FreddyCast wrote...
BansheeOwnage wrote...
FreddyCast wrote...
That's exactly what the destroy ending is according to the EC. The Godbrat makes it clear to you what the consequences are. Choosing destroy means that you whole heartedly accept destroying an entire sentient species just to destroy the Reapers. And you do it by your own hands. That's not necessary sacrifice, that's genocide. It's the same as killing all the Jews just to kill all the ****s. I'm reminded of what Shepard said to Garrus at the Memorail wall. He said if we allow ourselves to start killing our friends because of this war, then this war just ends up being murder.
I know that sometimes we don't get the easy way out, but in the ending we don't even get the Hard way out. Instead we allow the Catalyst to decide our fate. Remember that the choices come from the Citadel, not the Crucible, which is a complete contradiction to the narrative of the story.
EDIT: that censored part is not a curse word, its Hitler's party.
I get what you mean, it's just that I don't see it as genocide if it's not intentional (meaning you want to kill them). You lose in refuse (in a literal sense) so the next best option is refuse. Also, if I had to let 10 billion people die so 20 billion others could live, I would. It's better that all of them dying. I'd definitely be on board with refuse if Shepard at least tried to fight/you saw allies fighting to the death or if we ever get a victory through refuse.
The cold hard calculus of war doesn't apply to the destroy ending. The difference is: in a cold hard calculus, you allow 10 billion people to die at the hands of your enemies so that others may live. Sort of like The Protheans abandoning a planet, leaving the population at the hands of the Reapers, so that the Protheanscan regroup.
In the destroy ending, you don't allow 10 billion Geths to die so that 20 billion people of other races may live. You pull the trigger yourself on 10 billion Geth heads, doing the Reapers job for them. That's cold harded murder, not cold hard calculus.
I see where the disagreement is coming from. Bear with me.
Here are two situations that offer similar questions of morality:
1. A train is barreling down the tracks. Three people are stuck on the tracks in front of it. You stand by a track switch which will divert the train. However, the second path has one person stuck on the tracks. Is pulling the lever and killing one person to save three obligatory, understandable, or inexcuseable?
2. You are a doctor. A patient comes in with a cold. You have three patients that will die unless they recieve new organs immediately. The patient with a cold is a match to the three patients. Is killing the patient with a cold obligatory, understandable, or inexcuseable?
Almost everyone picks obligatory or understandable for the first and inexcuseable for the second.
The reason for the current disagreement is that Banshee sees the Destroy ending as situation 1, while Freddy sees it as situation 2.
Now, let's compare the situations here to the ending choices in ME3. You have four options. Do nothing, and everyone dies. Destroy synthetics, and everyone else lives. Control the Reapers and die yourself, but everyone else lives. Synthesize the galaxy and die, and everyone else lives. At first, this looks like a very clear allegory for the above situations.
However, unlike the tidy thought experiments, the choice in ME3 is open to complications. We have no guarantee that Shepard-AI will not become like the Catalyst and start the cycle again, which means more deaths. The renegade version clearly becomes an iron-fisted galactic overlord, which means more deaths. Synthesis promises a very vaguely-defined end to conflict and violates consent on perhaps the most basic level. The Reapers would still exist, and would still be partially organic machines designed for no purpose other than killing. Destroy is guaranteed to solve the problem, but we lose the synthetics. Control and synthesis offer no guarantees, only hope a throw of the dice.
Let me ask another moral question now: the operation to dock the Crucible to the Citadel involves an immense amount of troops from all civilizations in the galaxy. Hammer task force especially is expected (and does) lose almost everyone in it in order for the operation to succeed. Was the operation obligatory, acceptable, or inexcuseable?
Most of us will probably support the decision. Why? Because they are soldiers, they signed up for this.
Haven't the geth and EDI "signed up for this," too? The geth even reach consensus on the issue, not just majority vote. EDI has fought the Reapers and their minions practically from the moment she was born and said she would rather die that let the Reapers win.
Also remember that the Starbrat is the leader of the enemy. He essentially is trying to dictate the terms of his surrender. Shepard does not want to have to pick from his choices, but is being coerced virtually at gunpoint.
Furthermore, the negative consequences here are vaguely defined here. The geth and EDI are
technically software, not hardware, and the ending sequence seems to
indicate that only hardware is affected. What happens to the geth
uploaded into quarian suits? What happens if EDI is uploaded into the Normandy at the time?
The question is further complicated by Shepard's status as a soldier and a representative of the galaxy's resistance. His/her orders are to use the Crucible to eliminate the Reaper threat, and his/her commanding officers have been quite clear that they want the Reapers destroyed. The men and women of Sword, Shield, and Hammer fought and died to get Shepard to the Crucible to destroy the Reapers. Who is he/she to suddenly subvert their wishes? Spectres are given agency to do things as they see fit, but that agency is delegated to them by the governement of the people, and when they subvert the wishes of the government and people by abusing that agency, they are punished.
Does all this support of Destroy mean I think it's somehow a pure good choice? Absolutely not. Shepard has no good choices, only less bad. I also personally believe that rape is at least equal to murder in severity, and that synthesis constitutes a violation of everyone's bodies along similar lines.
That's my two cents. Probably more like two dollars considering how this went on, but there you go.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
