1304 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

Lets assume for a moment that Geth do have souls.

Destroy still wouldn't be genocide, because Shepard doesn't set out to kill EDI and annihilate the Geth. He is destroying the Reapers, and EDI and the Geth only perish as collateral damage. Unintended consequences aren't genocide. Genocide is deliberate.

Furthermore 'death' for EDI and the Geth is not the same thing as death for an organic. A machine can be rebuilt whereas for most organics (Shepard excluded) death is final. EDI in fact was destroyed once before while still a VI, and she retained memories of her time on Luna aftering being restored and upgraded to full A.I. status.

[dreman9999]

Han Shot First wrote...

Lets assume for a moment that Geth do have souls.

Destroy still wouldn't be genocide, because Shepard doesn't set out to kill EDI and annihilate the Geth. He is destroying the Reapers, and EDI and the Geth only perish as collateral damage. Unintended consequences aren't genocide. Genocide is deliberate.

Furthermore 'death' for EDI and the Geth is not the same thing as death for an organic. A machine can be rebuilt whereas for most organics (Shepard excluded) death is final. EDI in fact was destroyed once before while still a VI, and she retained memories of her time on Luna aftering being restored and upgraded to full A.I. status.

1. It still is a genocide because the result is the death of a race...It does not need to be intintional.

2.If a person is mind wiped...Is he /she the same person as before? No, they are a new person.

That would be the same casewith EDI and the geth.....Destroy is a mass mind wipe for them. If you rebuild them...they will be entirely new beings.

[AlanC9]

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

It's slightly different, since the fat man, etc. will die anyway if you don't act, although he'll get to live a little longer.

Note that in a case as extreme as Shepard's, rule utilitarians will surely decide that this is one of those cases where the rule needs an exception.

Also note that double effect probably lets Shepard use the Crucible. Aquinas FTW!

[AlanC9]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
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.

Even assuming that the brat has such freedom of choice -- he says he doesn't, you know -- how does that alter the problem for Shepard? Whether the kid won't stop the harvest, or can't stop the harvest, he's not going to stop the harvest.

[BluSoldier]

Obadiah wrote...

Wikpedia has this as the first paragraph of its article on Genocide:

Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars. While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

I'd say by this definition, Shepard commits genocide against the Reapers, and other AI are massive collateral damage.

I don't think it could be called genocide unless Shepard had an active intent to wipe out all AI.

it is not genocide either way.  A are not a race, ethnicity, religious, or national group.  They are machines, and not alive.  Thus, no genocide was committed.  

And I don't believe in souls, Im an atheist;  I just don't see synthetics as alive.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Han Shot First wrote...

Lets assume for a moment that Geth do have souls.

Destroy still wouldn't be genocide, because Shepard doesn't set out to kill EDI and annihilate the Geth. He is destroying the Reapers, and EDI and the Geth only perish as collateral damage. Unintended consequences aren't genocide. Genocide is deliberate.

Furthermore 'death' for EDI and the Geth is not the same thing as death for an organic. A machine can be rebuilt whereas for most organics (Shepard excluded) death is final. EDI in fact was destroyed once before while still a VI, and she retained memories of her time on Luna aftering being restored and upgraded to full A.I. status.

Being organic or synthetic has nothing to do with it. Organics can be rebuild too. It's called cloning. The problem is identity. Cloning an organic or rebuilding a synthetic does not restore the original identities. These just create new identities. To make it more clear, consider this: Assume you recreate another identical Legion while the original Legion is still alive. You'll just end up with two instances of Legion. Both will be self-aware and will act independently. Shoot the original Legion and that Legion dies and the other lives on. In that case the copy didn't magically become the original Legion. Same goes for organics. Clone yourself and you'll end up with two instances of you. Commit suicide and your clone is unaffected. The clone didn't become you.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 08 octobre 2012 - 04:10 .

[wantedman dan]

Han Shot First wrote...

Lets assume for a moment that Geth do have souls.

Destroy still wouldn't be genocide, because Shepard doesn't set out to kill EDI and annihilate the Geth. He is destroying the Reapers, and EDI and the Geth only perish as collateral damage. Unintended consequences aren't genocide. Genocide is deliberate.

Furthermore 'death' for EDI and the Geth is not the same thing as death for an organic. A machine can be rebuilt whereas for most organics (Shepard excluded) death is final. EDI in fact was destroyed once before while still a VI, and she retained memories of her time on Luna aftering being restored and upgraded to full A.I. status.

You are informed well in advance of making the decision that the consequences will be destroying the Geth because they are machines. Thus, you are deliberately killing them because they are machines. Define "death" how you like--you're still destroying a culture because it is a certain way.

It's not like you run up and press the doom button and THEN you are informed of your consequences. Your description, then, would be correct. 

[dreman9999]

BluSoldier wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Wikpedia has this as the first paragraph of its article on Genocide:

Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars. While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

I'd say by this definition, Shepard commits genocide against the Reapers, and other AI are massive collateral damage.

I don't think it could be called genocide unless Shepard had an active intent to wipe out all AI.

it is not genocide either way.  A are not a race, ethnicity, religious, or national group.  They are machines, and not alive.  Thus, no genocide was committed.  

And I don't believe in souls, Im an atheist;  I just don't see synthetics as alive.

They well shown to have beliefs, persona, and ideals like we do...They are alive. Every thing that counts as them being alive is what makes us and any self aware organic stand out form other life. Saying for them to have this and for it not to count for them to be alive discounts ourselves.

[wantedman dan]

dreman9999 wrote...

BluSoldier wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Wikpedia has this as the first paragraph of its article on Genocide:

Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars. While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

I'd say by this definition, Shepard commits genocide against the Reapers, and other AI are massive collateral damage.

I don't think it could be called genocide unless Shepard had an active intent to wipe out all AI.

it is not genocide either way.  A are not a race, ethnicity, religious, or national group.  They are machines, and not alive.  Thus, no genocide was committed.  

And I don't believe in souls, Im an atheist;  I just don't see synthetics as alive.

They well shown to have beliefs, persona, and ideals like we do...They are alive. Every thing that counts as them being alive is what makes us and any self aware organic stand out form other life. Saying for them to have this and for it not to count for them to be alive discounts ourselves.

In addition to this, I would make the contention that we, as organics, are nothing but mere machines running simply off of the electric and chemical currents that maintain our bodies.

Following that gaudy logic, of course.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 08 octobre 2012 - 04:17 .

[dreman9999]

AlanC9 wrote...

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

It's slightly different, since the fat man, etc. will die anyway if you don't act, although he'll get to live a little longer.

Note that in a case as extreme as Shepard's, rule utilitarians will surely decide that this is one of those cases where the rule needs an exception.

Also note that double effect probably lets Shepard use the Crucible. Aquinas FTW!

Double effect does not stop the act from being a genocide. It only hasthe act see in a moral way. The just means the personis not evil for doing it.

[wantedman dan]

BluSoldier wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Wikpedia has this as the first paragraph of its article on Genocide:

Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars. While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

I'd say by this definition, Shepard commits genocide against the Reapers, and other AI are massive collateral damage.

I don't think it could be called genocide unless Shepard had an active intent to wipe out all AI.

it is not genocide either way.  A are not a race, ethnicity, religious, or national group.  They are machines, and not alive.  Thus, no genocide was committed.  

And I don't believe in souls, Im an atheist;  I just don't see synthetics as alive.

I must question, how do you define "life?"

[dreman9999]

wantedman dan wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

BluSoldier wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Wikpedia has this as the first paragraph of its article on Genocide:

Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars. While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

I'd say by this definition, Shepard commits genocide against the Reapers, and other AI are massive collateral damage.

I don't think it could be called genocide unless Shepard had an active intent to wipe out all AI.

it is not genocide either way.  A are not a race, ethnicity, religious, or national group.  They are machines, and not alive.  Thus, no genocide was committed.  

And I don't believe in souls, Im an atheist;  I just don't see synthetics as alive.

They well shown to have beliefs, persona, and ideals like we do...They are alive. Every thing that counts as them being alive is what makes us and any self aware organic stand out form other life. Saying for them to have this and for it not to count for them to be alive discounts ourselves.

In addition to this posit, I would make the contention that we, as organics, are nothing but mere machines running simply off of the electric and chemical currents that maintain our bodies.

Following that gaudy logic, of course.

Take away our our persona's, sense of self and beliefs(aka cut out our libic system) And what you you have left?

[Han Shot First]

dreman9999 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Lets assume for a moment that Geth do have souls.

Destroy still wouldn't be genocide, because Shepard doesn't set out to kill EDI and annihilate the Geth. He is destroying the Reapers, and EDI and the Geth only perish as collateral damage. Unintended consequences aren't genocide. Genocide is deliberate.

Furthermore 'death' for EDI and the Geth is not the same thing as death for an organic. A machine can be rebuilt whereas for most organics (Shepard excluded) death is final. EDI in fact was destroyed once before while still a VI, and she retained memories of her time on Luna aftering being restored and upgraded to full A.I. status.

1. It still is a genocide because the result is the death of a race...It does not need to be intintional.

Incorrect.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines genocide as, "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group."

The Oxford Dictionary defines genocide as, "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group."

Article II of the United Nations' 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide defines genocide as, "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

In short, the destruction of the Geth and EDI neither meets the dictionary or legal definitions of genocide.

dreman9999 wrote...

2.If a person is mind wiped...Is he /she the same person as before? No, they are a new person.

That would be the same casewith EDI and the geth.....Destroy is a mass mind wipe for them. If you rebuild them...they will be entirely new beings.

Perhaps, though that is debateable. As I pointed out with EDI, she retained memories from her time on Luna.

Also, is Shepard the same person after he was resurrected? His brain was destroyed as well, yet we all accept that he's the same person.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 08 octobre 2012 - 04:20 .

[wantedman dan]

I love how people want to bastardize Kantian ethics. The thought that absolutely no consideration should be paid to the consequences of one's actions is laughable.

[dreman9999]

jtav wrote...

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.

Double effect does not stop the act from being a genocide. It only has the act see in a moraljust way. That just means the person is not evil for doing it.

Modifié par dreman9999, 08 octobre 2012 - 04:23 .

[Geneaux486]

The Geth are recognized in the Mass Effect universe as a race, so yes, destroying them all at the same time does technically count as genocide.

[wantedman dan]

Han Shot First wrote...

In short, the destruction of the Geth and EDI neither meets the dictionary or legal definitions of genocide.

While completely ignoring that the consequences were completely intentional.

[dreman9999]

Han Shot First wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Lets assume for a moment that Geth do have souls.

Destroy still wouldn't be genocide, because Shepard doesn't set out to kill EDI and annihilate the Geth. He is destroying the Reapers, and EDI and the Geth only perish as collateral damage. Unintended consequences aren't genocide. Genocide is deliberate.

Furthermore 'death' for EDI and the Geth is not the same thing as death for an organic. A machine can be rebuilt whereas for most organics (Shepard excluded) death is final. EDI in fact was destroyed once before while still a VI, and she retained memories of her time on Luna aftering being restored and upgraded to full A.I. status.

1. It still is a genocide because the result is the death of a race...It does not need to be intintional.

Incorrect.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines genocide as, "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group."

The Oxford Dictionary defines genocide as, "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group."

Article II of the United Nations' 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide defines genocide as, "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

In short, the destruction of the Geth and EDI neither meets the dictionary or legal definitions of genocide.

dreman9999 wrote...

2.If a person is mind wiped...Is he /she the same person as before? No, they are a new person.

That would be the same casewith EDI and the geth.....Destroy is a mass mind wipe for them. If you rebuild them...they will be entirely new beings.

Perhaps, though that is debateable. As I pointed out with EDI, she retained memories from her time on Luna.

Also, is Shepard the same person after he was resurrected? His brain was destroyed as well, yet we all accept that he's the same person.

1.You know what it does before you choose it...Choosing it after knowing what it does makes it deliberate.
2. All his memories, beleifs and persona are still there. It's not a case of a mind wipe. It the same brain with the same info working in an improved body.

[Chala]

Of course not...
And Control is not dictatorship and Synthesis doesn't destroy the natural order.

All desicions have something immoral on them, this leads to the real question:
Which of them is the one that you can stand more?

Force Evolution? Control everything by your own hand? Cripple technology advancement and ruin some lifes in the process? (Remember that some people may need tech to survive) Let everybody die because of your own personal sense of justice and moral?
Either way, it's your choice.

That's one of the few good things that the end of ME3 has: None of them are fair and none of them are better than the other, which one is best is a matter of perspective.

Modifié par El_Chala_Legalizado, 08 octobre 2012 - 04:54 .

[Kabooooom]

I return to this discussion after a day, and people are still using the "soul" as an arguing point? Regardless of whether or not I consider that superstitious nonsense (I do), it cannot be defined in any meaningful manner and therefore is utterly useless for a discussion like this. It shouldn't have even been brought up by OP in the first place because it is irrelevant.

[Han Shot First]

wantedman dan wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

In short, the destruction of the Geth and EDI neither meets the dictionary or legal definitions of genocide.

While completely ignoring that the consequences were completely intentional.

...except they weren't.

In fact Shepard doesn't even know that the Catalyst is being honest about the consequences. Without a player's foreknowledge of how the ending plays out, Shepard has no reason to trust the Catalyst or to suspect that the Catalyst was trying to do anything other than save itself and talk him out of Destroy.

It meets neither the dictionary or legal definitions of genocide.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 08 octobre 2012 - 04:31 .

[RiouHotaru]

By the standard definition of "genocide" as any encyclopedia will call it, no it's not. Shepard doesn't go out of his or her way to kill the Geth. They are the unfortunate collateral to destroying the Reapers, which cannot be avoided.

Since we're going with this line, Synthesis is not even CLOSE to "eugenics" by the standard definition either. I guess people just want the endings to sound as gruesome as possible to justify their hatred for it. But they really need to come up with better words.

[dreman9999]

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

Of course not...
And Control is not dictatorship and Synthesis doesn't destroy the natural order.

All desicions have something immoral on them, this leads to the real question:
Which of them is the one that you can stand more?

Control being a dictarshipis based on your shepard.

[wantedman dan]

Han Shot First wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

In short, the destruction of the Geth and EDI neither meets the dictionary or legal definitions of genocide.

While completely ignoring that the consequences were completely intentional.

...except they weren't.

In fact Shepard doesn't even know that the Catalyst is being honest about the consequences. Without a player's foreknowledge of how the ending plays out, Shepard has no reason to trust the Catalyst or to suspect that the Catalyst was trying to do anything other than save itself and talk him out of Destroy.

It meets neither the dictionary or legal definitions of genocide.

As the popular phrase goes, you may be entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

The fact is, you chose the option going in knowing--thinking, to satiate your argument--it will kill all synthetic life because it is synthetic. You are deliberately and systematically exterminating a nation, a race, a cultural group, even though they'd be collateral damage.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 08 octobre 2012 - 04:31 .