184 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

What are moral judgements actually for?

[Jorji Costava]

AlanC9 wrote...

Don't forget noncognitivism; maybe moral utterances don't have truth values in the first place.

I didn't mention noncognitivism partly because I don't much see how it would help (no version of the view I know of explicitly forbids passing moral judgment on other societies), partly because it's a very generic term (there's emotivism, Hare's universal prescriptivism, quasi-realism, etc.), and partly because it's mostly unrelated to the evolutionary considerations Ieldra2 was making reference to. I know of no evolutionary argument for noncognitivism; it's a semantic thesis, so it ought to be motivated by semantic considerations (i.e. the connection between moral judgment and motivation, etc.).

Ieldra2 wrote...

Exactly. Thats actually my real-world meta-ethical position. Moral statements are not truth-apt. All they can be are evolutionary appropriate given the nature of a species or a community. Take the nature of a species or community, and you can construct a range of likely moral statements that will arise within it. Appropriateness is, of course, no measure of desirability from any point of view. There is no contextless desirability, and you can't answer the question "Is X good?" without answering the question "Good for what?" first. Human morality in general tends to be "good for" a certain kind of balance between the good of individuals and the good of a community in terms of survival of the whole.

What is "evolutionary appropriateness" such that something's being evolutionarily inappropriate gives me a reason not to do it? If it doesn't give me such a reason, what does the notion contribute to the issues at hand?

[Wayning_Star]

AlanC9 wrote...

What are moral judgements actually for?

the hell of it?


(sorry, jus slipped out...)

[shodiswe]

StreetMagic wrote...

Telling a Krogan they're wrong will net the response "that funny human thing you're doing.."

If you don't like something, just kick their ass. They'll enjoy that more.

Ahh.... So that's why one of Wrex people were talking to that Human Lawyer on the Citadel.... They needed help with that funny human thing (AKA talking crazy crap til the council surrenders) It got humanity on the council, so why not hire another human to advice you on how to "talk funny". How to use words as a weapon, 101.

[Wayning_Star]

osbornep wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Don't forget noncognitivism; maybe moral utterances don't have truth values in the first place.

I didn't mention noncognitivism partly because I don't much see how it would help (no version of the view I know of explicitly forbids passing moral judgment on other societies), partly because it's a very generic term (there's emotivism, Hare's universal prescriptivism, quasi-realism, etc.), and partly because it's mostly unrelated to the evolutionary considerations Ieldra2 was making reference to. I know of no evolutionary argument for noncognitivism; it's a semantic thesis, so it ought to be motivated by semantic considerations (i.e. the connection between moral judgment and motivation, etc.).

Ieldra2 wrote...

Exactly. Thats actually my real-world meta-ethical position. Moral statements are not truth-apt. All they can be are evolutionary appropriate given the nature of a species or a community. Take the nature of a species or community, and you can construct a range of likely moral statements that will arise within it. Appropriateness is, of course, no measure of desirability from any point of view. There is no contextless desirability, and you can't answer the question "Is X good?" without answering the question "Good for what?" first. Human morality in general tends to be "good for" a certain kind of balance between the good of individuals and the good of a community in terms of survival of the whole.

What is "evolutionary appropriateness" such that something's being evolutionarily inappropriate gives me a reason not to do it? If it doesn't give me such a reason, what does the notion contribute to the issues at hand?

couldn't be because the reality of the MEU is so big compared to the infancy of "intellect" in the motions of becoming more than their environment?

 I am so frightened right now.. spose I'll evolve some..

[shodiswe]

AlanC9 wrote...

What are moral judgements actually for?

They derive from social rules that allow cooperation and coexistance within a group. It's also a reason why it tends to sparks conflict when two groups interact and they percive it as if the other party isn't behaving according to the social contract.
This created the notion that the other party isn't peacefully coperating within the group and coexisting, thus the other has become a threat to the group and their personalinterests.

Since society and cooperation is very imporant for people living in the "modern" world they percive it as a serious threat to their entire existance and their own safety. Most of this happens in peoples subconcious.

There have been social camelions that can exist in several different groups at the same time even when they seem like polaroposites. Because they know the signals they have to give to each person to gain their trust and acceptance.

Do the handshakes, say the right things, dress the right way.

Modifié par shodiswe, 16 janvier 2014 - 11:01 .

[AlanC9]

osbornep wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Don't forget noncognitivism; maybe moral utterances don't have truth values in the first place.

I didn't mention noncognitivism partly because I don't much see how it would help (no version of the view I know of explicitly forbids passing moral judgment on other societies), partly because it's a very generic term (there's emotivism, Hare's universal prescriptivism, quasi-realism, etc.), and partly because it's mostly unrelated to the evolutionary considerations Ieldra2 was making reference to. I know of no evolutionary argument for noncognitivism; it's a semantic thesis, so it ought to be motivated by semantic considerations (i.e. the connection between moral judgment and motivation, etc.).

But your post was about assigning truth values to moral statements. If you thought you might be talking to any kind of noncognitivist, what was your point?

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 janvier 2014 - 12:28 .

[Jorji Costava]

AlanC9 wrote...

But your post was about assigning truth values to moral statements. If you thought you might be talking to any kind of noncognitivist, what was your point?

The point of my previous post was that I found it highly unlikely that I was talking to any noncognitivists, since I don't see how any version of noncognitivism can underwrite the thesis in question, which is that it's somehow inappropriate to apply human morality to non-humans or whatnot. The larger point I was trying to make is that there isn't any second-order moral view that is able to do this; relativism seems like the most obvious candidate, so that's why I focused on it in my other posts.

[AlanC9]

Well, since it was Ieldra2's thesis, I'll have to leave it to him.

[Obadiah]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

The point is I'm curious about what other people thought about the justice of the Synthesis ending.

We don't know to what degree the Reapers were compelled to do what they did. If we take the Catalyst's word for it (when fire burns...) then they had absolutely no choice whatsoever, to the extent that their very thoughts were dictated by the Catalyst from the moment they were constructed.

1. If that's true, then the Reapers are innocent of the cycles. They may not be innocent simpliciter if they are indeed an amalgamation of a race's minds (you'd hardly call, for example, Javik's race an innocent race) but they can't be blamed for the cycles.

2. If that's not true and you reject the metaphor the Catalyst gives you, then how could you possibly discover the truth? To what degree were they compelled? Were some more compelled more than others (this is personally what I believe. Sovereign has a disdain for organics that I don't think gels with the Catalyst. Plus, the Reapers see themselves so differently than the Catalyst sees them that I can't help but think there's autonomous thought going on to some degree)? To what degree can you even morally blame the Catalyst if he's in fact a shackled A.I.?
...

I interpretted the fire metaphor to indicate that the Reapers enacted the harvest, not a war against Organics. I did not interpret it as indicating that the Reapers were mindless or blindly doing what they were told. The Reapers could all be completely committed to their goal of the harvest. The Reaper presence in the Synthesis ending, to me, indicated that they agreed with the Catalyst that Synthesis was a solution, and so decided to help the survivors as part of the Council.

Complete Catalyst control of he Reapers to the point that they are mindless during the cycles would make their presence in the Synthesis epilogue more acceptable.

Of course, we don't hold every soldier in an army responsible for instigating a war, only the leadership of their state. If the Catalyst is that leadership analogue, then we can't hold the Reapers accountable for the Reaper cycle, just for other crimes (however we define that) in enacting the Reaper cycle.

Modifié par Obadiah, 17 janvier 2014 - 06:01 .

[Obadiah]

Just to examine the idea that only controlled Reapers would not bear responsibility for the cycles: if there was an entire culture composed of only atrocity-performing-enjoying maniacs, and we went to war with them, they committed atrocities upon us, and we won, would it be right/good/justice that the entire culture pay a heavy price collectively?

Modifié par Obadiah, 17 janvier 2014 - 05:16 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Obadiah wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

The point is I'm curious about what other people thought about the justice of the Synthesis ending.

We don't know to what degree the Reapers were compelled to do what they did. If we take the Catalyst's word for it (when fire burns...) then they had absolutely no choice whatsoever, to the extent that their very thoughts were dictated by the Catalyst from the moment they were constructed.

1. If that's true, then the Reapers are innocent of the cycles. They may not be innocent simpliciter if they are indeed an amalgamation of a race's minds (you'd hardly call, for example, Javik's race an innocent race) but they can't be blamed for the cycles.

2. If that's not true and you reject the metaphor the Catalyst gives you, then how could you possibly discover the truth? To what degree were they compelled? Were some more compelled more than others (this is personally what I believe. Sovereign has a disdain for organics that I don't think gels with the Catalyst. Plus, the Reapers see themselves so differently than the Catalyst sees them that I can't help but think there's autonomous thought going on to some degree)? To what degree can you even morally blame the Catalyst if he's in fact a shackled A.I.?
...

I interpretted the fire metaphor to indicate that the Reapers enacted the harvest, not a war against Organics. I did not interpret it as indicating that the Reapers were mindless or blindly doing what they were told. The Reapers could all be completely committed to their goal of the harvest. The Reaper presence in the Synthesis ending, to me, indicated that they agreed with the Catalyst that Synthesis was a solution, and so decided to help the survivors as part of the Council.

Complete Catalyst control of he Reapers to the point that they are mindless during the cycles would make their presence in the Synthesis epilogue more acceptable.

Of course, we don't hold every soldier in an army responsible for instigating a war, only the leadership of their state. If the Catalyst is that leadership analogue, then we can't hold the Reapers accountable for the Reaper cycle, just for other crimes (however we define that) in enacting the Reaper cycle.

The fire metaphor - Why didn't Shepard just answer: "If my kitchen is on fire, I don't care about whether it's at war, in conflict, or if it is simply doing what it was created to do. I put out the damned fire." Instead we have dumb ass Shepard just stand there... again.

You know this is what I find fascinating. Each reaper is a harvested race that according to Sovereign is supposed to be fully self-aware and an independent nation. Now we meet our human nation in the Collector Base. Granted it's only partially completed. They just pumped Sten and who else into it? Well anyway, they were dead, whipped into goop, you know like if you put a person in a big blender and turn it on they're dead and just a puree. Is tomato puree alive? 

If you'd left it alone and let it be finished, would it have been friendly to you because you're human? "Hey, Shepard, don't worry, we're just going to wipe out the rest of humanity because it's for your own good and the rest of the galaxy, too, for the same reason. But it's good to meet you. Thanks for trying to save the colony and for getting here and trying to save us before we got put into this thing, but it's okay. We're big and powerful now and are going to live forever. Oh, and one last thing, Shepard. We can't let you leave here alive."

I don't think they'd be friendly. It's not their M.O. 

So if we look at what Sovereign tells us about them, and what the Catalyst tells us about them

1) Sovereign: We are each a nation, independent, blah blah blah.
2) Catalyst: I am the collective consciousness of all reapers. I control the reapers. They are my solution.

We have a contradiction. They are either independent or they're not. If they are independent and use the Intelligence through which to coordinate everything, that is one thing. Each are individually responsible. 

If however they have merely an illusion of independence and are being controlled, which seems to actually be the case in the control ending ("and the reapers will obey me?" - Yes), the Intelligence is the puppeteer, and everyone who has been harvested and made part of the "gestalt" consciousness of the reaper is indoctrinated and made part of the intergalactic reaper conspiracy. 

What we don't know is how much control each individual reaper has over their actions. My suspicion is that a retcon occured somewhere between ME1 and the ME3 ending. Either that or someone had been watching too many pro-wrestling speeches before they wrote Sovereign's speech. We know they gave us "Stupid Shepard" in ME1. 

Can I ask this question? What does synthesis have to do with justice anyway?

As much as the positive side of synthesis intrigues me, there is this husk thing the reapers did in every cycle. Bioware - why did you do that? It sort of just is repulsive. Billions of living beings turned into husks: combining different races together to make other kinds of husks... like the cannibals, and brutes, and praetorians, and scions.... all for the repulsive aesthetic. 

One redeeming factor of the reapers - they created the mass relays. The reapers are not all bad. Without them, our cycle might not have evolved. Our worlds might have been exploited by an earlier cycle and the species from which we evolved made extinct. So even though they were killing us, there is a high likelihood we would not have existed without them.

[eye basher]

The reapers tried to kill me that is all i need to know to blast the into tiny bits.Is like the geth everytime you spare them the minute you turn your back on them they backstab you their wont be a third time is destroy for you.

[His Name was HYR!!]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The fire metaphor - Why didn't Shepard just answer: "If my kitchen is on fire, I don't care about whether it's at war, in conflict, or if it is simply doing what it was created to do. I put out the damned fire."

Because the topic at hand was not whether or not the Reapers and the cycle should be stopped, just that the Reapers are acting within the parameters of their set control, in the same vein fire doesn't/can't do anything but burn things.

If however they have merely an illusion of independence and are being controlled, which seems to actually be the case in the control ending ("and the reapers will obey me?" - Yes), the Intelligence is the puppeteer, and everyone who has been harvested and made part of the "gestalt" consciousness of the reaper is indoctrinated and made part of the intergalactic reaper conspiracy.

I find this the most sensible explanation. Only thing, I don't think the individuals that are harvested are still "alive," just that their knowledge has been converted to data, which is now part of the "brain" of an immortal machine.

Can I ask this question? What does synthesis have to do with justice anyway?

Better question: what does the final decision have to do with justice? It's about ending a war, not giving a verdict.

One redeeming factor of the reapers - they created the mass relays. The reapers are not all bad. Without them, our cycle might not have evolved. Our worlds might have been exploited by an earlier cycle and the species from which we evolved made extinct. So even though they were killing us, there is a high likelihood we would not have existed without them.

I agree. This is why I reject Destroy. Naysayers insist that the Reapers have no use but causing war and destruction, but this is false. They can (and have) created remarkable things, too. I'd like to see what they can do in a post-Sync or even post-Control world.

To quote the dame in my sig, "Some things are worth preserving in this world. Take that for what you will."

[ruggly]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

One redeeming factor of the reapers - they created the mass relays. The reapers are not all bad. Without them, our cycle might not have evolved. Our worlds might have been exploited by an earlier cycle and the species from which we evolved made extinct. So even though they were killing us, there is a high likelihood we would not have existed without them.

Didn't they create the relays with the intent of speeding up the process of harvesting?  Seems malicious in a way.

[Obadiah]

It allows civilization to advance faster, but primes them for destruction. Perhaps the Reapers care nothing about the Catalysts goals of preventing the destruction of all organics, but as a society only care about harvesting advanced civilizations to reproduce?

[AlanC9]

Obadiah wrote...
Perhaps the Reapers care nothing about the Catalysts goals of preventing the destruction of all organics, but as a society only care about harvesting advanced civilizations to reproduce?

Nah--- if that's what they wanted, they wouldn't take 50,000 year breaks and then destroy everything. It's horribly inefficient.

[Obadiah]

Just to go back to the "wrong" committed by the Reapers.

I understand the Catalyst's rationale for ending the cycles and allowing new life to grow. What I don't understand is the torturous, hellish, vindictive nature of it. Surely, as an immensely intelligent and powerful being that knows us better than we know ourselves it understands the suffering that is being inflicted upon Organics. Why end the cycles THIS way?

Is an overwhelming physical and psychological invasion simply more efficient? The Collectors in ME2 seem more efficient at the colonies and less terrifying, Their targets weren't even able to respond. The Reaper invasion and tactics almost seem like some kind of punishment, "You bring this on yourselves."

Perhaps it is a form of revenge. The Catalyst is a machine and emotionless, but like EDI it probably has motivations to accomplish its goal: peace between Organics and Synthetics. Because of our nature, Organics and Synthetics, it cannot accomplish that goal, and over the millenia of its failure that must be frustrating and maddeningly torturous (or whatever the equivalence is to such a powerful Synthetic intelligence). The hellish nature of its solution, the Reaper cycles, may be its revenge.

[DeinonSlayer]

Obadiah wrote...

Just to go back to the "wrong" wrong committed by the Reapers.

Little correction there.

I understand the Catalyst's rationale for ending the cycles and allowing new life to grow. What I don't understand is the torturous, hellish, vindictive nature of it. Surely, as an immensely intelligent and powerful being that knows us better than we know ourselves it understands the suffering that is being inflicted upon Organics. Why end the cycles THIS way?

I guess glowjob should have read into how to exterminate entire populations "humanely?"

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

ruggly wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

One redeeming factor of the reapers - they created the mass relays. The reapers are not all bad. Without them, our cycle might not have evolved. Our worlds might have been exploited by an earlier cycle and the species from which we evolved made extinct. So even though they were killing us, there is a high likelihood we would not have existed without them.

Didn't they create the relays with the intent of speeding up the process of harvesting?  Seems malicious in a way.

Do not think of me as an apologist because I can see shades of gray.

[Invisible Man]

have any reapers rejected the harvest? most of the "sentient" reapers (as in reaper capital ships & destroyers) we've seen seem to be following the catalyst's script with no sign of deviation, if the reapers do or did have free will, I find it hard to believe that every single reaper we encounter seems to hold the opinion that the harvest is the correct course of action. if the reapers didn't have control over their own actions then there is no justice in destroying them, except in the case of the catalyst, though that still might not be justice, as the leviathans programed the catalyst; so I guess in the end they should carry the punishment for the crimes the reapers have committed. though justice has no place in ending a war, that only comes after the fact, and only if the "just" are the victors.

[ruggly]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

ruggly wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

One redeeming factor of the reapers - they created the mass relays. The reapers are not all bad. Without them, our cycle might not have evolved. Our worlds might have been exploited by an earlier cycle and the species from which we evolved made extinct. So even though they were killing us, there is a high likelihood we would not have existed without them.

Didn't they create the relays with the intent of speeding up the process of harvesting?  Seems malicious in a way.

Do not think of me as an apologist because I can see shades of gray.

I don't.

Modifié par ruggly, 19 janvier 2014 - 03:12 .

[Obadiah]

Leviathan said that the intelligence was looking for something, and that it had turned the galaxy into an experiment in order to find it. If the Catalyst had tried Synthesis once, and it had failed, the Relays may be there to speed up the process of the development of civilizations so that the Catalyst could find a civilization to "accept" Synthesis.

[dorktainian]

synthesis completely rejects an individuals right to self determination, imposing on them tech which no right minded individual (apart from shepderp who picked synthesis) would allow themselves to be impregnated with.

Violation of the individual on a galactic scale