692 réponses à ce sujet

[RatThing]

jtav wrote...

RatThing wrote...

Morals aren´t even the biggest issue I have with cerberus. This organisation is simply dangerous (also for humanity). Because if the end justifies the means it justifies the risks as well. And this thinking sooner or later always leads to such a mess like with project overlord . In fact almost every questionable cerberus project got out of hand. So why even debating neccesary sacrifices for the greater good when cerberus caused nothing but sacrifices. For me Cerberus is just like some little kid playing with fire, constantly getting burned but still not learning.

Because the game doesn't give us a respobsible version, those of us who agree with the ideology and see something very wring with the status quo are forced to salvage what we can from Cerberus.

Game or not, i think the depiction is pretty accurate. You have an organisation not accountable for and monitored by anyone, most of the power in the hands of one man and things will get out of hand.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

RatThing wrote...
Morals aren´t even the biggest issue I have with cerberus. This organisation is simply dangerous (also for humanity). Because if the end justifies the means it justifies the risks as well. And this thinking sooner or later always leads to such a mess like with project overlord.

This is actually a good point. I agree with it. And I will completely say that the risks involved due lead to blowback or negative externalities such as what happened with Overlord.

Overlord is a text-book case of TIM not regulating his employee's while giving them difficult and unreasonable expectations for goals.

That said, Overlord was also lacking in results from the prior period, before David Archer was hooked into the machine. Prior to TIM's ultimatum, Overlord was a rather straight-forward scientific experiment that actually was somewhat successful: David Archer indeed created a means of communicating peacefully with the Geth. Unfortunately, the objective was to control the Geth, and TIM was to the point where he felt the project wasn't going anywhere so he was cutting funding for it. He didn't regulate Dr. Simon Archer as well as he should have.

In fact almost every questionable cerberus project got out of hand. So why even debating neccesary sacrifices for the greater good when cerberus caused nothing but sacrifices. For me Cerberus is just like some little kid playing with fire, constantly getting burned but still not learning.

Honestly, I point to other projects that did succeed. The issue is, that many of these successes are hidden and unknown. We really only see the projects that had issues, or where Shepard intervened when they might have succeeded. 

As another counterpoint, Lazarus was a success. That ended up being Cerberus' greatest success IMO. Shepard may have gone independent, but he did eventually strike back and defeat the Reapers. Thus, I believe Cerberus was ultimately successful in that regard.

And TIM was right. Cerberus is an idea. One that will live on. In Shepard himself. With Miranda. With many humans. With many aliens. That's the basis for the new Cerberus my Shepard will create with Miranda.

[Dextro Milk]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Finally, a real argument (sort of):

See, the thing is, I don't think there is a way to realistically save those lives in a way that benefits the war effort.

It's called... Don't bring them into your plan at all in the first place.

You could have left them alone, instead you would trick them and then kill them at Sanctuary. Plain stupid, considering you wouldn't need to be killing them if you were planning on destroying reapers. As I said, easier to leave them alone, you don't have to save them, because they wouldn't even be in your plan at all.

Civilians are going to die, that much is certain, but don't go out of your way to kill even more for some questionable science.

When it comes down to it, I'd rather beat the Reapers than save lives.

What's the point if you are sacrificing who were are to kill the reapers?

If Destroy targeted organic races, I honestly would be a lot more hesitant to pick it, but I think I still would.

Alpha Relay, I would destroy it to give the entire galaxy more time. Though I would still feel like crap, because I could have saved most of those civies had what's-her-face not betrayed me.

Saving lives does nothing to stop the Reapers. It just gives them more targets to kill. It just prolongs the inevitable for people who will likely die by the Reapers (or in fear of annihilation by them), and it does nothing to help us prevent that.

You seem to be confused. At Sanctuary, the civilians would have been better off if you didn't lie to them and tell them to "get over here, we has food and shelter!" You could have left them alone and done research by other means.

You can still save lives, and kill reapers, something you seem to not understand.

Instead, beating the Reapers at the cost of civilians means that we can defeat the Reapers, and prevent all other civilians who will ever live from having to worry about being annihilated or harvested by Reapers. 

That seems like a reasonable trade-off to me.

Sanctuary was pointless. That research didn't even help him control reapers like TIM had hoped. The Crucible was what let you control them in the end, so looks like you TIM wasted all his time.

Not to mention, you can still kill the reapers and save people. It just takes a little more effort.

I will agree that contextually, Sanctuary was egregious in its death toll. The reason is because as you make in your second point: You didn't need to kill all those people because of indoctrination and studying it. It's all rather needless death. Especially on how to control the Reapers, something that is likely asinine to approach given the nature of Cerberus right now as the Reapers' agents. 

I think Sanctuary should have been dedicated to studying indoctrination in order to find an exploitable weakness that could tactically be used against the Reapers with the purpose of Destroying them.

The case of Saren and Sovereign comes to mind. If we could find a way to replicate that.... There would be a lot more dead Reapers prior to the final battle.

See? That is what I want to hear.

I bring up Sanctuary, because you always say you would do stuff like that in a heart beat. There are other ways to study indoctrination, and killing all those people is pointless.

[Barquiel]

The difference between Cerberus and other groups like the STG is that Cerberus always chooses the most sadistic way to achieve their goals (and that I disagree with Cerberus' goals and ideology ofc).

Take, for example, the genophage. The krogan launched a great war of conquest in search of "lebensraum". The council tried diplomacy, they tried to fight a conventional war, they developed the genophage...wielding it as a deterrent. They (read: the Turians) only used the genophage after everything else failed.

Cerberus...we need some powerful human biotics...let's kidnap some children and torture them!

Yes, they're evil (and they have a bit too much clumsy cartoon villain style).

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

Hey massive, induldge me. What is the definition of a psychopath ?

What's the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?

Do you watch Sherlock?

 psychopaths are erratic whilst sociopaths are controlled, thanks, now whats the definition.

Why do I have to do what you can do yourself? It's a rhetorical question.

 If its beyond you to state what defines a psychopath then i am willing to get the definition.

It's not beyond me. But why should I answer a question that you will use against me for the sake of spite and ridicule?

I plead to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

 ow i see you edited above,

 

noun
person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

 Now INJT or not which of the definitions are you following, INJT or Sociopath ?


 Edit ow and its not an attack on you, its an explanation for your reasoning.

I already have the explanation for my reasoning, thank you very much.

I'm an INTJ and a high-functioning Sociopath to a degree.

I'm not a psychopath. I'm not anti-social: I think people are stupid and foolish and naive sheep who don't like to think for themselves, but that's not anti-social. I don't engage in criminal actions. I think morality is subjective. I have my own sense of morals and honor that I follow and believe in. It's doubtlessly far different from yours, but it does exist. For example, when I say I will do something, when I give my word, my promise, it is kept. 100% of the time. I give promises sparingly, and I only give it for things I intend to keep my word on. I make false assurances and I do renege on some things, but I never state a promise that won't be kept. As for social conscience (your grammar is atrocious), I naturally don't put much stock in making sure everyone's feelings aren't hurt. I exercise tact when it's necessary, but if it comes in the way of facts and reasoning, I disregard it.

Yes I know who I am and why I am the way I am. I am an INTJ type (also a strong ENTJ type).

[shingara]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm not a psychopath. I'm not anti-social: I think people are stupid and foolish and naive sheep who don't like to think for themselves, but that's not anti-social. I don't engage in criminal actions. I think morality is subjective. I have my own sense of morals and honor that I follow and believe in. It's doubtlessly far different from yours, but it does exist. For example, when I say I will do something, when I give my word, my promise, it is kept. 100% of the time. I give promises sparingly, and I only give it for things I intend to keep my word on. I make false assurances and I do renege on some things, but I never state a promise that won't be kept. As for social conscience (your grammar is atrocious), I naturally don't put much stock in making sure everyone's feelings aren't hurt. I exercise tact when it's necessary, but if it comes in the way of facts and reasoning, I disregard it.

Yes I know who I am and why I am the way I am. I am an INTJ type (also a strong ENTJ type).

 And you disregard the lives of the refuges as meaningless, your justify the experiments as required no matter the harm, damage, deaths that result from it. You agree with refugess being turned into indoctrinated followers or husks to be tested upon. Civilians being targeted at whim to reach the goals that are desired. The sacrifice of worlds to accomplish your ends. the entire fate of the universe to attain ultimate power.

 Even though husks can be caught and captured to be tested upon, that the collector base can provide all the information you require. that you had a base to protect humans from the reapers yet chose to turn it into an internment camp for the slaughter and manipulation of the people who placed trust in you to protect them. And you had the majority of the information from the mars research station and could have worked with others, decided to kill and destroy the facility and everyone within.

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 04:05 .

[garrus and ashley squad]

Is cerberus completely horrible, no, but they did some horrible things which led to their downfall. In the end they got what they deserved and they only used shepard for their goals. In some form they did help but their main intent was using shepard for their own goals. Everyone knew this in me2 and was fully aware that this alliance between shepard and them would end.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Barquiel wrote...

The difference between Cerberus and other groups like the STG is that Cerberus always chooses the most sadistic way to achieve their goals (and that I disagree with Cerberus' goals and ideology ofc).

I agree to an extent. Cerberus did resort to the most egregious and damaging methods far too many times.

What exactly is it that you don't like about Cerberus's goals or ideology? I think we disagree on what we think they are.

Take, for example, the genophage. The krogan launched a great war of conquest in search of "lebensraum". The council tried diplomacy, they tried to fight a conventional war, they developed the genophage...wielding it as a deterrent. They (read: the Turians) only used the genophage after everything else failed.

Negative. The Turians deployed the Genophage as soon as they knew of it's existence. I don't blame them. A threat that big requires a big solution. The Krogan are a galaxy threatening problem.

Cerberus...we need some powerful human biotics...let's kidnap some children and torture them!

Not the best means. But did it succeed? I point to Jack. 

That said, Teltin was rogue, it's methods being defined as grossly overkill. Even TIM was in the dark over what happened there, and he did have it shut down with the surviving children removed.

Yes, they're evil (and they have a bit too much clumsy cartoon villain style).

Evil is hardly an impediment to doing what's necessary. 

Evil is underrated.

Granted the writing made them too cartoony. I blame SuperMac.

[jtav]

Controlling the Reapers is actually a perfectly sensible and logical plan, better than pouring all your resources into a mystery device. The thing is, you can get all the subjects you will ever need for something like Sanctuary from corpses. No death camps required.

[AlexMBrennan]

Given that Cerberus is single-handedly responsible for re-building Shepard and the Normandy, the entities without which this cycle would have almost certainly been harvested, is the organization as a whole vindicated?

You are begging the question - Shepard happened to be the one to do all that stuff, but it doesn't follow that Shepard is the only one who could have done it.

Besides, you have a very weak case: Shepard beat a small Cerberus presence on Mars (anyone - or a larger N7 squad if need be - could have done that), and after that the events unfold regardless of whether Shepard actually knew any of the people he's trying to get to work together (if Garrus, Tali, Legion, Mordin and Wrex are all dead) so all Shepard contributes is his marital skill.

Because of how instrumental Shepard is, you could make a very convincing argument that the survivors of the war owe their lives to him/her

Right, the pilot who happened to fly the plane that dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan was more instrumental than all the nuclear scientists that built the damn thing... Seems legit.

On the other hand, could you ever argue that what happened on Akuze, Nodacrux, or Pragia was justified? If they all would have died to the Reapers anyway?

All people die eventually, therefore any atrocity is justified... Seems legit... Unless you are trying to say that those experiments were essential to our victory... In which case you'd have to demonstrate that first. Good luck

[CronoDragoon]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Evil is hardly an impediment to doing what's necessary. 

And how will an "ends justifies the means" person know what's "necessary" at all? In theory and in practice consequentialist morality can take very different forms. In theory a consequentialist is aware of a certain path through which the greatest amount of X is produced while risking the smallest amount consequences. In practice how is this feasible?

Can you show that an alternative form of biotic development wouldn't have produced better results concerning Jack's ability as a biotic? You can't, because this "necessary" path was the first method they tried. In this case - and others - doing what's "necessary" amounts to laziness.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 09 août 2013 - 04:19 .

[Steelcan]

Still going on?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Dextro Milk wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Finally, a real argument (sort of):

See, the thing is, I don't think there is a way to realistically save those lives in a way that benefits the war effort.

It's called... Don't bring them into your plan at all in the first place.

You could have left them alone, instead you would trick them and then kill them at Sanctuary. Plain stupid, considering you wouldn't need to be killing them if you were planning on destroying reapers. As I said, easier to leave them alone, you don't have to save them, because they wouldn't even be in your plan at all.

Civilians are going to die, that much is certain, but don't go out of your way to kill even more for some questionable science.

I have to bring them into my plan. I can't just let them be.

If I let them be, they'll drain my resources. They'll take food, medical supplies, and resources from my armies and fleets. They'll have to be guarded and protected. Those are soldiers that could have a better use somewhere else.

They'll be targeted by the Reapers, who will turn them into husks to use against me, or they'll be harvested into a new Reaper (and suffer a far worse fate than anything I can do to them).

So I kill them for questionable science that allows me to find better ways to kill the Reapers. It makes use out of them. I can't afford to just let people be left alone. This isn't that kind of war.

When it comes down to it, I'd rather beat the Reapers than save lives.

What's the point if you are sacrificing who we are to kill the reapers?

If Destroy targeted organic races, I honestly would be a lot more hesitant to pick it, but I think I still would.

Alpha Relay, I would destroy it to give the entire galaxy more time. Though I would still feel like crap, because I could have saved most of those civies had what's-her-face not betrayed me.

I'm not sacrificing anything about me to stop the Reapers. I'm willing to stand up and fight them, even at the cost of innocent lives. That's a moralistic argument. I could quote a fallacy, but I like you: I'm just going to say that not everyone feels the same. That's kind of a lousy argument for anything.

I'd be hesitant too. It be pretty much cleansing the galaxy of most life, and probably preventing it from ever coming back. We'd be doing the Reapers' job for them in the long-term. Synthetics would still exist yes, but it's not so easy for a synthetic to make an organic as it is the other way around.

The Alpha Relay. I hold no guilt or remorse over my actions. Because there was nothing I could have done. Those people were damned long before I ever learned about the Alpha Relay. There's nothing for me to feel guilty about. There's nothing to be sad about. Does being sad help the people who have died, or are going to die?

Saving lives does nothing to stop the Reapers. It just gives them more targets to kill. It just prolongs the inevitable for people who will likely die by the Reapers (or in fear of annihilation by them), and it does nothing to help us prevent that.

You seem to be confused. At Sanctuary, the civilians would have been better off if you didn't lie to them and tell them to "get over here, we has food and shelter!" You could have left them alone and done research by other means.

You can still save lives, and kill reapers, something you seem to not understand.

See my first point. 

How would I have done research without tools (civilians)? I'd use my own people? My own smart scientists who create a way to win? I should just indoctrinate and huskify them?

If I do nothing, then nothing useful is gained. Meanwhile, all those civilians I left alone are now husks (or worse) and the ones I did save are putting my army on X planet in jeopardy because now they don't have enough food.

I can save lives yes. I've already discussed my economic model for saving those who will be of use and value in the war effort.

It's economic equilibrium.

Instead, beating the Reapers at the cost of civilians means that we can defeat the Reapers, and prevent all other civilians who will ever live from having to worry about being annihilated or harvested by Reapers. 

That seems like a reasonable trade-off to me.

Sanctuary was pointless. That research didn't even help him control reapers like TIM had hoped. The Crucible was what let you control them in the end, so looks like you TIM wasted all his time.

Not to mention, you can still kill the reapers and save people. It just takes a little more effort.

Sanctuary was not pointless. It had a purpose. It achieved that purpose. Though I don't agree with the purpose itself, it could be a proof of concept for the Crucible. TIM's indoctrination was made him waste his time. His focus on Control was what made him waste his time.

I'll disagree with jtav here. I don't think Control is sensible for reasons I can discuss in this thread (granted, this is based off of Control via the Crucible). I don't necessarily agree that it could have been accomplished without live victims: how long is a corpse viable for huskification? 

Where are you going to get all the dead bodies for that matter?

And can we control the Reapers themselves without the Crucible? I really don't see the validity to it.

I will agree that contextually, Sanctuary was egregious in its death toll. The reason is because as you make in your second point: You didn't need to kill all those people because of indoctrination and studying it. It's all rather needless death. Especially on how to control the Reapers, something that is likely asinine to approach given the nature of Cerberus right now as the Reapers' agents. 

I think Sanctuary should have been dedicated to studying indoctrination in order to find an exploitable weakness that could tactically be used against the Reapers with the purpose of Destroying them.

The case of Saren and Sovereign comes to mind. If we could find a way to replicate that.... There would be a lot more dead Reapers prior to the final battle.

See? That is what I want to hear.

I bring up Sanctuary, because you always say you would do stuff like that in a heart beat. There are other ways to study indoctrination, and killing all those people is pointless.

Those people would all still die. They'd just die for the purpose of finding the exploitable weakness.

Really, there's no way it can end well for the civilians. The best you can do is close your eyes, bite into the **** sandwich, and try to beat the Reapers before more die. 

[rekn2]

everyone keeps counter arguing from a position of privilege. TIM couldve been right from the perspective of shep.

people really need to stop bringing up the fact that " but we can beat the reapers with just a little more effort!" the only reason you know that is because you beat the game. ever hear the phrase hind sight is 20/20? it applies here.

massively, stop putting up with illogical argument fallacies. youre starting to do it too.

Modifié par rekn2, 09 août 2013 - 04:30 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

jtav wrote...

Controlling the Reapers is actually a perfectly sensible and logical plan, better than pouring all your resources into a mystery device. The thing is, you can get all the subjects you will ever need for something like Sanctuary from corpses. No death camps required.

I have a counterpoint in my last with Dextro.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

rekn2 wrote...

everyone keeps counter arguing from a position of privilege. TIM couldve been right from the perspective of shep.

people really need to stop bringing up the fact that " but we can beat the reapers with just a little more effort!" the only reason you know that is because you beat the game. ever hear the phrase hind sight is 20/20? it applies here.

massively, stop putting up with illogical argument fallacies. youre starting to do it too.

Where did I do this? Can you define where I'm making an illogical argument fallacy?

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 09 août 2013 - 04:35 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

Is cerberus completely horrible, no, but they did some horrible things which led to their downfall. In the end they got what they deserved and they only used shepard for their goals. In some form they did help but their main intent was using shepard for their own goals. Everyone knew this in me2 and was fully aware that this alliance between shepard and them would end.

I think we all thought it would end for different reasons.

My Shepard knew full well that he was being used. He used them as well.

And he was planning on joining Cerberus for his own reasons after the mission.

Cerberus' goals and my Shepard's goals were conceptually not very different.

Then they became a bit more 'humanity at any cost'. That's a lot different.

Things became incompatible for them when they started wanting to wantonly use Reaper tech without regard to the risks and consequences. That did bite them in the ass.

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...
And how will an "ends justifies the means" person know what's "necessary" at all? In theory and in practice consequentialist morality can take very different forms. In theory a consequentialist is aware of a certain path through which the greatest amount of X is produced while risking the smallest amount consequences. In practice how is this feasible?

Can you show that an alternative form of biotic development wouldn't have produced better results concerning Jack's ability as a biotic? You can't, because this "necessary" path was the first method they tried. In this case - and others - doing what's "necessary" amounts to laziness.

That's true. We can't even know what the probabilities are.

Which leads us... where?

[shingara]

AlanC9 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
And how will an "ends justifies the means" person know what's "necessary" at all? In theory and in practice consequentialist morality can take very different forms. In theory a consequentialist is aware of a certain path through which the greatest amount of X is produced while risking the smallest amount consequences. In practice how is this feasible?

Can you show that an alternative form of biotic development wouldn't have produced better results concerning Jack's ability as a biotic? You can't, because this "necessary" path was the first method they tried. In this case - and others - doing what's "necessary" amounts to laziness.

That's true. We can't even know what the probabilities are.

Which leads us... where?

 The attainment of knowledge through ethical means. Do you know what the guy who worked out how to stop stomach ulcers did ? he drank bacteria. He tested upon himself. If you truly feel the ends justify the means, you test it on yourself. And he won the nobel prize for that.

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 04:47 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm not a psychopath. I'm not anti-social: I think people are stupid and foolish and naive sheep who don't like to think for themselves, but that's not anti-social. I don't engage in criminal actions. I think morality is subjective. I have my own sense of morals and honor that I follow and believe in. It's doubtlessly far different from yours, but it does exist. For example, when I say I will do something, when I give my word, my promise, it is kept. 100% of the time. I give promises sparingly, and I only give it for things I intend to keep my word on. I make false assurances and I do renege on some things, but I never state a promise that won't be kept. As for social conscience (your grammar is atrocious), I naturally don't put much stock in making sure everyone's feelings aren't hurt. I exercise tact when it's necessary, but if it comes in the way of facts and reasoning, I disregard it.

Yes I know who I am and why I am the way I am. I am an INTJ type (also a strong ENTJ type).

And you disregard the lives of the refuges as meaningless

Do you have a use for them?

They are meaningless in the context of the war.

your justify the experiments as required no matter the harm, damage, deaths that result from it.

If it prevents further deaths in the long-term and defeats the Reapers, I'm all for it.

You agree with refugess being turned into indoctrinated followers or husks to be tested upon.

Depends. I'm against it on the basis of us shooting ourselves in the foot. The Reapers will be able to see what we're doing, and they might learn information that could screw us. That said, if we learn how to use indoctrination against the Reapers, we might actually find a more efficient way of beating them.

Of saving further lives.

Civilians being targeted at whim to reach the goals that are desired. The sacrifice of worlds to accomplish your ends. the entire fate of the universe to attain ultimate power.

Ultimate power is not my end. My end is beating the Reapers and laying the foundations of a new galaxy that isn't based on stupidity, fear, ignorance, xenophobia, arrogance, hate, ultranationalism, or blind patriotism.

If I have to sacrifice worlds and cause the deaths of millions to do this, so be it.

 Even though husks can be caught and captured to be tested upon

Really? How?

that the collector base can provide all the information you require.

The Collector Base I destroyed because I don't believe the technology can be controlled or reasonably utilized without giving the Reapers the advantage. Remember the One Ring? Yeah: One Ring = Collector Base IMO.

that you had a base to protect humans from the reapers yet chose to turn it into an internment camp for the slaughter and manipulation of the people who placed trust in you to protect them.

There was zero chance that I'd be able to protect them from the Reapers. Zero. 

I can't protect and save civilians while fighting the Reapers. I will utterly destroy my chances of successfully waging war against them. It becomes economics. 

TIM was right: It's always about resources. And I can't waste any on civilians. 

Their fate was sealed when the alliance and Council who were supposed to protect them decided that Shepard was crazy and that the Reapers were just a myth.

And you had the majority of the information from the mars research station and could have worked with others, decided to kill and destroy the facility and everyone within.

That my friend is indoctrination at its finest.

[shingara]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Do you have a use for them?

They are meaningless in the context of the war.

 You see, my point exactly, you dont see them as humans, you see them as a commodity, something to be bartered and traded.

 The meaning of the war is to save lives.

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 04:50 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

CronoDragoon wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Evil is hardly an impediment to doing what's necessary. 

And how will an "ends justifies the means" person know what's "necessary" at all? In theory and in practice consequentialist morality can take very different forms. In theory a consequentialist is aware of a certain path through which the greatest amount of X is produced while risking the smallest amount consequences. In practice how is this feasible?

I'm not actually a consequentialist. I believe fully in there being other means and solutions to problems. I've already stated numerous times that Cerberus far too often took the most egregious and extreme path in the name of efficiency.

I'm saying that if it comes down to it, I'm willing to adopt an 'end justifies the means' philosophy. I can't really objectively make a claim to decide when said point is.

Can you show that an alternative form of biotic development wouldn't have produced better results concerning Jack's ability as a biotic? You can't, because this "necessary" path was the first method they tried. In this case - and others - doing what's "necessary" amounts to laziness.

I'm not at all defending Teltin. I've already stated it was extreme and inefficiently lazy. That was sadism disguised as science on the part of the researchers there. Even TIM was in the dark on that experiment.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Do you have a use for them?

They are meaningless in the context of the war.

 You see, my point exactly, you dont see them as humans, you see them as a commodity, something to be bartered and traded.

 The meaning of the war is to save lives.

I see them as humans. Typically. That can change depending on the circumstances.

I'm also seeing his war as being different than other wars. I can't afford to see them as humans. If I do, I will only hamper my own chances of winning this war. 

As Garrus says, it's the brutal, economic calculus of war. 

The purpose of war is not to save lives. I don't know where you got that.

As a political scientist, a National Guard Lieutenant, and as a veteran of OEF, I will tell you that the purpose of war is to achieve a politcal or economic end, and is used as a last resort when negotiations, diplomacy, and all other methods have been tried and exhausted. I'm not going to say whether or not I agree with all wars. That all falls under the Just-War Theory (Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello)

The purpose of the Reaper War is to prevent the annihilation of our galaxy against an enemy that doesn't play by our rules or even exists as a form of life that we can really define or understand.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 09 août 2013 - 05:03 .

[AlanC9]

shingara wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
And how will an "ends justifies the means" person know what's "necessary" at all? In theory and in practice consequentialist morality can take very different forms. In theory a consequentialist is aware of a certain path through which the greatest amount of X is produced while risking the smallest amount consequences. In practice how is this feasible?

Can you show that an alternative form of biotic development wouldn't have produced better results concerning Jack's ability as a biotic? You can't, because this "necessary" path was the first method they tried. In this case - and others - doing what's "necessary" amounts to laziness.

That's true. We can't even know what the probabilities are.

Which leads us... where?

 The attainment of knowledge through ethical means. Do you know what the guy who worked out how to stop stomach ulcers did ? he drank bacteria. He tested upon himself. If you truly feel the ends justify the means, you test it on yourself. And he won the nobel prize for that.

So we assume that "ethical means" will always produce acceptable consequences because ......God wouldn't let the universe work any other way?

It's just peachy that the ulcer guy did what he did, but can absolutely every problem be solved in that manner? Can you prove that?

[shingara]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I see them as humans.

 Hardly, dont you remember your ideology?. The ends justify the means for you. No matter the suffering or number of deaths. they are meaningless aslong as you get what you want. I would hardly call that looking on them as human, its how you look on livestock and bunnies you test makeup on.