the old conflicts are resolved.

6) In Hegel's dialectic, the conflict of thesis and antithesis is inevitable.  The thesis is flawed and contains within it the source of its own antithesis.  Conflict between the two is simply unavoidable and caused by the flaws inherent in the thesis; only synthesis fundamentally changes the cause of the conflict and eliminates its cause.  This has a close parallel obviously with the Catalyst's presentation of the green choice and the inevitable conflict of synthetic creations and organic creators.

So this is why I favor a literal understanding not only of the ending, but of the whole game, as an exercise in Hegelian dialectic.  Throughout, the conflict of synthetics and organics is presented as occurring frequently.  The paragon and renegade choices throughout are presented as both being sub-optimal.  The final decision is presented as one more in a long string of difficult moral dilemmas, but at last, not a dilemma, but a trilemma.  You face the same principle vs. practice, short term cost vs. long term payoff/short term ethics vs. long term risk or can make the choice to transcend the old paradigm completely. 

Before the flame fest starts, allow me to note I think Hegelian dialectic is largely nonsense.  I just think it is such  a perfect fit for the ethical dilemmas throughout the game and the final, out of nowhere, trilemma that it is the obvious explanation for what the writers intended.

[Taboo]

Do not bring Hegel into this unless you're ready to get into some deep ****. It's nice to see you don't like him though.

None of the choices are Renegade. None of them are Paragon. That's the ****ing point. If Casey Hudson had any idea on how to apply philosophy he would have added the EC in before the release. He did not.

All of the endings have terrible ethical undertones. This is going to get VERY ugly if you continue.

[Cant Planet]

The ethics of ME: "Once your dollar is in my pocket, I win."

[darkchief10]

imma gonna make some popcorn brb

[ForThessia]

Cant Planet wrote...

The ethics of ME: "Once your dollar is in my pocket, I win."

pretty much this

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Do not bring Hegel into this unless you're ready to get into some deep ****. It's nice to see you don't like him though.

None of the choices are Renegade. None of them are Paragon. That's the ****ing point. If Casey Hudson had any idea on how to apply philosophy he would have added the EC in before the release. He did not.

All of the endings have terrible ethical undertones. This is going to get VERY ugly if you continue.

Just keeping it real.  Bring on the ugly.

I already Twitted to Merizan; let's see if she will verify!  All I want to know is, do you think I am right about where they dug this nonsense up from?  Hegel is deep, wrote a ton of long-winded nonsense but is practically enshrined by many philosophy students who are fans of idealism and Marxism.  Is the framework for ME ethical choices a great fit for Hegelian dialectic or what?  I simply have no doubt that is where they are coming from, wanted to see if anyone could think of valid counter-arguments.

I know some of your problems with the endings; I don't share them all because I feel if the writers intend for some ending to be sunshine and lollipops, well then they can just write it that way, and I will be charitable in interpreting what they wrote towards that intention.  Then you critique the writing and philosophy undergirding the story, not the choices made within it.  If for instance, they implicitly favor gun control, then you choosing to support the guy who wants to sell Citadel citizens guns in the face of imminent Reaper attack, makes you lose EMS score.  You can't argue with that in game, because you just lose it.  You can think the arguments are specious [I do.]  You can think the results are contrary to reality [I do.]  You just can't say the ME universe doesn't work that way, because it's fiction and well, yes it does.

[memorysquid]

Cant Planet wrote...

The ethics of ME: "Once your dollar is in my pocket, I win."

Let's not confuse the ethics of the story with the ethics of the BW or EA.  If you would, spend two minutes googling "Hegelian dialectic" and then tell me that some writer in control of ME at BW isn't a fan.

[Taboo]

That's far too intelligent for Bioware. I'm sorry but if it was it was a ****** poor college student execution. Casey Hudson is the ****tiest Marxist I've ever seen if this is the case.

The focus is on destruction and then rebirth on the jungle planet in an idealized view point. Synthesis for example, at least in my eyes would eventually lead to a state of Anarcho-Communism.

Cool beans Bioware, but you forget one thing that Marxists ALWAYS forget. People are dicks. They will always BE dicks. An idealized form of communism for me is where there is no direct governing body, but one that is run by the people. All people work for the community and nothing else. Education is free, water is free, food is free, health care is free.

That's the issue I present here. Does Bioware REALLY understand what that means? What pure communism is? Communism is an intellectualists dream. Reading The Communist Manifesto some years ago reminds me that many philosophers only take into account an ideal, not a reality. People will rebel, or leave depending on certain choices. It's only a matter of time until someone says, no, I want to be in charge.

Then the whole thing falls apart. All of it. Unless Synthesis forcibley removes basic things, all you have are some upgraded species with some VERY basic organic qualities here.

Synthesis people face a choice. Either it only upgrades society, which will eventually stagnate, it forces people to coexist, which is unethical, or it simply makes a ****ty commune.

This is why I get so frustrated and intrigued by Leftist films. I think it's a great idea, but only if you wish to be a part of it. I'm quite fond of the leftist intellectual fillmmakers, including, but not limited to Pier Paolo Pasolini, Bernardo Bertolucci, Theodoros Angelopoulos, Ken Loach, Peter Watkins and Nagisa Oshima.

The only person I've ever seen present a critiue of both sides is Oshima. Oshima understood one thing about people, that they are just that, people. There will always be things that society is stuck with. Murder, Rape, War. The only way to solve it is to force complacence. You cannot change the way things people are.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 24 juin 2012 - 02:12 .

[Kathleen321]

I have a problem with the ethics of ME3 because it is nothing like the ethics of ME1 and 2. The first games stressed conflict between warring species (geth-quarians, krogan-salarian/turian, humans-turinas) that could only be resolved through tolerance and alliance. This was why building a team and earning their trust was stressed in the second game- tolerance and DIVERSITY. Mass effect is about different species remaining unique while fighting for the same cause. Shepard notices the unique strengths each species has and utilizes them to save the galaxy. The endings KILL these morals- stressing that the most peaceful way to resolve conflict is by combining DNA and forming a new species, even though Shepard proved these species could be DIVERSE and UNIQUE and get along. Not to mention the destroy ending is pointless because it kills Geth and what for? Because they are mechanical? The end has no morals- no morals that resonate throughout the entire series.

[DrunkenRonin]

The very idea in the communist manifesto that the state will wither away to a workers paradise is garbage. Has any government voluntarily disbanded ever? They are either shattered by fire and war, or brought down from within due to corruption of every variety until the whole damn thing collapses. It's always about control, use of force to subvert mans nature, submit and conform or be made an example and an excuse as to why the system won't work. There is no paradise only misery and despair for those who acquiesce to such tyranny. To go against all human experience and demand others do the same for pretty rhetoric of the philosopher kings, it always ends in inhumanity and blood. God I despise marxists of every stripe. Thanks for inspiring a semi-coherent rant and reminding me why I hate the endings so damn much. Time to go drinking and clear my head, find a good girl and make some bad decisions that I won't regret.

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Cool beans Bioware, but you forget one thing that Marxists ALWAYS forget. People are dicks. They will always BE dicks. An idealized form of communism for me is where there is no direct governing body, but one that is run by the people. All people work for the community and nothing else. Education is free, water is free, food is free, health care is free.

That's the issue I present here. Does Bioware REALLY understand what that means? What pure communism is? Communism is an intellectualists dream. Reading The Communist Manifesto some years ago reminds me that many philosophers only take into account an ideal, not a reality. People will rebel, or leave depending on certain choices. It's only a matter of time until someone says, no, I want to be in charge.

Yes. they do understand what that idealised form of communism means because they've clearly read Iain M. Banks' stuff which describes it in a perfect state, attained by organic and technological life-forms living in harmony to create a post-scarcity society.

Somebody responsible for the ME lore is a huge sci-fi buff, but I think they fail to account for the fact not everyone else is.

[Taboo]

That isn't possible without force. You know this. You have zero right to do that to people.

Also, you have no idea what they've read.

[memorysquid]

Kathleen321 wrote...

I have a problem with the ethics of ME3 because it is nothing like the ethics of ME1 and 2. The first games stressed conflict between warring species (geth-quarians, krogan-salarian/turian, humans-turinas) that could only be resolved through tolerance and alliance. This was why building a team and earning their trust was stressed in the second game- tolerance and DIVERSITY. Mass effect is about different species remaining unique while fighting for the same cause. Shepard notices the unique strengths each species has and utilizes them to save the galaxy. The endings KILL these morals- stressing that the most peaceful way to resolve conflict is by combining DNA and forming a new species, even though Shepard proved these species could be DIVERSE and UNIQUE and get along. Not to mention the destroy ending is pointless because it kills Geth and what for? Because they are mechanical? The end has no morals- no morals that resonate throughout the entire series.

All the endings portrayed as paragon or renegade are portrayed as inherently flawed; not a one is pure benefit or pure cost.

ME1: Save the Council at the cost of the human fleets or let them die and save the human fleets for the best time to strike.  The payoff in ME3?  If you save the council, human fleets are at 2/3s strength, but you get the Destiny Ascension.  If you don't, humans fleets at full strength but no Destiny Ascension.

ME2: Save the Reaper base and give the loot to TIM to help fight the Reapers or blow it up because it was the site of atrocities and lose those resources.  The payoff?  If you blew it up, you've denied TIM some resources, but you then can't utilize those resources yourself after putting an end to Cerberus.  If you saved it, you helped him out which is obviously bad in ME3 and by the reckoning of most characters in ME2, but you get more war resources once you hammer the Cerberus base - resources that could literally make the difference between the Earth being decimated or not.

So the theme of dilemmas and trade offs really is continued in 3.  You just get a trilemma, for as I stated my belief above, the reason that someone at BW is a Hegel fan.  Presumably the authors didn't think that roboDNA puts an end to species diversity.  If they did, it wouldn't have been the synthesis which overcame the dichotomies of synthetics and organics.  Or maybe it would.  In Hegel's thought each synthesis becomes a new inherently flawed thesis until perfection is actually reached.  Maybe roboDNA is supposed to be perfection; the Catalyst does say it is the final step in evolution.  All in all, I still think my theory fits.  You?

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...

That isn't possible without force. You know this. You have zero right to do that to people.

Also, you have no idea what they've read.

If they haven't read at least Dune, Foundation and Lensman I will punch myself in the dick; that's how confident I am.

As for the Banks stuff, I suppose it is possible they read his other stuff and not the Culture novels but The Algebraist was definitely an influence.

[memorysquid]

Heeden wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Cool beans Bioware, but you forget one thing that Marxists ALWAYS forget. People are dicks. They will always BE dicks. An idealized form of communism for me is where there is no direct governing body, but one that is run by the people. All people work for the community and nothing else. Education is free, water is free, food is free, health care is free.

That's the issue I present here. Does Bioware REALLY understand what that means? What pure communism is? Communism is an intellectualists dream. Reading The Communist Manifesto some years ago reminds me that many philosophers only take into account an ideal, not a reality. People will rebel, or leave depending on certain choices. It's only a matter of time until someone says, no, I want to be in charge.

Yes. they do understand what that idealised form of communism means because they've clearly read Iain M. Banks' stuff which describes it in a perfect state, attained by organic and technological life-forms living in harmony to create a post-scarcity society.

Somebody responsible for the ME lore is a huge sci-fi buff, but I think they fail to account for the fact not everyone else is.

Banks is a socialist!  More fuel for the theory!

[Taboo]

I have no time for Hegel's absolutism. Or his vision of Communism. Or the terrible aesthetics you suggest here. Hegel has fans on both the left AND right mind you.

I'll stick with Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard and Kant thank you.

Even Nietzsche, the madman is better than Hegel.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 24 juin 2012 - 03:28 .

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I have no time for Hegel's absolutism. Or the terrible aesthetics you suggest here. Hegel has fans on both the left AND right.

I'll stick with Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard and Kant thank you.

Even Nietzsche, the mad Austrian is better than Hegel.

But it is Marxists, specifically because of Marx's affection for Hegel, that really push the dialectic style and the thesis/antithesis/synthesis analysis - of which capitalism/socialism/communism is supposed to be an example.

I thought Kant was largely wrong; his attempts to answer Hume didn't work for me.  Kierkegaard and the leap of faith largely made me an atheist.  I do like Schopenhauer a lot; bitter old man that he was by the time his work became popular.  His rejection of Hegel was good work.  Nietzsche is uneven at best, and I thought you condemned what you referred to as fascist aesthetics?

[DrunkenRonin]

[quote]Taboo-XX wrote...

That isn't possible without force. You know this. You have zero right to do that to people.

This really cuts to the quick of it. Liberty or Tyranny. I wouldn't stand for somebody forcing this on anyone, or for making a "choice" to force it on another.

[memorysquid]

Never read Banks before and after looking at the Wiki on "The Culture" I never will.

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

That isn't possible without force. You know this. You have zero right to do that to people.

Also, the point they make fairly often in ME is that the attempt to force advancement on the unready generally leads to disaster.

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

That's far too intelligent for Bioware. I'm sorry but if it was it was a ****** poor college student execution. Casey Hudson is the ****tiest Marxist I've ever seen if this is the case.

The focus is on destruction and then rebirth on the jungle planet in an idealized view point. Synthesis for example, at least in my eyes would eventually lead to a state of Anarcho-Communism.

Cool beans Bioware, but you forget one thing that Marxists ALWAYS forget. People are dicks. They will always BE dicks. An idealized form of communism for me is where there is no direct governing body, but one that is run by the people. All people work for the community and nothing else. Education is free, water is free, food is free, health care is free.

That's the issue I present here. Does Bioware REALLY understand what that means? What pure communism is? Communism is an intellectualists dream. Reading The Communist Manifesto some years ago reminds me that many philosophers only take into account an ideal, not a reality. People will rebel, or leave depending on certain choices. It's only a matter of time until someone says, no, I want to be in charge.

Bad philosophers think that way.  Good philosophers account for how people behave in their theory of ethics.  The reason Communism doesn't work is because it is poorly reasoned.  Unsound reasoning derived from a false premise on human behavior.  That isn't a problem for philosophy per se; that is just a problem for Marxism in particular.

Synthesis, at least as they presented it, doesn't seem to entail no one needs to eat.  I didn't get the utopian aspects from anything in ME3, just the dissolution of the organic/synthetic dichotomy.  No reason why anarcho-communism or capitalism would be implied, that I can see.

Synthesis people face a choice. Either it only upgrades society, which will eventually stagnate, it forces people to coexist, which is unethical, or it simply makes a ****ty commune.

This is why I get so frustrated and intrigued by Leftist films. I think it's a great idea, but only if you wish to be a part of it. I'm quite fond of the leftist intellectual fillmmakers, including, but not limited to Pier Paolo Pasolini, Bernardo Bertolucci, Theodoros Angelopoulos, Ken Loach, Peter Watkins and Nagisa Oshima.

The only person I've ever seen present a critiue of both sides is Oshima. Oshima understood one thing about people, that they are just that, people. There will always be things that society is stuck with. Murder, Rape, War. The only way to solve it is to force complacence. You cannot change the way things people are.

I am really not getting that from the ME presentation of synthesis.  Yes, I think Hegel figures in a big way [although that Banks' guy might undercut my theory by being the source of the Hegelian dialectic in ME] but they really disregard the economic aspect completely.  Insofar as they mention it at all, the currency market appears to be free, although they give some examples of people stealing other people's money for the greater good during the Reaper emergency.

I'll have to look up Oshima.  Sounds interesting.

[Taboo]

 I do. That's how much I hate idealism in philosophy. I hate Nietzsche, but at least he was grounded in reality somewhat before he went batty and hugged that horse.

Marx was so full of **** it's not even funny. He believed it was an eventuality. A scientific likeihood. He was wrong.

Idealism in philosophy is for fools. You cannot change the way people are. Time and time again I hear friends speaking of the forthcoming revolution, in Greece, in France, in the UK. It isn't coming and it never has been. People are animals first and foremost, this is a fact. You cannot change BASE functions of that.

Communism? Cool idea. But it requires everyone to be honest. It requires people to accept others as equals. If Synthesis does this, all you've done is achieve what Mao and Stalin could not. You may not have killed anyone physically, but that forced acceptance is wrong.

This is what I so vehemently oppose. Under no circumstances do you have any right to force that upon every living life form in the Galaxy. You were asked to do ONE thing, stop the Reapers. Any interference past that is unethical. Yes, you commit genocide. That is a terrible, unforgivable crime, but given the alternative I think the Galaxy will go on.

That's another issue with Synthesis. You wish to make people understand because Organics fear them. Well no **** they fear them. They are told to be afraid of the Geth, of AI. That kind of thing poisons minds. It should come as no suprise that people are hostile to them.

And what of Synthetics as equals? Is it not better to sacrifice one species to save the rest if you have no alternative? I would say no, but I only have permission to stop the Reapers, nothing more. Destroy serves that function. 

It makes me a monster. The very thing I hate. The thing I despise most. But I cannot bring myself to focus on the idealism that so poisons minds. Peace will either come or it won't. If we are to die twenty thousand years down the road then so be it. If we are to discover our own form of Synthesis before then, then so be it.

It isn't up to Sheapard to interfere past stopping the Reapers. Any blowback from that will fall directly upon his very living body. I plan on facing the reality of situation in my choice. The Id. The Major Tom. The whatever you wish to call it.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 24 juin 2012 - 03:53 .

[JShepppp]

Very good read, OP. Never thought of it that way. Implicitly, I thought the non-paragon/renegade-ness of the "best" ending was due to a kind of transcendence of the ME choice scheme, but I never explicitly thought if it like you wrote. I never heard of this dialectic thingy and while I think the synthesis name may just be coincidence, I like how it ties in, esp with the inevitable conflict, the paragon/renegade and stuff, and more.

I don't subscribe to favoring a particular philosophy over another because I'm sure everything has its flaws, but this was a fresh take that I haven't seen before. I like it. As for the haters [Taboo and others] warned about, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and if the haters don't realize that, then it's their loss because they'll only ever see things one way.

Modifié par JShepppp, 24 juin 2012 - 05:20 .

[Taboo]

I'm not a hater. I have an opinion. A strong one. But I wouldn't be here if I couldn't see the other sides opinion.

[JShepppp]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I'm not a hater. I have an opinion. A strong one. But I wouldn't be here if I couldn't see the other sides opinion.

Oh no, sorry. I never meant you were one. I meant you SAID others would come in, that's all.

I know that you're open to disagreements and I'm cool with that lol. Having differences is refreshing and awesome when it's done in an open and non-insulting manner. We've had our fair share of disagreements and that's fine. I admit it'd be pretty stale if everyone thought the same.

EDIT: I see the confusion in my wording in the above post; I'll change it.

Modifié par JShepppp, 24 juin 2012 - 05:21 .