Xilizhra wrote...
DuffyMJ wrote...
AdmiralCheez wrote...
Steelcan wrote...
The idea is still valid though, perhaps immoral but still valid.
Nuh-uh. It implies that "the way things are" is inherently good.
For example, cancer happens naturally all the time. Should we all get cancer?
You're missing the point, though. I do not believe in social darwinism presently. Did I when I worked in a law firm and dealt was exposed to an environment that very much seems to support the idea? Yes. Do now in my present job and life situation? No. May I go back and later agree with it at another point with more experiences? Sure. Who knows.
The point is, I can believe in it. Shepard reapers would not allow me to apply the theory of social darwinism should I ever decide to. The reapers will deter me. Some folks who may be braver/dumber than I may not be deterred, but they will then be eliminated/indoctrinated by the reapers. End of story.
And if they attempt to do so by harming others, than that is what should happen.
Define harm.
Is bodily assault healable by medi-gel harm?
Are duels/contests to the death harm?
If I use usury is it harm?
If I manipulate legal interpretations of laws and regulations that are technically legal, but unethical is it harm?
If I make a terminate 1,000 workers so I can afford a luxury star ship during a galactic depression and some of those terminated employees actually go on to starve is it harm?
Who is going to decide all this, btw? A democracy? Do Rachni get one vote per drone? Is exogeni defined as a person and have the same civil rights as an individual organic? Does a Geth platform have more rights than an individual organic because it is a network of programs?
Should Shepard god decide these matters on a case by case basis instead of democracy? Should his view on the needs of the many supercede the opinions of Primarch of Palaven? What if the primarch and dalatrass have a different view on who is harming the many? Which galactic leader's advice should shepard heed?