530 réponses à ce sujet

[Andres Hendrix]

Other than the discussion topics that I have posted, I really have not seen a lot of discussion on the ethics of the ending choices in ME3. I think we can have a serious discussion on the endings ethics, just as we can have a serious discussion on the end of a novel. For instance, 1984 and or A Brave New World are books many people cut their ethical teeth on. Therefore, why not an ethical discussion on the narrative in a video game; especial a game like Mass Effect that tried to address ethical questions? I think people are to easily swayed by the endings, many people for instance who pick synthesis seldom talk about how synthesis is a choice made by Shepard to change the DNA of all life in the Galaxy, without their consent (a basic part of ethical theory). For example, does it not bother people that Shepard ignores such an ethical precept as consent on the whim of Reaper logic (the AI kid)? I would argue if he cannot get Galactic consent he should not pick synthesis, (not to mention synthesis needs a giant fallacy in logic, presumably space magic, and  it most certainly is not evolution as the writers claimed it to be through the AI kid). There are also many ethical problems pertaining to the other endings.

I will not re-write my notions on the ME3 endings here; I have already done so, and if people are interested here is the link http://social.biowar.../index/13726613.

What are people’s thoughts on the ethics of the endgame choices?

Modifié par Andres Hendrix, 01 novembre 2012 - 02:27 .

[David7204]

Ok, first of all, a science fiction story using unrealistic science is not a "giant fallacy in logic." It's unrealistic science. There's a damn big difference between the two.

Secondly, BioWare is not 'claiming' anything by using the Catalyst. That is ridiculous. The Catalyst is a character, not the mouth of BioWare.

Modifié par David7204, 01 novembre 2012 - 02:30 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

"I really have not seen a lot of discussion on the ethics of the ending choices in ME3."
Check out a few of old threads arguing about which ending is the best. Plenty of subjective ethics arguments there.
I find each option unethical if you must know.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 01 novembre 2012 - 02:31 .

[DirtySHISN0]

Andres Hendrix wrote...
 I really have not seen a lot of discussion on the ethics of the ending choices in ME3.

Where have you been since march?

[mumba]

I just thought they were video-game endings, nothing else to them, really.

[Andres Hendrix]

David7204 wrote...

Ok, first of all, a science fiction story using unrealistic science is not a "giant fallacy in logic." It's unrealistic science. There's a damn big difference between the two.

Sure it is, when the genre is "science" fiction, and all of a sudden, there is a bought of quasi God kid space magic. How does one go from science and evolution (and what not) to saying that it shares the same characteristics (in the last few minutes of the game) to magic and fantasy, without it being a logical fallacy? The fallacy really seems to be a false analogy, because Bioware screwed up the characteristics of science fiction by trying to equate the science fiction with a sort of quasi-religious (all knowing, all powerfull AI kid) magic  fantasy stuff. Lastly, this is more of an ethical discussion so perhaps leave the one line on logic aside for now. If someone, who understands logic better than I do comes along, and if I am proven false so be it. However, let us keep this discussion about the ethical questions for now.  

Modifié par Andres Hendrix, 01 novembre 2012 - 02:58 .

[David7204]

Are you kidding me?

Is this the first story you've ever come across?

The incredibly vast majority of science fiction is full of errors. You don't think Star Wars, Star Trek, Halo, Deus Ex, and most other stories don't have this kind of thing? In fact, Mass Effect is better than 99% of what's out there.

[Andres Hendrix]

Mumba1511 wrote...

I just thought they were video-game endings, nothing else to them, really.

The endings were most certainly not as moot as your point.

[DirtySHISN0]

A summary for clarification - it was made for entertainment purposes and as such contains some (however limited and logically incorrect) imagination.

Modifié par DirtySHISN0, 01 novembre 2012 - 03:07 .

[Andres Hendrix]

David7204 wrote...

Are you kidding me?

Is this the first story you've ever come across?

The incredibly vast majority of science fiction is full of errors. You don't think Star Wars, Star Trek, Halo, Deus Ex, and most other stories don't have this kind of thing? In fact, Mass Effect is better than 99% of what's out there.

Just because Mass Effect may be better (you do not even have to use such an exaggerated percentage) than other science fictions; that does not invalidate that Mass Effect itself has problems. I am not saying that Mass
Effect does not have an upside, I am pointing out some faults that I think people should address. In different occupations, especially academia, such criticism is important because it helps people improve etc. I most certainly have not claimed that other science fictions are without error, all you have really done is agree with my general implications (that there is error in such stories). If this post truly bothers you so much, you do not have to post on it you know. This seems to be getting off the topic of ethics, and i would rather ethics be discussed.

Modifié par Andres Hendrix, 01 novembre 2012 - 03:17 .

[MyChemicalBromance]

"The Distance" by Cake started playing though my head as I read this post.

The arena is empty except for one man,
still driving, and striving, as fast as he can. The sun has gone down and the moon has come up, and long ago somebody left with the cup, but he's driving, and striving, and hugging the turns,
and thinking of someone for whom, he, still, burns.

[drayfish]

David7204 wrote...

Ok, first of all, a science fiction story using unrealistic science is not a "giant fallacy in logic." It's unrealistic science. There's a damn big difference between the two.

Secondly, BioWare is not 'claiming' anything by using the Catalyst. That is ridiculous. The Catalyst is a character, not the mouth of BioWare.

By ensuring that the game cannot be 'won' without the player accepting the flawed, racist logic of the Catalyst (we can never all get along anyway, so we have to be fundamentally changed, controlled or killed by an extenrnal force against our will), and by making it implicit that wars can only be ended by using crimes that violate basic human rights like autonomy and freedom, yes, Bioware in their fiction are making thematic statement.

You may agree or disagree with the premise Bioware has put forward, but to pretend that they are not making a thematic declaration, to dismiss it as 'just a game', or that the characters are just free-associating, is to fail to engage with the text as it intends, and undermines all of that 'artistic integrity' that people were bleating on about after the game's release.

[Hey]

ya - theres been some diatribes in the guise of ethics debate since day 1.
Some of it has been really hilarious.

^^ Nice Cake reference.

[Andres Hendrix]

Excellent point drayfish.

[Obadiah]

The endings are meant to be an ethical compromise - they are meant to test the players' resolve and have each of us weigh what we find more important.

Destroy: Ethical dilemma is obvious. Does the threat of Reapers continued existence justify the massive collateral damage? If this is the player's only option (low EMS) , is it ethical to refuse this given the continued mass murder that will take place?

Synthesis: Upgrade all life in the galaxy without asking consent. I get that some people may want to delegate that decision to some vote or to each individual, but those options aren't always available when the opportunity arises. Is it ethical to allow such an opportunity to pass simply because this uncaring Catalyst god has offered it (assuming it is telling the truth). For myself the only reason I don't pick it is that I find the whole notion of a chain reaction that upgrades or leads to a new DNA rather far fetched and silly.

Control: I really don't know what the ethical compromise here is. I've seem people explain their issues with it, but to me these all seem contingent on some Overlord head-cannon that is nowhere in the original ending, and clearly does not exist in the Paragon Control epilogue.

That's my take on it.

Modifié par Obadiah, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:19 .

[DirtySHISN0]

Obadiah wrote...

Control: I really don't know what the ethical compromise here is. I've seem people explain their issues with it, but to me these all seem contingent on some Overlord head-cannon that is nowhere in the original ending, and clearly does not exist in the Paragon Control epilogue.

That's my take on it.

Will it really be shepard or has the catalyst stolen what it has longed for from the beginning - shepards essence. Is it a shepard AI or a VI that thinks its shepard. Will shepard really (in whatever form) have control of the reapers or will she in turn be bound to the reapers.

There is as much reason to believe he would lie about the outcome of any of the endings.

Modifié par DirtySHISN0, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:25 .

[drayfish]

Obadiah wrote...

The endings are meant to be an ethical compromise - they are meant to test the players' resolve and have each of us weigh what we find more important.

Destroy: Ethical dilemma is obvious. Does the threat of Reapers continued existence justify the massive collateral damage? If this is the player's only option (low EMS) , is it ethical to refuse this given the continued mass murder that will take place?

Synthesis: Upgrade all life in the galaxy without asking consent. I get that some people may want to delegate that decision to some vote or to each individual, but those options aren't always available when the opportunity arises. Is it ethical to allow such an opportunity to pass simply because this uncaring Catalyst god has offered it (assuming it is telling the truth). For myself the only reason I don't pick it is that I find the whole notion of a chain reaction that upgrades or leads to a new DNA rather far fetched and silly.

Control: I really don't know what the ethical compromise here is. I've seem people explain their issues with it, but to me these all seem contingent on some Overlord head-cannon that is nowhere in the original ending, and clearly does not exist in the Paragon Control epilogue.

That's my take on it.

I see your point - but again, that only works if you have ethics to compromise.

If a player faithfully believes that genocide, eugenics or totalitarian dictatorships are the bestest way to run the universe then this ending validates every ugly, racist, intolerant belief that they subscribe to - all while calling Shepard the greatest hero that ever lived.

If this really was about weighing up how much you are willing to sacrifice there was no reason to make Destroy about racial profiling (it could have just had a widespread but nonspecific death toll); Control need not have been based solely upon the word of the deceitful creature who has used this very same seduction of power on every other anti-hero in the narrative's lore, and ended with a dictatorial mission statement about policing the universe; and synthesis need not have been inflicted without choice upon every living being in an arrogant remaking of all life to the Reaper's approval.

Playing out each ending as a wholesale endorsement of these crimes as the only means of securing peace is highly disturbing indeed - particularly since the narrative up to that point had been an affirmation of fellowship, inclusivity and unity, all of which was jettisoned in service of doing the Catalyst's bidding.

[Iakus]

drayfish wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Ok, first of all, a science fiction story using unrealistic science is not a "giant fallacy in logic." It's unrealistic science. There's a damn big difference between the two.

Secondly, BioWare is not 'claiming' anything by using the Catalyst. That is ridiculous. The Catalyst is a character, not the mouth of BioWare.

By ensuring that the game cannot be 'won' without the player accepting the flawed, racist logic of the Catalyst (we can never all get along anyway, so we have to be fundamentally changed, controlled or killed by an extenrnal force against our will), and by making it implicit that wars can only be ended by using crimes that violate basic human rights like autonomy and freedom, yes, Bioware in their fiction are making thematic statement.

You may agree or disagree with the premise Bioware has put forward, but to pretend that they are not making a thematic declaration, to dismiss it as 'just a game', or that the characters are just free-associating, is to fail to engage with the text as it intends, and undermines all of that 'artistic integrity' that people were bleating on about after the game's release.

THis human gets it.

I only wish Bioware understood as well...

[Obadiah]

@drayfish
1) Mass Effect is an M rated game, and so long as there is some ethical weight or compromise to a choice, there are people who will interpret them in a manner you may not approve of.

2) Synthesis is an upgrade to all life. I think the onus is on the detractors to explain why upgrading all life is bad.

If Synthesis works, then there was nothing "arrogant" about it - seems like the Catalyst knew what it was talking about. The fact that the Reapers "approve" of it is irrelevant. Synthesis stopped the war, and life gets nothing but benefit out of it.

You and the OP have referenced consent, and that seems like a legitimate issue - there's your ethical compromise.

3) A shared sacrifice is ethically "easier" to pick than one where others (friends and allies of another race) are sacrificed. Its just not as difficult a choice.

4) The Catalyst hasn't offered anyone Control except Shepard. Saren wasn't trying to control the Reapers, he wanted to be useful enough to not be killed. The Illusive Man was correct that Control was possible, but he was also indoctrinated.

For "Control" I don't really see a "seduction of power" when Shepard is clearly dead.

A dictatorial statement to "ensure that all have a voice in their future" will probably not lead to a dictatorship. "I will protect and sustain. I will act as guardian for the many." Sounds good to me

5) I fail to see how Synthesis and Control jettison "fellowship, inclusivity and unity." In Control, that is what the Shepard AI is meant to protect. In Synthesis, this is exactly what happens with everyone, including the Reapers.

In Destroy, a life-form is sacrificed, and the galaxy is left to develop on its own. No matter if one believes in "fellowship, inclusivity and unity", one does not pick Destroy to further that. This not the same as "jettisoning" those values.

Modifié par Obadiah, 01 novembre 2012 - 07:04 .

[inko1nsiderate]

drayfish wrote...
Playing out each ending as a wholesale endorsement of these crimes as the only means of securing peace is highly disturbing indeed - particularly since the narrative up to that point had been an affirmation of fellowship, inclusivity and unity, all of which was jettisoned in service of doing the Catalyst's bidding.

I disagree with both your presentation of the moral and ethical dilemas in ME3, and the claim that unity was the major theme in the ME trilogy.  At one point the only ally Shepard has is an anti-alien secret organization that acts to lift humanity above the other intelligent beings in the galaxy.  You don't even have to play a Shepard who particularly minds the pro-human agdenda of Cerberus.  You can also do many other very nasty things to undermine fellowship, inclusivity, and unity.

[inko1nsiderate]

drayfish wrote...


I see your point - but again, that only works if you have ethics to compromise.

If a player faithfully believes that genocide, eugenics or totalitarian dictatorships are the bestest way to run the universe then this ending validates every ugly, racist, intolerant belief that they subscribe to - all while calling Shepard the greatest hero that ever lived.

If this really was about weighing up how much you are willing to sacrifice there was no reason to make Destroy about racial profiling (it could have just had a widespread but nonspecific death toll);

It isn't.  It is about the value you place on synthetic life, or whether you think the sacrifice of the Geth is worth it to avoid forcing synthesis on the galaxy.  If you think synthesis is an overly positive outcome, but do not want to force it, and think it will happen on its own then destroy makes sense.  If it was explicitly supposed to represent real-world racial profiling it would involve the destruction of a particular species.  Instead, it is supposed to reinforce the synthetic vs organic split that has been really hyped up since the beginning of ME.  

drayfish wrote...
 Control need not have been based solely upon the word of the deceitful creature who has used this very same seduction of power on every other anti-hero in the narrative's lore, and ended with a dictatorial mission statement about policing the universe;

It doesn't have to be strictly dictatorial.  The paragon speech is very 'guardian angle'.  Reaper protection from afar, Reaper aid only when it is needed.  This is a twist more than a seduction of power.  The idea being that these others failed to keep their heads about them whereas Shepard has and will because Shepard does what others cannot.  This ending has great risk, avoids the sacrifice of destroy, and yields some of the potential benefits of synthesis.  What you give up is your sense of self, but you do not let others die.

drayfish wrote...
 and synthesis need not have been inflicted without choice upon every living being in an arrogant remaking of all life to the Reaper's approval.

This is the sacrifice of synthesis.  You sacrifice a few rights of everyone, in order to protect the rights of everyone.  Synthesis is the most problematic morally, but the potential benefits are largest.

drayfish wrote...
Playing out each ending as a wholesale endorsement of these crimes as the only means of securing peace is highly disturbing indeed...

The endings don't read to me as wholesale endorsement.  Each has some disturbing aspect to them to remind you of what is sacrified, and to make you worry about what might happen.  They aren't presented as the only way to end the Reaper threat, because each choice is said to end the current Reaper cycle (except no choice).  The danger of control is of Shepard the Reaper dictator, the danger of destruction is of the cycle starting again (explicitly stated in game by the Catalyst), and the danger of synthesis is that the Reapers themselves are a threat or synthesis failing to entirely end conflict just changing the nature of the conflict (there are others, but they require a bit of digging to get to).  The imagery of synthesis is supposed to be slightly off putting, because no end should be obviously better than others.  Synthesis is disconcerting and has many issues precisely because it also offers great benefits.  The video might appear to be rosey, I don't think it is as rosey as many others see it, but the imagery should make you feel like synthesis is ominous and has potentially large future dangers.

Also, I think we are ignoring how almost every choice Shepard is given in the game is actually explained to Shepard by external parties, and usually only give Shepard two solutions to choose from that are not of her own choosing.  This formula was shaken up in ME3's actual gameplay, but is returned to in the final choice.  Even major choices like the Council involve others presenting the choice to Shepard before Shepard final decides.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 01 novembre 2012 - 08:43 .

[jstme]

Ending ethics are so far beyond good and evil, they are simply non existent.
Destroy is betrayal and backstabbing ending in genocide.
Control is turning into a god to rule all those silly pawns
Synthesis is removal of all organic life from the galaxy.
(Refusal is just an easter egg aimed at the critics of original endings so it is irrelevant to ethics of the endings, just to the ethics of Bioware branch of EA)
What is there to discuss?

Modifié par jstme, 01 novembre 2012 - 10:40 .

[drayfish]

Obadiah wrote...

@drayfish
1) Mass Effect is an M rated game, and so long as there is some ethical weight or compromise to a choice, there are people who will interpret them in a manner you may not approve of.

2) Synthesis is an upgrade to all life. I think the onus is on the detractors to explain why upgrading all life is bad.

If Synthesis works, then there was nothing "arrogant" about it - seems like the Catalyst knew what it was talking about. The fact that the Reapers "approve" of it is irrelevant. Synthesis stopped the war, and life gets nothing but benefit out of it.

You and the OP have referenced consent, and that seems like a legitimate issue - there's your ethical compromise.

3) A shared sacrifice is ethically "easier" to pick than one where others (friends and allies of another race) are sacrificed. Its just not as difficult a choice.

4) The Catalyst hasn't offered anyone Control except Shepard. Saren wasn't trying to control the Reapers, he wanted to be useful enough to not be killed. The Illusive Man was correct that Control was possible, but he was also indoctrinated.

For "Control" I don't really see a "seduction of power" when Shepard is clearly dead.

A dictatorial statement to "ensure that all have a voice in their future" will probably not lead to a dictatorship. "I will protect and sustain. I will act as guardian for the many." Sounds good to me

5) I fail to see how Synthesis and Control jettison "fellowship, inclusivity and unity." In Control, that is what the Shepard AI is meant to protect. In Synthesis, this is exactly what happens with everyone, including the Reapers.

In Destroy, a life-form is sacrificed, and the galaxy is left to develop on its own. No matter if one believes in "fellowship, inclusivity and unity", one does not pick Destroy to further that. This not the same as "jettisoning" those values.

@ Obadiah:

1) I have no idea why Mass Effect being an M rated game is relevant at all. I'm not some theatrical southern dame swooning at the sight of things I find 'inappropriate'. I've no issue with shows like Dexter or Deadwood or Game of Thrones because these works - unlike Mass Effect's ending - show a complexity and depth to such actions - they do not merely force cheap moral compromises and artlessly cheer them on.

Again: my issue is not with the subject matter itself (which, as you say, can always be interpreted in a number of different ways by each viewer), but with the fact that the text itself clearly validates and endorses such crimes, encouraging players to excuse these actions as the 'necessary price' of war. And considering that many players have been left in a desperate scramble to try and justify these choices to themselves (note the innumerable banners advocating 'Destroy' or 'Synthesis' or 'Control' peppering the BSN that purport to be the only solution to conflict), the game clearly wants (in the name of 'speculations') these inflicted, involuntary atrocities to be embraced - or at the very least okayed as 'bittersweet' resolutions.


2) Synthesis may well be an upgrade (alongside wiping out genetic diversity), but how arrogant of Shepard to think that it is okay to inflict that upon every person against their will. In a universe that had previously celebrated diversity in thought, culture, religion and biology, how dare the writers think that it is okay to obliterate such freedom of choice from the universe even if it is 'better' for everyone.

And the fact that this action is overtly declared to be 'necessary' because there is no other way to break the inevitable cycle of hatred and destruction that biological and synthetic life are locked within (while also, somehow, being destined to unify into a singularity, apparently), what the Catalyst and game at large is suggesting is that fear and hatred cannot be overcome with understanding and respect - only by the imposed change of an outside force.

It is a bleak and deeply cynical message to send about humanity.


3) I'm sorry to say I do not understand the point that you are making, nor the distinction you are drawing here at all. But I would point out that there is a big difference between Shepard sacrificing herself (acceptable), and Shepard throwing others under the bus, whether by genociding allies, fundamentally mutating others against their will, or becoming a dictatorial Uber-being that will be unstoppable and shall therefore rule the galaxy (rather beyond her rights, and consequentially a 'sacrifice' in the appeasing-the-angry-gods type).


4) For me (and I freely admit that this is perhaps just my opinion) but if Shepard has chosen to pilot a fleet of genocidal machines for eons with the purview of regulating galactic peace - much the same mission statement with which the Catalyst was originally tasked - the idea of Shepard being dead, and therefore removed from the human bonds she shared, seems far more frightening...

Because ultimately Control is about that desire for power. At every point in this narrative, for three games, characters have proven themselves to be incapable of wielding power reliably. Saren wigged out; the Illusive Man was corrupted and destroyed; the Salarians abused the Krogan by castrating them and leaving their race to wither; Udina went nuts; the Asari hid the source of their technological advancement at great risk to the universe; Cerberus brutalise children and experiment on innocent people in the name of the greater good; Batarians loves them some slaves; the Catalyst himself was tasked with a noble ambition and perverted it into the most comprehensive, merciless extermination in galactic history. No one, given absolute power, has ever been able to use is capably and without losing themselves and their morality in the process.

I'm not sure how Shepard can be said to be special or different - that the rules of this narrative's universe will not apply to her - particularly when the only person giving her the thumbs up is the insane genocidal maniac that has freely admitted he wants everyone dead. It seems much more logical to me that he would want Shepard working for his cause - and if she proves herself willing to sacrifice herself and the universe's safety to his word and his ideals, that seems a pretty safe bet.


5) You cannot impose inclusivity and unity in such a vulgar way. Genetically neutering the universe so that they have no distinctions is not the same as welcoming and celebrating diversity. Believing that people cannot get along unless they all have the same DNA, and that one can dictate how life should be by overwriting people's biological sanctity slips into the very definitions of eugenics and racial profiling.

Modifié par drayfish, 01 novembre 2012 - 11:03 .

[Big I]

inko1nsiderate wrote...
 If it was explicitly supposed to represent real-world racial profiling it would involve the destruction of a particular species.  Instead, it is supposed to reinforce the synthetic vs organic split that has been really hyped up since the beginning of ME. 

That's exactly what happens. All blue box AIs and the geth are exterminated by the Destroy ending. It may be possible to make new geth or conventional AIs, but both the codex and an in game example (Legion's replacement if Legion didn't make it to ME3) show that "resurrecting" synthetics is impossible; all you get is a brand new synthetic.


All endings involve horrific moral compromises:

Destroy has huge collateral damage and the eradication of the Reapers, all that remains of every civilization from past cycles and super-intellgient lifeforms in their own right (although lets face it, most people don't care about that second point).

Control has Shepard not only perpetuate the servitude of the Reapers to one intelligence, it also puts the power to determine how the galaxy  operates into the hands of one individual who operates without any form of oversight or accountability.

Synthesis involves the greatest violoation of personal choice and liberty that has ever been done; even people who hate the idea of synthesis, e.g. Javik or Han'Gerel, are forced into it.


I know there's no "right" ending, an ending that is objectively better than the others, but I also believe there is no "good" ending either. All involve some degree of exploitation of other forms of life.

Modifié par LookingGlass93, 01 novembre 2012 - 11:10 .

[Obadiah]

@drayfish
Just my 2 cents because I see where this is going.

I understand that you don't like the ending, but I think the conversation would benefit more if you described the actual ethical problems rather than use overblown hyperbole to describe (yet again) things you don't like thematically or aren't comfortable with.

I'll just summarize what I got from your entertaining description:

Synthesis - Ethically dubious because of the galaxy's lack of choice. Got it. Bleak and cynical it may be through your interpretation, but others interpretted it differently.

Control - Still confused. I understand the "power corrupts" argument, but Paragon Shep is clearly warned in the voice-over. Is there an argument being made that "using power" (Shep is dead and created an AI) or "claiming power" (Shep is alive and uploaded) is inherently unethical? I see the obvious counter-argument: an opporunity existed for Shepard to gain power to end the war, help rebuild, and bring about peace, and Shepard abdicated.

Destroy - Ethically problematic because one form of life is sacrificed. Got it

Modifié par Obadiah, 01 novembre 2012 - 03:44 .