1388 réponses à ce sujet

[CrutchCricket]

CronoDragoon wrote...
That is not an ethical argument, correct. It's also not the correct analogy. Consequentialism is an ethical system. If the consequences involve seriously bad stuff that might do more harm than good, then it is an ethical argument by consequentialism. Deontology is about the principle of the choice, which seems to be what ethics has been pidgeon-holed into in this thread.

I agree. But that would need to be made explicit.

The example would change to "I won't murder because the gun might not work and then the madman will retaliate and cause more harm." That's consequentialist ethics.

I don't think anyone denied consequentialism as a valid ethical system. But it matters how you phrase the argument.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 19 décembre 2012 - 04:21 .

[GeneralMoskvin_2.0]

You had this coming, admit it.

[JasonShepard]

CronoDragoon wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 It's notable that if you go Intimidate to TIM from Mars on out, Shepard never explicitly dismisses Control as an option to stop the Reapers, (s)he just sort of yells at him for not working cooperatively with the rest of them.


So, no, Shepard does not "canonically" reject Control.

In the final argument with TIM he does.

Play that argument again, picking mostly renegade answers. Red Red Red Red or Red Red Red Blue both give a conversation that has Shepard not rejecting Control, just rejecting TIM as indoctrinated. Blue Red Red Blue has a Shepard that seems to begin to consider Control during the conversation.
Though I'll admit, it took me a couple of playthroughs to find a route through that conversation that didn't have Shepard dismissing Control out of hand.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

CronoDragoon wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 It's notable that if you go Intimidate to TIM from Mars on out, Shepard never explicitly dismisses Control as an option to stop the Reapers, (s)he just sort of yells at him for not working cooperatively with the rest of them.


So, no, Shepard does not "canonically" reject Control.

In the final argument with TIM he does.

Replaying it right now and... no, he still doesn't reject Control, only telling TIM off for failing to protect humanity.

[3DandBeyond]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 It's notable that if you go Intimidate to TIM from Mars on out, Shepard never explicitly dismisses Control as an option to stop the Reapers, (s)he just sort of yells at him for not working cooperatively with the rest of them.


So, no, Shepard does not "canonically" reject Control.

Actually, Shepard consistently tends to worry that something else is controlling him/her or that s/he is not really Shepard.  Everyone else that Shepard comes into contact with that discusses what to do about the reapers and that is rational, wants them destroyed.  Hackett even states this emphatically.  The Protheans died out in part because some wanted to control the reapers.  And TIM dies because of control-he's deceived into believing he could control them.  The whole scene with TIM was about rejecting his ideas, because he is the embodiment of control.

TIM's whole persona changed along with his increasing desire and belief that he could control them-it's a heavy handed way of showing us the effects of trying to be all powerful, but that which we try to control often is controlling us because of our obsession with it.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 19 décembre 2012 - 04:27 .

[CronoDragoon]

CrutchCricket wrote...

I agree. But that would need to be made explicit.

The example would change to "I won't murder because the gun might not work and then the madman will retaliate and cause more harm." That's consequentialist ethics.

I don't think anyone denied consequentialism as a valid ethical system. But it matters how you phrase the argument.

Okay, so let's make this consequentialist concern explicit then.

A valid ethical reason for not choosing control is the possibility that Shepard-AI will, like the Catalyst, come to an ethically wrong conclusion and- without any counterforce to mitigate his power - do more harm than good - or at least as much harm as good.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 19 décembre 2012 - 04:28 .

[CronoDragoon]

JasonShepard wrote...
Play that argument again, picking mostly renegade answers. Red Red Red Red or Red Red Red Blue both give a conversation that has Shepard not rejecting Control, just rejecting TIM as indoctrinated. Blue Red Red Blue has a Shepard that seems to begin to consider Control during the conversation.
Though I'll admit, it took me a couple of playthroughs to find a route through that conversation that didn't have Shepard dismissing Control out of hand.

That is interesting that a mostly Paragon convo with one Renegade choice will lead to that. I will play it again with those options and come back with my interpretation of the dialogues when I get the chance.

[JasonShepard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 It's notable that if you go Intimidate to TIM from Mars on out, Shepard never explicitly dismisses Control as an option to stop the Reapers, (s)he just sort of yells at him for not working cooperatively with the rest of them.


So, no, Shepard does not "canonically" reject Control.

Actually, Shepard consistently tends to worry that something else is controlling him/her or that s/he is not really Shepard.  Everyone else that Shepard comes into contact with that discusses what to do about the reapers and that is rational, wants them destroyed.  Hackett even states this emphatically.  The Protheans died out in part because some wanted to control the reapers.  And TIM dies because of control-he's deceived into believing he could control them.  The whole scene with TIM was about rejecting his ideas, because he is the embodiment of control.

I rather think it was a case of TIM was decieved into considering Control the only solution: "Destroying the Reapers is the greatest mistake we could ever make" or something like that. He just doesn't seem to notice that a worse mistake is letting the Reapers carry on harvesting - and that's presumably the indoctrination talking.

As Para-Shep points out, TIM's indoctrination is about him fighting against the Allies - "They've got us fighting each other, instead of fighting them." So the deception used a bit of truth - Control was indeed possible - and combined it with TIM's narrow-mindedness and megalomania.

[garrusfan1]

General that Romney pick was perfect for this argument and it was hilarious considering a reaper shep would seem to be power hungry and since the man in your pic fits that description it was a great comparison.

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

CrutchCricket wrote...

I agree. But that would need to be made explicit.

The example would change to "I won't murder because the gun might not work and then the madman will retaliate and cause more harm." That's consequentialist ethics.

I don't think anyone denied consequentialism as a valid ethical system. But it matters how you phrase the argument.

Okay, so let's make this consequentialist concern explicit then.

A valid ethical reason for not choosing control is the possibility that Shepard-AI will, like the Catalyst, come to an ethically wrong conclusion and- without any counterforce to mitigate his power - do more harm than good.

This is one big concern, but some are or should be more, obvious.  In the immediate future people are being forced to live with their nightmares, the killers of those they loved or the destroyers of their worlds.  It's likely that some will commit suicide (real people react this way) if they can do nothing about this.  It's likely some will use violence and it's likely a myriad of problems will arise.  The music and tone of the control cutscenes is BW's attempt to show that is no longer Shepard.  People love to say the kid doesn't have feelings or doesn't know he's killing people or this or that, well Shepard is being uploaded into his infrastructure.  Values?  What values does the kid have?  And so on.  Again, it's like putting a brand new CPU into an old broken down computer and expecting it to be a nextgen computer.

[clennon8]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Very concise and on point.

That is the big disconnect between the factions here.  One group actually cares about narrative and thematic consistency. The other group has said "Eff it, I'm just gonna treat the ending like it has nothing to do with anything that came before it, and go from there."

Nonsense.


First of all, "thematic and narrative consistency" is not part of BioWares vocabulary. There is no consistency in ME3's story.

Second; Shepard never goes directly against Control, he goes against the idea that Control is even possible. Until the end, Shepard fully believes that controlling the reapers is impossible. That's what Shepard is trying to tell TIM: "Give up on control, it's not possible to control the reapers, just give up on the idea of control." (<- paraphrase)

Then at the very end we discover that controlling the reapers is  possible, to which Shepard responds: "So the Illusive Man was right after all." Indeed, TIM was right, the reapers can indeed be controlled. And now it's up to Shepard to decide whether he actually wants to do this or not.

And this is how the counterargument from you folks always goes.  The writing is bad.  Therefore I am justified in removing all context from the ending and using whatever specious meta-logic I want to apply.

[andy6915]

kal_reegar wrote...

This galaxy will be destroyed in a distant future? Well, of course. If not by synthetics, by the reapers from another galaxy, or by synthetics from another galaxy (where, if the catalyst is rights, certainly there are organics who build synthetic who want to exterminate them), or by dark energy or by the dark lord of pyjak or, eventually, by the universe itself.

Yes it will, but not for any of those reasons. It will die when either-

A) The andromeda galaxy finally collides with ours

The heat death of the universe finally happens

C) Time runs out (Literally. Scientists have figured out that time itself, the very concept, is finite. In four out of five possible calculated scenarios, time is most likely to end in about 3.3 to 3.7 billion years. Whew. But in the fifth scenario, time could end before you finish this sentence. When this happens, everything will be frozen in place for eternity, like a video game freeze if you never shut the console off.)



So yeah, our galaxy is definitely on the way out someday.

Modifié par andy69156915, 19 décembre 2012 - 04:39 .

[Someone With Mass]

Never mind the fact that the mission leading to the ending should haven't even started if the game had a narrative consistency with the rest of the trilogy. Like that little detail in ME1, where it's told that the Reapers can shut down or at least control the entire mass relay network via the Citadel.

Just saying.

[The Heretic of Time]

Han Shot First wrote...

I don't choose it because Control doesn't end with dead Reapers.

I subscribe to the Hackett and Anderson school of thought. "Dead Reapers is how we win this thing."

And it turns out that both Hackett and Anderson are clearly wrong and the Illusive Man was right.

The only ending that can truly guarantee that galactic civilization is saved from the Reapers for all time, is Destroy. Both Control and Synthesis end with intact Reaper fleets and require the galaxy to trust that the Reapers won't one day attack them and begin the cycle anew.

Destroy is actually the most unsure and uncertain ending of them all. What if the Catalyst turns out to be right? What if the geth or other synthetics indeed turn against organics once again? The Destroy galaxy requires the galaxy to trust that the geth or new synthetics won't one day attack them and begin the cycle anew.

See, I can use your own argument against you. It goes both ways.

 
Also both Control and Synthesis lead to the Reaper War concluding in a stalemate, with neither side having achieved its goal of destroying the other.

Nonsense. There is no stalemate in Control. We organics win. The Catalyst is defeated and replaced by Shepard. There is no longer conflict.  In both Control and Destroy we achieve our goal. We stop the reapers and we create a new future on our terms.

It is a return to the status quo antebellum, and as such an inconclusive outcome to the war. Destroy is preferable in that the Reaper War ends in a total victory for galactic civilization.

Wrong. Destroy is in fact the only ending that ends in a status quo. Destroy is only a short-term solution. it sets us back to the very beginning, but the organic v.s synthetic problem possibly still exists. What if one day synthetics rise up and start attacking organics once again? Then the whole cycle starts all over again.

Finally, I wasn't about to turn Shepard into some form of Reaper abomination or trust that Catalyst 2.0 could manage the galaxy better than the version it replaced. Dead Catalysts is also how we win this thing.

A dead Catalyst will gain you a temporary victory, sure. But what will you do when the synthetics start rebelling again?

Control is a more secure and permanent solution. In Control we have the reapers as our guardians. Under Shepards command they'll protect us against future threats.

The only real permanent solution seems to be Sythesis, as much as I hate to admit it (I really don't like Synthesis).

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Never mind the fact that the mission leading to the ending should haven't even started if the game had a narrative consistency with the rest of the trilogy. Like that little detail in ME1, where it's told that the Reapers can shut down or at least control the entire mass relay network via the Citadel.

The Keepers are blocking their access to the mass-relay network.

So says Patrick Weekes.

[The Heretic of Time]

clennon8 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Very concise and on point.

That is the big disconnect between the factions here.  One group actually cares about narrative and thematic consistency. The other group has said "Eff it, I'm just gonna treat the ending like it has nothing to do with anything that came before it, and go from there."

Nonsense.


First of all, "thematic and narrative consistency" is not part of BioWares vocabulary. There is no consistency in ME3's story.

Second; Shepard never goes directly against Control, he goes against the idea that Control is even possible. Until the end, Shepard fully believes that controlling the reapers is impossible. That's what Shepard is trying to tell TIM: "Give up on control, it's not possible to control the reapers, just give up on the idea of control." (<- paraphrase)

Then at the very end we discover that controlling the reapers is  possible, to which Shepard responds: "So the Illusive Man was right after all." Indeed, TIM was right, the reapers can indeed be controlled. And now it's up to Shepard to decide whether he actually wants to do this or not.

And this is how the counterargument from you folks always goes.  The writing is bad.  Therefore I am justified in removing all context from the ending and using whatever specious meta-logic I want to apply.

Except I didn't remove all context from the ending and didn't use meta-logic in the actual post you just quoted. Maybe you should read beyond my first sentence next time before you quote me, it might actually prevent you from looking like an ignorant fool.

[3DandBeyond]

JasonShepard wrote...


I rather think it was a case of TIM was decieved into considering Control the only solution: "Destroying the Reapers is the greatest mistake we could ever make" or something like that. He just doesn't seem to notice that a worse mistake is letting the Reapers carry on harvesting - and that's presumably the indoctrination talking.

As Para-Shep points out, TIM's indoctrination is about him fighting against the Allies - "They've got us fighting each other, instead of fighting them." So the deception used a bit of truth - Control was indeed possible - and combined it with TIM's narrow-mindedness and megalomania.

Sure, TIM is being deceived.  That's a big part of the problem.  In one minute Shep understands that TIM is delusional through this deception and has been consumed, but in the next minute the same freak that made TIM believe he could control them, is telling Shepard the same thing.  And, he's telling Shepard that TIM could never control them because he was controlled.  What moron would not ask the question, "how can I believe you are not trying to control me now"?  Sure, I can see the differences, but BW created enough references to instill a lot of doubt within Shepard and as many love to say, Shepard is badly beaten up and weary.  Shepard has been questioning him/herself and what and who s/he really is since Cerberus got hold of him/her.  It's not logical to think that seeng TIM and knowing what has happened that control would be a viable consideration with no validation.  In fact, it invalidates any choice in many ways. 

The reapers have never fully just allowed anyone to make a choice to help them-they have always forced people to do so.  Not one person including the geth helped them totally willingly and free of some duress.  They've used mostly indoctrination to force organics to believe control and synthesis were both possible.  And, guess what, they used coercion and promises and more (appearing as almost a deity or some form of salvation) to convince the geth that they could destroy their problems.  So, all along they've been deceiving people into thinking they could do what the kid now says Shepard could freely choose to do. 

[JasonShepard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

This is one big concern, but some are or should be more, obvious.  In the immediate future people are being forced to live with their nightmares, the killers of those they loved or the destroyers of their worlds.  It's likely that some will commit suicide (real people react this way) if they can do nothing about this.  It's likely some will use violence and it's likely a myriad of problems will arise.  The music and tone of the control cutscenes is BW's attempt to show that is no longer Shepard.  People love to say the kid doesn't have feelings or doesn't know he's killing people or this or that, well Shepard is being uploaded into his infrastructure.  Values?  What values does the kid have?  And so on.  Again, it's like putting a brand new CPU into an old broken down computer and expecting it to be a nextgen computer.

On the note of values - Paragon Shepard certainly speaks as if he still has values during th Control epilogue. And there's also the line "His thoughts are freed... they give me reason, direction." The only real implications that the Reapers are going to be around is that one London image (which I personally really dislike for the reasons you've highlighted above), the image of the Reapers flying past the Citadel and the image of a Reaper collaborating with the Geth.

The cinematics show the Reapers going into a full retreat, so there's no immediate opportunity for violence. I imagine that some form of communication will happen between the Reapers and the rest of the galaxy - whether or not that communication reveals Shep's fate is a different question. So if we pass off the images as being a few generations down the line - which I think they'd have to be to avoid the problem of anti-Reaper violence - or as being purely in the Shep-AI's head as his own future plans... well. It's not too bad.

Stepping away from Meta-gaming for a moment - I doubt Shep would be thinking as far ahead as "If I control the Reapers, the galaxy would have to live with them." More likely he's thinking "If I control the Reapers, I can stop the harvest and the cycles."

Modifié par JasonShepard, 19 décembre 2012 - 04:45 .

[The Heretic of Time]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Never mind the fact that the mission leading to the ending should haven't even started if the game had a narrative consistency with the rest of the trilogy. Like that little detail in ME1, where it's told that the Reapers can shut down or at least control the entire mass relay network via the Citadel.

The Keepers are blocking their access to the mass-relay network.

So says Patrick Weekes.

Twitter canon to the rescue. 


Sounds like a ******-poor excuse to me though. If Sovereign could use a sleeper agent to bypass the keepers and give him back direct control over the Citadel, than what's stopping Harbinger or any other reaper from doing the same?

[CronoDragoon]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

The only real permanent solution seems to be Sythesis, as much as I hate to admit it (I really don't like Synthesis).

I don't buy Synthesis as a permanent solution. Even if synthetics no longer want to fight organics (this was true of the geth as well) I don't see why it precludes organics from going after synthetics. The Catalyst claims it's because organics define their perfection by their technology, and that with Synthesis's upgrades they will no longer have a reason to fear and want to wipe out synthetics. That is an eyebrow-raiser for me.

[CrutchCricket]

3DandBeyond wrote...
This is one big concern, but some are or should be more, obvious.  In the immediate future people are being forced to live with their nightmares, the killers of those they loved or the destroyers of their worlds.  It's likely that some will commit suicide (real people react this way) if they can do nothing about this.  It's likely some will use violence and it's likely a myriad of problems will arise.  The music and tone of the control cutscenes is BW's attempt to show that is no longer Shepard.  People love to say the kid doesn't have feelings or doesn't know he's killing people or this or that, well Shepard is being uploaded into his infrastructure.  Values?  What values does the kid have?  And so on.  Again, it's like putting a brand new CPU into an old broken down computer and expecting it to be a nextgen computer.

There is no reason to necessary assume the Reapers will be in your face all the time. In fact logically, the opposite should hold true. Particularly because of the stigma associated with the Reapers, being visible is not the most efficient way the control entity can achieve its goals.

Your computer analogy is also flawed. There is nothing wrong with the hardware, the holokid is just bad programming. We are updating the software.

Regardless this thread is merely about polling the ethical concerns, not responding to them so I'll stop here. And it's not my area of interest anyway.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 19 décembre 2012 - 04:48 .

[Ieldra]

Enhanced wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

*Spends entire game railing against Control*
*Kills Illusive Man over it*
*Listens to Reaper Overlord blather for a couple of minutes*
*Chooses Control*

Seems legit.

Shepard didn't think that TIM was right and never thougt it would be an option, until the Catalyst tells him it is.

It doesn't even take the Catalyst. Go Renegade with TIM, and you'll challenge him with the likes of "Control the Reapers! Do it now and end this!" after which it is revealed that TIM can't because he's indoctrinated. Also, after Sanctuary, you can say "Cerberus tried to control Reaper forces....and succeeded." after which there's some exchange about it being not worth the price. Control as such is never rejected on moral grounds. It's rejected because it seems an insane proprosition at the time. And it isn't that any more in the end.

[JasonShepard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...


I rather think it was a case of TIM was decieved into considering Control the only solution: "Destroying the Reapers is the greatest mistake we could ever make" or something like that. He just doesn't seem to notice that a worse mistake is letting the Reapers carry on harvesting - and that's presumably the indoctrination talking.

As Para-Shep points out, TIM's indoctrination is about him fighting against the Allies - "They've got us fighting each other, instead of fighting them." So the deception used a bit of truth - Control was indeed possible - and combined it with TIM's narrow-mindedness and megalomania.

Sure, TIM is being deceived.  That's a big part of the problem.  In one minute Shep understands that TIM is delusional through this deception and has been consumed, but in the next minute the same freak that made TIM believe he could control them, is telling Shepard the same thing.  And, he's telling Shepard that TIM could never control them because he was controlled.  What moron would not ask the question, "how can I believe you are not trying to control me now"?  Sure, I can see the differences, but BW created enough references to instill a lot of doubt within Shepard and as many love to say, Shepard is badly beaten up and weary.  Shepard has been questioning him/herself and what and who s/he really is since Cerberus got hold of him/her.  It's not logical to think that seeng TIM and knowing what has happened that control would be a viable consideration with no validation.  In fact, it invalidates any choice in many ways. 

The reapers have never fully just allowed anyone to make a choice to help them-they have always forced people to do so.  Not one person including the geth helped them totally willingly and free of some duress.  They've used mostly indoctrination to force organics to believe control and synthesis were both possible.  And, guess what, they used coercion and promises and more (appearing as almost a deity or some form of salvation) to convince the geth that they could destroy their problems.  So, all along they've been deceiving people into thinking they could do what the kid now says Shepard could freely choose to do. 

Well, I'll agree that there's sufficient cause for Shepard to question himself. I guess it comes down to whether or not you can trust the Catalyst, which is another debate. I personally believe you have to, since if you can't trust one thing Space-kid says, you can't trust any of it. (As someone said earlier in the thread- there's nothing to say shooting the tube won't blow up the Crucible.) But I see your point.

[OdanUrr]

Finn the Jakey wrote...

Because it's exactly what the main antagonist wanted to do throughout the entire game.

Intent matters, in fact, it makes all the difference. TIM wanted to control the Reapers to empower humanity and establish humans as the dominant race in the galaxy through force. That's why we need to stop TIM, not because he wants to "push the blue button" as it were. It's the why he wants to push the blue button that's so important, because the results in Control are linked to the intentions of the one who makes that choice. We can't just say, "Since A is a bad person, and A wants object X, then object X must be bad."