1304 réponses à ce sujet

[legion999]

Yes, it is.

[wantedman dan]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

shepard may not desire the eventual outcome from the decision but he/she carelessly accepts it. 

that is enough ... "i dont want to kill all synthetic life but i still do it." the choice to do it, was yours and therefore, it is genocide.

the geth are a sentient lifeform. every geth program has self awareness of its place in time and space. therefore it is sentient life.

killing a sentient lifeform even only as "collateral damage", is genocide. the possibility that shepard may (or may not) dies in the progress is unimportant.

What's so hard about "the purpose must be"?

Why do people feel compelled to circumvent definitions?

Ah, never mind. I know why.

The purpose is killing all synthetic life because they are synthetic for the greater good of the galaxy. Ooh, a utilitarian perspective. That's different.

[wantedman dan]

EntropicAngel wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Which you completely intend to, in order to save the galaxy.

You are incorrect. You intend to save the galaxy. The extinction is an effect of the cause.

No. You are are essentializing far too much.

This situation is not as black-and-white as you contend, I say again.

[Kabooooom]

EntropicAngel wrote...

You are incorrect. You intend to save the galaxy. The extinction is an effect of the cause.

Except not. Just in case you didn't see my post immediately before you on the page before, consider this analogy:

You are driving down the street with your children in the backseat and accidentally hit a person because you swerve to avoid colliding with another car, and kill them. You unintentionally killed that person.

Now consider this:

You are driving down the street with your children in the backseat and realize that you will collide with another car at a speed so great that all of you will likely die, and you can avoid the collision - but only if you deliberately run down the innocent pedestrian. You choose to do so to save yourself, your children, and the driver of the other car. You intentionally killed that person.

It is exactly the same situation here.

[EricHVela]

The Mass Effect universe made it ambiguous enough for people to decide for themselves if AIs and related synthetics are actually alive or not. However, there is not enough evidence in the Mass Effect universe to prove it.

The kind of technology that they portrayed in ME is not available in real life (as far as we are aware at this time), and we have no means to make such a comparison to real life.

The answer to the riddle will be a personal one, nobody proven wrong nor right except by what they individually accept.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Kabooooom wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Regardless of the Geth or not, Destroy is genocide because you are killing the entire Reaper race.

And since each Reaper is itself a race - a nation - then you are really doing it a thousand times over.

And that's still okay. That's the point of the ending - it isn't supposed to make you feel comfortable, now that you suddenly understand an existential truth about the Reapers.

I'd so so far to say hundreds of thousands times over, since the destroyers are each a race as well. I was simply pointing out that regardless of how people feel about the Geth, Destroy in any way is genocide of the Reapers.

[wantedman dan]

EntropicAngel wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

The purpose is killing all synthetic life because they are synthetic for the greater good of the galaxy. Ooh, a utilitarian perspective. That's different.

No, it is not. The purpose is to save the galaxy.

If there was a choice that destroyed the Reapers without killing synthetics, next to our Destroy, you'd be right. But there isn't. There's no distinction on consequences. There is only the reason for the action. And that reason is the saving of the galaxy.

You. Are. Essentializing. Far. Too. Much. 

[Kabooooom]

No, it is not. The purpose is to save the galaxy.

The purpose is to save the galaxy, yes, but you still intentionally kill all Geth. And the Reapers. And EDI. Refer to my analogy above. There's no avoiding it or skirting the issue. Killing all of them was intentional, and you do it so that the galaxy can be saved.

I intentionally do it, every single time I play. But I don't ****foot around the issue. I accept it for what it is.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:29 .

[EricHVela]

Kabooooom wrote...

No, it is not. The purpose is to save the galaxy.

The purpose is to save the galaxy, yes, but you still intentionally kill all Geth. And the Reapers. And EDI. Refer to my analogy above. There's no avoiding it or skirting the issue. Killing all of them was intentional, and you do it so that the galaxy can be saved.

I intentionally do it, every single time I play. But I don't ****foot around the issue. I accept it for what it is.

And accept that Shepard chose it over other options (which I have done every time except the four times I that wanted to see the other results).

[dreman9999]

EntropicAngel wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Which you completely intend to, in order to save the galaxy.

You are incorrect. You intend to save the galaxy. The extinction is an effect of the cause.

That makes it a case of genocide by the cause of double effect.

[wantedman dan]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

Except not. Just in case you didn't see my post immediately before you on the page before, consider this analogy:

You are driving down the street with your children in the backseat and accidentally hit a person because you swerve to avoid colliding with another car, and kill them. You unintentionally killed that person.

Now consider this:

You are driving down the street with your children in the backseat and realize that you will collide with another car at a speed so great that all of you will likely die, and you can avoid the collision - but only if you deliberately run down the innocent pedestrian. You choose to do so to save yourself, your children, and the driver of the other car. You intentionally killed that person.

It is exactly the same situation here.

You intentionally killed the person, yes. However, your purpose was not to kill that person. You did not kill them because you wanted to. You killed them to avoid a greater cost at another place and time.

Miriam-Webster, murder:

the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Miriam-Webster, manslaughter:

the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice

What you're describing is manslaughter.

Not murder.

Genocide = murder.

Destroy is not genocide.

You had plenty of time before making the decision to weigh the consequences. Try again.

[dreman9999]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

Except not. Just in case you didn't see my post immediately before you on the page before, consider this analogy:

You are driving down the street with your children in the backseat and accidentally hit a person because you swerve to avoid colliding with another car, and kill them. You unintentionally killed that person.

Now consider this:

You are driving down the street with your children in the backseat and realize that you will collide with another car at a speed so great that all of you will likely die, and you can avoid the collision - but only if you deliberately run down the innocent pedestrian. You choose to do so to save yourself, your children, and the driver of the other car. You intentionally killed that person.

It is exactly the same situation here.

You intentionally killed the person, yes. However, your purpose was not to kill that person. You did not kill them because you wanted to. You killed them to avoid a greater cost at another place and time.

Miriam-Webster, murder:

the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Miriam-Webster, manslaughter:

the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice

What you're describing is manslaughter.

Not murder.

Genocide = murder.

Destroy is not genocide.

Murder can be done with out malice.

[AlanC9]

wantedman dan wrote...

The purpose is killing all synthetic life because they are synthetic for the greater good of the galaxy. Ooh, a utilitarian perspective. That's different.

Or the purpose is killing the Reapers, and the destruction of other synthetics is a regrettable side-effect.

Or you can go straight consequentialist and say that intentions don't matter. But in that case calling something "genocide" doesn't matter either.

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:36 .

[Village_Idiot]

Kabooooom wrote...

The purpose is to save the galaxy, yes, but you still intentionally kill all Geth. And the Reapers. And EDI. Refer to my analogy above. There's no avoiding it or skirting the issue. Killing all of them was intentional, and you do it so that the galaxy can be saved.

I agree entirely. It unfortunately forms a means to an end, albeit a costly one.

Admittedly, you could rationalise that "You can't believe everything that the Catalyst says" since it isn't infallible, and suppose that it is being truthful about the Reapers' fate in destroy, but not that of other synthetics. But then again, if you're willing to commit to the Destroy decision even though you're unsure of the consequences, you still have to take responsibilty for whatever those consequences will be.

[wantedman dan]

EntropicAngel wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

No. You are are essentializing far too much.

This situation is not as black-and-white as you contend, I say again.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Shepard's white-clean there. But simply by definition, it is not genocide.

You are wrong and you are bastardizing the definition of it through your various dodges and weavings.

[wantedman dan]

AlanC9 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

The purpose is killing all synthetic life because they are synthetic for the greater good of the galaxy. Ooh, a utilitarian perspective. That's different.

Or the purpose is killing the Reapers, and the destruction of other synthetics is a regrettable side-effect.

Which you still commit to the action despite such, making the consequence an intentional one.

The point being made, however, is that the situation is far less discrete than Entropic is characterizing it to be.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:36 .