883 réponses à ce sujet

[robertthebard]

Argolas wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I think this has to do with a fundamental difference in our ethical systems. You're deontological, I'm more teleological and utilitarian. I believe that the best action you can undertake in a given situation cannot be immoral, because I believe that outcomes are more important than the intrinsic morality of actions.

Splendid. Would you like to reveal to us all then the set of circumstances under which you consider it perfectly fine to torture a child for fun…..without compromising your morals or ethics I mean?

Would you kindly point out what this has to do with Mass Effect?  Are you referencing Pragia, or simply trying to find a justification for torturing children?  I have to say, I'm refreshed to find the "you people are monsters" turned on an ending choice other than destroy, but frankly, I'm appalled at the gall it requires to postulate that torturing children is equivalent to picking an ending in a video game.  Yet you have the audacity to accuse someone else of being a monster?  As a parent, and grandparent, it is my sincere wish that you are not in a profession that requires you to work around children.

To be fair, this turned into a rather basic ethical discussion without any direct relation to the ME3 endings for a while...

While true, it's also irrelevant to the question.  The fact that somebody can let themselves go to torturing children while discussing a video game really shows underlying issues not related to video games, and my wish holds, I hope they aren't around children with these kinds of thought processes.  If one of the teachers in my grandkid's school was shown to have these kinds of impulsive thoughts, I'd be at the school board, doing everything I could to get them the hell out of the classroom.

[3DandBeyond]

Argolas wrote...


Applying those principles on the ME3 ending is really difficult. The consequences are impossible to predict, many people hardly understand the consequences after seeing the ending, and it is outright impossible to know them before choosing. On the other hand, principles become rather small and irrelevant considering the consequences of that decision.

Just as a last example, I am not a philosopher so I will throw in a critical case for pure utilitarianism from someone who is:

“Suppose that a sheriff were faced with the choice either of framing a ****** for a rape that had aroused hostility to the Negroes (a particular ****** generally being believed to be guilty but whom the sheriff knows not to be guilty)—and thus preventing serious anti-****** riots which would probably lead to some loss of life and increased hatred of each other by whites and Negroes—or of hunting for the guilty person and thereby allowing the anti-****** riots to occur, while doing the best he can to combat them. In such a case the sheriff, if he were an extreme utilitarian, would appear to be committed to framing the ******.”

- H. J. McCloskey -

You see, there is no perfect answer to ethical problems, if there was it would have been established by now. You will have to consider each case on its own and decide what morality you want to apply there, that is what makes it so difficult.

But in such cases certain outcomes are predictable.  If not, then it's impossible to make an informed choice or a decision.  Destroy lacks a lot of known issues, but (if the kid's explanation is authentic) will result in one known thing that is a known good.  Control and Synthesis lack a known good.  Synthesis is the worst since there's no real explanation for how this solves any problem.  It's just thrown out there and is supposed to do something.  How, why, what are all unknown.  It's effect is presumed.  The reapers will stop, because.  The conflict will stop, because.  It also sets the stage for more conflict, even alternate conflict that may be more real than the flawed and created conflict that started all of this.  Control changes only one thing-it substitutes the thoughts and memories of someone who may or may not be good for the program that Leviathan created.  Or, it adds those thoughts and memories to the mix.  Just what exactly Shepard becomes inside all of that is not known fully, but can be presumed.  And conflict as defined by Leviathan and programmed into the catalyst, may resume.  The participants still exist.  And alternate conflict may also take hold. 

Consequences do matter.  That sheriff, as a paid official is paid to explore the consequences of his actions.  He's also paid to do the "right thing" and uphold the law.  He's also tasked morally with doing it no matter how difficult and damaging it may be.  In ME, the Shepard I played said, paraphrasing, you can't control someone else's reactions to what you do, but you're responsible for your own.  That sheriff ultimately must make a decision that is not based upon a flawed logic.  He knows what the probably outcomes will be, good and bad.  With the choices, Shepard has no idea what good will happen (basing things upon what a flawed AI says), but in assuming what the kid says is accurate, Shepard can extrapolate what bad can happen.  A person weighs the good and the bad when subjecting others to life altering events.  On a smaller scale people do this in deciding the end of life issues for others.  I did so for my mother.  I knew I could allow her to die and she would most likely die.  I also knew that doctors could try extraordinary measures to keep her alive, but could not say what that would mean for her.  Non-intervention that led to a bad thing for me was the most sane to do.  I will say it again, real people know there are fates worse than death. 

[3DandBeyond]

robertthebard wrote...

While true, it's also irrelevant to the question.  The fact that somebody can let themselves go to torturing children while discussing a video game really shows underlying issues not related to video games, and my wish holds, I hope they aren't around children with these kinds of thought processes.  If one of the teachers in my grandkid's school was shown to have these kinds of impulsive thoughts, I'd be at the school board, doing everything I could to get them the hell out of the classroom.

I'd have to say I agree with this.  If even the remotest thought exists that someone thinks that torturing children is ever allowable then I have a problem with it.  I would have no idea what the threshold is for that concept ever being considered nor if the threshold could at some point change.

I think the point is however that the response and discussion goes back a bit and includes the idea that the person being responded to believes that if there's a good outcome then anything that gets us there is A-OK.  And that's ridiculous.  The outcome is directly related to the path taken to get there and what one is prepared to do to achieve it directly influences how much they deserve whatever they have accomplished.

It's like thinking you deserve heaven when the ladder used to get there was built on the suffering of others.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 24 avril 2013 - 04:35 .

[Argolas]

I don't disagree 3DandBeyond, I just tried to point out that I think matters are more complicated than Xilizhra said they were. I also agree with your reasoning for Destroy, I am just saying that it is impossible to quote a moral system like Utilitarianism and use it to prove one ending choice to be the correct one.

[Argolas]

3DandBeyond wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

While true, it's also irrelevant to the question.  The fact that somebody can let themselves go to torturing children while discussing a video game really shows underlying issues not related to video games, and my wish holds, I hope they aren't around children with these kinds of thought processes.  If one of the teachers in my grandkid's school was shown to have these kinds of impulsive thoughts, I'd be at the school board, doing everything I could to get them the hell out of the classroom.

I'd have to say I agree with this.  If even the remotest thought exists that someone thinks that torturing children is ever allowable then I have a problem with it.  I would have no idea what the threshold is for that concept ever being considered nor if the threshold could at some point change.

I think the point is however that the response and discussion goes back a bit and includes the idea that the person being responded to believes that if there's a good outcome then anything that gets us there is A-OK.  And that's ridiculous.  The outcome is directly related to the path taken to get there and what one is prepared to do to achieve it directly influences how much they deserve whatever they have accomplished.

It's like thinking you deserve heaven when the ladder used to get there was built on the suffering of others.

Also agreed. As I said, it's always a decision of its own. Utilitarianism has its place, the action with the best consequences being the morally right thing to do makes sense- but deontological ethics must be considered as well because some principles are worth defending or we are in danger of losing morality as a whole in a world were the consequences of our actions (and with that our actions themselves) are dictated by the most ruthless people. "I do not torture children" is such a principle. Children are one of the most precious things (sorry if the use of that word is inappropriate, I don't know how else to phrase the thought) in this world and definately worth protecting.

[N7 Shadow 90]

The final sentence of the OP is a very interesting view of the ending choices.
I always enjoy your insightful posts, Seival.

Modifié par N7 Shadow 90, 24 avril 2013 - 04:41 .

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

While true, it's also irrelevant to the question.  The fact that somebody can let themselves go to torturing children while discussing a video game really shows underlying issues not related to video games, and my wish holds, I hope they aren't around children with these kinds of thought processes.  If one of the teachers in my grandkid's school was shown to have these kinds of impulsive thoughts, I'd be at the school board, doing everything I could to get them the hell out of the classroom.

I'd have to say I agree with this.  If even the remotest thought exists that someone thinks that torturing children is ever allowable then I have a problem with it.  I would have no idea what the threshold is for that concept ever being considered nor if the threshold could at some point change.

I think the point is however that the response and discussion goes back a bit and includes the idea that the person being responded to believes that if there's a good outcome then anything that gets us there is A-OK.  And that's ridiculous.  The outcome is directly related to the path taken to get there and what one is prepared to do to achieve it directly influences how much they deserve whatever they have accomplished.

It's like thinking you deserve heaven when the ladder used to get there was built on the suffering of others.

Exactly, so it's far better to remove the temptation.  If someone feels that their basis for arguing against the endings is so weak that they have to resort to this, why continue to argue it? 

[3DandBeyond]

Argolas wrote...

I don't disagree 3DandBeyond, I just tried to point out that I think matters are more complicated than Xilizhra said they were. I also agree with your reasoning for Destroy, I am just saying that it is impossible to quote a moral system like Utilitarianism and use it to prove one ending choice to be the correct one.

No, I'm not disagreeing with you.  I don't like destroy either.  Merely pointing out that my disagreement is with the idea that someone would actually think that it's ok to do anything to achieve whatever ends they think are good.  I actually have more of a disagreement with someone who thinks torturing children is ok if it achieves a goal than with that being brought up as a line never to be crossed.

It's like the old debate as to what we give up in order to protect what we now have, say freedom and the rights of me as an American.  The idea is that it will rot from within far faster than it can be breached from without.

So, if someone is willing to step over anyone else in order to achieve something, then the goal is already lost.  What you've worked to achieve has been debased and you've made it so.  Life becomes one of numbers and so becomes a concept not worth saving, because if the best amongst us, the one meant to save us, sees us as expendable then where does it stop?  Who is not worth losing to save someone else?  It's at the core of my problem with destroy.  The other thing is also what is not worth losing in order to save some vestige of life?  That's at the core of my problem with the other choices.

[AresKeith]

N7 Shadow 90 wrote...

The final sentence of the OP is a very interesting view of the ending choices.
I always enjoy your insightful posts, Seival.

/facepalm

[Ecrulis]

Auld Wulf wrote...

But some people will always be smarter than others. I'm guessing that people who find Synthesis so very repgunant aren't actually doctors, scientists, or engineers. It would be very hard to find something that is essentially a cure to the organic condition as repugnant, when the suffering of so many would end. Under the Hippocratic Oath, you'd actually be loathe to choose anything other than Synthesis as it would make you a hypocrite.

So there you go.

Oh hey look it's Wulf here to remind us that anyone who dislikes synthesis is inherently less intelligent than those that do <_<

[3DandBeyond]

Argolas wrote...


Also agreed. As I said, it's always a decision of its own. Utilitarianism has its place, the action with the best consequences being the morally right thing to do makes sense- but deontological ethics must be considered as well because some principles are worth defending or we are in danger of losing morality as a whole in a world were the consequences of our actions (and with that our actions themselves) are dictated by the most ruthless people. "I do not torture children" is such a principle. Children are one of the most precious things (sorry if the use of that word is inappropriate, I don't know how else to phrase the thought) in this world and definately worth protecting.

It's the fundamental point that our future resides within them.  Our hopes and dreams that may be unfulfilled within us may take flight with them.

But the point here is not just in the willingness to throw anyone or anything at a problem and then think if it achieves something good then it's ok.  It's what is lost in what you threw away.  If a person is willing to throw something dear away (and any life is dear because once gone, that individual and their thoughts and emotions and contributions are gone for good), then what is enough and what is too little.  It's not just morality but it is also practicality.  Say the Shepard has a choice and it's between killing some man (ok, no I don't want to kill people) and facing the reapers to try and fight.  If s/he kills the guy the reapers will self-destruct, but if not, the reapers will continue goo sucking.  No other option.  Ok, sure I know what will happen, but what is lost in killing one man?  What if.  What if that man is the key to killing the reapers and if he has created some next best thing that will save people from a plague and they will otherwise die?  No, I don't know that and it probably wouldn't happen, but what if.

In order to live based upon things being alright because the outcome is good, one must have a narrow vision of what good can be achieved and what may well have been lost.  I'd also assert that the outcome one sees must be authentic and not something that is lacking any realistic consequences such as we get in this game.

[Xilizhra]

Argolas wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

While true, it's also irrelevant to the question.  The fact that somebody can let themselves go to torturing children while discussing a video game really shows underlying issues not related to video games, and my wish holds, I hope they aren't around children with these kinds of thought processes.  If one of the teachers in my grandkid's school was shown to have these kinds of impulsive thoughts, I'd be at the school board, doing everything I could to get them the hell out of the classroom.

I'd have to say I agree with this.  If even the remotest thought exists that someone thinks that torturing children is ever allowable then I have a problem with it.  I would have no idea what the threshold is for that concept ever being considered nor if the threshold could at some point change.

I think the point is however that the response and discussion goes back a bit and includes the idea that the person being responded to believes that if there's a good outcome then anything that gets us there is A-OK.  And that's ridiculous.  The outcome is directly related to the path taken to get there and what one is prepared to do to achieve it directly influences how much they deserve whatever they have accomplished.

It's like thinking you deserve heaven when the ladder used to get there was built on the suffering of others.

Also agreed. As I said, it's always a decision of its own. Utilitarianism has its place, the action with the best consequences being the morally right thing to do makes sense- but deontological ethics must be considered as well because some principles are worth defending or we are in danger of losing morality as a whole in a world were the consequences of our actions (and with that our actions themselves) are dictated by the most ruthless people. "I do not torture children" is such a principle. Children are one of the most precious things (sorry if the use of that word is inappropriate, I don't know how else to phrase the thought) in this world and definately worth protecting.

Children require protection because they're less able to defend themselves than adults, and are less resistant to psychological harm, but I disagree that they're inherently more valuable beings.

Also, if a ladder to Heaven was built on the suffering of others, but those others have since been defeated and won't do this again, I believe it should be used. It's why I kept Maelon's genophage data.

[robertthebard]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Oh Robert.

It's interesting to me.  I have been involved in a lot of dialog concerning the endings, and it never even occurred to me to say "well, do you think it's ok to torture children".  Why do you suppose that is?  Do you suppose maybe actually being a parent has something to do with it?  Do you think it's because my mental and emotional states are "healthy" enough that it isn't a lever, or a fulcrum for "you people are monsters"?  So you bring it up because you either believe it's morally reprehensible, or something you've actually thought about, and then are surprised when somebody finds that even bringing it up is morally reprehensible?  Again with the double standard, or, is it more posturing?  I can't speak to your mental state, which is exactly why I hope you aren't involved with children on a routine basis.  I can, and obviously did, take offense at your reference, however.  You wanted to shock somebody?  Congratulations?  You have accomplished your mission.

If you want to point at people and say "you people are monsters", it's more effective if you don't paint yourself as one first.  Otherwise you're back to pot and kettle type reasoning.  You see, this isn't a Psych 101 discussion.  This is a discussion of a video game, and if you are unable to differentiate that fantasy world from the real world enough that torturing children becomes your best line, you really don't have any grounds to point at anyone else.  Hop up, find a mirror, the monster you're looking for will be looking back at you.

[Argolas]

And that is also why I feel rather disgusted by ME3 Samara. She is willing to commit suicide in front of her last remaining daughter who is already traumatized from just losing her home and her sister rather than ignoring her code for once. If one aspect of morality (in that case doing your duty and obeying a vow) is taken too far, the whole thing gets messed up and nothing worth protecting remains.

[Yestare7]

Auld Wulf wrote... Under the Hippocratic Oath, you'd actually be loathe to choose anything other than Synthesis as it would make you a hypocrite.

So there you go.

Don't you ever change, you wonderfull being you!!:lol:





Y

[Argolas]

Xilizhra wrote...

Children require protection because they're less able to defend themselves than adults, and are less resistant to psychological harm, but I disagree that they're inherently more valuable beings.

Then we disagree. I am not a very religious person, but I believe that some things in our world are sacred and must not be touched, no matter for what reason. Children are such a thing.

[Xilizhra]

Argolas wrote...

And that is also why I feel rather disgusted by ME3 Samara. She is willing to commit suicide in front of her last remaining daughter who is already traumatized from just losing her home and her sister rather than ignoring her code for once. If one aspect of morality (in that case doing your duty and obeying a vow) is taken too far, the whole thing gets messed up and nothing worth protecting remains.

This is pretty much how I see the Refuse faction and much of the Destroy one.

Then we disagree. I am not a very religious person, but I believe that
some things in our world are sacred and must not be touched, no matter
for what reason. Children are such a thing.

So conducting any war that involves any civilian center is inherently immoral?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 24 avril 2013 - 05:03 .

[3DandBeyond]

Ecrulis wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

But some people will always be smarter than others. I'm guessing that people who find Synthesis so very repgunant aren't actually doctors, scientists, or engineers. It would be very hard to find something that is essentially a cure to the organic condition as repugnant, when the suffering of so many would end. Under the Hippocratic Oath, you'd actually be loathe to choose anything other than Synthesis as it would make you a hypocrite.

So there you go.

Oh hey look it's Wulf here to remind us that anyone who dislikes synthesis is inherently less intelligent than those that do <_<

It's also an assumption that anyone that does not study the more logical type of vocations is inherently less intelligent.  That's special.  Especially considering that the endings are so anti-logic that people in those professions are very likely to have a real problem with them.  And for the record, actual scientist types have found problems with ME3's version of synthesis.

The organic condition is repugnant?  Wow, priceless.  The organic condition is amazing and yes it's brief but worth so much in what we can be and feel and do.  So sad that someone thinks having tech inserted in them would cure this condition.

[3DandBeyond]

Argolas wrote...

And that is also why I feel rather disgusted by ME3 Samara. She is willing to commit suicide in front of her last remaining daughter who is already traumatized from just losing her home and her sister rather than ignoring her code for once. If one aspect of morality (in that case doing your duty and obeying a vow) is taken too far, the whole thing gets messed up and nothing worth protecting remains.

Well this is one of the things about having a heart, mind, and brain.  They all inform each other.  A parent that would do that is lacking something and lets other things take control.  Even if she had to do that, was that the moment?  Letting any one thing control you too much is a mistake.  In her case, it's like the person that says "I was just following orders" or the journalist that just keeps the camera rolling as someone is killed or being raped.  Yes, to intercede is dangerous but you can't hide behind other things and say that's ok.  In Samara's case, there's a bigger issue as well as the one of the suffering she'd cause her daughter.  She is needed to help the fight. 

[Eckswhyzed]

Argolas wrote...

Also agreed. As I said, it's always a decision of its own. Utilitarianism has its place, the action with the best consequences being the morally right thing to do makes sense- but deontological ethics must be considered as well because some principles are worth defending or we are in danger of losing morality as a whole in a world were the consequences of our actions (and with that our actions themselves) are dictated by the most ruthless people. "I do not torture children" is such a principle. Children are one of the most precious things (sorry if the use of that word is inappropriate, I don't know how else to phrase the thought) in this world and definately worth protecting.

Arguing against a consequentialist philosophy by saying that negative consequences will follow from it is kind of missing the point. Blaming consequentialism for a world where ruthless people dictate everything is a little silly as well, which is why I hope that's not what you're implying - can you clarify?

As for <insert immoral deed here>, anything immoral can be justified by positing sufficiently horrible alternatives. Don't like torturing kittens? Well, I have decided to detonate nuclear bombs in the world's major population centres unless you torture this kitten. Clearly the example is extremely contrived, but I hope you understand that rules such as "torturing people is bad", "don't kill people" etc. are just heuristics that work great 99.99% of the time, but not 100%.

I suppose this is where a lot of the ending morality debate stems from - we are deciding with large consequences for trillions of sapient beings. Hence, our usual heuristics tend to break down a little.

[Eckswhyzed]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I think this has to do with a fundamental difference in our ethical systems. You're deontological, I'm more teleological and utilitarian. I believe that the best action you can undertake in a given situation cannot be immoral, because I believe that outcomes are more important than the intrinsic morality of actions.

Splendid. Would you like to reveal to us all then the set of circumstances under which you consider it perfectly fine to torture a child for fun…..without compromising your morals or ethics I mean?

Bumping for Robert.

Ok, if you don't torture this child I will detonate a nuclear bomb in every city around the world containing more than one million people.

[3DandBeyond]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I think this has to do with a fundamental difference in our ethical systems. You're deontological, I'm more teleological and utilitarian. I believe that the best action you can undertake in a given situation cannot be immoral, because I believe that outcomes are more important than the intrinsic morality of actions.

Splendid. Would you like to reveal to us all then the set of circumstances under which you consider it perfectly fine to torture a child for fun…..without compromising your morals or ethics I mean?

Bumping for Robert.

Exactly.  For me the worst point is the idea that outcomes are all that are important so any idea of morality can be thrown out the window to get there.  What then of ambiguous outcomes or outcomes that can change?

Life is not static and your actions may have immediate consequences that can seem good, but long term that effect may change.  What then?   And a good outcome for some is not so good for those thrown on the fire along the way.  Nor is it good for society at large.

By this estimation there is nothing that is too immoral to do if it achieves some shortterm good outcome.  Except it's not known what really bad future you have created.  You save some kind of life and only life for now, but you have no idea what hell you have assured for that life.  Outcomes evolve and we are not gods.  We cannot predict with certainty that the things we do will assure any good thing for the future.  It's why most people try to be good and do good because their actions now do matter.