1388 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

SpamBot2000 wrote...
The galactic Reaper overlord as the authoritarian in chief does have some totalitarian potential. You can roll on the floor, clutching your aching sides as much as you like, but you're not really successfully refuting anything by it.

Potential? Yes of course. That's all power ever is. Potential. You have the potential to murder your neighbor. Likely you'll never do it. Where lies the evil, if I may ask? If you're arguing against that then you're arguing that powerlessness is inherently better than being powerful.

You are saying this galactic overlording is the only 'rationally ethical' choice, and that people are saying they reject it on ethical grounds because of 'hypocrisy'. When people point out the ethical problems of assuming divinity over everyone who lives anywhere, for ever, you dismiss this argument by pure denial. Is that your measure of intellectual honesty?

I am saying that because ethics are about *actual* right and wrong, not about the *potential* for right and wrong. Having the potential for evil does not make you evil, else we would all be evil. It's so obvious that I find it improhensible that people can't see that. Unless you can make a reasonable prediction that Control!Shep will be a bad ruler, as in not maintaining a reasonable balance between the needs of the individual and that of the community, you have absolutely NO ethical point. None at all. Claiming the opposite is either hypocritical or false reasoning.

@clennon8 at al:
You're bringing up the tired old "trust the Catalyst" argument gain. I believe there is no point talking about that, because everything has been said and we'll never agree. If you want to have a story, you need to find a way of rationalizing trust in the Catalyst. Else you might just as welll roll dice for your decision.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 décembre 2012 - 05:15 .

[Vigilant111]

ghost9191 wrote...

1) I have always said Control is the most morally right out of the choices. but does not make it right

I don't agree

At best, it is morally grey, like every other option, if not worse

If the reapers do turn out to be sentient beings, the enthronement of Shepard would mean a continuation of enslavement of the reapers

[Eryri]

Ieldra2 wrote...

jtav wrote...
Not if you believe that memory and thought are identity, that replicating them is replicating Shepard. That thing is Shepard, if Shepard were vastly more intelligent, with near godlike abilities.

Exactly. As far as I'm concerned, memory and thought are identity. Claiming the Control entity is not Shepard is like claiming one-year-old me wasn't me. In some sense, it's true, but it doesn't matter. 

But if EDI can't copy herself to another BlueBox, without fundamentally changing who she is, how can we be sure that the copy of Shepard, taken from an organic brain and uploaded to a completely different, synthetic substrate will have the same values and mores as the original?

When Edi talks about transfering herself, she says that while the copy of her would have her memories, it still would not be "her", due to suble difference in the quantum hardware. Now you could argue that perhaps Reapers have better technology and can copy personalities with a higher degree of fidelity - but we have no evidence either way during the game.

[d-boy15]

well...

true, absolute power not always corrupt. shepard might not be corrupt but can you say
the same for the galaxy? you think no one will try to gain control of the reaper?

are you feel comfortable when you got a tank running around you village even it send to
protect you?

just see or read watchmen and you know what I'm talking about, that one of the reason
I'm not choose control over destroy.

[Dr_Extrem]

Vigilant111 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

1) I have always said Control is the most morally right out of the choices. but does not make it right

I don't agree

At best, it is morally grey, like every other option, if not worse

If the reapers do turn out to be sentient beings, the enthronement of Shepard would mean a continuation of enslavement of the reapers

this is another thing to consider.

the "best" ending would be, if we could just delete the catalyst and grant the reaped nations their free will. if we take the ending at face value, the reapers are enslaved to do the catalysts bidding - despite knowing, that they have to commit the same atrocities, that were done to them before.

i doubt they would continue the killing.  


getting rid of the catalyst, would be the best solution for every being in this conflict.

[SeptimusMagistos]

d-boy15 wrote...

are you feel comfortable when you got a tank running around you village even it send to protect you?

Military parades have never bothered me. Should they?

[Rifneno]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

this is another thing to consider.

the "best" ending would be, if we could just delete the catalyst and grant the reaped nations their free will. if we take the ending at face value, the reapers are enslaved to do the catalysts bidding - despite knowing, that they have to commit the same atrocities, that were done to them before.

i doubt they would continue the killing.  


getting rid of the catalyst, would be the best solution for every being in this conflict.

That's assuming their minds are the same as they were when they were organic.  I highly doubt that's the case.  If nothing else, they've probably undergone a type of indoctrination that makes them believe in their "cause".

[SpamBot2000]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Im saying that because ethics are about *actual* right and wrong, not about the *potential* for right and wrong. Having the potential for evil does not make you evil, else we would all be evil. It's so obvious that I find it improhensible that people can't see that. Unless you can make a reasonable prediction that Control!Shep will be a bad ruler, as in not maintaining a reasonable balance between the needs of the individual and that of the community, you have absolutely NO ethical point. None at all. Claiming the opposite is either hypocritical or false reasoning.

Let's consider. Let's assume Control is really nice if Shreaper maintains that balance. It is a disaster for everyone (with the exception of the reapers) if he doesn't. Call maintaining balance 'heads' and not maintaining it 'tails'. Now take Infinity.

That's an infinite string of 'heads' you are betting on. Whereas I'm saying the possibility of 'tails' is significant enough to consider as probable at least at some point. 

Where is the hypocrisy in pointing out the ethical problem of betting on infinite 'heads' in exchange for divine power?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

clennon8 wrote...

In Control and Synthesis, Shepard automatically kills himself, without ever having a chance to know the consequences or take any kind of corrective action.

Except the consequences have been spelled out quite clearly already.

And in a matter of "corrective action," no such thing exists if Destroy ends up working the way it does, it's irreversible as any of the other options are.

So it's no a less a risk if Destroy is not your first option anyway. In which case, it makes sense to risk Control/Synthesis if you prefer them

He is wilfully killing himself, no question, period end of sentence, to enact a solution that leaves the Reapers alive and very closely parallels a solution that you have killed another major villain for trying to enact.

TIM was not a "villain."

But somehow this is now okay because you have talked to the Overlord of a race of ancient indoctrinating death machines for five minutes and he gave you <reasons>.

That argument will go nowhere for you, friend.

It is, on it's face, quite absurd.  You guys can talk in circles all you want, but you simply can't get away from that.

But apparently it isn't.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 22 décembre 2012 - 05:28 .

[clennon8]

All arguments are "tired" at this point, Ieldra. Every single one of them. No new ground is being uncovered here, I'm sorry to say.

I, and others, happen to feel that the "Trust the Catalyst" argument is pretty much the only one that matters. The reason we believe that is exactly because we *do* want to have a story. One that has an ending that is consistent with story elements that preceded it, and doesn't require us to rationalize accepting an unsubstantiated 5-minute "info dump" from the enemy as unvarnished hand-to-God truth.

[Rifneno]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

TIM was not a "villain."

:lol:

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Rifneno wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

TIM was not a "villain."

:lol:

There's a nuance difference between a villain and an antagonist.

TIM is one of those things, not the other.

[Dr_Extrem]

Rifneno wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

this is another thing to consider.

the "best" ending would be, if we could just delete the catalyst and grant the reaped nations their free will. if we take the ending at face value, the reapers are enslaved to do the catalysts bidding - despite knowing, that they have to commit the same atrocities, that were done to them before.

i doubt they would continue the killing.  


getting rid of the catalyst, would be the best solution for every being in this conflict.

That's assuming their minds are the same as they were when they were organic.  I highly doubt that's the case.  If nothing else, they've probably undergone a type of indoctrination that makes them believe in their "cause".

good point ..
 
but if they were indoctrinated, they would be no need to enslave them. if the reaped nations are only enslaved by the catalysts signal, there would be no problem. if they (the reaped individuals) still have their personalities (what legion implicates - if they were all indoctrinated, they would speak with one voice out of one thought), they could regain their free will. what the individual reapers would de, would depent on the nature and culture, they derive from.

anything could happen. but this is fanfiction and not a matter for discussion.

[Ieldra]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Im saying that because ethics are about *actual* right and wrong, not about the *potential* for right and wrong. Having the potential for evil does not make you evil, else we would all be evil. It's so obvious that I find it improhensible that people can't see that. Unless you can make a reasonable prediction that Control!Shep will be a bad ruler, as in not maintaining a reasonable balance between the needs of the individual and that of the community, you have absolutely NO ethical point. None at all. Claiming the opposite is either hypocritical or false reasoning.

Let's consider. Let's assume Control is really nice if Shreaper maintains that balance. It is a disaster for everyone (with the exception of the reapers) if he doesn't. Call maintaining balance 'heads' and not maintaining it 'tails'. Now take Infinity.

That's an infinite string of 'heads' you are betting on. Whereas I'm saying the possibility of 'tails' is significant enough to consider as probable at least at some point. 

Where is the hypocrisy in pointing out the ethical problem of betting on infinite 'heads' in exchange for divine power?

In this case it's false reasoning.
(1) You consider that disaster to be an endpoint after which nothing means anything any more.
(2) You pit a risk for causing that disaster against never causing that disaster.

Ad (1) Let's consider that Control!Shep will cause one disaster of the scale of the Rachni extinction or the krogan rebellion in a million years. First, that's not the end of things and it still means he has ruled with reasonable goodwill for a million years and quite possibly will do the same for another million years before the next disaster happens. Your disaster is not an endpoint.

Ad (2) You can't pit this scenario against "no disaster happens" because given existing history, the galaxy will do a lot worse than that if left to its own devices.

Everone who argues against Control on your grounds is making one important assumption: that Shepard's opinion of what constitutes a reasonable balance between the needs of individuals and the needs of the community will inevitably shift in the direction of lesser freedom and more control. To simply assume that as true is false reasoning. There is no evidence at all to support that. If a player says "I don't trust my Shepard with that power", that's one thing and I've never said that wasn't perfectly valid. But that's no argument against choosing Control in general.

[clennon8]

I think the argument that is being made is "I don't trust any human being who lives, has ever lived, or could conceivably live, to be granted Godlike power and the mandate to rule the galaxy for the rest of time. And I especially don't trust a digitized copy of said person to do it."

Frankly it's a great argument, and it seems fantastically naive to gainsay it.

[SpamBot2000]

Ieldra2 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Im saying that because ethics are about *actual* right and wrong, not about the *potential* for right and wrong. Having the potential for evil does not make you evil, else we would all be evil. It's so obvious that I find it improhensible that people can't see that. Unless you can make a reasonable prediction that Control!Shep will be a bad ruler, as in not maintaining a reasonable balance between the needs of the individual and that of the community, you have absolutely NO ethical point. None at all. Claiming the opposite is either hypocritical or false reasoning.

Let's consider. Let's assume Control is really nice if Shreaper maintains that balance. It is a disaster for everyone (with the exception of the reapers) if he doesn't. Call maintaining balance 'heads' and not maintaining it 'tails'. Now take Infinity.

That's an infinite string of 'heads' you are betting on. Whereas I'm saying the possibility of 'tails' is significant enough to consider as probable at least at some point. 

Where is the hypocrisy in pointing out the ethical problem of betting on infinite 'heads' in exchange for divine power?

In this case it's false reasoning.
(1) You consider that disaster to be an endpoint after which nothing means anything any more.
(2) You pit a risk for causing that disaster against never causing that disaster.

Ad (1) Let's consider that Control!Shep will cause one disaster of the scale of the Rachni extinction or the krogan rebellion in a million years. First, that's not the end of things and it still means he has ruled with reasonable goodwill for a million years and quite possibly will do the same for another million years before the next disaster happens. Your disaster is not an endpoint.

Ad (2) You can't pit this scenario against "no disaster happens" because given existing history, the galaxy will do a lot worse than that if left to its own devices.

Everone who argues against Control on your grounds is making one important assumption: that Shepard's opinion of what constitutes a reasonable balance between the needs of individuals and the needs of the community will inevitably shift in the direction of lesser freedom and more control. To simply assume that as true is false reasoning. There is no evidence at all to support that. If a player says "I don't trust my Shepard with that power", that's one thing and I've never said that wasn't perfectly valid. But that's no argument against choosing Control in general.

So you're already justifying the odd extinction every now and then. That's a fine demonstration of how it starts. And given existing history, surely the intervention of the Reapers has rarely been 'better' than leaving the universe to its own devices.

What I am assuming is the inability of any human being to comprehend eternity. The choice to Control is always the choice for the unknowable, yet irrevocable. There is no positive ethical basis for making it. 

[Dysjong]

Simple, i convinced TIM, that we were not ready, ending with TIM shooting himself.

Sinds i couldnt bring myself to destroy EDI and the geth, Synthesis it was.

[Ieldra]

clennon8 wrote...
All arguments are "tired" at this point, Ieldra. Every single one of them. No new ground is being uncovered here, I'm sorry to say.

Granted. :/

I, and others, happen to feel that the "Trust the Catalyst" argument is pretty much the only one that matters. The reason we believe that is exactly because we *do* want to have a story. One that has an ending that is consistent with story elements that preceded it, and doesn't require us to rationalize accepting an unsubstantiated 5-minute "info dump" from the enemy as unvarnished hand-to-God truth.

Don't believe for a second I wouldn't prefer a different scenario for the presentation of the final choice. I just choose to take it in the spirit it was meant. As unsatisfying as that may be on some level, I can take something away from the story that way. I'd rather have an ending of the type that makes me go "Ah...now it all makes sense", but we don't have it and that's that. Basically, what I do is treat the Catalyst scene as a "black box infodump". I like the final choice as such and I think the reasoning of the Catalyst makes sense from the perspective of an AI god with non-human priorities - it's just the fact that it's the antagonist that spoils things. 

Also, I find it much more interesting to debate about the merits and flaws of the options as such.

[jtav]

And if any particular person could be stripped of their vanity/pride/wrath, are they still unfit for godlike power? Shepard's become something greater. There are Shepard's I'd trust and Shepard's where I'd consider Refuse preferable to Control. But the concept is not in theory unthinkable.

[Dr_Extrem]

jtav wrote...

And if any particular person could be stripped of their vanity/pride/wrath, are they still unfit for godlike power? Shepard's become something greater. There are Shepard's I'd trust and Shepard's where I'd consider Refuse preferable to Control. But the concept is not in theory unthinkable.

but if you take away vanity/pride/wrath, it is not the same person anymore. we are, what we are - with all our strenghts and weaknesses.

the weaknesses contribute to our personality, as well.

[jaytm1]

Wat wat nigah huh wat?

[Rifneno]

jtav wrote...

And if any particular person could be stripped of their vanity/pride/wrath, are they still unfit for godlike power? Shepard's become something greater. There are Shepard's I'd trust and Shepard's where I'd consider Refuse preferable to Control. But the concept is not in theory unthinkable.

Epic lol's at saying that without irony.  You are aware that's what Reapers refer to themselves as, right?  You know, while murdering whole civilizations at a time?  Unintentional comedy is the best comedy.

[clennon8]

Any Shepard who was truly that trustworthy wouldn't choose to appoint himself as Eternal Galactic Dictator.

[SpamBot2000]

clennon8 wrote...

I think the argument that is being made is "I don't trust any human being who lives, has ever lived, or could conceivably live, to be granted Godlike power and the mandate to rule the galaxy for the rest of time. And I especially don't trust a digitized copy of said person to do it."

Frankly it's a great argument, and it seems fantastically naive to gainsay it.

What this is about is Ieldra denying any ethical grounds in that argument and presenting it as the craven timidity of the masses, while the true ubermensch reasons with clarity untainted by such weak considerations.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 22 décembre 2012 - 06:05 .

[jtav]

Flaws are just that--flaws. They are not virtues in disguise. We should aspire to be rid of them.

And the Shepard I have in mind is one who chose Control as a means to avoid drastic change. Very Paragon who regards the Reapers as a safety valve.