80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Eryri]

TJBartlemus wrote...


EDIT - On top...I have no idea if I should be celebrating or be cautious and look out for if something bad is going to happen...  (1666)

And on Halloween no less! Spooky!

[Eryri]

Anyone noticed how that weird warning sign next to Vent Boy, looks a bit like Edvard Munch's "The Scream"? You kind of have to squint, but it has that same emaciated look and bulbous head. In the unlikely event that it's intentional, I've no idea what, if anything, the resemblence is supposed to mean.

Modifié par Eryri, 31 octobre 2012 - 12:49 .

[Hrothdane]

TJBartlemus wrote...

 I am in a debate class, and one of the topics we were discussing caught my attention. In the interest of keeping on topic, I'll slightly adapt it.

 Say if in the ending, instead of shooting a tube, it was a person. Just a random innocent person. Is it morally permissible to kill that one innocent to save the lives of more people from the Reapers?

EDIT - On top...I have no idea if I should be celebrating or be cautious and look out for if something bad is going to happen...  (1666)

Aha, the old "permissable, obligatory, inexcusable" ethics question.

Under the conditions of this thought experiment, I go with obligatory. However, I have to qualify that answer by saying that you can't really characterize my views on ethics just by one question.

I find myself tending towards Aristotelian virtue ethics when it comes to questions of morality. Every question of ethics under such a system has a "right" and a "wrong" answer, but such answers are different for each person and context. The same action undertaken by two different people may be "right" in one case and "wrong" in the other, depending on the context. Thus, by nature, making generalizing ethics becomes difficult, if not impossible.

[Andromidius]

That question is more akin to pulling the trigger on someone willing to die to achieve a goal, rather then a random innocent.

Gut reaction for me is to pull the trigger. On retrospect, I'd always doubt that such a solution would actually achieve said goal. So I'd rather pull the trigger on the cause of the problem.

[BansheeOwnage]

Hrothdane wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

 I am in a debate class, and one of the topics we were discussing caught my attention. In the interest of keeping on topic, I'll slightly adapt it.

 Say if in the ending, instead of shooting a tube, it was a person. Just a random innocent person. Is it morally permissible to kill that one innocent to save the lives of more people from the Reapers?

EDIT - On top...I have no idea if I should be celebrating or be cautious and look out for if something bad is going to happen...  (1666)

Aha, the old "permissable, obligatory, inexcusable" ethics question.

Under the conditions of this thought experiment, I go with obligatory. However, I have to qualify that answer by saying that you can't really characterize my views on ethics just by one question.

I find myself tending towards Aristotelian virtue ethics when it comes to questions of morality. Every question of ethics under such a system has a "right" and a "wrong" answer, but such answers are different for each person and context. The same action undertaken by two different people may be "right" in one case and "wrong" in the other, depending on the context. Thus, by nature, making generalizing ethics becomes difficult, if not impossible.

I bolded all the parts I agree with.

[401 Kill]

Sorry this is completely random, but can somebody play the destroy ending again? I just did, and 75% of the explosion was in a pinkish color, not the classic destroy-red (Yes, the other 25% was the "normal" color). I'm sorry, but I am just curious as to why this happened, and if this has happened to anybody else.

Modifié par 401 Kill, 31 octobre 2012 - 12:57 .

[TJBartlemus]

401 Kill wrote...

Sorry this is completely random, but can somebody play the destroy again? I just did, and 75% of the explosion was in a pinkish color, not the classic destroy-red (Yes, the other 25% was the "normal" color). I'm sorry, but I am just curious as to why this happened, and if this has happened to anybody else.

That happened to my sister too. Except it was more purple. My first reaction: "It's the elusive purple ending!!!" My sister literally believed that it was a new ending... 

[BansheeOwnage]

401 Kill wrote...

Sorry this is completely random, but can somebody play the destroy ending again? I just did, and 75% of the explosion was in a pinkish color, not the classic destroy-red (Yes, the other 25% was the "normal" color). I'm sorry, but I am just curious as to why this happened, and if this has happened to anybody else.

Hey  thanks! You reminded me of something really weird the first time I finished ME3! I really wish I had a capture card going, but whatever.


It had really off colours. It was inversed for most of it. I don't know what to say about that; it was probably a glitch. It is pretty funny in retrospect though, considering all of the backlash due to the colours...

                                                                                        


                                                                                         
                                                                                               

[TJBartlemus]

Hrothdane wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

 I am in a debate class, and one of the topics we were discussing caught my attention. In the interest of keeping on topic, I'll slightly adapt it.

 Say if in the ending, instead of shooting a tube, it was a person. Just a random innocent person. Is it morally permissible to kill that one innocent to save the lives of more people from the Reapers?

EDIT - On top...I have no idea if I should be celebrating or be cautious and look out for if something bad is going to happen...  (1666)

Aha, the old "permissable, obligatory, inexcusable" ethics question.

Under the conditions of this thought experiment, I go with obligatory. However, I have to qualify that answer by saying that you can't really characterize my views on ethics just by one question.

I find myself tending towards Aristotelian virtue ethics when it comes to questions of morality. Every question of ethics under such a system has a "right" and a "wrong" answer, but such answers are different for each person and context. The same action undertaken by two different people may be "right" in one case and "wrong" in the other, depending on the context. Thus, by nature, making generalizing ethics becomes difficult, if not impossible.

I know. <_< It's not easy. I have to debate against the affirmative. So I have to state the killing of the innocent isn't permissible cause the act of killing is immoral. 

[401 Kill]

TJBartlemus wrote...

401 Kill wrote...

Sorry this is completely random, but can somebody play the destroy again? I just did, and 75% of the explosion was in a pinkish color, not the classic destroy-red (Yes, the other 25% was the "normal" color). I'm sorry, but I am just curious as to why this happened, and if this has happened to anybody else.

That happened to my sister too. Except it was more purple. My first reaction: "It's the elusive purple ending!!!" My sister literally believed that it was a new ending... 

Yeah, that was exactly what I was thinking:D! 

It definitely was a dark pink color, not quite purple for me though:blink:, weird...

[Rifneno]

Hrothdane wrote...

Little known fact: BleedingUranium's avatar is still Kaiden; he just put on his Collector Armor.

I like to wear collector armor around Javik.

Because **** Javik.

Eryri wrote...

Anyone noticed how that weird warning sign next to Vent Boy, looks a bit like Edvard Munch's "The Scream"? You kind of have to squint, but it has that same emaciated look and bulbous head. In the unlikely event that it's intentional, I've no idea what, if anything, the resemblence is supposed to mean.

Fun fact: they reuse warning labels dozens of times through the game. That "bolt to the head" warning sign right next to Ventbrat? It's unique. It's never reused. I did an entire playthrough once literally for the sole purpose of scouring every inch of the game trying to find that warning sign used again.

[BansheeOwnage]

TJBartlemus wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

 I am in a debate class, and one of the topics we were discussing caught my attention. In the interest of keeping on topic, I'll slightly adapt it.

 Say if in the ending, instead of shooting a tube, it was a person. Just a random innocent person. Is it morally permissible to kill that one innocent to save the lives of more people from the Reapers?

EDIT - On top...I have no idea if I should be celebrating or be cautious and look out for if something bad is going to happen...  (1666)

Aha, the old "permissable, obligatory, inexcusable" ethics question.

Under the conditions of this thought experiment, I go with obligatory. However, I have to qualify that answer by saying that you can't really characterize my views on ethics just by one question.

I find myself tending towards Aristotelian virtue ethics when it comes to questions of morality. Every question of ethics under such a system has a "right" and a "wrong" answer, but such answers are different for each person and context. The same action undertaken by two different people may be "right" in one case and "wrong" in the other, depending on the context. Thus, by nature, making generalizing ethics becomes difficult, if not impossible.

I know. <_< It's not easy. I have to debate against the affirmative. So I have to state the killing of the innocent isn't permissible cause the act of killing is immoral. 

Be a rebel (speak the truth/be true to yourself) and say that there is no good argument for it. Killing is sometimes necessary. An unfortunate truth.

Going to eat dinner.

[TJBartlemus]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

 I am in a debate class, and one of the topics we were discussing caught my attention. In the interest of keeping on topic, I'll slightly adapt it.

 Say if in the ending, instead of shooting a tube, it was a person. Just a random innocent person. Is it morally permissible to kill that one innocent to save the lives of more people from the Reapers?

EDIT - On top...I have no idea if I should be celebrating or be cautious and look out for if something bad is going to happen...  (1666)

Aha, the old "permissable, obligatory, inexcusable" ethics question.

Under the conditions of this thought experiment, I go with obligatory. However, I have to qualify that answer by saying that you can't really characterize my views on ethics just by one question.

I find myself tending towards Aristotelian virtue ethics when it comes to questions of morality. Every question of ethics under such a system has a "right" and a "wrong" answer, but such answers are different for each person and context. The same action undertaken by two different people may be "right" in one case and "wrong" in the other, depending on the context. Thus, by nature, making generalizing ethics becomes difficult, if not impossible.

I know. <_< It's not easy. I have to debate against the affirmative. So I have to state the killing of the innocent isn't permissible cause the act of killing is immoral. 

Be a rebel (speak the truth/be true to yourself) and say that there is no good argument for it. Killing is sometimes necessary. An unfortunate truth.

Going to eat dinner.

And then proceed to get a 0 % for effort.  But 100% for creativity!!!  

[Humakt83]

"Prothean" artifacts you collect on one of the Firewalker missions (planet Corang) see to be Leviathan orbs as well.

So the Reapers' geth slaves were also looking for Leviathans back in ME 2.

Modifié par Humakt83, 31 octobre 2012 - 01:06 .

[Hrothdane]

TJBartlemus wrote...

And then proceed to get a 0 % for effort.  But 100% for creativity!!!  

It's a problem with the question, not the answer.

Most ethical questions you hear in classes such as the train problem are designed for highlighting the differences between deontological and utilitarian ethics, both of which try to formulate a group of immutable and universal ethical principles.

[Andromidius]

Uh...

Doing Javik's recruitment mission. When Shepard activates the Prothean message his eyes turn green. Like in Overlord and Synthesis.

...yeah.

[TJBartlemus]

Andromidius wrote...

Uh...

Doing Javik's recruitment mission. When Shepard activates the Prothean message his eyes turn green. Like in Overlord and Synthesis.

...yeah.

Prothean beam weapon also shoots green beams and I also believe Javiks biotics are green as well.

[401 Kill]

Humakt83 wrote...

"Prothean" artifacts you collect on one of the Firewalker missions (planet Corang) see to be Leviathan orbs as well.

So the Reapers' geth slaves were also looking for Leviathans back in ME 2.

They wanted those Leviathan artifacts desperately it seems. And when Shepard "acquires" an orb, he/she puts it in the smartest place! The cabin...

Maybe that is how the Leviathans know so much about Shepard.

[401 Kill]

TJBartlemus wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Uh...

Doing Javik's recruitment mission. When Shepard activates the Prothean message his eyes turn green. Like in Overlord and Synthesis.

...yeah.

Prothean beam weapon also shoots green beams and I also believe Javiks biotics are green as well.

Prothean beacons have green lights as well.

[BansheeOwnage]

TJBartlemus wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Uh...

Doing Javik's recruitment mission. When Shepard activates the Prothean message his eyes turn green. Like in Overlord and Synthesis.

...yeah.

Prothean beam weapon also shoots green beams and I also believe Javiks biotics are green as well.

Protheans are really the only big thing in Mass Effect (besides Overlord) that are green. Why? Simple.

Protheans tried control. It failed. Protheans were unintentionally synthesis. They failed because they were too similar. This is a reminder.

[BansheeOwnage]

401 Kill wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Uh...

Doing Javik's recruitment mission. When Shepard activates the Prothean message his eyes turn green. Like in Overlord and Synthesis.

...yeah.

Prothean beam weapon also shoots green beams and I also believe Javiks biotics are green as well.

Prothean beacons have green lights as well.

Pretty much all prothean tech is green. See post above.

[Andromidius]

TJBartlemus wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Uh...

Doing Javik's recruitment mission. When Shepard activates the Prothean message his eyes turn green. Like in Overlord and Synthesis.

...yeah.

Prothean beam weapon also shoots green beams and I also believe Javiks biotics are green as well.

Yeah they are.  Yet more reinforcement that the ending is constructed using Shepard's memories.

[TJBartlemus]

Hrothdane wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

And then proceed to get a 0 % for effort.  But 100% for creativity!!!  

It's a problem with the question, not the answer.

Most ethical questions you hear in classes such as the train problem are designed for highlighting the differences between deontological and utilitarian ethics, both of which try to formulate a group of immutable and universal ethical principles.

 That's why it's so fun (and infuriating) to debate with this topic. The only hard part is finding points for the negative. All I have really is that killing is immoral thus the resolution is immoral. (Plus a bunch of stuff for rebuttals... )

If someone would like to help by faux debate the topic for practice in PM's it would be appreciated!!! :happy:

[Gwyphon]

Rifneno wrote...
Fun fact: they reuse warning labels dozens of times through the game. That "bolt to the head" warning sign right next to Ventbrat? It's unique. It's never reused. I did an entire playthrough once literally for the sole purpose of scouring every inch of the game trying to find that warning sign used again.

Think it's used in the Vancouver multiplayer map at the bottom of that really long ladder placed on some air conditioners, though the MP team is completely different. That warning sign is very distinct though. Warning, only your head will be electricuted? Seems odd if you take it as a literal warning sign.

[Hrothdane]

TJBartlemus wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

And then proceed to get a 0 % for effort.  But 100% for creativity!!!  

It's a problem with the question, not the answer.

Most ethical questions you hear in classes such as the train problem are designed for highlighting the differences between deontological and utilitarian ethics, both of which try to formulate a group of immutable and universal ethical principles.

 That's why it's so fun (and infuriating) to debate with this topic. The only hard part is finding points for the negative. All I have really is that killing is immoral thus the resolution is immoral. (Plus a bunch of stuff for rebuttals... )

If someone would like to help by faux debate the topic for practice in PM's it would be appreciated!!! :happy:

This is the argument for the negative I've heard:
The people that will die if you don't shoot the single person are not dying because of you. By doing nothing to save them, you are not infringing upon their freedom to act or their natural rights. By shooting the single person, you are removing his freedom to act and are infringing upon his right to live.