Ieldra2 wrote...
To clarify my position regarding moral absolutism and relativism:
(1) Human morality is culture-dependent, but it has common roots in human biology. We, as humans, are hard-wired to care about some stuff our fellow-humans do in a fundamental way. For instance, one culture may define "murder" differently than another, and make different kinds of excuses or justifications for some acts of killing, but I don't know any culture where "killing one of your own for no other reason than you feel like it" is considered permissible. Thus, there are boundaries of any expression of human moral intuitions within a specific culture, and these boundaries can be used to circumscribe common elements of human morality.
(2) Morality serves a purpose. It exists to facilitate co-operation and give cohesion to a community. This has evolved because the human species is a hypersocial species - defined as a species where every individual has a psychological makeup that makes it possible to co-operate with any other individual of their species for common benefit. This ability to co-operate widely is the main evolutionary advantage of the human species, the reason why we have a technological civilization.
This means that it is inappropriate to apply human morality to species which are hardwired differently, or those those who are not social species. If the queen of a hive-mind species like the Rachni tells us, for instance, that a certain percentage of children are always killed off within one year of being born, it is inappropriate to judge that act by our moral standards. And if the krogan send out their children into the wilds of Tuchanka for initiation rites, knowing that 90% or so will not survive, it is also inappropriate for us to judge that by our standards.
What the Reapers do, in the end, is an act of culling. It has a comprehensible purpose. That such an act would be considered an atrocity for a human has no relevance. We would do the same to species we feel threaten a balance important for us. That we fight to survive and neutralize this threat is natural, but both their actions and our reactions are beyond the scope of human morality. The will to survive is not good or bad. It is part of our nature, and any construction of a "right to live" only has meaning with regard to the actions of other humans. Or members of human-like species.
The Reaper War is not good against evil. It is a conflict of natures and philosophies, the inevitable clash of mindsets alien to each other. That's what makes it interesting. Unfortunately, the trilogy's abomination aesthetic suggests otherwise, but to reduce it to good vs. evil and apply concepts of justice is to downsize it to human terms and make it boring.
I don't think the final conclusion in the last paragraph really follows. The argument I see here is that because morality has an origin and a purpose based on race and culture, and because humans have origins and purposes that are different from Reapers, we humans therefore cannot make a human moral judgement on the Reapers or the cycle. I don't see why that should be so.
Lets start with something basic - is an action done to me desireable? If my gut reaction, simply because of pain or the aesthetic, is "no", then why wouldn't I want to examine the motives, goals, culture of the actor to determine if their action was proper/improper, correct/wrong, good/bad, good/evil, or just or unjust? Why would the fact that the actor is from an alien race or culture prevent that. Are we not capable of factoring another's practices, updating our ethical rules to account for this, while making moral judgements? I would examine it merely to satisfy myself that the cost to me was worth it.
Something as horrible as the Reaper cycles practically demands it, if only so we can understand and learn from it, come to some kind of peace with the sacrifice made, and (the scarey part) determine when if ever it would be a good idea to repeat it.
[UPDATE]
Certainly there is a philosophical clash as well. The Catalyst's argued strictly on the consequences of its actions, as did Legion in Heretic mission. Perhaps in MEU that is the philosphy that most Synthetics that think in terms of pure logic hold. While most of us would evaluate consequences, we would also judge the acts themselves as fall within or outside of standards (flexible as culture develops) we've agreed to.
The Mass Effect story viewed in that manner plays out rather well in the decisions at the end. Destroy the competing philosophy of Synthetics, assume the logical philosophy of Control, or understand each other enough to work together in Synthesis.
Understanding however, should not mean the same as ignoring the other's philosophy and violating it without consequence. It should lead to a correct evaluation of violations (including past egregious ones) and an acceptance of the penalty.
Modifié par Obadiah, 18 janvier 2014 - 01:32 .
Retour en haut
