985 réponses à ce sujet

[OneWithTheAssassins]

I think everyone in here who honestly believe in this cockamamie bull **** that the Reapers are innocent in any way, shap, or form were eather dropped down a flight of stairs on there heads by there incopedent parents, and/or were TRULY indoctrinated by Bioware themselves.

[Xilizhra]

galland wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't want you to do anything at all. Please understand: I am in no way criticising you - every Shepard that believed in hope, or that was fighting for the rights of their fellow civilisations to live, got utterly screwed.

What I am questioning is the narrative structure of the game and the ugly moral quandry that was arbitrarilly loaded into its conclusion by the writers.

Maybe I was screwed, but why should that be faced with less courage than the implacable menace of the Reapers themselves?

Less courage?  Because you agreed to do what they asked you to?

Why does it matter? What does it matter where victory comes from? All we should be concerned with is what it does... and that's concerning, but better than any alternative I can see.

"Why does it matter? What does it matter where victory comes from"
Please ask yourself that question again......ask what matters with regard to the victory you are trying to achieve;
Victory at any cost? Even at the cost of what you are trying to prevent? Even at the cost of everything you have fought  against ? Even at the cost of everything  you believe in?  Fundamentally if nothing matters...nothing matters.
It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive.        

Interestingly, while "Victory at any cost" was said by someone in ME3, it was by one of the good guys, Lieutenant Victus. But I mentioned the cost when I said that what it did was important. I just don't care what the source is; I do care what the cost is.

[jtav]

What's the big deal if they're innocent? We don't execute those who are not responsible for their actions. The Catalyst and Leviathans are the guilty party here. Force should only be applied to the Reapers insofar as it's necessary to stop them from killing people.

And yes, I'm anti-euthanasia and anti-death penalty, if that matters.

[Kabooooom]

So... You're not pro euthanasia then?

No, he's not. Too lazy to look up the post, but he explicitly says it. I pointed out that the definition of the word implies a moral imperative to perform it, and I was going to formulate an argument for why my profession considers it not only morally acceptable but a moral obligation - but I didn't want to get the thread off track and I also didn't care that much.

EDIT: Nvm - seems he posted directly above me anyways. Saying you are against it is one thing, but if you can't formulate a logical argument as to why you are, then it amounts to nothing really.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 26 octobre 2012 - 02:37 .

[jtav]

I could, but I find I usually need to back up several steps because my opponents don't share my premises, and I'd prefer not to get the thread locked with a religious and philosophical debate.

[78stonewobble]

jtav wrote...

What's the big deal if they're innocent? We don't execute those who are not responsible for their actions. The Catalyst and Leviathans are the guilty party here. Force should only be applied to the Reapers insofar as it's necessary to stop them from killing people.

And yes, I'm anti-euthanasia and anti-death penalty, if that matters.

Well if our subjective quality of life is irrelevant then there would be no problem just surrendering and living as reapers.

Atleast that was the notion that stuck out to me..

[Kabooooom]

I could, but I find I usually need to back up several steps because my opponents don't share my premises, and I'd prefer not to get the thread locked with a religious and philosophical debate.

Neither did I. But for the record, morality exists independently from religion, and it is quite easy to formulate an argument for why a merciful death is morally right (in fact, a few others have already done it in this discussion).

I'd even say that if you argue a moral perspective from a religious perspective, you have literally no ground to stand on anyways since you are basically arguing with zero evidence. But that's neither here nor there.

[78stonewobble]

Well theres still the thing about "innocence".

A truely delusional person killing another. Eg. he thought he was playing golf but the golf ball was the neighbours head.

From an external point of view he is a murderer but from his own he's not.

Or a shark munching on a surfer. If we reduce it to a matter of biological imperatives versus real accountability for ones own actions.

[jtav]

And in your first case, what do we do? We put him in a psychiatric ward until such time as he can be rid of his delusions.

[Kabooooom]

And in your first case, what do we do? We put him in a psychiatric ward until such time as he can be rid of his delusions.

This is a false equivalency. It doesn't directly compare to the Reapers, and more knowns are, well, known. We know that we can put them in a psych ward and they are no longer a menace to society. We know that medication may help them in certain cases.

But from the perspective of the player as Shepard, you are forced to decide with limited information, and all information you do have is from the leader of your enemy.

So, you are forced to make a moral decision with your hands tied, and in light of the sudden (as in last five minutes) realization that the Reapers aren't what you thought they were.

In light of that, and in the consequences they present, no ending is morally superior to any other and it is really pointless to argue that one is.

Now, hindsight is 20/20 - and the player may look back and deduce that Synthesis offers the most good for the galaxy with the least death. However, the act itself is immoral, and so once again you cannot place a moral value on one ending choice over another. It becomes hopelessly subjective and irrelevant.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 26 octobre 2012 - 03:11 .

[Xilizhra]

In light of that, and in the consequences they present, no ending is morally superior to any other and it is really pointless to argue that one is.

I disagree. There's no such thing as objective morality, and subjective morality will frequently pick a best option out of the ones that exist.

[Kabooooom]

Xilizhra wrote...

In light of that, and in the consequences they present, no ending is morally superior to any other and it is really pointless to argue that one is.

I disagree. There's no such thing as objective morality, and subjective morality will frequently pick a best option out of the ones that exist.

Which was the entirety of my argument. Did you not get the jist of it? I was arguing that objective morality is nonexistent, and subjectively you will pick what you deduce is best - but that is subjective by definition. And therefore pointless to argue about.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 26 octobre 2012 - 03:14 .

[78stonewobble]

jtav wrote...

And in your first case, what do we do? We put him in a psychiatric ward until such time as he can be rid of his delusions.

Well thats more of a preventative measure than a judgment.

Had he been raising the gulfclub to strike at the neighbours wife as well a police officer would have been within rights to use lethal force.

I'm not arguing for / against the deathpenalty or euthanasia here...

Just that extreme circumstances might beget extreme responces. Such as... sanctioned murder.

Personally, from my morality point of view, it's ok as a last resort.



I kinda regard the situation with the reapers in the same way. Depending on your intepretation of starchild killing them might be the only feasible way of selfdefence.

Atleast in my game I didn't kill them out of spite or vengeance but rather as the only way of "incapacitating" a threat. I had no way of knowing whether any other solution would be able to prevent further destruction.

PS: From my point of view: Quality of life > Survival > morals > victory. Meaning:

I don't want to be a reaper so I will fight them.
I will kill the reapers (though it is a killing of another intelligent being).
I will not nuke all batarians everywhere since it is possible to win a war with less drastic measures (just an example).

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 26 octobre 2012 - 03:38 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

* sigh *

I think we might well be at the end of the road for this conversation, Dreman, because I can't keep typing the same statements and hoping that you'll finally see where I'm coming from. It is starting to feel like an exercise in futility, and is swiftly becoming tedious.

But for one last time:

You keep (rather condescendingly) trying to put this in some category where I am throwing a tantrum because I can't get the ending that I want...

Screaming that'snot far is not going t change that.

Firstly, there is no need to get petty.  But secondly, this is not, and has never been, the case - and you continually attempting to degrade it to such a fiction is either a sign of desperation, or evidence that you are not actually reading what I am saying.

If all I wanted was a happy ending, one where I personally wasn't compromised at all, I could pick High EMS Destroy, believe that the Geth and EDI weren't destroyed (because maybe the Catalyst was lying after all; Bioware cowardly never did show any of them actually die), and imagine myself off into a blissful conclusion with little blue babies and rainbows and whatever else it is you imagine would make me happy...

But that is not - and has never been - my issue. This is not about me 'liking' the end choice; there have been many interesting, multifaceted decisions throughout these games that I have not 'liked', but I appreciated for their depth and ambiguity, and was intrigued by the responsibility of making them.

This, however, is utterly unlike those decisions. This is an arbitrary celebration of complete moral relativity. The only way to 'win' is to utterly abandon at least one fundamental human right - the game is making a clear statement that this is the only way that peace can be achieved. Some basic ethic has to be trashed in order for people to get along: which do you prefer to stomp on? And that is a vulgar, cynical, and wholly irresponsible message for any fiction to perpetuate.

What I am saying is that it is a fundamental, and unavoidable lie to say that you are fighting to save the universe from genocide when you yourself decide to use genocide; that you can fight for autonomy by stripping the galaxy of its very self-governance; or that you can believe in the unity of disparate races if it is only achieved by selfishly wiping such distinction away.

These endings make hypocrites and frauds both of Shepard, and everything her galactic alliance was fighting for.

...And you keep speaking of these 'hypotheticals' as interesting, or revealing - I really do not see how they are in any way. Truly: what does it reveal about you as a person - or we as a species - that you would rather exterminate a race rather than eugenically mutate everyone? What does it prove if you feel more comfortable arrogantly violating people's DNA than becoming a totalitarian overlord? What does that actually mean, in any context?

It's like one of those hypotheticals where people sit around arguing about what you would choose if you had to be either blind or deaf... It's patently idiotic - except here, you are talking about the worst crimes that can be visited upon sentient beings, and it is the figurehead of the story who is weighing it up, a character who was meant to be a beacon of hope for these broken disparate souls...

It belittles the entire discussion.

And furthermore: what does any of this ultimately mean if the game itself goes out of its way to reassure you - like a child - that there is no need to worry, that everyone is happy and that nothing is wrong... Shhhh... The monsters have gone away now. And even though you did exactly what they asked of you - for exactly the reasons they wanted you to - you're not anything like them at all... No, you're not like them, because... well, you know... you're just not.

So good luck, Dreman – and I mean that sincerely. I am glad that you enjoyed your vision of the game, but it is most certainly not for me. To me what you are advocating is nihilistic, dull, and hopeless. It is literally without hope. And I have no interest in embracing such a hollow, arbitrary message.

 I learn not to use the lable"HAPPY ENDING" with you guys. Not once in this converstion have I mentioned it. I clearly stated"Stay on the moral high ground".

I did not say you wanted rainbows and cups ending. I'm saying you want to stay morally just as you defeat the reapers.
Big difference.
You don't want to do anything questionable to stop the reapers that goes out of  line with your morals...That is what moral high ground means.

The fact that you called the ending "utterly abandon at least one fundamental human right " clear means you want to ending things on the moral high ground.

If you say the "endings make hypocrites and frauds both of Shepard, and everything her galactic alliance was fighting for" then you missed it point.

Their never was any solid absolute way  you had to stop the reapers. The game never stated you had to keep to your morals or one moral way to defeat them.

It not a case that the endings make hypocrites and frauds both of Shepard, and everything her galactic alliance was fighting for.....It the fact you found out you could not say on the same moral ground you want to save the galexy.

You ask what you willing to sacrifice and do to stop the reapers, your and your Shepard's moral is on that chopping block.
If you upset that you have tocomprimise you morals....Guess what? That's war and life. This is the questions of the extremes of life and life does not bend to you.

But I guess you don't understand what I mean by staying to you moral ground. That does not mean happy ending..
Look up the fate of Paul Atreides from Dune an you'll see what I mean by the faults for trying to stay on the moral high ground. That does not mean "Happy ending".

Saying that you can't take the fact that you have to make these choice missed out the fact that this is a game of hypathetical. If it make you uneasy then it's doing it 'sjob. The point is to make you uneasy.
How can it not be a game of Hypatheticals? It's asking you what you would do in the situations of the extreme if the only way to solve it is to do the extreme. These are event you will never face the like in reality. Thati s the defination of hypathetical.

And the consept of this  is that you have to get the meaning out of this,
Yes, you have to get the meaning out of it. It is an interactive peice.

I understand it is extreme, but that is the point. You too busy asking why you being asked this extrem question then simply asking it.

It does not mean life is about doing war crimes.It's not about "Shhhh... The monsters have gone away now. "
This question is about what you would do in this extreme situation and why.

You don't choose what you face in life, just how you react...This has been stated form day one of this series. And out of what you can do you do he best you can do even if you don't like what you have to do.

You get your meaning out of these questions. And you just don't get that.

I rarely say this, but I genuinely am tired of this conversation - it is going nowhere.

But seeing as how you've still not answered my question (What does any of this arbitrary hypothetical nonsense actually say about human sacrifice and struggle beyond 'Which atrocity is less objectionable?') I will pose the question another way - in a way I have asked elsewhere and never received a response:


How does this ending speak about 'compromising morality' when an amoral genocidal totalitarian nut-job could run through the conclusion of this narrative, happily agree with the Catalyst's racist notion and his three 'solutions', and find his whole intolerant world view celebrated as the universe was irreversibly altered?


Because that is the reality of this narrative: the only Shepards that feel bad about the conclusions are those that believe in the morals they have to betray. Psycho Shepard McBastardington gets to feel great, gets to be hailed as a hero, and feels no regrets about the tragedy he has unleashed upon his own allies. He can wipe out an entire race because they were in his way; agree that it is impossible for different cultures to get along in the first place; and would have loved to have become a God so he could lord it over the universe and punish anyone who pissed him off.

And despite the fact that he feels all this, the game directly calls him a hero, declares him the beacon for all humanity, and rewards him for thinking in such a manner.  The game is ultimately proves that the real hero of the Mass Effect universe would not waste time with the weakness of having any morality at all, because such concern for others just gets in the way of (and again I use your horrifyingly sad words) 'doing what needs to be done'...

That's not insightful in any way.

That reveals nothing about the human condition except that caring for others is dumb, and worrying about violating other people's fundamental rights are a pointless waste of time.

Again, Dremenn, if that is the kind of text you would like to celebrate, fine - I find such a message disgusting, and want nothing to do with a narrative that would happily endorse it under the misguided belief that such an asinine premise was 'deep'.

Good luck to you. As I said before, you are welcome to this hopeless nihilistic vision – but it's not for me.  

I already awnsered your question.

"And the consept of this  is that you have to get the meaning out of this,
Yes, you have to get the meaning out of it. It is an interactive peice."

That's your awnser. I can't tell you what your meaning is out of the question being asked. It's for you to reflecton on. I did say you're too busy asking why you're being asked this question to understand the meaning of it. You're asked to see how you react. Any meaning is for you to get from the question.

As I said before it's not about how horrible the act you have to take to end this war, it's about how you react to the fact you have to act.
They are not saying you have to always do war crime to do what you have to do, it's just about seeing how you think and feel in the hypathetical extreme.

If you feel the universe should reflect on the fact you did horrible actions to save thegalexy, then you're missing the point that not only is this something that takes time to reflecton but the universe is not made to reward or punish your actions.
What ever you feel about what you did is something you have grade and value on your own. Hence, the nature that the choices are of what you see it is with the endings.

It not a case that it doesnot reveal nothing about the human condition or that  caring for others is dumb, and worrying about violating other people's fundamental rights are a pointless waste of time.

Heck, if you feel that you don't want to do any crimes, just pick control.

It just a an issue of asking what you would do at the extremes.  You are too busy asking why you're being asked these questions to getthe point of them.

Modifié par dreman9999, 26 octobre 2012 - 04:08 .

[dreman9999]

OneWithTheAssassins wrote...

I think everyone in here who honestly believe in this cockamamie bull **** that the Reapers are innocent in any way, shap, or form were eather dropped down a flight of stairs on there heads by there incopedent parents, and/or were TRULY indoctrinated by Bioware themselves.

I'm sorry. How are we wrong? They are just races forced into a reaper body and rewired and programmed to blindly fallow orders.

That screams they are being forced to do everything they did to the point they have no will of there own.


They are innocent...But innocent like amad dog is. That does not mean we are saying not to put them down.

[wright1978]

Someone breeds a dog and teaches it nothing other than how to viciously attack when that person orders it to attack. Dog attacks and kills person. Dog is put down. Fact that animal is innocent and has just been moulded by horrid person is irrelevant.

[dreman9999]

jtav wrote...

What's the big deal if they're innocent? We don't execute those who are not responsible for their actions. The Catalyst and Leviathans are the guilty party here. Force should only be applied to the Reapers insofar as it's necessary to stop them from killing people.

And yes, I'm anti-euthanasia and anti-death penalty, if that matters.

The catalyst is being forced to do what itdid asmuch as the reapers. You many not get this but sometimes the best course is to put them out of their misery. You still have the option to control them.
It's still is a case that you do what you have to to stop them.

[dreman9999]

wright1978 wrote...

Someone breeds a dog and teaches it nothing other than how to viciously attack when that person orders it to attack. Dog attacks and kills person. Dog is put down. Fact that animal is innocent and has just been moulded by horrid person is irrelevant.

But if we take the time to understand how it happen we can learn how to make sure it does not happen agein.

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

How does this ending speak about 'compromising morality' when an amoral genocidal totalitarian nut-job could run through the conclusion of this narrative, happily agree with the Catalyst's racist notion and his three 'solutions', and find his whole intolerant world view celebrated as the universe was irreversibly altered?

But an amoral genocidal totalitarian nutjob can be satisfied by an ending in every single Bioware game I've played so far. ME1: Kill the Council, take over. DAO: Kill the Archdemon, kill both Alistair and Loghain and then become king. ME2: Give the Collector base to TIM for human dominance. DA2: Side with the templars.
Why are you concerned with how these people feel? I'm not quite sure how it's relevant to their experience.

Except that now they are apparently the only options, and the only world views that get validated.

I'm sorry? You have to be a totalitarian in control?

[Xilizhra]

wright1978 wrote...

Someone breeds a dog and teaches it nothing other than how to viciously attack when that person orders it to attack. Dog attacks and kills person. Dog is put down. Fact that animal is innocent and has just been moulded by horrid person is irrelevant.

Unless they can be retrained.

[dreman9999]

Xilizhra wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Someone breeds a dog and teaches it nothing other than how to viciously attack when that person orders it to attack. Dog attacks and kills person. Dog is put down. Fact that animal is innocent and has just been moulded by horrid person is irrelevant.

Unless they can be retrained.

Control...

[dreman9999]

Fandango9641 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I already awnsered your question.

"And the consept of this  is that you have to get the meaning out of this,
Yes, you have to get the meaning out of it. It is an interactive peice."

That's your awnser. I can't tell you what your meaning is out of the question being asked. It's for you to reflecton on. I did say you're too busy asking why you're being asked this question to understand the meaning of it. You're asked to see how you react. Any meaning is for you to get from the question.

As I said before it's not about how horrible the act you have to take to end this war, it's about how you react to the fact you have to act.
They are not saying you have to always do war crime to do what you have to do, it's just about seeing how you think and feel in the hypathetical extreme.

If you feel the universe should reflect on the fact you did horrible actions to save thegalexy, then you're missing the point that not only is this something that takes time to reflecton but the universe is not made to reward or punish your actions.
What ever you feel about what you did is something you have grade and value on your own. Hence, the nature that the choices are of what you see it is with the endings.

It not a case that it doesnot reveal nothing about the human condition or that  caring for others is dumb, and worrying about violating other people's fundamental rights are a pointless waste of time.

Heck, if you feel that you don't want to do any crimes, just pick control.

It just a an issue of asking what you would do at the extremes.  You are too busy asking why you're being asked these questions to getthe point of them.

Could someone translate? Thanks in advance.

I don't see how this is hard to understand.