925 réponses à ce sujet

[BaladasDemnevanni]

memorysquid wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

To bring up an earlier point: a doctor who refuses to save a dying man isn't going to be considered completely innocent,

Unless he is that man's doctor, he is completely innocent.  There's a difference between malfeasance [doing something that negatively impacts someone] and nonfeasance [refusing to act].  That distinction doesn't really apply to Shepard because using the Crucible really is his job.

I'd disagree, especially if there's no reason to think that the doctor would come to any harm in aiding the man. Ex: Car crash, or something similar. That you didn't directly cause an action does not alter your lack of efforts in preventing it, within a reasonable degree (Ex: Your life is on the line).

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 août 2012 - 06:08 .

[memorysquid]

LiarasShield wrote...

Telling someone to kill themselves because you took their choice away or because you altered them you're really no better then the reapers at least about being evil they don't hind their intent

Nonsense.  That's not what I said at all.  You are choosing not to use the Crucible which means trillions are going to die.  If you pick synthesis, then anyone who objects to it can CHOOSE to kill themselves.  No one is telling anyone they have to suicide.

Your option, refusal, fails the standard of freedom of choice you are attempting to use in its defense.  My option preserves more choice than yours. 

[memorysquid]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

To bring up an earlier point: a doctor who refuses to save a dying man isn't going to be considered completely innocent,

Unless he is that man's doctor, he is completely innocent.  There's a difference between malfeasance [doing something that negatively impacts someone] and nonfeasance [refusing to act].  That distinction doesn't really apply to Shepard because using the Crucible really is his job.

I'd disagree, especially if there's no reason to think that the doctor would come to any harm in aiding the man. Ex: Car crash, or something similar. That you didn't directly cause an action does not alter your lack of efforts in preventing it, within a reasonable degree (Ex: Your life is on the line).

I'd disagree with your disagreement.  There are morally obligatory actions, morally permissible actions and morally impermissible actions.  Helping someone else is permissible but not obligatory.  Harming someone else is impermissible.  Performing a job for which you have contracted yourself is obligatory.

In extension, if you want to claim helping people is morally obligatory, then you should do nothing with your time not spent keeping yourself alive but help people.  Any luxury expenditure, like posting on BSN, playing video games, etc., is morally impermissible in that case.

The mal- and non-feasance distinction has been alive in common law for close to a millenium.

[AresKeith]

Pitznik wrote...

AresKeith wrote...


no, I was trying to say that I don't think Destroy was really a "choice"

And it was already confirmed that the Citadel was built by the Reapers, the Crucible is a power source which means it only gives power to make them fuction, the choices are still part of the Citadel

Destroy is a choice, and its result is against Reapers' goal. My point still stands - why the destroy brings more harm than good?

We don't know for certain who build the CItadel. In fact Citadel is the Catalyst, and Catalyst was created by Reapers' creators. Since Citadel = Catalyst, and Catalyst created Reapers, Reapers couldn't create the Citadel, no?

its not a real choice when you really look at what happens during the ending, how does shooting a power conduit kill all synthetics. It was meant to power the Synthesis, when you destroy it you cause it to malfunction/ overload and do the opposite of Synthesis.

The more harm than good question goes towards EMS, because the malfunction can kill everyone

[BaladasDemnevanni]

memorysquid wrote...

In extension, if you want to claim helping people is morally obligatory, then you should do nothing with your time not spent keeping yourself alive but help people.  Any luxury expenditure, like posting on BSN, playing video games, etc., is morally impermissible in that case.

 I did outline above that there are limits to such actions. Helping people, at minimal expense to your own being, is obligatory. I don't expect someone in the midst of gunfire to go out of his way to tackle the attacker, for example. Nor do I expect anyone to devote their entire existence to such a cause. A doctor driving to a gas station who happens to observe a man dying in the streets has demonstrated something far below basic human decency.

If you want to argue that such a philosophy is "vauge", I would be interested.  

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 août 2012 - 06:25 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

And to add (briefly) to the above: it's not merely helping people at minimal expense, but also if it can reasonably be believed that the person is in dire need of assistance, without which there is significant risk to their person (Ex: serious injury, death).

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 août 2012 - 06:26 .

[Isichar]

@Dharvy Your right, and it is something I noticed too after rereading the response. Perhaps my mindset involving refuse goes to one extreme just as much as the catalysts did, and to be fair I am sure he no more sees his actions as sacrificing others as people have argued my actions would. Something to ponder on.

I mentioned the natural evolution of the galaxy, it is something chaotic and can't be controlled. The catalyst tried to control something that can not be controlled forever, at best delayed, and it only causes more damage then it prevents. The reason I say the Catalyst can not control it is because there was too many cracks, small ones that could not be prevented. Information been passed down through cycles, species surviving through cycles (if only just shortly), and the conditions for the cycles changing shows the reapers could control it quite effectively, but not perfectly. I am not saying organics can win through conventional means, but the crucible is not necessarily the only way to end the reaper threat.

What is amazing is when you think of how many cycles have progressed and how many organics still survive, and how life still thrives throughout the galaxy despite generations of species been wiped out. It makes me question whether reapers ever could fully destroy all life, because new life is constantly growing and thriving.

There is some comfort in knowing life will continue once you and everyone you know is gone. And well that may not be much comfort to some, and it may not mean much towards your problems right now its still important.

Even if you refuse and you change nothing in your cycle, you still see that things do change and there is a future out there for someone. I loved this about refuse, because it shows that it still matters even in an ending as bitter as it is.

When you choose destroy you reset things, and the greatest chance you have for peace between synthetic and organics dies. It took a war with the reapers to unite the galaxy, what happens when synthetics return? Will we be able to make peace the same way or will the Catalyst 2.0 arise. I am not saying this because I think destroy is the wrong choice, but there is a heavy risk because of what you have to sacrifice.

For control you really are the same as the Catalyst for good or bad, you are still 1 will that trys to control the progress of life in the galaxy with a nearly unstoppable power. You always have the chance that you will end up coming to the same conclusions that the original Catalyst had (And I think most would to some degree)

Synthesis denys the natural evolution altogether. It outright states it is the final evolution of life something I don't think even the reapers can grasp. And the best part about synthesis is that if he is correct then it will happen eventually not matter what I choose.

My Shepard may have been a prime example of an organic, and a legendary sex god to alien women, but he still was only 1 mind, 1 organic in a sea of trillions. I can't say what would be right for everyone because I don't know, and I dont think there is an easy answer to that or one that he was somehow given the authority to make. And the same goes for the catalyst, I don't think his actions was what was best and he forcefully imposed his will on the galaxy.

Sorry for kind of rambling but you asked how I hoped the next cycle would progress in regards to the crucible and I cannot clearly answer that. My hope would be they decided not to use the crucible (since Liara states it did not actually work) and they were given enough warning to find a way to beat them properly. Thats just my preference but don't get the impression this is exactly what I think will happen.

Edit: Err sorry that was much longer then I intended...

Modifié par Isichar, 16 août 2012 - 07:00 .

[Isichar]

Pitznik wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

So it all is down to your denial about chance of conventional victory? Again? Whole topic? 21 pages?

You could just say so - I disagree with 0% of conentional victory, I see it higher, and I rather stick with my 2% than with great unknown. That makes sense.

My denial of conventional victory?

And here I just said I know we are screwed conventionally.

What part of I dont believe in conventional victory is so hard for you to grasp. I said I dont believe the crucible is any more likely to work then conventional victory, which as you stated is about 0% chance.

There is no unknown in conventional victory. There is unknown in Crucible. So it is still Crucible > conventional victory. Worst case scenario - it just does what Reapers will do anyway.

/Headdesk

Ok last post you get from me, hard to respond to someone who just ignores everything you say.

Modifié par Isichar, 16 août 2012 - 06:37 .

[memorysquid]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

And to add (briefly) to the above: it's not merely helping people at minimal expense, but also if it can reasonably be believed that the person is in dire need of assistance, without which there is significant risk to their person (Ex: serious injury, death).

  And how do you define any of your qualifying terms?  What expense is minimal?  Where's the weigh off between expense and dire need?  There are tens of thousands of people starving daily.  Any luxury expenditure on your part would keep any of them alive for a given period of time.  The minimal expense of ME3 could easily have fed X number of starving Ethiopians for a given period of time.  Video games are therefore morally impermissible.  Your need for luxury is obviously less "dire" than someone else's need to not die from lack of food.

My beef is that your point of view is simply unsustainable and entails moral conflicts that shouldn't exist.  If someone else's needs are morally considerable then so are your own; that is simple logic.  The person best suited to meeting those needs is the person most intimately acquainted with them; namely, yourself. 

It is permissible to help others, when you deem it a good idea.  It is not obligatory; asserting it is obligatory automatically makes anyone who needs more than you more morally important than you.  Hello, Karl Marx!

[BaladasDemnevanni]

memorysquid wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

And to add (briefly) to the above: it's not merely helping people at minimal expense, but also if it can reasonably be believed that the person is in dire need of assistance, without which there is significant risk to their person (Ex: serious injury, death).

  And how do you define any of your qualifying terms?  What expense is minimal?  Where's the weigh off between expense and dire need?  There are tens of thousands of people starving daily.  Any luxury expenditure on your part would keep any of them alive for a given period of time.  The minimal expense of ME3 could easily have fed X number of starving Ethiopians for a given period of time.  Video games are therefore morally impermissible.  Your need for luxury is obviously less "dire" than someone else's need to not die from lack of food.

My beef is that your point of view is simply unsustainable and entails moral conflicts that shouldn't exist.  If someone else's needs are morally considerable then so are your own; that is simple logic.  The person best suited to meeting those needs is the person most intimately acquainted with them; namely, yourself. 

It is permissible to help others, when you deem it a good idea.  It is not obligatory; asserting it is obligatory automatically makes anyone who needs more than you more morally important than you.  Hello, Karl Marx!

Well-played, no joke. Give me a bit of time...I need to think.

Edit: Although I was thinking Peter Singer, more than Karl Marx.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 août 2012 - 06:43 .

[Isichar]

memorysquid wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

And to add (briefly) to the above: it's not merely helping people at minimal expense, but also if it can reasonably be believed that the person is in dire need of assistance, without which there is significant risk to their person (Ex: serious injury, death).

  And how do you define any of your qualifying terms?  What expense is minimal?  Where's the weigh off between expense and dire need?  There are tens of thousands of people starving daily.  Any luxury expenditure on your part would keep any of them alive for a given period of time.  The minimal expense of ME3 could easily have fed X number of starving Ethiopians for a given period of time.  Video games are therefore morally impermissible.  Your need for luxury is obviously less "dire" than someone else's need to not die from lack of food.

My beef is that your point of view is simply unsustainable and entails moral conflicts that shouldn't exist.  If someone else's needs are morally considerable then so are your own; that is simple logic.  The person best suited to meeting those needs is the person most intimately acquainted with them; namely, yourself. 

It is permissible to help others, when you deem it a good idea.  It is not obligatory; asserting it is obligatory automatically makes anyone who needs more than you more morally important than you.  Hello, Karl Marx!

Very interesting point. Its kind of sad to think the extra money I spring to buy the collectors edition, alone could feed others for a month.

[AlanC9]

Isichar wrote...
My denial of conventional victory?

And here I just said I know we are screwed conventionally.

What part of I dont believe in conventional victory is so hard for you to grasp. I said I dont believe the crucible is any more likely to work then conventional victory, which as you stated is about 0% chance.

Wait, what? How'd you get to the conclusion that the Crucible has zero chance of working?

I can see how if you really think the galaxy's doomed anyway, and the whole effort to build the Crucible was a total waste of time, then you might as well go out with some defiant last words. But I don't see how you got there.

[Isichar]

^
I meant that the crucible has the same odds of working as conventional success to me. Can a reaper be killed conventionally? Yes. We see several reapers shot down conventionally. So you could technically win conventionally but it just ain't very likely to understate it. Same thing with the crucible, sure it could work but I dont think it is anymore likely to actually work then trying in a gun fight.

Modifié par Isichar, 16 août 2012 - 06:58 .

[memorysquid]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Well-played, no joke. Give me a bit of time...I need to think.

Edit: Although I was thinking Peter Singer, more than Karl Marx.

Whoo hoo!  That philosophy B.A. is finally paying off!  I would bet Singer gets it from Marx.  Plus isn't Singer a pure utilitarian who happens to include animals in his utility calculus, i.e. just a numbers game that includes animals? And I would note, because I do think it is relevant, that he already admits he doesn't follow his own ethical prescriptions WRT to his mom who he keeps in a nursing home rather than setting her off on an ice floe so he can feed some rats.

[Sajuro]

Isichar wrote...

Trillions of deaths from the reapers, lives destroyed in the most horrible way possible. By using the crucible you are justifying what the reapers have done to countless organic cycles.

By using the crucible you are justifying that all trillions of deaths were worth it just to save your one cycle. It is selfish and ignores those who died to actually stop the reapers, not submit to them.


Synthesis is the ultimate renegade option, you are saying the ends justify the means.

Are you counting the trillions that the reapers are going to kill in this cycle in that figure?

[Isichar]

Sajuro wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Trillions of deaths from the reapers, lives destroyed in the most horrible way possible. By using the crucible you are justifying what the reapers have done to countless organic cycles.

By using the crucible you are justifying that all trillions of deaths were worth it just to save your one cycle. It is selfish and ignores those who died to actually stop the reapers, not submit to them.


Synthesis is the ultimate renegade option, you are saying the ends justify the means.

Are you counting the trillions that the reapers are going to kill in this cycle in that figure?

The population of 1 cycle is no where near a trillion. Ftr.

Actually after a quick check up I could be wrong about that... hmmm

Modifié par Isichar, 16 août 2012 - 07:07 .

[Sajuro]

Isichar wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Trillions of deaths from the reapers, lives destroyed in the most horrible way possible. By using the crucible you are justifying what the reapers have done to countless organic cycles.

By using the crucible you are justifying that all trillions of deaths were worth it just to save your one cycle. It is selfish and ignores those who died to actually stop the reapers, not submit to them.


Synthesis is the ultimate renegade option, you are saying the ends justify the means.

Are you counting the trillions that the reapers are going to kill in this cycle in that figure?

The population of 1 cycle is no where near a trillion. Ftr.

Actually I think the council referred to the current cycle as having a population in that range, but my question stands. Are you factoring this cycle into your numbers? I mean that would mean the next cycle shouldn't use the crucible because the Reapers killed even more and the next cycle and the next cycle.

[Pitznik]

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

AresKeith wrote...


no, I was trying to say that I don't think Destroy was really a "choice"

And it was already confirmed that the Citadel was built by the Reapers, the Crucible is a power source which means it only gives power to make them fuction, the choices are still part of the Citadel

Destroy is a choice, and its result is against Reapers' goal. My point still stands - why the destroy brings more harm than good?

We don't know for certain who build the CItadel. In fact Citadel is the Catalyst, and Catalyst was created by Reapers' creators. Since Citadel = Catalyst, and Catalyst created Reapers, Reapers couldn't create the Citadel, no?

its not a real choice when you really look at what happens during the ending, how does shooting a power conduit kill all synthetics. It was meant to power the Synthesis, when you destroy it you cause it to malfunction/ overload and do the opposite of Synthesis.

The more harm than good question goes towards EMS, because the malfunction can kill everyone

It is a choice to overload the system then - it is an action you take instead of other actions. Low EMS is out of the question - then we can just argue what is more merciful, but I'd rather not. My question is still the same what is so bad about destroy? Geth die, annihilated in cold blood, without a chance. But Geth are doomed either way. The next generation of synthetics will be free just like the organic survivors, with no self proclaimed guardian looking over them, and there will be noone to stop it from outside. Of course if Catalyst is right, Destroy is also the ending when we (organics) are completely screwed - but our ME experience doesn't confirm his ideas anyway, so well worth the risk.

[Isichar]

Sajuro wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Trillions of deaths from the reapers, lives destroyed in the most horrible way possible. By using the crucible you are justifying what the reapers have done to countless organic cycles.

By using the crucible you are justifying that all trillions of deaths were worth it just to save your one cycle. It is selfish and ignores those who died to actually stop the reapers, not submit to them.


Synthesis is the ultimate renegade option, you are saying the ends justify the means.

Are you counting the trillions that the reapers are going to kill in this cycle in that figure?

The population of 1 cycle is no where near a trillion. Ftr.

Actually I think the council referred to the current cycle as having a population in that range, but my question stands. Are you factoring this cycle into your numbers? I mean that would mean the next cycle shouldn't use the crucible because the Reapers killed even more and the next cycle and the next cycle.

Yeah I may have been wrong about that.

Anyways I think I would have to have given a specific number to have to worry about that

Funny enough I do seem to recall a thread a while back that had the estimated death count caused by the Catalyst, I guess you can go look that up if you really care.

[Sajuro]

Isichar wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Trillions of deaths from the reapers, lives destroyed in the most horrible way possible. By using the crucible you are justifying what the reapers have done to countless organic cycles.

By using the crucible you are justifying that all trillions of deaths were worth it just to save your one cycle. It is selfish and ignores those who died to actually stop the reapers, not submit to them.


Synthesis is the ultimate renegade option, you are saying the ends justify the means.

Are you counting the trillions that the reapers are going to kill in this cycle in that figure?

The population of 1 cycle is no where near a trillion. Ftr.

Actually I think the council referred to the current cycle as having a population in that range, but my question stands. Are you factoring this cycle into your numbers? I mean that would mean the next cycle shouldn't use the crucible because the Reapers killed even more and the next cycle and the next cycle.

Yeah I may have been wrong about that.

Anyways I think I would have to have given a specific number to have to worry about that

Funny enough I do seem to recall a thread a while back that had the estimated death count caused by the Catalyst, I guess you can go look that up if you really care.

I know the Catalyst's death count for the cycle after I use the crucible
0

[Pitznik]

Isichar wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

So it all is down to your denial about chance of conventional victory? Again? Whole topic? 21 pages?

You could just say so - I disagree with 0% of conentional victory, I see it higher, and I rather stick with my 2% than with great unknown. That makes sense.

My denial of conventional victory?

And here I just said I know we are screwed conventionally.

What part of I dont believe in conventional victory is so hard for you to grasp. I said I dont believe the crucible is any more likely to work then conventional victory, which as you stated is about 0% chance.

There is no unknown in conventional victory. There is unknown in Crucible. So it is still Crucible > conventional victory. Worst case scenario - it just does what Reapers will do anyway.

/Headdesk

Ok last post you get from me, hard to respond to someone who just ignores everything you say.

Dude, you are contradicting yourself.

Crucible has chance of working different than 0 - that is absolutely sure. SO it unknown.

Conventional victory is 0.

So it either:

 unknown > 0

or

bad case of denial about chances of conventional victory

Which is it? I could literally post our entire conversation, when you change your mind every other post.



It is funny how you just responded to Dharvy, who said the exact same thing as I did - that you became just like the Catalyst in your reasoning.

[Isichar]

Pitznik wrote...

Dude, you are contradicting yourself.

Crucible has chance of working different than 0 - that is absolutely sure. SO it unknown.

Conventional victory is 0.

So it either:

 unknown > 0

or

bad case of denial about chances of conventional victory

Which is it? I could literally post our entire conversation, when you change your mind every other post.



It is funny how you just responded to Dharvy, who said the exact same thing as I did - that you became just like the Catalyst in your reasoning.

Yep no thanks, not biting.

[Pitznik]

Isichar wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Dude, you are contradicting yourself.

Crucible has chance of working different than 0 - that is absolutely sure. SO it unknown.

Conventional victory is 0.

So it either:

 unknown > 0

or

bad case of denial about chances of conventional victory

Which is it? I could literally post our entire conversation, when you change your mind every other post.



It is funny how you just responded to Dharvy, who said the exact same thing as I did - that you became just like the Catalyst in your reasoning.

Yep no thanks, not biting.

Uncomfortable situation, isn't it?

[AlanC9]

Isichar wrote...


^
I meant that the crucible has the same odds of working as conventional success to me. Can a reaper be killed conventionally? Yes. We see several reapers shot down conventionally. So you could technically win conventionally but it just ain't very likely to understate it. Same thing with the crucible, sure it could work but I dont think it is anymore likely to actually work then trying in a gun fight.

Gotcha. No actual reasoning at all.

[MattFini]

Someone might choose refuse as a means of giving BioWare the finger right back.

If a ton of people choose that, it shows them exactly how much they failed in serving up that junk ending.

Still changes nothing but, hey, a statement's a statement.