985 réponses à ce sujet

[Red Panda]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

jtav wrote...

The harvest is over in all endings. If I can make the Reapers friendly and integrate them into society, so much the better.

Not sure if that kind of hubris is worse or better than TIM's thinking he can control them.

Perhaps, you're just that narrow-minded.

Modifié par OperatingWookie, 29 octobre 2012 - 01:05 .

[Pheonix57]

I see a lot of people defending Destroy because it is "mercy", but when I chose Destroy the only "mercy" I was concerned with was giving mercy to a ravaged galaxy, not a bunch of antagonistic machines who are too set in their ways to understand that peace between synthetics and organics is not only possible, but has already been achieved.

[CrimsonZephyr]

The only good Reaper is a dead Reaper.

[Hey]

Whatever is left is a complete abortion of the civilizations that were. Kind of like if in DA 2 we were alowed to keep Liandra the abomination alive as a squadie. She needs to pass on to the B side

[Foxhound2121]

jtav wrote...

The harvest is over in all endings. If I can make the Reapers friendly and integrate them into society, so much the better.

There are two things you have to prove. Actus reus and mens rea. The guilty act and the guilty state of mind.

The mens rea is usually within the guilty act. If I intend for a lazer to hit you, no one needs to prove that I meant you harm, the mens rea is already inside the guilty act.


However, there is strict liability. With this you never need to prove a guilty state of mind. You only need an ultrahazardous activity. Being a walking weapon of mass destruction would fall under ultrahazardous activity of strict liability.

It doesn't matter in the law what the mental state is nor the irresponsibility. They have strict liability for their actions because they exist as an ultrahazardous activity. In cases of strict liability, the guilty party has good intentions just as the reapers do, but the good intentions are ultrahazardous.
 

Modifié par Foxhound2121, 29 octobre 2012 - 05:10 .

[AlanC9]

Are we discussing morality here, or law?

[Foxhound2121]

AlanC9 wrote...

Are we discussing morality here, or law?

The word innocent has a lot less to do with morality.

[AlanC9]

drayfish wrote...
Dreman made a typo...?

OK. I lol'ed. Sorry, dreman

In any case, you make a number of very salient points, and you are right, for some players I am sure they can apply those beliefs to that decision making process perfectly. But Mass Effect was always presented to be a reflection of the player's own choices - choices in a limited through line of narrative, to be fair, but nonetheless reflective of each player's morality - and I think that it is rather disingenuous for the game to force players embrace such a philosophy, despite what their beliefs might have been, in its final moments. If this was all just a hypothetical training video for an incredibly specific utilitarianism then the very final minutes of a hundred hour saga is a pretty crappy place to make your point.

Well, nobody's actually forced to embrace any philosophy. If you really do believe that rights, etc. always trump consequences no matter how grave those consequences are, then you can simply Refuse and watch the galaxy burn. A few of us do. The rest of us don't, because we're all actually consequentialists at heart even though a lot of us pretend not to be.

I agree that phrasing the question as  'What are you willing to do? How far are you willing to go, to stop the Reapers?' isn't quite right. (Though note that Shepard doesn't actually know that a future cycle will stop the Reapers.) I'd make it  'What are you willing to do? How far are you willing to go, to save humanity and the rest of the Citadel races?'

And surely such a decision is informed by "family, love, duty, ideology" and so on;  how else could one make it? Just declaring yourself a utilitarian doesn't actually tell you how to make the decision. You have to decide what counts, and how much it counts.

[drayfish]

AlanC9 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

In any case, you make a number of very salient points, and you are right, for some players I am sure they can apply those beliefs to that decision making process perfectly. But Mass Effect was always presented to be a reflection of the player's own choices - choices in a limited through line of narrative, to be fair, but nonetheless reflective of each player's morality - and I think that it is rather disingenuous for the game to force players embrace such a philosophy, despite what their beliefs might have been, in its final moments. If this was all just a hypothetical training video for an incredibly specific utilitarianism then the very final minutes of a hundred hour saga is a pretty crappy place to make your point.

Well, nobody's actually forced to embrace any philosophy. If you really do believe that rights, etc. always trump consequences no matter how grave those consequences are, then you can simply Refuse and watch the galaxy burn. A few of us do. The rest of us don't, because we're all actually consequentialists at heart even though a lot of us pretend not to be.

I agree that phrasing the question as  'What are you willing to do? How far are you willing to go, to stop the Reapers?' isn't quite right. (Though note that Shepard doesn't actually know that a future cycle will stop the Reapers.) I'd make it  'What are you willing to do? How far are you willing to go, to save humanity and the rest of the Citadel races?'

And surely such a decision is informed by "family, love, duty, ideology" and so on;  how else could one make it? Just declaring yourself a utilitarian doesn't actually tell you how to make the decision. You have to decide what counts, and how much it counts.

I see your point - but again, I personally struggle to see how violating your own people and what they believe in by inflicting your enemy's ideology and tactics upon them can be considered 'saving' anyone.  'Surviving', maybe, but 'saving' not-so-much.  

To me the whole game rather dissolves into a bargain with the devil.  Which fundamental rights of other people are you willing to sacrifice in the name of success.

And moreover, the notion that the end of the game is about testing what you are willing to compromise falls down utterly when the most amoral personality can happily agree to those terms without sacrificing anything and be called a hero by the game's lore.  Indeed, the Catalyst himself - the most happily genocidal racist in history - is actually proved to be the hero of this narrative - he just didn't have the power to remake the universe in the way he really wanted until Shepard gave him the extra juice. 

If the narratve were actually testing players then all players would be tested - not just the ones who believe in personal freedoms and the inviolable sanctity of life.  That is simply punishing those players who cannot so easily obfuscate or reason away their ethics.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

drayfish wrote...

I see your point - but again, I personally struggle to see how violating your own people and what they believe in by inflicting your enemy's ideology and tactics upon them can be considered 'saving' anyone.  'Surviving', maybe, but 'saving' not-so-much.  

To me the whole game rather dissolves into a bargain with the devil.  Which fundamental rights of other people are you willing to sacrifice in the name of success.

And moreover, the notion that the end of the game is about testing what you are willing to compromise falls down utterly when the most amoral personality can happily agree to those terms without sacrificing anything and be called a hero by the game's lore.  Indeed, the Catalyst himself - the most happily genocidal racist in history - is actually proved to be the hero of this narrative - he just didn't have the power to remake the universe in the way he really wanted until Shepard gave him the extra juice. 

If the narratve were actually testing players then all players would be tested - not just the ones who believe in personal freedoms and the inviolable sanctity of life.  That is simply punishing those players who cannot so easily obfuscate or reason away their ethics.

I actually think Mumm-Ra beats him in this. He blew up an entire galaxy to build the Sword of Plundarr
http://ts4.mm.bing.n...332583&pid=15.1

[drayfish]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

drayfish wrote...

I see your point - but again, I personally struggle to see how violating your own people and what they believe in by inflicting your enemy's ideology and tactics upon them can be considered 'saving' anyone.  'Surviving', maybe, but 'saving' not-so-much.  

To me the whole game rather dissolves into a bargain with the devil.  Which fundamental rights of other people are you willing to sacrifice in the name of success.

And moreover, the notion that the end of the game is about testing what you are willing to compromise falls down utterly when the most amoral personality can happily agree to those terms without sacrificing anything and be called a hero by the game's lore.  Indeed, the Catalyst himself - the most happily genocidal racist in history - is actually proved to be the hero of this narrative - he just didn't have the power to remake the universe in the way he really wanted until Shepard gave him the extra juice. 

If the narratve were actually testing players then all players would be tested - not just the ones who believe in personal freedoms and the inviolable sanctity of life.  That is simply punishing those players who cannot so easily obfuscate or reason away their ethics.

I actually think Mumm-Ra beats him in this. He blew up an entire galaxy to build the Sword of Plundarr
http://ts4.mm.bing.n...332583&pid=15.1

But it was a nice sword.