1388 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Xandurpein wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

He says using absolute power is intrinsically wrong. This makes no sense because you can use power - unlimited or not - for good, and if you do, saying it's bad is nonsense. You, on the other hand, said using absolute power is *problematic*, which is not at all the same and rather obvious.

I believe that absolute power is insitrinsically wrong, because the only way anyone can absolute power is if no one else has it. It's the same with freedom. If I have absolute freedom to do what ever I want, I can deprive you of your freedom.

I think that what a lot of it comes down to is if you believe that there is such a thing as an absolute and objective "good", which I don't. If you don't believe is an objective good and evil, then there can be no benevolent dictator, because ethics has to be based on consent.

There's a flaw in this reasoning. An example:

I think it is consent that it's wrong for a human to kill another human. What if you use your absolute power to ensure that this never happens? If you think this is bad, then you rate the freedom to kill as higher than the right to life. Which I personally find an infuriating attitude especially considering recent RL events.

If we distrust that kind of power, it's not because that use is bad, but because conventional wisdom says this kind of power will end up being used for less benevolent purposes. Which proves my point that power isn't bad or good, just the use its put to. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 décembre 2012 - 09:43 .

[Bill Casey]

I think it is consent that it's wrong for a human to kill another human. What if you use your absolute power to ensure that this never happens?

I guess you could lock everyone in cages...
That would keep them from killing each other...

I don't see how else you would ensure that it never happens...
When does authority become oppression?

I'm quite certain the societal balance ends well before "I will end murder forever with my endless brainwashed techno organic zombie army which none can oppose"

Modifié par Bill Casey, 20 décembre 2012 - 09:58 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Bill Casey wrote...

I think it is consent that it's wrong for a human to kill another human. What if you use your absolute power to ensure that this never happens?

I guess you could lock everyone in cages...
That would keep them from killing each other...

I don't see how else you would ensure that it never happens...
When does authority become oppression?

I'm quite certain the balance ends well before "I will end murder forever with my endless brainwashed techno organic zombie army which none can oppose"

Nonsense. The Control ending would only be an oppression if Shepard would keep his reaper army in the faces of the galaxy all the time, to keep reminding them who's in charge. I'm quite sure that this doesn't happen, based on what we see in the epilogue slides. Shepard uses the reapers to rebuild the galaxy, after that you see a slide of the reapers leaving. My bet is that Shepard takes the reapers back to darkspace, to keep them there until they are needed again. That isn't ever close to an oppression.

[Eryri]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Eryri:
He says using absolute power is intrinsically wrong. This makes no sense because you can use power - unlimited or not - for good, and if you do, saying it's bad is nonsense. You, on the other hand, said using absolute power is *problematic*, which is not at all the same and rather obvious.

Looking back to my original post, my "can of worms" comment may have come across as condescending, which was not my intention and for that I apologise.

I'll just clarify that I think granting such a disproprtionate degree of power to an unknown entity is so problematic for me, that I could never choose it.
It's so troubling, that for all intents and purposes it may as well be "intrinsically wrong", even if, technically, it isn't, if you take my rather poorly expressed meaning.

[Xandurpein]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

He says using absolute power is intrinsically wrong. This makes no sense because you can use power - unlimited or not - for good, and if you do, saying it's bad is nonsense. You, on the other hand, said using absolute power is *problematic*, which is not at all the same and rather obvious.

I believe that absolute power is insitrinsically wrong, because the only way anyone can absolute power is if no one else has it. It's the same with freedom. If I have absolute freedom to do what ever I want, I can deprive you of your freedom.

I think that what a lot of it comes down to is if you believe that there is such a thing as an absolute and objective "good", which I don't. If you don't believe is an objective good and evil, then there can be no benevolent dictator, because ethics has to be based on consent.

There's a flaw in this reasoning. An example:

I think it is consent that it's wrong for a human to kill another human. What if you use your absolute power to ensure that this never happens? If you think this is bad, then you rate the freedom to kill as higher than the right to life. Which I personally find an infuriating attitude especially considering recent RL events.

If we distrust that kind of power, it's not because that use is bad, but because conventional wisdom says this kind of power will end up being used for less benevolent purposes. Which proves my point that power isn't bad or good, just the use its put to. 

If absolute power existed then the rest of us would be all puppets. There can be no freedom unless we have freedom to make poor choices.

[clennon8]

I love how fears of appointing an AI copy of yourself to the position of ALL POWERFUL ETERNAL DICTATOR is being pooh-poohed as a childish concern. lol. It's awesome what Bioware has wrought. Truly awesome.

[Bill Casey]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

after that you see a slide of the reapers leaving.

Look at how they are leaving...
Oh my...

They are sure leaving alright...

Looking at the Reapers leaving by standing around a rebuilt london while Shepalyst talks about the future he's going to create...



Marvel at how some of them are leaving by going towards earth while Shepalyst talks more about his agenda...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 20 décembre 2012 - 10:20 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Bill Casey wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

after that you see a slide of the reapers leaving.

Look at how they are leaving...
Oh my...

They are sure leaving alright...

Looking at the Reapers leaving by standing around a rebuilt london while Shepalyst talks about the future he's going to create...




Marvel at how some of them are leaving by going towards earth while Shepalyst talks more about his agenda...

In the first slide they're still rebuilding London. Shepard himself says: "I will rebuild..." in that very slide.

In the 2nd slide they're all leaving. None of them fly towards earth. Pay better attention and please try again.

[Bill Casey]

Yes none of them are flying towards earth...
Some of them are just moon-walking to dark space...

[The Heretic of Time]

Bill Casey wrote...

Yes none of them are flying towards earth...
Some of them are just moon-walking to dark space...

None of them are facing backwards. You're seeing things that aren't there. You might wanna lay off the pills son.

[The Heretic of Time]

Anyway, this whole discussion is pointless, as it has already been established that there are 2 different Control endings. A Paragon version and a Renegade version.



Paragon Control = guardian and protector.

Renegade Control = ruler and oppressor.



Now stop headcanoning Paragon Control as something that it isn't.

/thread

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 20 décembre 2012 - 10:32 .

[SpamBot2000]

clennon8 wrote...

I love how fears of appointing an AI copy of yourself to the position of ALL POWERFUL ETERNAL DICTATOR is being pooh-poohed as a childish concern. lol. It's awesome what Bioware has wrought. Truly awesome.

Yeah, and without even trying. Just tossing in random crap from other games to put 'an end, once and for all' to Mass Effect. 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 20 décembre 2012 - 11:47 .

[Ieldra]

Xandurpein wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

He says using absolute power is intrinsically wrong. This makes no sense because you can use power - unlimited or not - for good, and if you do, saying it's bad is nonsense. You, on the other hand, said using absolute power is *problematic*, which is not at all the same and rather obvious.

I believe that absolute power is insitrinsically wrong, because the only way anyone can absolute power is if no one else has it. It's the same with freedom. If I have absolute freedom to do what ever I want, I can deprive you of your freedom.

I think that what a lot of it comes down to is if you believe that there is such a thing as an absolute and objective "good", which I don't. If you don't believe is an objective good and evil, then there can be no benevolent dictator, because ethics has to be based on consent.

There's a flaw in this reasoning. An example:

I think it is consent that it's wrong for a human to kill another human. What if you use your absolute power to ensure that this never happens? If you think this is bad, then you rate the freedom to kill as higher than the right to life. Which I personally find an infuriating attitude especially considering recent RL events.

If we distrust that kind of power, it's not because that use is bad, but because conventional wisdom says this kind of power will end up being used for less benevolent purposes. Which proves my point that power isn't bad or good, just the use its put to. 

If absolute power existed then the rest of us would be all puppets. There can be no freedom unless we have freedom to make poor choices.

Not true. Power is a potential. It means that you can do things if you want, not that you actually do them. Merely having power does nothing to anyone.

BTW:
I wish people would lay off the hate. We're trying to have a  discussion here.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 décembre 2012 - 11:12 .

[nos_astra]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Paragon Control = guardian and protector.

Renegade Control = ruler and oppressor.

What's the difference?

The Shepalyst has is an army of space ships at his disposal. What can he do with them?
Defend systems/colonies from attacks. Ok.
And of course threaten to shoot at planets/colonies if things don't go his way.

He also has an army of husks. Nice one. 
And he can indoctrinate.

I have a hard time imagining how to use this in a non-oppressive way and still perform the task that Shepard accepted when he chose control: prevent a technological singularity.

[Xandurpein]

Ieldra2 wrote...

There's a flaw in this reasoning. An example:

I think it is consent that it's wrong for a human to kill another human. What if you use your absolute power to ensure that this never happens? If you think this is bad, then you rate the freedom to kill as higher than the right to life. Which I personally find an infuriating attitude especially considering recent RL events.

If we distrust that kind of power, it's not because that use is bad, but because conventional wisdom says this kind of power will end up being used for less benevolent purposes. Which proves my point that power isn't bad or good, just the use its put to. 

My last response was a bit hurried, so here is a more thought out response. First of all you prove the validity of what you call "conventional wisdom" in the very first sentence. There is no such consent that it's wrong for a human to kill another human. In many parts of the world the death sentence is seen as just and right. What of the rights of unborne children? Whatever you personally believe, we can all agree that there's no consensus at all there. This is where the slippery slope from benevolent guardian to tyranny begins.

Of course it would be great if we had the power to stop bad things from happening, but the big question is how to define what is bad. I don't believe in moral absolutes or such a thing as an objective "good". Therefore the most ethical way to decide what laws and morals should guide a society is a system where everyone can argue their point and then put things to a vote.

This is more than just a belief in what is most practical. I believe that the power to decide what is "good" in society should be shared as equally as possible. I realize that this is an ideal and that in reality things are unequal, even in a democracy, because everyone doesn't have the same ability to participate in the decision making, but it's still the ideal I think we should strive for. That is my ethics and you can't tell me that this isn't ethics, just because it differs from your ethics.

It's not so much that Robo-shep has almost unlimited power to enforce laws that I find unethical as the fact that he has almost unlimited power to decide what laws that are to be enforced.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 20 décembre 2012 - 11:36 .

[Cashmoney007]

Control is an awful ending. I laugh at people that try to defend it. Shepard was about killing the Reapers and not becoming a part of them. He or she has been that way since the first game.

[The Heretic of Time]

klarabella wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Paragon Control = guardian and protector.

Renegade Control = ruler and oppressor.

What's the difference?

Well, without going too deep into headcanon (debating headcanon is completely useless and pointless), we can see that the difference is that Renegade Control Shepard seems to be more agressive, while the Paragon Control Shepard seems to be more benevolent.

Paragon Control Shepard seems to be a more diplomatic leader.

Renegade Control Shepard seems to be more of an militairy leader.


That's a huge difference in my opinion.

The Shepalyst has is an army of space ships at his disposal. What can he do with them?
Defend systems/colonies from attacks. Ok.
And of course threaten to shoot at planets/colonies if things don't go his way.

He also has an army of husks. Nice one. 
And he can indoctrinate.

Which Renegade Control Shepard will no doubt use when needed. Renegade Shepard is pragmatic like that. Paragon Shepard isn't like that though. Paragon Shepard will probably only use the reapers for good. He will probably send the reapers back to dark space after the rebuilding is done and watch over the galaxy from a distance. Of course, we don't know for sure. We can only speculate, but then we would go into headcanon terrain and I just said how pointless debating headcanon is.

I have a hard time imagining how to use this in a non-oppressive way and still perform the task that Shepard accepted when he chose control: prevent a technological singularity.

Then that is your  problem, your limit, the limit of your imagination.

[Xandurpein]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Paragon Control Shepard seems to be a more diplomatic leader.

Renegade Control Shepard seems to be more of an militairy leader.

Shepard is a military leader regardless of whether he's a paragon or a renegade. His power rests on the threat of overwhelming force he posses. He has no popular mandate other than being a war hero. You can't put his power to a vote and replace him as a leader of the Reapers for example. He can be more or less diplomatic in his exercise of power, but you can't argue with the foundation of his power.

[The Heretic of Time]

Cashmoney007 wrote...

Control is an awful ending. I laugh at people that try to defend it. Shepard was about killing the Reapers and not becoming a part of them. He or she has been that way since the first game.

And I laught at ignorant and close-minded people like you.

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Not true. Power is a potential. It means that you can do things if you want, not that you actually do them. Merely having power does nothing to anyone.

Hehehe, Ieldra2, if the Krogans didn't have power, why did Shepard form an alliance with them? If the controlling of reapers didn't have power, why would TIM pursue it?

BTW:
I wish people would lay off the hate. We're trying to have a  discussion here.

Oops, too late. I keep having a feeling of unease when you yourself didn't choose control in the first place, so essentially this is a thread bickering about other people (possibly also about how much destroyers sucked). However, I have to admit you made a very smart move for distancing yourself from heated debates and imminent hurtful feelings

Modifié par Vigilant111, 20 décembre 2012 - 11:50 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Xandurpein wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Paragon Control Shepard seems to be a more diplomatic leader.

Renegade Control Shepard seems to be more of an militairy leader.

Shepard is a military leader regardless of whether he's a paragon or a renegade. His power rests on the threat of overwhelming force he posses. He has no popular mandate other than being a war hero. You can't put his power to a vote and replace him as a leader of the Reapers for example. He can be more or less diplomatic in his exercise of power, but you can't argue with the foundation of his power.

That's why I said "Paragon Shepard seems to be a more diplomatic leader" and not "Paragon Shepard is a diplomatic leader".

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 20 décembre 2012 - 11:47 .

[Eterna]

Bill Casey wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

after that you see a slide of the reapers leaving.

Look at how they are leaving...
Oh my...

They are sure leaving alright...

Looking at the Reapers leaving by standing around a rebuilt london while Shepalyst talks about the future he's going to create...



Marvel at how some of them are leaving by going towards earth while Shepalyst talks more about his agenda...

So? The Shepalysts agenda is galatic wide peace and being free from the threat of extinction. The only people who have to worry are warmongers, and who cares about them?

I fail to see the problem with this "agenda"

What you're saying would be same thing as me saying the Police force has an agenda to stop me from commiting murder and that they are wrong to enforce such an agenda. 

"I can't commit murder?! What terrible dictators I have ruling over me!"

Modifié par Eterna5, 20 décembre 2012 - 11:55 .

[Xandurpein]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Paragon Control Shepard seems to be a more diplomatic leader.

Renegade Control Shepard seems to be more of an militairy leader.

Shepard is a military leader regardless of whether he's a paragon or a renegade. His power rests on the threat of overwhelming force he posses. He has no popular mandate other than being a war hero. You can't put his power to a vote and replace him as a leader of the Reapers for example. He can be more or less diplomatic in his exercise of power, but you can't argue with the foundation of his power.

That's why I said "Paragon Shepard seems to be a more diplomatic leader" and not "Paragon Shepard is a diplomatic leader".

Well, you had me confused when you put "diplomatic leader" as an opposite to a "military leader". He's not less a military leader because he's a diplomatic one.

[Xandurpein]

Eterna5 wrote...

So? The Shepalysts agenda is galatic wide peace and being free from the threat of extinction. The only people who have to worry are warmongers, and who cares about them?

I fail to see the problem with this "agenda"

I feel like what you're saying is the same thing as me saying I feel as though the Police force has an agenda to stop me from commiting murder and that it is morally questionable that they are doing so.

People keep confusing the power to enforce laws with the power to make laws. The police force should try to stop you from committing murder, but that doesn't mean that the police should be allowed to make the laws as they see fit themselves. Robo-Shep is just too close to Judge Dredd for my taste.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 20 décembre 2012 - 11:56 .

[Cashmoney007]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Cashmoney007 wrote...

Control is an awful ending. I laugh at people that try to defend it. Shepard was about killing the Reapers and not becoming a part of them. He or she has been that way since the first game.

And I laught at ignorant and close-minded people like you.

How could I not believe that Shepard was about wanting to control the Reapers and not wanting to just kill them?  I guess I was wrong about that even though the first two games was about killing them?  But your right, how could I not see that?  

Modifié par Cashmoney007, 20 décembre 2012 - 12:06 .