720 réponses à ce sujet

[von uber]

I play as a Soldier. Every weapon is my primary weapon.

why am I not surprised you choose that class

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Why doesn't it?

 

Why are the streets not filled with people demanding and practicing the kind of life and society they deem to be moral here on these forums? A life of violence, murder, high risk and high rewards? Demands for power and respect? Obidience?

 

Because you deliberately and wildly changed their perspective and arguments into something they aren't to dismiss their reasoning for such. You've made a slippery slope fallacy and a moral high ground fallacy here. You assume that since people believe in a certain philosophy you disagree with, it would mean that they'd have to practice it and it would mean some kind of bizarre totalitarian anarchist society that you're claiming right here. Simply put, what you're saying would happen is about as possible as looking in two directions at once. 

 

As I said, define the categorical flaws with the philosophy. I know they're there. I know what they are. I know how to address them. But I want to hear you lay down the law, if you're feeling so bold. Don't resort to fallacies and insults.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

why am I not surprised you choose that class

 

I don't know. Why aren't you surprised?

[Bob from Accounting]

That's true.

 

It is.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

That's true.

 

It is.

 

And you're the only one claiming that it would happen. 

 

I'll try another route. Can you make an argument based on philosophical concepts? Preferably anything you might learn in a Political Theory or Philosophy class? About why you're right, and why I'm wrong?

[jtav]

Some of what I advocate differs because circumstances are different. If I lived under the Council system, I'd advocate resistance by all ethical means. Some is because the game enforces an artificial binary. In real life, it would be possible to, say, join an isolationist political party that also decries race riots and hurting innocents. In game, you have Cerberus and Cerberus only. And some of it is meta. I fantasize about wiping all the aliens out because I don't like them. I want them gone from future ME games. But Shepard doesn't hold that view.

[themikefest]

I've also never used a sniper rifle as a primary weapon in the game.

I did a playthrough using only a sniper rifle.

[AlanC9]

I did a playthrough using only a sniper rifle.

I almost did... sometimes I'd run out of ammo and need to switch to an SMG.

[congokong]

The thing is, in desperate times you need people who see things as Massively describes. Maybe you need them even in times that aren't so desperate, as a way to keep them from getting desperate.

 

No one wants to admit it. No one wants to face it. But there's some ugly **** out there and sometimes, the best way to get rid of it is to go uglier.

 

They're never going to be popular. And maybe they shouldn't be. Maybe the less we know of them the better. We like to talk about soldiers heroically giving their lives. But we're not so keen on acknowledging those that very unheroically take lives, towards the same goal.

 

It can be a slippery slope of course. How long before "by any means necessary" becomes "by extreme means automatically"? That's an edge I try to give my Shepard. He's the Butcher of Torfan. He's perfectly capable of giving those orders. When he chose to focus on Sovereign at the expense of the council he went to that cold, dark place and he gave the order. When he activated the Project and doomed 300,000 batarians he went to the cold place and he made it happen. But maybe he's been finding himself going to that place too often. Maybe it's time to pull back. He tells TIM "you sacrificed too much". Maybe that's a thing.

 

And maybe sometimes it's necessary, to go so far you lose yourself. Maybe that's what the "anti-heroes" sacrifice.

 

I don't really know. I can only imagine. What I do imagine is this:

 

-"by any means necessary" does not exclude taking the objectives of others into consideration. You can go into it thinking "only my objective matters, **** everyone else" but I don't think you have to. I think you can still live by "any means necessary" while still subscribing to "I can help others, so long as their needs don't contradict my own"

-the utterly ruthless are a necessity but they can slide too far. I don't consider this an invalidation of the ruthless perspective I consider it an error. They're still human, they still make mistakes. Falling into a pattern of "shortest distance from A to B" when not appropriate is just as much a mistake as applying idealism or any other methodology when it doesn't fit the situation. \

 

This was a great post. It reflects a philosophy I followed when playing my canon renegade Shepard. I had feared to play renegade would mean I'd loathe her but I was simply role-playing what I'd do in those situations.

 

The hard lesson is that to overcome evil you have to do things that taken alone look evil themselves. The difference is you're not doing it for selfish reasons but for the greater good. And you have to have limits. Ex: overloading the Omega reactor was going too far to achieve an objective. My Shepard could be ruthless but never lost her humanity along the way. Looking at her record you'd think she was a heartless killer but that wasn't true. She tried to save people whenever possible. If you don't value individual lives at all then you've forgotten what you're fighting for.

 

 

And maybe sometimes it's necessary, to go so far you lose yourself. Maybe that's what the "anti-heroes" sacrifice.

 

This part I really like. It makes me look back on my Shepard and wonder if she deserves happiness. She's responsible (but no guilty) for so many deaths. She sacrificed the Ascension to focus on Sovereign, she has let hostages die and people burn to stop greater evils, she's wiped out a colony of 300,000 batarians, she's sabotaged the genophage cure to stop a tyrant and gain allies to save the galaxy at the cost of billions of krogans' hopes. What she has done taken alone seems monstrous. And maybe it was necessary.

 

I confess, I haven't played ME again since making this Shepard. Not because I think she's the best person, but her gray qualities made her the most interesting. I don't think I could do better.

 

 

Her story:

 

http://social.biowar...ndex/17843939/1

[CrutchCricket]

I fantasize about wiping all the aliens out because I don't like them. I want them gone from future ME games. But Shepard doesn't hold that view.

 

*sigh* I read things like this and the question "then why do you play this game" just ricochets in my brain.

 

I did a playthrough using only a sniper rifle.

 

Easily doable in ME1 and 3. ME2... not so much.

 

It was kind of disappointing in ME2. My badass sniper infiltrator was reduced to a crummy SMG, an insult taken up to eleven when I got my Widow. And I didn't even have the Locust my first playthrough.

 

Though by the time I got 75% of the upgrades for snipers my Widow did outclass my heavy weapon...

 

This was a great post. It reflects a philosophy I followed when playing my canon renegade Shepard. I had feared to play renegade would mean I'd loathe her but I was simply role-playing what I'd do in those situations.

 

The hard lesson is that to overcome evil you have to do things that taken alone look evil themselves. The difference is you're not doing it for selfish reasons but for the greater good. And you have to have limits. Ex: overloading the Omega reactor was going too far to achieve an objective. My Shepard could be ruthless but never lost her humanity along the way. Looking at her record you'd think she was a heartless killer but that wasn't true. She tried to save people whenever possible. If you don't value individual lives at all then you've forgotten what you're fighting for.

 

 

This part I really like. It makes me look back on my Shepard and wonder if she deserves happiness. She's responsible (but no guilty) for so many deaths. She sacrificed the Ascension to focus on Sovereign, she has let hostages die and people burn to stop greater evils, she's wiped out a colony of 300,000 batarians, she's sabotaged the genophage cure to stop a tyrant and gain allies to save the galaxy at the cost of billions of krogans' hopes. What she has done taken alone seems monstrous. And maybe it was necessary.

 

I confess, I haven't played ME again since making this Shepard. Not because I think she's the best person, but her gray qualities made her the most interesting. I don't think I could do better.

 

 

Her story:

 

http://social.biowar...ndex/17843939/1

 

I don't class my playthroughs according to the false dichotomy of paragon/renegade but if I had to, I'd have to say I make more paragon decisions than I do renegade. But that does carry the atonement angle I mentioned. My Shepard was brutal and relentless and still is when need be. But sometime before ME1 he saw where that can lead if unchecked. So he vowed to always consider alternatives. But he refused to be made a fool. A proven enemy gets no mercy. Those that get in his way or cause him harm or hangups through idiocy are dealt with swifly. He inspires great loyalty, a loyalty he returns wholeheartedly. Which means he extends those same principles for those on his team, and under his command. In a nutshell, this is what accounts for most of my decisions:

 

-If you're on my team and you come to me for help, or if you're a stranger and you come to me in friendship I will do everything in my power to help you provided your purpose does not cross mine or does more harm than good (judged at my discretion)

-if you get in my way, if you're a dick, through idiocy or malintent I will shut you down. If you threaten or betray me or mine I will end you.

 

The Omega reactor is an excellent example of what we're talking about and a brilliantly accomplished scene. Under pressure, your allies possibly dying, your enemy taunting you, that cold dark place gapes open before you and every instinct is screaming to plunge in and hit that button. And in the real world the tension of the game makes your fingers twitch to hit that interrupt. Amazing. If you hold out, there you draw the line. You've killed hundreds of thousands of people and lost no sleep because it needed to be done. You've gunned down people in cold blood with no hesitation because it needed to be done. But this you will not do. You will not sacrifice innocents. Not when there's another way. Not when you know, you can save them.

 

And if you're wrong? If you can't save them all? If there isn't another way? Well then good thing you were trained to make those decisions on the drop of a dime and live with them. Good thing that's what you're best at. And good thing you're still a human being with the ability to constantly re-evaluate the situation as new data comes up. If it comes down to it and you have to make the call, you do. But that you tried to do something different when there was the possibility of it is what counts.

 

Does Shepard deserve happiness? I don't look at it that way. Because the biggest decisions, the ones that weigh the most were all necessary. You had to destroy Sovereign, you had to destroy the Alpha relay. But as long as you look for that alternative when you can and find it when it's there, you're only doing what can be expected of anyone: your best.

[Reorte]

The thing is, in desperate times you need people who see things as Massively describes. Maybe you need them even in times that aren't so desperate, as a way to keep them from getting desperate.

I don't think you do. You need people who are willing to do the types of things he describes but most of the way he describes them makes it sound like a smokescreen for being ruthless even when it isn't necessary to achieve his goal (and it also seems to rule out even questioning his goal). You need people who recognise when the end justifies the means and try to look for better alternatives - not easier ones, not ones that get them what they personally want.

 

The type of person Massively describes may be useful from time to time but they need keeping a very close eye on. They should not be left to their own devices. There is a big difference between someone who boasts they'll do whatever is necessary and someone who boasts they'll do whatever is necessary when it is necessary.

[congokong]

The Omega reactor is an excellent example of what we're talking about and a brilliantly accomplished scene. Under pressure, your allies possibly dying, your enemy taunting you, that cold dark place gapes open before you and every instinct is screaming to plunge in and hit that button. And in the real world the tension of the game makes your fingers twitch to hit that interrupt. Amazing. If you hold out, there you draw the line. You've killed hundreds of thousands of people and lost no sleep because it needed to be done. You've gunned down people in cold blood with no hesitation because it needed to be done. But this you will not do. You will not sacrifice innocents. Not when there's another way. Not when you know, you can save them.

That situation was one of the few times where Shepard drew a line. It's easier to dismiss those lives when you can't see them but Shepard knew killing them so Aria didn't have to risk fighting mechs for 1 more minute was cut-and-dry wrong. If Aria couldn't hold on, then Omega would have to be reformed without her. Rerouting the power was what made it clear that my Shepard was not Aria T'Loak.

 

 

Does Shepard deserve happiness? I don't look at it that way. Because the biggest decisions, the ones that weigh the most were all necessary. You had to destroy Sovereign, you had to destroy the Alpha relay. But as long as you look for that alternative when you can and find it when it's there, you're only doing what can be expected of anyone: your best.

 

If an action is strongly defendable without a true right/wrong I don't think it's fair to be judged so heavily for it. Yet my Shepard has been judged very heavily for her actions by people who don't bother putting themselves in her shoes. (Ex: Torfan, the council refusing to even speak to her after the Asension was sacrificed even though had the previous council only listened to her it could've been avoided) It's an injustice and that's what makes the story so much more interesting.

 

"I don't think life is about what we deserve." - Tali

[congokong]

There is a big difference between someone who boasts they'll do whatever is necessary and someone who boasts they'll do whatever is necessary when it is necessary.

This.

 

I can defend ends-justify-the-means attitudes when it is necessary. Not when it's just the easiest way to get things done. This difference separates monsters from heroes.

 

Ex: experimenting on David Archer because it was the easiest way to combat the geth is wrong

Ex: sacrificing the Ascension to focus on Sovereign is justifiable because you were put into a situation where ends-justify-the-means was the necessary course

[AlanC9]

This.

 

I can defend ends-justify-the-means attitudes when it is necessary. Not when it's just the easiest way to get things done. This difference separates monsters from heroes.

 

Ex: experimenting on David Archer because it was the easiest way to combat the geth is wrong

Ex: sacrificing the Ascension to focus on Sovereign is justifiable because you were put into a situation where ends-justify-the-means was the necessary course

 

What qualifies an action as "necessary"? Total defeat and extermination if you don't do it?

[CrutchCricket]

I don't think you do. You need people who are willing to do the types of things he describes but most of the way he describes them makes it sound like a smokescreen for being ruthless even when it isn't necessary to achieve his goal (and it also seems to rule out even questioning his goal). You need people who recognise when the end justifies the means and try to look for better alternatives - not easier ones, not ones that get them what they personally want.

 

The type of person Massively describes may be useful from time to time but they need keeping a very close eye on. They should not be left to their own devices. There is a big difference between someone who boasts they'll do whatever is necessary and someone who boasts they'll do whatever is necessary when it is necessary.

 

There are people that will do the types of things we're talking about but be unable to function afterwards. That is not OK.

 

People who are themselves the type of person we're talking about, they'll do things and live to do things another day. We need that reusability.

 

And of course I don't agree they should be without oversight. However a lot of the times the people overseeing them... are the same type of ruthless. And that's the way it needs to be.

 

Sometimes the only person who could stop a Saren is a Shepard. It can become a cycle, a reaction. All the rest of us can do is hope that reaction is contained. Or try to contain it. It's basically like harnessing fire. You can't fault fire for burning. You need the fire. You use the fire. But if the fire gets out of control it burns you. So we build fire engines to control the fire. Which ironically run on fire.

 

Have I said "fire" enough yet?

 

If an action is strongly defendable without a true right/wrong I don't think it's fair to be judged so heavily for it. Yet my Shepard has been judged very heavily for her actions by people who don't bother putting themselves in her shoes. (Ex: Torfan, the council refusing to even speak to her after the Asension was sacrificed even though had the previous council only listened to her it could've been avoided) It's an injustice and that's what makes the story so much more interesting.

 

"I don't think life is about what we deserve." - Tali

 

It was a poor judgement made by people who have others do the dirty work so they don't have to. They have no right to judge based only on arbitrary authority. Those kinds of judgements shouldn't even be acknowledged.

[Reorte]

What qualifies an action as "necessary"? Total defeat and extermination if you don't do it?

That's what you've got to decide at the time. It's all too easy to say having to feed and guard prisoners of war is a waste of your resources for no benefit to you, so just shoot them. "The end justifies the means" crowd always appear far too eager to exercise those options at once, and claim that it was necessary.

 

There are people that will do the types of things we're talking about but be unable to function afterwards. That is not OK.

 

People who are themselves the type of person we're talking about, they'll do things and live to do things another day. We need that reusability.

 

And of course I don't agree they should be without oversight. However a lot of the times the people overseeing them... are the same type of ruthless. And that's the way it needs to be.

Sometimes someone has to make the hard decision and let that sort of person carry it out, but whilst the people overseeing them might be the same sort of ruthless that's not good. That's not the way it needs to be, because that's simply the way of tyranny. Sometimes situations call for ruthlessness but you need people who can do that and still know when not to punch. Make peace and you may have war in the future. Kill every last man, woman, and child and your enemy is gone for good, your goal achieved more reliably and with less future risk. We are talking about the sort of person who would consider that, and not as a final, desperate move either.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

That's what you've got to decide at the time. It's all too easy to say having to feed and guard prisoners of war is a waste of your resources for no benefit to you, so just shoot them. "The end justifies the means" crowd always appear far too eager to exercise those options at once, and claim that it was necessary.

 

Sometimes someone has to make the hard decision and let that sort of person carry it out, but whilst the people overseeing them might be the same sort of ruthless that's not good. That's not the way it needs to be, because that's simply the way of tyranny. Sometimes situations call for ruthlessness but you need people who can do that and still know when not to punch. Make peace and you may have war in the future. Kill every last man, woman, and child and your enemy is gone for good, your goal achieved more reliably and with less future risk. We are talking about the sort of person who would consider that, and not as a final, desperate move either.

 

So you're in a situation where you've captured an enemy. There are only three of you. You've extracted the information you've needed from the enemy. Your group has to move on. What do you do with the enemy you captured? There is no one else around. You can't leave someone to guard the enemy because that weakens you. You can't take the enemy with you because that slows you and the enemy will give away your position. Solution: you kill the enemy.

[MegaIllusiveMan]

I've never played the trilogy Full-Renegade

 

I've never had the patience to not shut the council off in ME1(Even Paragon Sheps)

 

I've never played FemShep

 

I've never imported a Mass Effect 2 Save where everyone or at least someone died

 

I've never killed Wrex in ME3

 

I've never played any other classes except Adept and Soldier

 

I've never liked ME3 Mordin's Voice Actor

 

I've never fully Romanced Ashley

 

I've never romanced anyone besides Ashley, Liara and Miranda.

[CrutchCricket]

That's what you've got to decide at the time. It's all too easy to say having to feed and guard prisoners of war is a waste of your resources for no benefit to you, so just shoot them. "The end justifies the means" crowd always appear far too eager to exercise those options at once, and claim that it was necessary.

 

Sometimes someone has to make the hard decision and let that sort of person carry it out, but whilst the people overseeing them might be the same sort of ruthless that's not good. That's not the way it needs to be, because that's simply the way of tyranny. Sometimes situations call for ruthlessness but you need people who can do that and still know when not to punch. Make peace and you may have war in the future. Kill every last man, woman, and child and your enemy is gone for good, your goal achieved more reliably and with less future risk. We are talking about the sort of person who would consider that, and not as a final, desperate move either.

 

While that appears "far too eager" to you, from the other side, you may appear to be dragging your feet at the hard choices. A question of perspective. no?

 

And no, that is not the way of tyranny. You're merely associating concepts you find disagreeable, based on seemingly similar actions (the execution of prisoners for example). The ruthless man may execute prisoners because the resources used to keep them may be put to better use elsewhere. The tyrant may execute them simply because he can, or because they annoy him, or because they are political dissidents who threaten his rule. Though the action is the same, the reasoning, the cause is entirely different. Not all tyrants are ruthless (in the true definition of the word) and obviously not all ruthless men are tyrants. The definition or tyranny you'll find has nothing to do with ruthlessness although ruthlessness may be employed in the pursuit of tyranny. The point is there is no necessary link between the two.

 

Furthermore you assume a ruthless man must be ruthless always. This is not the case. Like I said, applying ruthless reasoning to all situations, regardless of whether it's called for or not is an error, just as being a blind idealist is an error. Blind ruthlessness is no better. However this does not invalidate the merits of ruthless thinking (when appropriate) nor is a man who selectively applies ruthlessness when needed disqualified from being called a ruthless thinker.

 

Finally, in your example of "make war or wipe'em out" why is the mere consideration of the latter a bad thing? No moral system judges consideration. They judge choices, the actual decision. So yes a ruthless man will have the wipe them out option on the table. All factors must be considered before making a decision. If the factors weigh against the ruthless choice, he must decide against it, and in so doing choose the more (altruistic?) option. And to be honest I would be more comfortable with a ruthless man weighing all factors and choosing the non-ruthless solution than I would with an idealist declaring certain considerations taboo and ignoring them to arrive at the same conclusion. I feel the former is more worthy, and more valid.

[Jorji Costava]

Furthermore you assume a ruthless man must be ruthless always. This is not the case. Like I said, applying ruthless reasoning to all situations, regardless of whether it's called for or not is an error, just as being a blind idealist is an error. Blind ruthlessness is no better. However this does not invalidate the merits of ruthless thinking (when appropriate) nor is a man who selectively applies ruthlessness when needed disqualified from being called a ruthless thinker.

 

Finally, in your example of "make war or wipe'em out" why is the mere consideration of the latter a bad thing? No moral system judges consideration. They judge choices, the actual decision. So yes a ruthless man will have the wipe them out option on the table. All factors must be considered before making a decision. If the factors weigh against the ruthless choice, he must decide against it, and in so doing choose the more (altruistic?) option. And to be honest I would be more comfortable with a ruthless man weighing all factors and choosing the non-ruthless solution than I would with an idealist declaring certain considerations taboo and ignoring them to arrive at the same conclusion. I feel the former is more worthy, and more valid.

 

A couple quick points: First, it would be indeed a mistake to assume that a ruthless man must always be ruthless, but wouldn't it be equally mistaken to suppose that the idealistic man must always be idealistic? How are we defining "ruthless" and "idealistic" here?

 

A more nitpicky point: Technically, it's false that no moral system judges the consideration of an act, as opposed to the actual act. Aristotelian virtue ethics would be a notable exception. If you find yourself even desiring or seriously considering actions such as theft, murder, adultery, etc., then that's a sign that you simply have not habituated yourself properly. As a result, you can only be considered a 'continent' man as opposed to being truly virtuous. Of all the major ethical traditions, virtue ethics is the one I take the least seriously, but it's there, anyways.

[CrutchCricket]

A couple quick points: First, it would be indeed a mistake to assume that a ruthless man must always be ruthless, but wouldn't it be equally mistaken to suppose that the idealistic man must always be idealistic? How are we defining "ruthless" and "idealistic" here?

 

A more nitpicky point: Technically, it's false that no moral system judges the consideration of an act, as opposed to the actual act. Aristotelian virtue ethics would be a notable exception. If you find yourself even desiring or seriously considering actions such as theft, murder, adultery, etc., then that's a sign that you simply have not habituated yourself properly. As a result, you can only be considered a 'continent' man as opposed to being truly virtuous. Of all the major ethical traditions, virtue ethics is the one I take the least seriously, but it's there, anyways.

 

It would be. Except I said "blind idealist". The idea is that applying ruthlessness all the time, regardless of whether it's appropriate is the same as applying idealism all the time, as both result in actions that do not match what the situation requires.

 

Ah yes, virtue ethics. I wish I could say we have dismissed that claim. Well if we deal in that system then we can either try to reconcile ruthless thinking with virtue in which case it'd always be right, or if we can't, it'd always be wrong, and this example that I consider a "middle ground" would be thrown out the window regardless. Still, I accept the correction.

[ZeroPhoenix94]

Wow. Um, this is tough.

 

I've never romanced anyone but Miranda and Jack (and Liara?) in Mass Effect 2.

I've never romanced Garrus or Tali.

I've never played as an Engineer.

[Invisible Man]

I've never...

-romanced an me2 only crewmate. (as in a character who was only in shep's fireteam in me2 -- jack, miranda, etc.)
-found liara to be annoying.
-liked thermal clips. (it's pretty bad with most sniper rifles, also why I prefer the viper with my sniper sheps)
-let garrus kneecap harkin. though I might at some point, just haven't had a shepard that I could rp that way.
-done a playthrough with a ruthless/colonist, though I don't know why, but I plan to shortly. that would be shep# 12 I think.

[Reorte]

So you're in a situation where you've captured an enemy. There are only three of you. You've extracted the information you've needed from the enemy. Your group has to move on. What do you do with the enemy you captured? There is no one else around. You can't leave someone to guard the enemy because that weakens you. You can't take the enemy with you because that slows you and the enemy will give away your position. Solution: you kill the enemy.

There are situations where that is indeed a reasonable response, but I'm talking about the type of person who would simply execute every prisoner of war because the resources used to keep them detained could also be used elsewhere - e.g. the guards could be out fighting instead of guarding. He isn't killing them because he's a brutal sadist but because he's an utterly heartless, ruthless type who claims to be merely pragmatic.

 

While that appears "far too eager" to you, from the other side, you may appear to be dragging your feet at the hard choices. A question of perspective. no?

Right, and what perspective is acceptable? You can't just say "A question of perspective" and leave it at that, seemingly considering everyone from the stunned choirboy's to the psychopath's perspective as equally valid. Leave that sort of thing for fiddling around with the grey areas.

 

 

Furthermore you assume a ruthless man must be ruthless always. This is not the case. Like I said, applying ruthless reasoning to all situations, regardless of whether it's called for or not is an error, just as being a blind idealist is an error. Blind ruthlessness is no better. However this does not invalidate the merits of ruthless thinking (when appropriate) nor is a man who selectively applies ruthlessness when needed disqualified from being called a ruthless thinker.

I was never talking about a blind idealist. What I'm concerned about is someone who's only reason for not being ruthless is because he's weighed it up and has worked out that he might not get the best results from it. A fundamentally ruthless person is different from someone capable of it if and when the situation requires it. Self-centered about themselves (or their goals) and utterly callous to anything else.

 

 

And no, that is not the way of tyranny. You're merely associating concepts you find disagreeable, based on seemingly similar actions (the execution of prisoners for example). The ruthless man may execute prisoners because the resources used to keep them may be put to better use elsewhere. The tyrant may execute them simply because he can, or because they annoy him, or because they are political dissidents who threaten his rule. Though the action is the same, the reasoning, the cause is entirely different. Not all tyrants are ruthless (in the true definition of the word) and obviously not all ruthless men are tyrants. The definition or tyranny you'll find has nothing to do with ruthlessness although ruthlessness may be employed in the pursuit of tyranny. The point is there is no necessary link between the two.

That is tyranny. Some tyrants might well have been psychopathic nutjobs but there are doubtless many people reviled in later ages who regarded themselves as being purely pragmatic. Interesting that you mention the political dissidents - from his point of view they are simply dangerous troublemakers who'll turn society upside down. Best just to kill them. Sure, you can have a tyrant who never engages in such behaviour but it'll simply be because no opportunity for doing so that'll benefit him has presented itself.

 

Finally, in your example of "make war or wipe'em out" why is the mere consideration of the latter a bad thing? No moral system judges consideration. They judge choices, the actual decision. So yes a ruthless man will have the wipe them out option on the table. All factors must be considered before making a decision. If the factors weigh against the ruthless choice, he must decide against it, and in so doing choose the more (altruistic?) option.

 

And to be honest I would be more comfortable with a ruthless man weighing all factors and choosing the non-ruthless solution than I would with an idealist declaring certain considerations taboo and ignoring them to arrive at the same conclusion. I feel the former is more worthy, and more valid.

 

 

What people consider says a lot about a person even though it's their actions that ultimately decide how they're judged. That said motives do get questioned too. Someone who's done good for the sake of it will usually be better regarded than someone who's done good purely for PR reasons.

 

Not all factors need considering straight away, which is why the police don't think about getting the army in to destroy a town because they know someone who stole a loaf of bread lives there

 

That isn't the choice. The choice is between the ruthless man who's still capable of not being and the idealist who's capable of not being.