530 réponses à ce sujet

[silverexile17s]

Ieldra2 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Ultranovae wrote...

Also, for all replies (I wish I could quote but it quite tricky to do from a phone) it seems that the point that synthesis kills genetic diversity is not a very good one.
From what I see, the species don't look the same. Their genetic code just seems re-written to have this single common characteristic, the whole entirety of their genetic code seems otherwise a unaltered.
In other words, there seems to be plenty if genetic diversity, Krogan babies are still the same, humans are still human looking. If all DNA were the same everyone would be exactly the same.
But yeah, it's true, everyone would definitely be forced to a huge change which though seemingly beneficial, forces a change on all organic and synthetic beings throwing them into a future of uncertain possibilities.
I really think that the gloominess which most people chose to view the endings is exaggerated. There are benefits and sacrifices, and bringing the end to not just a war but a cycle of such destruction indeed should require some compromises. Otherwise, we would end up having a fairy tale, Disney ending. A tale such as Mass effect deserves better than such inconsequential ending.

Not true. It completely rewrites the genetic code down to the cellular level, making all beings similar, and geneticly compatable.

So? Where did you get that information from? The exposition doesn't even say the change is actually on the genetic level....

(example: I highly doubt that dextro-levo amino acid problem still exists, allowing limitless cross-breading. THAT requires alteration of genetics that basically makes all beings fundamentally the same). They LOOK the same, but on the cellular level, it's a different stroy.

You mean, just as, on the cellular level, all organic species are looking pretty much the same right now - because, you know, it's all DNA, proteins and such. And that assertion of limitless cross-breeding - where did you get *that* from?

EDI's explination during the Synthesis EC scene. She says that all life has been changed, organic and synthetic.
Also, this page from the wiki:
In the Synthesis (green) ending, Shepard adds their energy to the
Crucible's, thus creating a new, synthesized DNA. (1) The Catalyst explains
that this is the best option, since synthesis is the pinnacle of
evolution, and will render the Reapers obsolete. The Crucible emits a
green light/beam, altering all denizens of the galaxy on the genetic
level (2); the dividing lines between synthetic and organic life are
blurred. The Reapers rebuild the damaged relays of their own accord, as
well as share the collective knowledge of countless lost civilizations.
EDI narrates this ending.

(1) New synthesized DNA means that the DNA of all life has been fundimentaly altered to match that which Shepard provided, logically meaning that if all were given the same altered DNA strand, DNA incompatabilaties between races are now nonexistant.
(2) The term in bold speaks for itself. All are altered on the genetic level.

[AlanC9]

Redbelle wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Why would Shepard think that the Catalyst could tweak it?

When throwing a switch will result in genocide and the loss of a crewmember, why wouldn't you probe the issue to see if you can fine tune a more favourable outcome?

Hmm...... yeah, I guess they could have had an investigation line where the kid ends up saying "Hey, I didn't design the damn thing." Of course, adding this line would mean not only Shepard begging for a favor from the kid, but the kid being unable to grant it. You sure that's better?

[silverexile17s]

Obadiah wrote...

Well, what is the moral and ethical implications of making that choice? Was the:
- Choice immoral and unethical?
- Action immoral and unethical?

If Destroy is an atrocity (or pick the option that you think is an atrocity) and Shepard made and ethical choice, I've already stated the logical conclusion: An ethical decision can be made to commit an atrocity.

Both the choice AND anction is unethical in this case.

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Why would Shepard think that the Catalyst could tweak it?

When throwing a switch will result in genocide and the loss of a crewmember, why wouldn't you probe the issue to see if you can fine tune a more favourable outcome?

Hmm...... yeah, I guess they could have had an investigation line where the kid ends up saying "Hey, I didn't design the damn thing." Of course, adding this line would mean not only Shepard begging for a favor from the kid, but the kid being unable to grant it. You sure that's better?

At least we would know for sure where we stand with the thing, then. Besides, he said he canot directly activate the Crucible, but can affect how it functions, and can shut it off, as seen in Refuse.

[AlanC9]

silverexile17s wrote...


(1) New synthesized DNA means that the DNA of all life has been fundimentaly altered to match that which Shepard provided, logically meaning that if all were given the same altered DNA strand, DNA incompatabilaties between races are now nonexistant.

That's nonsense. You can add things to DNA while leaving the original code. DNA strands come in varying lengths. Or you can overwrite some of the existing code and leave the rest.

[AlanC9]

silverexile17s wrote...

At least we would know for sure where we stand with the thing, then. Besides, he said he canot directly activate the Crucible, but can affect how it functions, and can shut it off, as seen in Refuse.

All I see in Refuse is that he can obey Shepard's orders to turn the thing off. I don't see him altering any functions.

[Obadiah]

The way the Catalyst described Synthesis indicated more of an integration of technology with organics. That is the current natural progression I see in reality, that is the progression I saw depicted in the Mass Effect fiction (which is why I believed the Catalyst on the point of evolution), and the one depicted in the Synthesis epilogue.

One can imagine such an integration leading to, among other things, sub-molecular or sub-atomic nanobots interacting with our genetic structure, perhaps changing the DNA to remove remove defects or create more hardy organs (that is the most benign upgrade I could think of, the actual implications are much more radical). This is what is depicted in that first scene of the EC epilogue. The "new matrix" may simply be the ability of the double helix molecule to somehow use elements from all species.

Even if it meant all life now shared a new DNA matrix, life on Earth shares a DNA matrix and humans cannot cross-breed with frogs or plants.

Modifié par Obadiah, 04 novembre 2012 - 09:32 .

[Obadiah]

silverexile17s wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Well, what is the moral and ethical implications of making that choice? Was the:
- Choice immoral and unethical?
- Action immoral and unethical?

If Destroy is an atrocity (or pick the option that you think is an atrocity) and Shepard made and ethical choice, I've already stated the logical conclusion: An ethical decision can be made to commit an atrocity.

Both the choice AND anction is unethical in this case.

Well, you picked Destroy - therefore your Shep has violated an ethical rule in doing that. What are the ethical  implications of that? Absolute ethical rules govern right, correct, and good decisions and actions. Are Ethical rules more "guidelines"?

[Obadiah]

@Fandango9641
One might do it ethically if it was the only option to save every other man, woman, and child on Earth, unaware of the threat to them, from certain slow tortured horrific death. That was the plot twist in a movie earlier this year (spoiler: the world was destroyed because the teenager escaped).

You can up your examples to further distasteful extremes if you like, but that will just get the thread locked, and I was trying to avoid that by simply using the word "atrocity".

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Gonna go ahead and bump a couple quotes of mine.

This...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I disagree that they go against the narrative. It may have gone against the rosy ME1 and ME2 stories, but neither of those took place in a galactic war. ME2 in particular was a joke. You have this hyped-up suicide mission where you can get everyone out ridiculously easily. The strategy and tactics boil down to "let's split up, gang!"

ME3 set the tone in a big, big way. Let me guess, you cured the genophage. Because Wrex, amirite? What if his brother were in charge, would you still do it? If not, you chose genocide in the name of peace, before it was cool (Destroy). If you still do, EC pretty much calls you a fool for it by showing his krogan priming for war. Did you achieve Rannoch peace? If so, you saved a military man (Koris) over a group of civilians, for politics. How does that not bother you? Or did you commit genocide of either the geth or quarians? Did you believe the Collector Base was ethically-tainted? The Alliance doesn't. They seize it or whatever was left of it from Cerberus HQ for the Crucible.

And what was Javik's quote about honor in war, again?

As to "morally abhorrent" ... I can't help you there, or anyone else for that matter. I for one don't view any of Destroy, Control, or Synthesis in the same way as those who are rabidly opposed to any of the three. If I did, I probably wouldn't enjoy it so much and reside firmly in the anti-ender camp myself. As is, I'm still disputing claims like "the choices came from the catalyst" or "he wants this and that" ... what to say of the true nature of red, green and blue.

And this...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

As it pertains to the ending, this is not about "evil person." Fact of the matter is, he doesn't matter here. This is about "to save your life." It's not as if you have to take pleasure in any of the three options, you're simply making do with the hand you've been dealt. Otherwise, why do you bother fighting them and killing them in the first place?

That's why I reject the whole "you're doing what they do" argument. It looks at everything in a vaccum. Besides, when history looks back at the catalyst's previous actions with contempt, does the "bad guy" really get away/win?

[AlanC9]

Obadiah wrote...
Well, you picked Destroy - therefore your Shep has violated an ethical rule in doing that. What are the ethical  implications of that? Absolute ethical rules govern right, correct, and good decisions and actions. Are Ethical rules more "guidelines"?

I remember a philosophy textbook where a chapter on this sort of issue concluded that "(the world) may be an evil place." Meaning that you could get into a situation where all your possible actions, and therefore you, are evil. It's not your fault, but you're evil anyway.

I immediately thought that this was a worthless perspective, almost a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy. I was a Pragmatist before I ever heard the term, I guess.

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...


(1) New synthesized DNA means that the DNA of all life has been fundimentaly altered to match that which Shepard provided, logically meaning that if all were given the same altered DNA strand, DNA incompatabilaties between races are now nonexistant.

That's nonsense. You can add things to DNA while leaving the original code. DNA strands come in varying lengths. Or you can overwrite some of the existing code and leave the rest.

EDI said, in her exact words, that the DNA of ALL life has been changed.
The Catalyst also says that Synthesis will REPLACE - not add, not merge - REPLACE, all DNA in the galaxy with this new one.
Meaning that ALL life would have a DNA structure that is the SAME. Example, if you didn't cure the genophage, Syhthesis does it anyway. It corrects, and adapts. The DNA incompatabilaty barriers would be nonexistant with all lfie having the Same fundimental DNA.
Just look at the Synthesis EDI and Joker.

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

At least we would know for sure where we stand with the thing, then. Besides, he said he canot directly activate the Crucible, but can affect how it functions, and can shut it off, as seen in Refuse.

All I see in Refuse is that he can obey Shepard's orders to turn the thing off. I don't see him altering any functions.

Shepard DOESN'T tell him to shut it off. Just that he won't use the options the Catalyst offers. He NEVER says "shut it down."

[drayfish]

Obadiah wrote...

@drayfish
I saw "sacrifice" in the ending, not "sacrificial atrocities". Even so, this did force me to examine the boundaries of my ethical beliefs. I have no problem with that.

For the purposes of moving the discussion forward I stipulated that the ending options were atrocities to explore the ramifications of that. The logical conclusion of that stipulation was, "Atrocities can be committed ethically."

Perhaps a better way of stating it is "An ethical decision can be made to commit an atrocity." Here the "decision" and "atrocity" are sepearate and distinct, and perhaps some ethical standard and judgement can be applied to either spearately.

I didn't say "The Reapers had committed an atrocity ethically." Let me just explore that briefly. There are all sorts of problems with the Catalyst's rationale. The basic one is that hostility and conflict between different groups with is to be expected. Though there may be some ethical standard to avoid conflict where possible, is there some ethical standard to avoid or stop a conflict between two specific groups at the cost of the all of the lives of both groups? Of course not.

In Mass Effect, the only reason the Catalyst has that directive is that it was given by the Leviathan to maintain tribute. Though there may have been some notion of self preservation on the part of Leviathan when the directive was given, there is no notion of self-defense or self-preservation in the Catalyst's rationale and execution. It certainly is not a military attack of proportional response. It is a directive taken to an extreme. I think everyone that heard the Catalyst understood that. It's an unethical motivation gone awry. Hence the Catalyst's decision is unethical.

I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

Shepard however, depending on how the player role plays him, is trying to defend himself, his loved ones, his race, his society, and/or life itself.

The statement "An ethical decision can be made to commit an atrocity" was predicated on your previous statement that Shepard was justified in making a decision. Are you now saying the Shepard's justification was unethical, or that Shepard was not justified?

With respect to Shepard accepting the philosophy of the Reapers: if some notion happens to be true it really doesn't matter who accepts it - it would be true regardless. The Reapers are Shepard's enemy and have to be stopped.

drayfish wrote...
...
What does that say about anything, except that – gun to their heads – people will buckle and reason away the rights of others? Is it really just about revealing that ethics are merely subservient to survival?
...

I don't know if that's the message or if that's really a universal truth. People have died rather than compromise their beliefs before. Indeed, if Shepard does believe the options given by the Catalyst violates his beliefs, the EC now allows Shepard to select death. I suppose it is more non-specific: "People can be made to reason away the rights of others."

[EDITED]

Unless I am reading you wrong (which may very well be), you appear to be acknowledging that the endpoint of the game is that Shepard accepts the logic of the Reapers, yes?

The Catalyst believed (or was programmed to believe) that the survival of life outweighed the autonomous rights to live. Whole civilisations could be enslaved, exterminated, and mutated, because their individual liberties were of less significance than the definition of survival that the Catalyst had devoted himself to uphold. 

At the end of Mass Effect 3 Shepard gets to arrive at this realisation too, and is compelled to employ the Catalyst's tools and reasoning to his/her own end, finally visiting one of these methods on his allies in order to ensure the survival of whatever life remains in the manner he/she dictates. Life will go on because Shepard was willing to visit some injustice upon his own kind, and by extension people prove to be either unruly creatures to be monitored by a judgemental god; ignorant beings that must be genetically altered; or are shown selectively worthy of genocidal extinction so that others may live.

With respect the Shepard accepting the philosophy of the Reapers: if some notion happens to be true it really doesn't matter who accepts it - it would be true regardless. The Reapers are Shepard's enemy and have to be stopped.

So you are in fact saying that our ethics are completely  fluid? As long as we instead of the Reapers are performing horrors 'for the greater good' it's all okay?  Besides, we can always retroactively shuffle our way out of the label 'war crime'.  

That kind of relativity is a complete semantic nonsense that immediately breaks down any debate into complete subjectivity. And considering that human history is drenched with people 'justifying' any number of injustices, intolerances and rights violations because the powerful believed it was all for the 'greater good' at that time, 'We're fighting an enemy right now; and it's our responsibility to stop our enemy no matter what the cost ' is a cheap way to avoid responsibility.

And uh... Where exactly did I say that Shepard was ethically 'justified' in making a decision? ... I've been arguing the complete opposite of that position this entire time, so it seems rather peculiar to suddenly suggest that I have already agreed to that contradictory notion.

In any case, being arbitrarily coerced into making a selection in a game that won't let you 'win' unless you accept its ideology is hardly the same as being 'justified'.  

As it stands the whole scenario is merely a case of do or die. Everyone is slaughtered or you do something horrifying – and that is terrorism, not philosophy.  Thus, in a context in which the decision-making literally boils down to 'which horror do you find least objectionable', it becomes little more than the kind of ridiculous hypothetical a child would play: 'You have to be either deaf or blind for the rest of your life – which do you choose?'

So again I ask: apparently the game compels players like you to realise that morality is absolutely subjective, that even the most vile crimes can be excused...

...so what?

What did this reveal of substance to you, other than that ethics are fluid (which you seem to have already believed), and that war crimes can be relabelled as 'sacrifices' if we are bargaining for survival?

Your description at present is still in the vague existential wheelhouse of 'everything's relative' – but you have acknowledged how extraordinary this text was; it made you 'examine the boundaries of [your] ethical beliefs'.  

So what did you find? What exactly in your ethics were changed/revealed/explored by being funnelled through this arbitrary endpoint?

Modifié par drayfish, 04 novembre 2012 - 11:26 .

[silverexile17s]

Obadiah wrote...

The way the Catalyst described Synthesis indicated more of an integration of technology with organics. That is the current natural progression I see in reality, that is the progression I saw depicted in the Mass Effect fiction (which is why I believed the Catalyst on the point of evolution), and the one depicted in the Synthesis epilogue.

One can imagine such an integration leading to, among other things, sub-molecular or sub-atomic nanobots interacting with our genetic structure, perhaps changing the DNA to remove remove defects or create more hardy organs (that is the most benign upgrade I could think of, the actual implications are much more radical). This is what is depicted in that first scene of the EC epilogue. The "new matrix" may simply be the ability of the double helix molecule to somehow use elements from all species.

Even if it meant all life now shared a new DNA matrix, life on Earth shares a DNA matrix and humans cannot cross-breed with frogs or plants.

You know that isn't the same. Frogs and Plants aren't civilized, sentiant, calculas-capable beings.
Besides, I remember the leaves on those trees at the Normandy's crash site having a circut pattern themselves. So it MAY be more possible then you think. If new life evolves from THOSE because of this... Well, think on that image.

And you cannot just catapault life that far. We have NO CLUE what nature intends for us to do, or if it has intentions at all. You cannot just ASSUME that tecno-organic fusion is what our destiny is. We each evolve in our own unique, diverse ways. Synthesis just destroyies this by replacing the DNA of all lfie with a new, modified strand.
And removing limitations like that so suddenly...
Well, I qoute Mordin Solus:
"Disrupts scoio-technological balance! All scientific advancement due to intellligence overcoming, compensating, for limitations.
Can't carry a load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations! No limitations, no advancement! No advancement, culture stagnates!
Also works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready, disastorus."
Synthesis does BOTH these things at once. It removes limitations, and grants staggering advancement before anyone could possibly be ready. 
One of the driving purposes of sentiant life is to continuly evolve, advance, learn. This takes all that away. If you reach the pinnical, where do you go from there? Elevating all life to perfection like that leaves nowhere to really go but down.
The only logical conclusion is social collapse. Perhaps within generations.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 04 novembre 2012 - 09:48 .

[silverexile17s]

Obadiah wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Well, what is the moral and ethical implications of making that choice? Was the:
- Choice immoral and unethical?
- Action immoral and unethical?

If Destroy is an atrocity (or pick the option that you think is an atrocity) and Shepard made and ethical choice, I've already stated the logical conclusion: An ethical decision can be made to commit an atrocity.

Both the choice AND anction is unethical in this case.

Well, you picked Destroy - therefore your Shep has violated an ethical rule in doing that. What are the ethical  implications of that? Absolute ethical rules govern right, correct, and good decisions and actions. Are Ethical rules more "guidelines"?

I never said I picked Destroy.

[silverexile17s]

Obadiah wrote...

@Fandango9641
One might do it ethically if it was the only option to save every other man, woman, and child on Earth, unaware of the threat to them, from certain slow tortured horrific death. That was the plot twist in a movie earlier this year (spoiler: the world was destroyed because the teenager escaped).

You can up your examples to further distasteful extremes if you like, but that will just get the thread locked, and I was trying to avoid that by simply using the word "atrocity".

It still constitutes that you would sevearly comprimize your morals for the "Greater Good."
That's what Saren did, and LOOK how THAT turnned out.

[AlanC9]

silverexile17s wrote...
EDI said, in her exact words, that the DNA of ALL life has been changed.
The Catalyst also says that Synthesis will REPLACE - not add, not merge - REPLACE, all DNA in the galaxy with this new one.
Meaning that ALL life would have a DNA structure that is the SAME. Example, if you didn't cure the genophage, Syhthesis does it anyway. It corrects, and adapts. The DNA incompatabilaty barriers would be nonexistant with all lfie having the Same fundimental DNA.
Just look at the Synthesis EDI and Joker

That the DNA of all organics is changed has no relevance to your point. We're discussing how it's changed.

You seem to be saying that the new DNA is literally the same for every single being in the galaxy. Their original code has nothing to do with their new code. OK, but then why do they all still look different if they're actually all the same?

[AlanC9]

silverexile17s wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
Even if it meant all life now shared a new DNA matrix, life on Earth shares a DNA matrix and humans cannot cross-breed with frogs or plants.

You know that isn't the same. Frogs and Plants aren't civilized, sentiant, calculas-capable beings.

So if frogs could only do calculus, humans could breed with them?  That's idiotic.

[Eckswhyzed]

drayfish wrote...
............

As it stands the whole scenario is merely a case of do or die. Everyone is slaughtered or you do something horrifying – and that is terrorism, not philosophy.  Thus, in a context in which the decision-making literally boils down to 'which horror do you find least objectionable', it becomes little more than the kind of ridiculous hypothetical a child would play: 'You have to be either deaf or blind for the rest of your life – which do you choose?'

So again I ask: apparently the game compels players like you to realise that morality is absolutely subjective, that even the most vile crimes can be excused...

...so what?

What did this reveal of substance to you, other than that ethics are fluid (which you seem to have already believed), and that war crimes can be relabelled as 'sacrifices' if we are bargaining for survival?

Your description at present is still in the vague existential wheelhouse of 'everything's relative' – but you have acknowledged how extraordinary this text was; it made you 'examine the boundaries of [your] ethical beliefs'.  

So what did you find? What exactly in your ethics were changed/revealed/explored by being funnelled through this arbitrary endpoint?

Some people might find my response repulsive. Well here goes:

I don't believe that rights are absolute. They are useful heuristics for ethical behaviour, but they are not absolute. We violate serial murderers 'right' to freedom to protect other's 'right' to live. Taxation violates your 'right' to own property to ensure the delivery of civic services.

I believe that rights are subservient to the consequences they produce.

Each ending choice presents a dilemma. You can't get out of this without 'violating someone's rights'.

So I don't consider rights, I consider consequences. Which outcome presents the "best" outcome for each and every sapient being in the galaxy?

As for the ethics vs. survival debate, I refuse to sacrifice living beings, capable of experiencing hope and loss and love and pain and fear on the altar of 'ethical principles'. Morality must live in the real world.

[Obadiah]

@Eckswhyzed

http://www.raikoth.net/consequentialism.html#heuristics...
...
Other moral systems are more concerned with looking good than being good, and although this is not immediately apparent it will hopefully become clearer on closer inspection.
...

Heh, I like it.

Modifié par Obadiah, 05 novembre 2012 - 12:38 .

[Eckswhyzed]

Fandango9641 wrote...
I'm no moral absolutist, but believe that people do, simply as a consequence of being people, have certain inalienable rights; including life, liberty and self-determinism. In any case, seeing as you consider the consequences of each choice to be of paramount importance, do you think the game could have done a better job of presenting (even acknowledging) the horrors of each?

Yes, the game could have done a better job of presenting the consequences of each choice. But I'm not really sure that it should have.

Would this take the form of EC slides showing the destruction of the geth etc. , or would it be more Catalyst dialogue with specifics on what would happen? I'm not sold on the idea of even more EC exposition seeing as a) it's big enough already and I wouldn't have this information when making my ending choice. As for the latter, I wouldn't some of the consequences of each choice being detailed better. It would help us avoid some of the "Synthesis is brainwashing/mind control/homogenizes everything" "EDI and the Geth do/don't survive destroy" arguments that end up going around in circles.

On the other hand, this does conflict with my desire for the endings to be open-ended, especially Synthesis.