935 réponses à ce sujet

[fr33stylez]

Phatose wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

remydat wrote...

Destroy affects one group with the outcome being death.  Synthesis affects everyone with the outcome that everyone lives.  Not only that people like Joker might be able to hug someone without breaking a bone.  People who are sick and dying might not be sick and dying.

You are free to choose to what you deem to be the least amount of people ie Destroy.  That is math.  However, affecting the least amount of people with death while affecting everyone in a manner that they all live is where morality comes it.  Morality isn't just about math.  It is about actually looking at the end result and judging what is morally worse.  A few billion machine deaths or everyone living.  Living being the key world here.

If you know morality, then you know there's more to life than just being alive or dead.

This is why we respect the choices of people that would rather die before getting a blood transfusion or organ transplant or chemotherapy. This is why it is immoral (and illegal) to force people against their will to do so.

"Everyone lives" is your spin on the issue. You are not a moral person if you force a transfusion on someone that refuses. You are not a moral person if you force someone to be on a respirator against their will.

In synthesis though, you did this to the entire galaxy. Trillions of people. Much worse in my opinion.

Questionable.  It is illegal in most places to give a blood transfusion to someone who resists it.  However, it typically is not legally or morally required to check whether or not a person is OK with resusitation before giving CPR for example.  Medical professionals in hospital situations are - though the paramedics that show up when you have a heart attack in the mall aren't, nor are bystanders.

In cases where checking with an individual is impossible, it's widely accepted as moral to err in the direction of life.

All good points. However my overall point was to illustrate you simply gauge morality in terms of people being alive.

Because in the case of synthesis, ~99% of the galaxy's alternative to it is not death, however. Call it utilitarianism, but the question becomes whether it is better to sacrifice the lives of the Geth as opposed to violating the being of every person in the galaxy without their consent. all terrible options, but some are worse than others in my opinion.

Modifié par fr33stylez, 12 avril 2013 - 08:39 .

[Argolas]

Phatose wrote...

Guess you didn't get the reference there, huh?

Not having the Geth die I would prefer. But turning the whole ending into an "I win" button? Nah. It's cheap, and if it had been the original ending, I would've screamed.

What did you expect the Crucible to do?

[Phatose]

Argolas wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Guess you didn't get the reference there, huh?

Not having the Geth die I would prefer. But turning the whole ending into an "I win" button? Nah. It's cheap, and if it had been the original ending, I would've screamed.

What did you expect the Crucible to do?

I expected it to solve the problem while posing considerable moral dilemmas precisely to prevent it from being a lolbomb.  Anything from the current ending to it being a giant space bomb that kills everything more complicated then a bacteria were possible.

[jstme]

remydat wrote...

jstme wrote...

But even without MEHEM, destroy is the only ending that undoubtedly prevents more "genocides" then it causes.

Can you clarify how you arrived at this conclusion?  Are we making an in-game conclusion or a meta-game conclusion?

Sure. Synthesis is "genocide" of every form of pre-synthesis organic life in ME universe. It is formofexistencide, reapers never were even close to commiting that prior to green magic.

Control is existence of same reapers -again,designed and built for commiting genocide - only now  instead of being controlled by catalyst (advanced AI with developed capabilities that actually built reapers and know everything about how to control those which even Geth collecitve considers advanced)  those are being controlled by virtual copy of Shepard with its limited possibilities. Can you be sure that reapers will indeed be under control? Can you be sure that virtual Shepard will not start demanding to "quiet make it stop"?

With destroy it is clear in that regard - there are no reapers. There is organic life. 

[Shaleist]

Op makes a great point. Refuse actually could be better then control, assuming the next cycle destroys da reapaz somehow. Its pointless if they pick control or synth though. So I'll say 'i'd sacrifice all advanced organics' but not all organics. And id still rather just hit the reaper off button they never invented.

[fr33stylez]

remydat wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

If you know morality, then you know there's more to life than just being alive or dead.

This is why there are people that would die before getting a bloog transfusion or organ transplant or chemotherapy. This is why it is immoral (and illegal) to force people against their will to do so.

"Everyone lives" is your spin on the issue. You are not a moral person if you force a transfusion on someone that refuses. You are not a moral person if you force someone to be on a respirator against their will.

In synthesis though, you did this to the entire galaxy. Trillions of people. Much worse in my opinion.

You are not a moral person if you exterminate people when you don't have to.  All the choices represent moral dillemmas.  ALL.  The difference is in synthesis everyone is alive to agree or disagree with my decision.  For everyone who hates it there are probably sick, dying or injured people who like it.  With destroy you conveniently kill the people most likely to object.  

Incidentally, I had a classmate who nearly died because her parents refused her a blood transfusion on religious grounds.  She and her parents are estranged to this day because of it.

So I am not sure that is really a convincing argument in this case.  If my choice is healthy people pissed at me for giving them synthesis versus sicked, injured and dying people being happy I did because it allows them to live, I choose the latter.

That's fine, but you're enforcing your moral standard on others as justifcation for violating their rights. I personally find forcing a person into treatment as abhorrent as letting people die who want to live.

Most courts have forced children of JW parents to have transfusions because of age of consent - that's a different issue entirely.

[Phatose]

There is precisely no option in the ending that isn't enforcing your moral standards. I'd go as far as saying enforcing your moral standards is the entire point of the ending.

[fr33stylez]

Phatose wrote...

There is precisely no option in the ending that isn't enforcing your moral standards. I'd go as far as saying enforcing your moral standards is the entire point of the ending.

I won't give the endings that much credit. All the endings actually conflict with my moral standards, probably by accident. Even in Destroy, I see the drawback of the option strictly gameplay motivated in order for the player to even consider the other 2 options.

Modifié par fr33stylez, 12 avril 2013 - 08:51 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

remydat wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

If you know morality, then you know there's more to life than just being alive or dead.

This is why there are people that would die before getting a bloog transfusion or organ transplant or chemotherapy. This is why it is immoral (and illegal) to force people against their will to do so.

"Everyone lives" is your spin on the issue. You are not a moral person if you force a transfusion on someone that refuses. You are not a moral person if you force someone to be on a respirator against their will.

In synthesis though, you did this to the entire galaxy. Trillions of people. Much worse in my opinion.

You are not a moral person if you exterminate people when you don't have to.  All the choices represent moral dillemmas.  ALL.  The difference is in synthesis everyone is alive to agree or disagree with my decision.  For everyone who hates it there are probably sick, dying or injured people who like it.  With destroy you conveniently kill the people most likely to object.  

Incidentally, I had a classmate who nearly died because her parents refused her a blood transfusion on religious grounds.  She and her parents are estranged to this day because of it.

So I am not sure that is really a convincing argument in this case.  If my choice is healthy people pissed at me for giving them synthesis versus sicked, injured and dying people being happy I did because it allows them to live, I choose the latter.

I'm sorry about your classmate, but this has what to do with the destroy ending?

And you know synthesis allows them to live how? You're applying a head canon, because the body changes on a molecular level, all of the microorganisms in the body change on a molecular level as well. Everything in the body changes, and we don't know how everything interacts anymore because it is all . Bippity boppity boo!

I don't know what the hell they were smoking.

[Cagamelo]

I'd kill up to 2 species, maybe 3, as long as they aren't human or turian

[robertthebard]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

remydat wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

If you know morality, then you know there's more to life than just being alive or dead.

This is why there are people that would die before getting a bloog transfusion or organ transplant or chemotherapy. This is why it is immoral (and illegal) to force people against their will to do so.

"Everyone lives" is your spin on the issue. You are not a moral person if you force a transfusion on someone that refuses. You are not a moral person if you force someone to be on a respirator against their will.

In synthesis though, you did this to the entire galaxy. Trillions of people. Much worse in my opinion.

You are not a moral person if you exterminate people when you don't have to.  All the choices represent moral dillemmas.  ALL.  The difference is in synthesis everyone is alive to agree or disagree with my decision.  For everyone who hates it there are probably sick, dying or injured people who like it.  With destroy you conveniently kill the people most likely to object.  

Incidentally, I had a classmate who nearly died because her parents refused her a blood transfusion on religious grounds.  She and her parents are estranged to this day because of it.

So I am not sure that is really a convincing argument in this case.  If my choice is healthy people pissed at me for giving them synthesis versus sicked, injured and dying people being happy I did because it allows them to live, I choose the latter.

I'm sorry about your classmate, but this has what to do with the destroy ending?

And you know synthesis allows them to live how? You're applying a head canon, because the body changes on a molecular level, all of the microorganisms in the body change on a molecular level as well. Everything in the body changes, and we don't know how everything interacts anymore because it is all . Bippity boppity boo!

I don't know what the hell they were smoking.

I think the better question here is:  How long will peace last?  What if the majority of the galaxy disagrees with being raped on a molecular level?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Phatose wrote...

Guess you didn't get the reference there, huh?

Not having the Geth die I would prefer. But turning the whole ending into an "I win" button? Nah. It's cheap, and if it had been the original ending, I would've screamed.

Start screaming. Join the "entitled whiners".

What do you think the original ending was?

Control = I win. Blue
Synthesis = I win. Green
Destroy = I win. Red

Originally it was like this: you died in all three endings with your choice of blue, green, or red explosions (unless you played the hell out of multi-player in which case you might have gotten a gasp of air in Destroy - Shepard lives), and the Normandy crashed on a planet somewhere. Cut to credits. That's what the endings were.

[remydat]

DarthRic wrote...

So the choice is exterminate one species NOW or change ALL species FOREVER.

The morality of the choices seems to become a little blurry here.

Perhaps for you.  When that change is not death, I will accept that price to save an entire race.  This would be like saying you can kill humans now or give all life a vaccine that may cure them of all disease.  WTF?  Why would I not give them the vaccine just because some of them might want it when the alternative is someone has to die.

In the end this is all we are saying.  A group has to die.  Most poeple who would not like synthesis would probably choose to exterminate that group unless of course they are told that group is them in which case I don't care what you try to tell me the vast majority would then say synthesis it is. 

Point is, it is easy to worry about the rights of everyone when you are not part of the group being exterminated.  In reality if faced with synthesis or your own species extermination I think people are full of sh*t if they are saying they would choose extinction of their species and all their loved ones instead of burdening everyone including themselves with the benefits and drawbacks of synthesis.  Synthesis likely has both good or bad.  Dead is just f**King dead.

[Ecrulis]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Guess you didn't get the reference there, huh?

Not having the Geth die I would prefer. But turning the whole ending into an "I win" button? Nah. It's cheap, and if it had been the original ending, I would've screamed.

Start screaming. Join the "entitled whiners".

What do you think the original ending was?

Control = I win. Blue
Synthesis = I win. Green
Destroy = I win. Red

Originally it was like this: you died in all three endings with your choice of blue, green, or red explosions (unless you played the hell out of multi-player in which case you might have gotten a gasp of air in Destroy - Shepard lives), and the Normandy crashed on a planet somewhere. Cut to credits. That's what the endings were.

Pretty much, the endings are already an "I win button" at least with MEHEM I don't have to listen to the catalyst and I'm free to headcannon whatever the hell I want in terms of their true motives. It is far, far from perfect and doesn't really do much to solve the real problems with the endings but as I said It at least makes it more palpable. 

[remydat]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Everyone else dies during a harvest. That was my point, reaper hugger.

But there is no proof that a harvest will occur with the other endings.  The only way to arrive at that conclusion is you in some way don't trust the Catalyst but if you don't trust him why do you believe he told you the truth about destroy?  Only reason would be because it is what you wanted to here ie confirmation bias.

If you think the Catalyst is full of sh*t then I don't see how you trust him enough to believe Destroy.

[Argolas]

remydat wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Everyone else dies during a harvest. That was my point, reaper hugger.

But there is no proof that a harvest will occur with the other endings.  The only way to arrive at that conclusion is you in some way don't trust the Catalyst but if you don't trust him why do you believe he told you the truth about destroy?  Only reason would be because it is what you wanted to here ie confirmation bias.

If you think the Catalyst is full of sh*t then I don't see how you trust him enough to believe Destroy.

The Reapers didn't need to lie to Saren to convince him. As far as I know, the Reapers never lied. They can just be very persuasive.

[AlanC9]

robertthebard wrote...

I think the better question here is:  How long will peace last?  What if the majority of the galaxy disagrees with being raped on a molecular level?

Let's say they do. Shepard's been disintegrated. They could blame him, but there's nothing much to do about it. They could blame the designers of the Crucible, but they've been dead for millenia. 

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Indoctrination *in Saren's case* doesn't really require persuasive arguments.

Zap em with indoctrobeams and then their mind does the persuading for you.

[Reorte]

There are was in which it could be made to be a decent moral decision, but what we've got isn't one at all. It's Destro without a second thought.

Much more preferable would be Control does somehow hijack the Reapers (need to leave out the frying Shepard bit because it's simply stupid) but stops them from killing now. However, it makes it clear that there's a probability that it'll fail sooner or later. Destroy, on the other hand, activates the Crucible as a weapon, capable of taking out any Reapers it's targetted at. Which means nearby ones that it fires at, not all of them everywhere. So now victory is possible and will be achieved, but it'll still be long and hard and involved losing more planets and millions or billions more people, but once it's done the Reaper threat is gone for good. Now you've got the moral choice - the long-term risky option or the certain one that'll get a lot more people killed right now. And speculation about which is right would be fine then too.

[remydat]

jstme wrote...

Sure. Synthesis is "genocide" of every form of pre-synthesis organic life in ME universe. It is formofexistencide, reapers never were even close to commiting that prior to green magic.

Control is existence of same reapers -again,designed and built for commiting genocide - only now  instead of being controlled by catalyst (advanced AI with developed capabilities that actually built reapers and know everything about how to control those which even Geth collecitve considers advanced)  those are being controlled by virtual copy of Shepard with its limited possibilities. Can you be sure that reapers will indeed be under control? Can you be sure that virtual Shepard will not start demanding to "quiet make it stop"?

With destroy it is clear in that regard - there are no reapers. There is organic life. 

the suffix cide is not figurative.  It means to kill.  Your figurative or metaphysical ideas that synthesis is genocide is simply just that figurative or metaphysical.  In reality when I choose synthesis, everyone LITERALLY is still alive.

No I can't be sure about Control just like I can't be sure the Catalyst told me the truth about destroy.  I either believe him when he says I can Control them or I don't.  If I don't then not sure why I would assume he is telling me the truth about Destroy except that I want it to be the truth which again is confirmation bias.  Unless you are proposing some method by which a half dying Shepard is  going to figure out how this sh*t works on his own you either trust what the Catalyst says, you don't, or you cherry pick what you want to believe from him.

[AlanC9]

Phatose wrote...

Argolas wrote...

What did you expect the Crucible to do?

I expected it to solve the problem while posing considerable moral dilemmas precisely to prevent it from being a lolbomb.  Anything from the current ending to it being a giant space bomb that kills everything more complicated then a bacteria were possible.

Yep. Anyone who thought the Crucible would do something simple and completely beneficial wasn't paying attention.

[Argolas]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Indoctrination *in Saren's case* doesn't really require persuasive arguments.

Zap em with indoctrobeams and then their mind does the persuading for you.

Persuasion is always involved in indoctrination, at least I know of no case where it isn't. One of the early steps always seem to be aligning one's goals to the reaper agenda. That is probably the reason why you don't meet even a single indoctrinated resistance fighter on earth: Their goal is to destroy the Reapers and it's impossible to align that with reaper plans.

[Argolas]

remydat wrote...

the suffix cide is not figurative.  It means to kill.  Your figurative or metaphysical ideas that synthesis is genocide is simply just that figurative or metaphysical.  In reality when I choose synthesis, everyone LITERALLY is still alive.

Look back at the definition of genocide I posted on page 8. Not every kind of genocide involves killing actual people.

[remydat]

fr33stylez wrote...

That's fine, but you're enforcing your moral standard on others as justifcation for violating their rights. I personally find forcing a person into treatment as abhorrent as letting people die who want to live.

Most courts have forced children of JW parents to have transfusions because of age of consent - that's a different issue entirely.

And how is deciding who lives and does not doing the same thing?  Again all the choices are moral dillemmas.  All of them require us to play god with people's lives.  It is simply a matter of if you want to be a god that kills a group that has been hated for existing or whether you want to let everyone live albeit by imposing on them in some way.  I will not under any circumstances allow prejudice and death to trump life.

And I was not born and raised in the U.S., so my classmates had no such protection under the laws of my country back then as this was about 15 years ago.  And yes it is not the same issue but merely pointing out that type of argument is pointless with me.  People who refuse blood transfusions because they think their God demands it are pretty f**king stupid.  I respect their right to be f**king stupid and in fact consider helpful in improving the overally intelligence of humanity but I am under no obligation to not consideer it f**king stupid.  

This is especially true when their basis for such is some reference in a book written in a world where no one had a f**king clue what a blood transfusion was.  If God exists I don't think he is so f**kiing stupid to condemn people to die based on a situation the book that supposely an all-knowing God wrote didn't bother to reference a blood transfusion when you know he is all-knowing.  Only a half-wit would interpret the verse discussing not consuming blood when eating as being applicable to a blood transfusion.  God didn't say blood transfusions are bad.  Your idiotic read comprehension imagined he did.

[robertthebard]

remydat wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Everyone else dies during a harvest. That was my point, reaper hugger.

But there is no proof that a harvest will occur with the other endings.  The only way to arrive at that conclusion is you in some way don't trust the Catalyst but if you don't trust him why do you believe he told you the truth about destroy?  Only reason would be because it is what you wanted to here ie confirmation bias.

If you think the Catalyst is full of sh*t then I don't see how you trust him enough to believe Destroy.

There is no proof that a Harvest won't happen either.  However, there is absolutely no chance of one in Destroy.  I don't need to distrust the catalyst to see the possibility of another harvest, all I have to do is look up.  What is it that would make me think that if they are allowed to continue to exist, it won't happen again?  Certainly not any dialog I've had with actual Reapers over the course of three games, including Harbinger in Arrival.  Why would I think that understanding would change it's view?  It's old, far older than anyone can really imagine, and it believes we live because they allow it.  How does that position get magically changed in Synthesis?  It's likely it already understands organics fairly well, since it used to be organic.  In Control, there's no way to be absolutely positive that, over the course of a millennia, ShepAI won't reach the same conclusion as it's predecessor.  I mean, it could happen that it doesn't, all things are possible, but, because all things are possible, it's also likely that it will.  We just had a dialog with TIM where we can tell him we're not ready for that kind of power.  Refusal is no kind of option, once you get this far, so buh bye Reapers.