1304 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

You know, excusing forced cyborgization with "benefits" that forced cyborgization will bring - is not an excuse.
It is forced.
It is still a war crime. It is still disregarding the humans ethics.

I'm just saying that it's not mutilation and that it's better than genocide. I also don't actually think that it's a war crime.

[JBPBRC]

Maxster_ wrote...

P.S. Well, EAWare got their speculations, it seems. Now we are speculating what war crime is better to commit.

Boycotting is probably the worst war crime EA can think of...

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

If you simply had destroy as an option and synthesis and control weren't options, it would be obvious that destroy was ethical. "All dead" vs. "One race + an AI dead" is an easy choice. (Refuse is a not a serious ethical position to support.)

The only ethical quandary is if you are compelled to pick control or synthesis over destroy - whether destroy's costs are necessary or not.

Personally, with the information we're given, I don't have a problem picking destroy - the source of the information is shaky at best. If we had full metagame knowledge and details at the time of the decision, it might be completely immoral to pick destroy, but we don't. Synthesis I think is easier to dismiss as an a "you must pick this over destroy," because the idea of it turning everyone into husk or entirely different minded entities is rather horrifying. Control, well...the only argument against this that's made any sense to me is that once you become a Reaper, you may lose your values and sense of yourself due to your "godhood perspective' that (could) value lives less because of being simpler, etc. Otherwise control seems best, to be honest. I still pick destroy though.

I think you can make an argument for any ending, but I'm not sure one is obviously an imperative over another due a lack of information. It's actually kind of a well constructed choice.

[Maxster_]

Xilizhra wrote...

You know, excusing forced cyborgization with "benefits" that forced cyborgization will bring - is not an excuse.
It is forced.
It is still a war crime. It is still disregarding the humans ethics.

I'm just saying that it's not mutilation and that it's better than genocide. I also don't actually think that it's a war crime.

Of that i'm sure
Forced intrusion on atom level, that disregards all humanity fought for in context of freedom and human rights - is perfect, because, well... it is great, because it is for the Greater Good. And Greater Good is not needing justifications, because it is Greater Good.
I like that thought pattern. It is so totalitarian. 

[Saans Shadow]

I could go through this whole process of going through what the definition of life is but I really don't feel like it.  The truth is you are trying to justify genocide by telling yourself they aren't alive and can be rebuilt.  Even if the Quarians rebuilt the Geth, chances are they would not be the same.  For all we know a random glitch is what caused the spark of sentience in the first place.  The same with Edi.  It's even stated in the Codex that if an AI is removed from its original quantum blue box it's personality would change even if you moved it back.  You committed genocide. Deal with it :innocent:

[Maxster_]

PKchu wrote...

If you simply had destroy as an option and synthesis and control weren't options, it would be obvious that destroy was ethical. "All dead" vs. "One race + an AI dead" is an easy choice. (Refuse is a not a serious ethical position to support.)

The only ethical quandary is if you are compelled to pick control or synthesis over destroy - whether destroy's costs are necessary or not.

Personally, with the information we're given, I don't have a problem picking destroy - the source of the information is shaky at best. If we had full metagame knowledge and details at the time of the decision, it might be completely immoral to pick destroy, but we don't. Synthesis I think is easier to dismiss as an a "you must pick this over destroy," because the idea of it turning everyone into husk or entirely different minded entities is rather horrifying. Control, well...the only argument against this that's made any sense to me is that once you become a Reaper, you may lose your values and sense of yourself due to your "godhood perspective' that (could) value lives less because of being simpler, etc. Otherwise control seems best, to be honest. I still pick destroy though.

I think you can make an argument for any ending, but I'm not sure one is obviously an imperative over another due a lack of information. It's actually kind of a well constructed choice.

I see. Mass Slavery is normal. Because reasons.
Mass Mutilation is horrific. Because husks and brainwashing. I agree.
Genocide is bad, because genocide. Well, i agree on that.

Refuse is only ethical choice in those endings. And not only that. You are refusing to unconditionally surrender to reapers whim.
And it is still fail, like the other 3.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

If you're willing to let the entire known universe's life die because you're too proud to work within the Reaper's parameters, even when you're removing them from existence, your priorities are very wrong. Refuse has always seemed like an extremely selfish and even cowardly option to me. It's the least dynamic and deep of the choices and, frankly, transparently unappealing..

If you are concerned about committing "genocide" - self defense is not a war crime. If the exact same amount of people died but of varied and random races, would you find it objectable? There's such a thing as acceptable losses. Refusing to sacrifice the lives of others and letting everyone die so you don't feel about your ethical decisions is not only selfish, it's short sighted. There's a terrible burden of choice in the ending, and I think it's a compelling thing - the cost of doing the right thing and living with yourself.

I will admit to not ever considering the Reaper's rights in control (I've never really stopped to humanize them and the game never really gives you many reasons to, hm...) - it is brainwashing, similar to the geth in ME2 - a moral choice I find very difficult as well. I suppose it's fair to ask if control morally permissible to save the lives of everyone else? (I would probably say yes,)

"Mass slavery, genocide," etc. - moral actions have a context and have to be judged in the ones they were made. And here, it was "let some people die" vs. "let everyone die." Not hard - just hard to live with. It's the Arrival choice over again.

EDIT: I can see why a pure paragon who always helped everything and never did anthing bad, ethically grey or morally questionable in a romantic knight sort of way would find the ending repugnant, and I suppose that is why refuse exists. They wouldn't pick the other 3 because they're not willing to compromise their morals. And then, because of their arrogance or short sightedness and inability to understand the idea of doing the best you can do, they kill everyone. For morals, because they do not understand ethical context.

Modifié par PKchu, 08 octobre 2012 - 12:35 .

[Maxster_]

PKchu wrote...

If you're willing to let the entire known universe's life die because you're too proud to work within the Reaper's parameters, even when you're removing them from existence, your priorities are very wrong. Refuse has always seemed like an extremely selfish and even cowardly option to me. It's the least dynamic and deep of the choices and, frankly, transparently unappealing..

If you are concerned about committing "genocide" - self defense is not a war crime. If the exact same amount of people died but of varied and random races, would you find it objectable? There's such a thing as acceptable losses. Refusing to sacrifice the lives of others and letting everyone die so you don't feel about your ethical decisions is not only selfish, it's short sighted. There's a terrible burden of choice in the ending, and I think it's a compelling thing - the cost of doing the right thing and living with yourself.

I will admit to not ever considering the Reaper's rights in control - it is brainwashing, similar to the geth in ME2 - a moral choice I find very difficult as well. I suppose it's fair to ask if control morally permissible to save the lives of everyone else? (I would probably say yes,)

Working within Reaper's parameters - means they set the terms for your "victory". And if you try to oppose them and their terms, - you will be exterminated, along with your friend, your society and every galactic civilization.
That means, that this is unconditional surrender to a whim of a genocidal maniac.
You can say that this is all about "pride", but this is still surrender to an enemy.

If you are saying about reapers, their genocide is inevitable, because they are refusing to stand down. And even if they would stop hostilities, they are still guilty of uncountable number of deaths. But topic is about justification of geth's genocide. Which is completely unjustifiable.

As for reapers rights.. It all comes to question - do you have the right.
Just like that.

And it was not the money I wanted, Sonia, when I did it. It was not so much the money I wanted, but something else.… I know it all now.… Understand me! Perhaps I should never have committed a murder again. I wanted to find out something else; it was something else led me on. I wanted to find out then and quickly whether I was a louse like everybody else or a man. Whether I can step over barriers or not, whether I dare stoop to pick up or not, whether I am a trembling creature or whether I have the right …

Raskolnikov, Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky.

Modifié par Maxster_, 08 octobre 2012 - 12:45 .

[AlexMBrennan]

Look at it another way: You have a button. If you don't press it, everyone dies. If you do press it, only the geth die and everyone else gets to live. Surely, pressing the button is the right thing to do?

Or maybe not - this is a difficult moral question, and there is no absolute "right" answer. In particular, how people respond depends very largely on how it's phrased.

This is known as the Trolley problem by the way

[Maxster_]

"Mass slavery, genocide," etc. - moral actions have a context and have to be judged in the ones they were made. And here, it was "let some people die" vs. "let everyone die." Not hard - just hard to live with. It's the Arrival choice over again.

EDIT: I can see why a pure paragon who always helped everything and never did anthing bad, ethically grey or morally questionable in a romantic knight sort of way would find the ending repugnant, and I suppose that is why refuse exists. They wouldn't pick the other 3 because they're not willing to compromise their morals. And then, because of their arrogance or short sightedness and inability to understand the idea of doing the best you can do, they kill everyone. For morals, because they do not understand ethical context.

Ethically grey is whole other level, than committing warcrime on the galaxy scale. Every human through his(her) life made many small(or moderate) ethically grey choices.
You are saying that given the power, everybody would commit those crimes easily? This is just grim..

As for a context - it is still a genocide. Context is relevant for afterward regrets, and not for everybody.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

"[T]his is still surrender to an enemy."

...and? You seem to be hung up on semantical definitions. If the enemy's terms are "we all die, you all get to live, and the universe keeps spinning"...then, sure! I'll accept their terms, because their terms are dumb to their own interests and good to mine. Fighting a race of Reapers that want to kill everyone ever is not a common situation, and one of the few situations where "sacrificing an entire race of people" is a tolerable choice because they're all doomed to die if you do nothing. The act of doing nothing is itself a choice - you are FORCED by the situation, you've been given this power and whether or not you wanted the right you've been given the ability, the power to act in a timefrime. In a normal situation, you would not have "the right" to do these things, but your hand has been forced by circumstances. Do you have the "right" to refuse? 

The synthetics are only "genocided" because they have to die in order to kill the Reapers. When you pick destroy, you are not killing the geth because you want them to die. You are choosing between "the geth die and everyone else dies" and "the geth die and everyone else lives." It would be no different than a military engagement where you had to sacrifice a planet. There is zero racial malice in picking destroy as you seem to be implying by saying destroy is genocide. It's a regretable side effect that is only justifiable due to the stakes and what would have happened if you picked refuse. (Ignore the other outcomes for a moment, we can come back to that later. Destroy vs Refuse only.)

Again - do you have the right to refuse? You're constrained by time and the power thrust upon you. There's no reason to assume you have the right NOT to pull the lever.

[Trolley Problem]

I'm sorry, but I can't understand how this is a problem. If there is certainty of death, zero lives saved vs some lives saved is a no-brainer. The only difficulty is living with the horror that you had to make that choice. That's just my opinion, but I fail to even see the dilemma.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

"Ethically grey is whole other level, than committing warcrime on the galaxy scale. Every human through his(her) life made many small(or moderate) ethically grey choices."

I'm not saying it's on the same level of denying refugees space on the Citadel. More like the perspective used in making choices.
 

"You are saying that given the power, everybody would commit those crimes easily? This is just grim.."

I would think that most people would pick anything but refuse. They are not "crimes," they are actions that would be crimes that are, again, forced upon you by circumstance. Killing a man is a crime unless he was going to kill you first. You keep using loaded words to define choices by fiat into being bad.


"As for a context - it is still a genocide. Context is relevant for afterward regrets, and not for everybody."

OK. It's a "genocide," just like self defense is "killing" and killing is a crime. I don't see a point here.


EDIT: I do not mean to imply that the death of the geth would be something I wouldn't mourn or feel bad about. It would scar me for the rest of my life and haunt me. It isn't a callous, "Who cares about life?" More that life is so valuable that something horrible had to be chosen.

Modifié par PKchu, 08 octobre 2012 - 01:29 .

[jtav]

If Destroy is the only option, I'd say the death of the geth and EDI fall under the principle of double effect. You aren't intending to kill them. What you want is for hostilities to cease and life to be preserved. Where it becomes problematic is when there are other options. I feel I can ethically choose the other options. Therefore the death of synthetics becomes immoral.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

Yeah jtav. I think you can make a decent argument against Synthesis, I find it harder to justify destroy over control.

[ATiBotka]

It's genocide, but necessary (if you like the Destroy ending).

[Shallyah]

It's as much genocide as it'd be sacrificing all the TVs of the Galaxy to save everyone. Mildly inconvenient, but a no-brainer choice.

Modifié par Shallyah, 08 octobre 2012 - 01:52 .

[Maxster_]

PKchu wrote...

"[T]his is still surrender to an enemy."

...and? You seem to be hung up on semantical definitions. If the enemy's terms are "we all die, you all get to live, and the universe keeps spinning"...then, sure! I'll accept their terms, because their terms are dumb to their own interests and good to mine. Fighting a race of Reapers that want to kill everyone ever is not a common situation, and one of the few situations where "sacrificing an entire race of people" is a tolerable choice because they're all doomed to die if you do nothing. The act of doing nothing is itself a choice - you are FORCED by the situation, you've been given this power and whether or not you wanted the right you've been given the ability, the power to act in a timefrime. In a normal situation, you would not have "the right" to do these things, but your hand has been forced by circumstances. Do you have the "right" to refuse? 

The synthetics are only "genocided" because they have to die in order to kill the Reapers. When you pick destroy, you are not killing the geth because you want them to die. You are choosing between "the geth die and everyone else dies" and "the geth die and everyone else lives." It would be no different than a military engagement where you had to sacrifice a planet. There is zero racial malice in picking destroy as you seem to be implying by saying destroy is genocide. It's a regretable side effect that is only justifiable due to the stakes and what would have happened if you picked refuse. (Ignore the other outcomes for a moment, we can come back to that later. Destroy vs Refuse only.)

Again - do you have the right to refuse? You're constrained by time and the power thrust upon you. There's no reason to assume you have the right NOT to pull the lever.

Damn, never was good at ethical theories.

"[T]his is still surrender to an enemy."

...and? You seem to be
hung up on semantical definitions. If the enemy's terms are "we all die,
you all get to live, and the universe keeps spinning"...then, sure!
I'll accept their terms, because their terms are dumb to their own
interests and good to mine. Fighting a race of Reapers that want to kill
everyone ever is not a common situation, and one of the few situations
where "sacrificing an entire race of people" is a tolerable choice
because they're all doomed to die if you do nothing. The act of doing
nothing is itself a choice - you are FORCED by the situation, you've
been given this power and whether or not you wanted the right you've
been given the ability, the power to act in a timefrime. In a normal
situation, you would not have "the right" to do these things, but your
hand has been forced by circumstances. Do you have the "right" to
refuse?

You are forced not by "situation". You are forced by sentient enemy.
That means that you are defeated. And forced to accept term of victor, by threat that this victor will annihilate you and your civilization.
This is called unconditional surrender. This is goes for ME3 endings in general, and theme of ME3, but not for ethics of catalyst's "choices".

The synthetics are only "genocided" because they have to die in order to
kill the Reapers. When you pick destroy, you are not killing the geth
because you want them to die. You are choosing between "the geth die and
everyone else dies" and "the geth die and everyone else lives." It
would be no different than a military engagement where you had to
sacrifice a planet. There is zero racial malice in picking destroy as
you seem to be implying by saying destroy is genocide. It's a regretable
side effect that is only justifiable due to the stakes and what would
have happened if you picked refuse. (Ignore the other outcomes for a
moment, we can come back to that later. Destroy vs Refuse only.)

I think this goes there
Consequentialism.

Consequentialism
is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the
consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment
about the rightness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist
standpoint, a morally right act (or omission) is one that will produce a
good outcome, or consequence.

Consequentialism is usually
distinguished from deontological ethics (or deontology), in that
deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of one's conduct from the
character of the behaviour itself rather than the outcomes of the
conduct. It is also distinguished from virtue ethics, which focuses on
the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of
the act (or omission) itself, and pragmatic ethics which treats morality
like science: advancing socially over the course of many lifetimes,
such that any moral criterion is subject to revision. Consequentialist
theories differ in how they define moral goods.

It is basically "the end justifies the means".

Also, genocide as result of collaterial damage is still genocide. And also, i'm not impliyng malice for geth in destroy. Who wanted to genocide them, or having no other choice - already killed them all near Rannoch.

Again - do you have the right to refuse? You're constrained by time and
the power thrust upon you. There's no reason to assume you have the
right NOT to pull the lever.

Do i have the right? There is no right answer to that question for ME3.

And this is main reason why i disgusted by the endings. I wanted to play heroic saga, with different choices, and victory(maybe with shepard's death, but victory, not crushing defeat). Just like the prequels. Instead i got story about crushing defeat, unconditional surrender, complying the will of nightmarish enemies, and ethical questions. And very badly written. If it would be a standalone game.. it could even work.
Well, that's beside the point.

[Maxster_]

PKchu wrote...

"Ethically grey is whole other level, than committing warcrime on the galaxy scale. Every human through his(her) life made many small(or moderate) ethically grey choices."

I'm not saying it's on the same level of denying refugees space on the Citadel. More like the perspective used in making choices.
 

"You are saying that given the power, everybody would commit those crimes easily? This is just grim.."

I would think that most people would pick anything but refuse. They are not "crimes," they are actions that would be crimes that are, again, forced upon you by circumstance. Killing a man is a crime unless he was going to kill you first. You keep using loaded words to define choices by fiat into being bad.


"As for a context - it is still a genocide. Context is relevant for afterward regrets, and not for everybody."

OK. It's a "genocide," just like self defense is "killing" and killing is a crime. I don't see a point here.


EDIT: I do not mean to imply that the death of the geth would be something I wouldn't mourn or feel bad about. It would scar me for the rest of my life and haunt me. It isn't a callous, "Who cares about life?" More that life is so valuable that something horrible had to be chosen.

You are saying that it is some "circumstances" that forced you. But that was will of the sentient enemy. Reapers.
It is not like the Sol exploding in 50 years, and you need to build a ship and save at least someone, and then you starting to choose who you will save. This is forced by circumstances.

[jtav]

PKchu wrote...

Yeah jtav. I think you can make a decent argument against Synthesis, I find it harder to justify destroy over control.

Probably. I'm using Catholic Just War theory here, and my gut says that the genetic alterations would be classed as intrinsically sinful acts. Control's dangers are purely hypothetical, what Shepard might do with the power. It's temptation, but there's nothing immoral being done.

[Maxster_]

jtav wrote...

PKchu wrote...

Yeah jtav. I think you can make a decent argument against Synthesis, I find it harder to justify destroy over control.

Probably. I'm using Catholic Just War theory here, and my gut says that the genetic alterations would be classed as intrinsically sinful acts. Control's dangers are purely hypothetical, what Shepard might do with the power. It's temptation, but there's nothing immoral being done.

Eh? Mass Slavery is no danger to enslaver, thus justifiable?

[Shallyah]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Shallyah wrote...

It's as much genocide as it'd be sacrificing all the TVs of the Galaxy to save everyone. Mildly inconvenient, but a no-brainer choice.

Assuming you actually mean any of that gash, please explain.

There isn't much to explain, it's all there. You can replace the "TVs" word in that statement with radios, computers, or whatever machine you wouldn't really enjoy losing. Calling it genocide is believing in something that doesn't exist, and the choice to get rid of them to preserve all life in the Galaxy as it is, is a no-brainer if compared with allowing the Reapers to keep existing to rebel whenever they please, or raping trillions of real people's identities and existential principles at genetical level without consent.

Modifié par Shallyah, 08 octobre 2012 - 02:21 .

[wantedman dan]

HiddenInWar wrote...

"Does this unit have a soul?"

That is the only sentence I need to refute that argument.

First post, /thread

[AngryFrozenWater]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Look at it another way: You have a button. If you don't press it, everyone dies. If you do press it, only the geth die and everyone else gets to live. Surely, pressing the button is the right thing to do?

Or maybe not - this is a difficult moral question, and there is no absolute "right" answer. In particular, how people respond depends very largely on how it's phrased.

This is known as the Trolley problem by the way

Ghehe. Interesting problem.

However, in the trolley problem there is the certainty that either one or five people die, but the driver who is making that choice has to act - no matter which of the two options he selects, people will die. The geth's case is complicated by the fact that Shepard is forced by penalty of death to select one or the other and the brat who forces Shepard to select can simply order to quit the harvesting and avoid the problem altogether.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 08 octobre 2012 - 03:39 .