233 réponses à ce sujet

[knightnblu]

Frankly, I believe that it goes far further than just mere moral ambiguity. The morality of the endings are rarely even considered by those who select them. They just select what they want and imagine the rest and call it a victory. Then they defend the choice because that is what they choose to believe. It's like that line from Doctor Who, "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

[Jukaga]

I don't see how morality comes into it at all. Extremism in the defense of existence is no vice. Full Stop. Anything that can stop the harvest and save trillions of beings is acceptable at that stage. Sacrificing 10 billion to save 100 billion, as Garrus would say the 'ruthless calculus of war'. We cannot apply quaint 21st century definitions of morality to the problems they are facing. I think the problem is that people don't seem to grasp that. Wiping out the Geth and other synthetics to save everything else: acceptable. Becoming the benevolent AI guardian of the galaxy: Acceptable. Forcing all living beings into whatever Synthesis is: Acceptable. They are all preferable to non-existence for all.

If there was a way to achieve victory without horrendous cost, then the whole Reaper threat and what they are actively doing to the galaxy becomes meaningless. There has to be a heavy cost, but given the alternatives the cost is truly irrelevant. There is no 'war crime' here.

[Iakus]

Jukaga wrote...

I don't see how morality comes into it at all. Extremism in the defense of existence is no vice. Full Stop. Anything that can stop the harvest and save trillions of beings is acceptable at that stage. Sacrificing 10 billion to save 100 billion, as Garrus would say the 'ruthless calculus of war'. We cannot apply quaint 21st century definitions of morality to the problems they are facing. I think the problem is that people don't seem to grasp that. Wiping out the Geth and other synthetics to save everything else: acceptable. Becoming the benevolent AI guardian of the galaxy: Acceptable. Forcing all living beings into whatever Synthesis is: Acceptable. They are all preferable to non-existence for all.

If there was a way to achieve victory without horrendous cost, then the whole Reaper threat and what they are actively doing to the galaxy becomes meaningless. There has to be a heavy cost, but given the alternatives the cost is truly irrelevant. There is no 'war crime' here.

We can and we will apply "quaiint 21st century definitions of morality" because we live in the 21st century and this is a 21st century game.  And if the game fails to let the player operate within those definitions, then it has failed.  I, for one do not play games to indulge my inner sociopath.  Nor perform incredible contortions of logic to make my choices feel acceptable:

Modifié par iakus, 20 juin 2013 - 12:32 .

[knightnblu]

Jukaga wrote...

I don't see how morality comes into it at all. Extremism in the defense of existence is no vice. Full Stop. Anything that can stop the harvest and save trillions of beings is acceptable at that stage. Sacrificing 10 billion to save 100 billion, as Garrus would say the 'ruthless calculus of war'. We cannot apply quaint 21st century definitions of morality to the problems they are facing. I think the problem is that people don't seem to grasp that. Wiping out the Geth and other synthetics to save everything else: acceptable. Becoming the benevolent AI guardian of the galaxy: Acceptable. Forcing all living beings into whatever Synthesis is: Acceptable. They are all preferable to non-existence for all.

If there was a way to achieve victory without horrendous cost, then the whole Reaper threat and what they are actively doing to the galaxy becomes meaningless. There has to be a heavy cost, but given the alternatives the cost is truly irrelevant. There is no 'war crime' here.

Incorrect. Taken in the context in which the choices are presented, you must evaluate one against the other within the context of the Reaper War. As you point out, all advanced life faces extermination. Yet you have three choices with which to resolve the conflict. The first choice ascends Shepard to imortality and places the Reapers firmly under his control. While this ends the conflict, it introduces more problems.
 
First, there is no guarantee that Shepard, a mortal, will retain his sanity on a time scale he was never designed to handle (nature/God take your pick). Further, he will have the Catalyst forever whispering in his ear about how order is necessary to preserve peace (the old "Yo Dog! I created synthetics to kill you every 50,000 years so you don't have to worry about being killed by synthetics" shtick). Therefore, there is no guarantee that Shepard will retain his sanity for the limitless time that remains ahead of him. Further, the Reapers escape answering for their innumerable war crimes and crimes against life itself.
 
The second choice is Synthesis. This choice also ignores justice for the Reaper's victims and forces all organics, ready or not, to become cyborgs. Shepard never asks permission to alter the essence of life in the galaxy, he just does it in an act of rape never before seen or imagined. The civilizations not ready to have a circuit board shoved up their backsides perish, the current advanced civilizations are created in the Catalyst's image, and likely so are their thought processes to insure that they are obedient to the Overlord.
 
Then there is Destroy. Unlike the first two choices, Destroy actually delivers the Reapers to justice. Life is freed from the cycles of extinction, but the price is EDI and the Geth. EDI and the Geth entered this conflict knowing that death was a possibility, as did the organics. Shepard asks nothing of them that he does not personally pay himself. The threat of the Reapers is also forever ended and life and evolution are free to continue.
 
Therefore, how can you say that each choice is morally equivalent? If you mean that they all end the game, you are right. But that is a mechanical function and not a moral one. Morally, destroy is the only acceptable ending. Control does not bring the Reapers to justice and there is no guarantee that they will never return and Synthesis rapes the galaxy and makes all organics slaves. How can you say that there is no war crime in that? How do you define war crime? Perhaps it is a definitional problem.
 
And before you start about how synthesis doesn't enslave the organics or kill unprepared civilizations, only organic matter is changed. That means that it is still possible to build pure synthetics. They only way that will not happen is if the Catalyst installed an override when he re-wrote your flesh. As for the deaths of unprepared civilizations, the Catalyst did not say that they died, but after witnessing his previous failure, i.e. the Protheans, I believe that it is safe to assume that they didn't make it.
 
Had only one of the choices been presented, you would still have refuse and refuse would be the better option given both Control and Synthesis. Unless you are a submission is better than extinction kind of guy. Which means that you would literally do anything to survive no matter how reprehensible or shameful. If so, that is o.k., as you would not be the first. The stories coming out of Auschwitz and Dachau would chill you to the bone about what people did to survive. But they aren't remembered for their ruthlessness or for their survival. In fact, they aren't remembered at all save in the recollections of the survivors who reviled them for their methods. It is only those who sacrificed, like Frankl, who are remembered for their survival. It would appear that humanity does in fact have a moral compass. We will forgive those who abandon it to hold on to life, but we will not honor them for it.
 
So how are we to decide which path to take? One can only answer that you have to have a moral compass with which to navigate such decisions. Without such a compass, the tendency is to resort to moral equivalency without cause or justification.

[His Name was HYR!!]

knightnblu wrote...

The morality of the endings are rarely even considered by those who select them. They just select what they want and imagine the rest. Then they defend the choice because that is what they choose to believe.

... *1 hour later*

knightnblu wrote...

Incorrect. Taken in the context in
which the choices are presented, you must evaluate one against the other
within the context of the Reaper War. As you point out, all advanced
life faces extermination. Yet you have three choices with which to
resolve the conflict. The first choice ascends Shepard to imortality and
places the Reapers firmly under his control. While this ends the
conflict, it introduces more problems.

First, there is no
guarantee that Shepard, a mortal, will retain his sanity on a time scale
he was never designed to handle (nature/God take your pick). Further,
he will have the Catalyst forever whispering in his ear about how order
is necessary to preserve peace (the old "Yo Dog! I created synthetics to
kill you every 50,000 years so you don't have to worry about being
killed by synthetics" shtick). Therefore, there is no guarantee that
Shepard will retain his sanity for the limitless time that remains ahead
of him. Further, the Reapers escape answering for their innumerable war
crimes and crimes against life itself.
 
The second choice is
Synthesis. This choice also ignores justice for the Reaper's victims and
forces all organics, ready or not, to become cyborgs. Shepard never
asks permission to alter the essence of life in the galaxy, he just does
it in an act of rape never before seen or imagined. The civilizations
not ready to have a circuit board shoved up their backsides perish, the
current advanced civilizations are created in the Catalyst's image, and
likely so are their thought processes to insure that they are obedient
to the Overlord.

Baseless and imaginary ideas in bold.

 

Had only one of the choices been presented,
you would still have refuse and refuse would be the better option given
both Control and Synthesis. Unless you are a submission is better than
extinction kind of guy.

So after lamenting the wrongs of Control and Sync, you'll sell out the whole galaxy to the worst possible forms of Control and Sync because you're afraid of the lesser versions? You truly never hear a logical case for Refuse. It's impossible.

[& refer to top of sig.]

[FlamingBoy]

I hate that, some one writes a huge essay with love and someone comes around saying its "baseless" (which has become the new "subjective" of getting out of the argument) avoiding to talk about it.

[His Name was HYR!!]

FlamingBoy wrote...

I hate that, some one writes a huge essay with love and someone comes around saying its "baseless" (which has become the new "subjective" of getting out of the argument) avoiding to talk about it.

You don't know knightnblu.

Any ole foo' can type an essay, doesn't make it good.

Also, I'm not avoiding further discussion. I'm actively seeking it. My needs have not been attended to ITT.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 20 juin 2013 - 02:32 .

[FlamingBoy]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

You don't know knightnblu.

Any ole foo' can type an essay, doesn't make it good.

Also, I'm not avoiding further discussion. I'm actively seeking it. My needs have not been attended to ITT.

yay or nay
for ITT?

[knightnblu]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

I hate that, some one writes a huge essay with love and someone comes around saying its "baseless" (which has become the new "subjective" of getting out of the argument) avoiding to talk about it.

You don't know knightnblu.

Any ole foo' can type an essay, doesn't make it good.

Also, I'm not avoiding further discussion. I'm actively seeking it. My needs have not been attended to ITT.

And you do?


I know you though. You are the person that just drives by and takes a dump on whatever you please because it makes you feel better about yourself. You have to do so because it is the only way that you can feel important and relevant. That is why you never address any of my points, that is why you do not argue, and that is why you just vomit up whatever simple minded adjectives you can think of and disappear. It is your way of saying "I matter."
 
Oh yeah, I know you.

[His Name was HYR!!]

knightnblu wrote...

And you do?

I know you though. You are the person that just drives by and takes a dump on whatever you please because it makes you feel better about yourself. You have to do so because it is the only way that you can feel important and relevant. That is why you never address any of my points, that is why you do not argue, and that is why you just vomit up whatever simple minded adjectives you can think of and disappear. It is your way of saying "I matter."
 
Oh yeah, I know you.

I see making up facts is a habit of yours, as with your first post, and now pretending you have any idea who I am. I'd love to see you prove any of those claims, but you and I both know you have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

On top of that, you're wrong. I did address your relevant points there (keyword: relevant), and I did pose a counter to your conclusion (in the form of a rhetorical question). I also get the distinct feeling you're looking to avoid having to respond to that by using this post as a distraction.

Whatever I am doesn't change the fact that what you've done is the same as what you've alledged others do -- imagine what is true of the endings and defend your beliefs based on what you choose to believe. Anyone can see it in the post you made just one hour afterwards. That irony was ripe for the picking, hence my post.

It also doesn't change how illogical your conclusion is.

[knightnblu]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

knightnblu wrote...

And you do?

I know you though. You are the person that just drives by and takes a dump on whatever you please because it makes you feel better about yourself. You have to do so because it is the only way that you can feel important and relevant. That is why you never address any of my points, that is why you do not argue, and that is why you just vomit up whatever simple minded adjectives you can think of and disappear. It is your way of saying "I matter."
 
Oh yeah, I know you.

I see making up facts is a habit of yours, as with your first post, and now pretending you have any idea who I am. I'd love to see you prove any of those claims, but you and I both know you have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

On top of that, you're wrong. I did address your relevant points there (keyword: relevant), and I did pose a counter to your conclusion (in the form of a rhetorical question). I also get the distinct feeling you're looking to avoid having to respond to that by using this post as a distraction.

Whatever I am doesn't change the fact that what you've done is the same as what you've alledged others do -- imagine what is true of the endings and defend your beliefs based on what you choose to believe. Anyone can see it in the post you made just one hour afterwards. That irony was ripe for the picking, hence my post.

It also doesn't change how illogical your conclusion is.

Says the troll

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
We can and we will apply "quaiint 21st century definitions of morality" because we live in the 21st century and this is a 21st century game.  And if the game fails to let the player operate within those definitions, then it has failed.  

While Jukaga's formulation of the issue was awful, a game can't prevent you from operating within your preferred set of moral definitions. All it can do is present a situation where those definitions give you problems, but any philosophy undergraduate can do that to you too. He just can't make you live in the hypothetical the way an RPG can.

[AlanC9]

Well, let's see what that essay's got...

knightnblu wrote...
First, there is no guarantee that Shepard, a mortal, will retain his sanity on a time scale he was never designed to handle (nature/God take your pick). Further, he will have the Catalyst forever whispering in his ear about how order is necessary to preserve peace (the old "Yo Dog! I created synthetics to kill you every 50,000 years so you don't have to worry about being killed by synthetics" shtick). Therefore, there is no guarantee that Shepard will retain his sanity for the limitless time that remains ahead of him. Further, the Reapers escape answering for their innumerable war crimes and crimes against life itself.

This is just a confused mess. The Sheplyst isn't mortal, unless you're using "mortal" in some sort of mystical sense. The Catalyst won't be around to whisper anything, since he's replaced by Shepard. And the Reapers aren't responsible for their actions any more than poor Kenson was; punishing them serves no rational purpose and is unworthy of reasoning beings.

[Alien Number Six]

Destroy=Military victory. It dosen't solve the organic/synthetic problem. In fact you have made it worse by destroying all synthetics. It is ok your just a solider. Let someone else deal with it.
Control=Give your life to control the enemy. This ends the cycle but dosen't solve the organic/synthetic problem. Good luck policing the galaxy.
Synthesis=Actualy listening to the Catalyst and giving your life to solve the organic/synthetic problem. Everybody lives! All you had to do was trust the Reaper AI!............Wait.........I'm indoctrinated..........BANG!(Shot himself in the head.)

[knightnblu]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

knightnblu wrote...

You are the person that just drives by and takes a dump on whatever you please because it makes you feel better about yourself. You have to do so because it is the only way that you can feel important and relevant. That is why you never address any of my points, that is why you do not argue, and that is why you just vomit up whatever simple minded adjectives you can think of and disappear. It is your way of saying "I matter."

knightnblu wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

knightnblu wrote...

And you do? 

I know you though. You are the person that just drives by and takes a dump on whatever you please because it makes you feel better about yourself. You have to do so because it is the only way that you can feel important and relevant. That is why you never address any of my points, that is why you do not argue, and that is why you just vomit up whatever simple minded adjectives you can think of and disappear. It is your way of saying "I matter."
 
Oh yeah, I know you.

I see making up facts is a habit of yours, as with your first post, and now pretending you have any idea who I am. I'd love to see you prove any of those claims, but you and I both know you have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

On top of that, you're wrong. I did address your relevant points there (keyword: relevant), and I did pose a counter to your conclusion (in the form of a rhetorical question). I also get the distinct feeling you're looking to avoid having to respond to that by using this post as a distraction.

Whatever I am doesn't change the fact that what you've done is the same as what you've alledged others do -- imagine what is true of the endings and defend your beliefs based on what you choose to believe. Anyone can see it in the post you made just one hour afterwards. That irony was ripe for the picking, hence my post.

It also doesn't change how illogical your conclusion is.

Says the troll

Drive-by, take a dump? Check.

Does not address my points? Check.

No argument? Check.

Vomit something simple-minded and disappear? Check.



Joke's on you. Again.

Want to keep trying (and failing) to prove your superiority, or respond to my original response to you like a man?

... or wuss out entirely? Don't worry, you've got plenty of time. I'll be out walking my dog for a bit...

Buddy, you don't want a piece of me. I have an extremely low tolerance for idiots and you are beginning to annoy me. I suggest that you quit while this is still peaceful.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...
We can and we will apply "quaiint 21st century definitions of morality" because we live in the 21st century and this is a 21st century game.  And if the game fails to let the player operate within those definitions, then it has failed.  

While Jukaga's formulation of the issue was awful, a game can't prevent you from operating within your preferred set of moral definitions. All it can do is present a situation where those definitions give you problems, but any philosophy undergraduate can do that to you too. He just can't make you live in the hypothetical the way an RPG can.

Most people don't take undergraduate philosophy classes for fun and entertainment.  Forcing a player to live in a hypothetical moral definitiion without providing an at least adequate solution is not "fun".

 Some may say that good "Art" is supposed to make you unconfortable.  But if that is art, I'll take entertainment

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Joke's on you. Again.

Want to keep trying (and failing) to prove your superiority, or respond to my original response to you like a man?

... or wuss out entirely? Don't worry, you've got plenty of time. I'll be out walking my dog for a bit...

Dude, what does he have to respond to?  You haven't made a single coherant response to his points yet.  You just dismissed them as "pontless and imaginary" without actually saying anything,

[Alien Number Six]

iakus......don't get in the middle of it. I'm going to go hug my cat now. Think positive......Think positive.........

[Alien Number Six]

knightnblu wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

knightnblu wrote...

You are the person that just drives by and takes a dump on whatever you please because it makes you feel better about yourself. You have to do so because it is the only way that you can feel important and relevant. That is why you never address any of my points, that is why you do not argue, and that is why you just vomit up whatever simple minded adjectives you can think of and disappear. It is your way of saying "I matter."

knightnblu wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

knightnblu wrote...

And you do? 

I know you though. You are the person that just drives by and takes a dump on whatever you please because it makes you feel better about yourself. You have to do so because it is the only way that you can feel important and relevant. That is why you never address any of my points, that is why you do not argue, and that is why you just vomit up whatever simple minded adjectives you can think of and disappear. It is your way of saying "I matter."
 
Oh yeah, I know you.

I see making up facts is a habit of yours, as with your first post, and now pretending you have any idea who I am. I'd love to see you prove any of those claims, but you and I both know you have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

On top of that, you're wrong. I did address your relevant points there (keyword: relevant), and I did pose a counter to your conclusion (in the form of a rhetorical question). I also get the distinct feeling you're looking to avoid having to respond to that by using this post as a distraction.

Whatever I am doesn't change the fact that what you've done is the same as what you've alledged others do -- imagine what is true of the endings and defend your beliefs based on what you choose to believe. Anyone can see it in the post you made just one hour afterwards. That irony was ripe for the picking, hence my post.

It also doesn't change how illogical your conclusion is.

Says the troll

Drive-by, take a dump? Check.

Does not address my points? Check.

No argument? Check.

Vomit something simple-minded and disappear? Check.



Joke's on you. Again.

Want to keep trying (and failing) to prove your superiority, or respond to my original response to you like a man?

... or wuss out entirely? Don't worry, you've got plenty of time. I'll be out walking my dog for a bit...

Buddy, you don't want a piece of me. I have an extremely low tolerance for idiots and you are beginning to annoy me. I suggest that you quit while this is still peaceful.

I can hear the flexing of internet muscles.

[His Name was HYR!!]

iakus wrote...

Dude, what does he have to respond to?  You haven't made a single coherant response to his points yet.  You just dismissed them as "pontless and imaginary" without actually saying anything,

Criminy. How difficult is it to scroll down? If you did, you'd see I did more than just dismiss the headcanon.

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Dude, what does he have to respond to?  You haven't made a single coherant response to his points yet.  You just dismissed them as "pointless and imaginary" without actually saying anything,

Criminy. How difficult is it to scroll down? If you did, you'd see I did more than just dismiss the headcanon.

It's simple, I did and not really.  You just mocked him for "selling out the galaxy" Nothing of worth gained from that.

[His Name was HYR!!]

iakus wrote...

It's simple, I did and not really.  You just mocked him for "selling out the galaxy" Nothing of worth gained from that.

And if that's a wrong or unfair assessment, it can be responded to.

I posed it as a counter to the point I had quoted there.

I did not "mock" anything, either. I just post with a bit of an edge.

[Faerloch]

 I don't think synthesis is a big deal.

Happening in 2013, the idea is appalling. But, a 170 years from now, a substantial amount of humans will already use biotic implants. Synthetic parts rebuilt Shepard. The way I see it, synthesis doesn't turn humans into machines, it optimizes them--oh darn this argument is just stupid. Synthesis was a weak ending. But really I always envisioned synthesis as upgrading the processing speed of the human brain to that of a machine's. Organic needs, social needs, all stay the same, we just think faster now with a RedBull VI brain enhancement that increases reaction time and sexual briefness. 

Thanks machines. 

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
Most people don't take undergraduate philosophy classes for fun and entertainment.  Forcing a player to live in a hypothetical moral definitiion without providing an at least adequate solution is not "fun".

 Some may say that good "Art" is supposed to make you unconfortable.  But if that is art, I'll take entertainment

Yep. Hipster elitists like me enjoy the uncomfortable stuff.

Which is a problem for you this time. In the future it will probably be a problem for me.

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 juin 2013 - 08:15 .