123 réponses à ce sujet

[ImaginaryMatter]

Didn't we just have this argument like 2 pages ago on this very same thread?

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

And what if you run out of people before you get results?

And really, you don't see the flaw in this? You basically give people a 'do whatever the hell you want'-card, anything goes, but if the results don't suit you they're suddenly a bad person doing wrong things. It's way better to establish right and wrong beforehand and let people work within those confines to achieve results, which is working just fine in the real world.

 

I'm not going to casually throw tens or hundreds or thousands of people at the same experiment and expect the same result.

 

That's not really what I'm doing. To add some definition: I would have outlined a certain result that I'm looking for, as well as reporting on what results come from the experiments. You're putting words in my mouth to state that I'd blame my scientists for a failure at my experiment (which, if it was something stemming from an error on their part, it would be). I think it's best to tell them what I want to or hope to achieve, give them resources, and tell them to get under way. That's actually the primary method used today. In some places where we can get away with it, we don't even establish right or wrong. Right is the achievement of the goal. Wrong is the lack of achievement of my goals. 

 

At which point your research would be completely immoral and unethical, by your own standards.

 

 

Actually, it would be useful in knowing that the line of research is ineffective. And it wouldn't be immoral or unethical, so to speak. It would be impractical and uneconomical. 

[von uber]

Didn't we just have this argument like 2 pages ago on this very same thread?

Yes; however massively feels the need to defend cerberus (and possibly by extension his own particular world view) rather vociferously.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

One thing that has bothered me at the end of ME2 was the choice to destroy or save the Collector Base. Shepard states at the end that she intended to destroy the base. Fine. That's what they brought with them - the means to destroy the base. But whoa, out pops The Illusive Man and the ass pull of the "timed radiation pulse." Where did the equipment to do that come from? It magically appeared. Well, I guess like the rest of the plot of ME2 we're not supposed to think about it because it doesn't make any sense either.

[SporkFu]

One thing that has bothered me at the end of ME2 was the choice to destroy or save the Collector Base. Shepard states at the end that she intended to destroy the base. Fine. That's what they brought with them - the means to destroy the base. But whoa, out pops The Illusive Man and the ass pull of the "timed radiation pulse." Where did the equipment to do that come from? It magically appeared. Well, I guess like the rest of the plot of ME2 we're not supposed to think about it because it doesn't make any sense either.

Made worse by the fact that it's an ultimately meaningless choice. 

[themikefest]

Made worse by the fact that it's an ultimately meaningless choice. 

Unless you do a low ems run(below 1750) at which point if you save the base you only get the control ending or if you destroy the base, the destroy ending is the only one available

[SporkFu]

Unless you do a low ems run(below 1750) at which point if you save the base you only get the control ending or if you destroy the base, the destroy ending is the only one available

Ah thanks, I did not know that. So it's only mostly ultimately meaningless. 

[themikefest]

Ah thanks, I did not know that. So it's only mostly ultimately meaningless. 

No problem.

 

What sucks about that if someone were to do a low ems run, is when the player head's to Earth with ems of 1650 and destroyed the base in ME2, and decide to "save" Anderson, the player will not get the vaporize ending becasue "saving" Anderson gives you 200 war assets. Which means the player really has 1850. If the player were to let TIM kill Anderson, you lose 100 war assets giving the player 1550 and the vaporize ending

[Ravensword]

One thing that has bothered me at the end of ME2 was the choice to destroy or save the Collector Base. Shepard states at the end that she intended to destroy the base. Fine. That's what they brought with them - the means to destroy the base. But whoa, out pops The Illusive Man and the ass pull of the "timed radiation pulse." Where did the equipment to do that come from? It magically appeared. Well, I guess like the rest of the plot of ME2 we're not supposed to think about it because it doesn't make any sense either.

[Arcian]

And you don't have to insult me personally. That's just vindictiveness on your part. 

Vindictive for what? What have you done to me that I have a reason to be angry for?

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Vindictive for what? What have you done to me that I have a reason to be angry for?

 

'Doctor without a medical degree' - that's just plain petty.

 

What have I done that pissed you off? For starters, I defended BW in front of you and said that they weren't entirely wrong with everything, ending included.

[Arcian]

'Doctor without a medical degree' - that's just plain petty.

Jesus Christ, why would someone get this upset over a playful poke at Dr Who?

 

What have I done that pissed you off? For starters, I defended BW in front of you and said that they weren't entirely wrong with everything, ending included.

Why would that make me mad? If anything, people still defending BioWare after everything they've done makes me laugh.

[Farangbaa]

I'm not going to casually throw tens or hundreds or thousands of people at the same experiment and expect the same result.

 

That's not really what I'm doing. To add some definition: I would have outlined a certain result that I'm looking for, as well as reporting on what results come from the experiments. You're putting words in my mouth to state that I'd blame my scientists for a failure at my experiment (which, if it was something stemming from an error on their part, it would be). I think it's best to tell them what I want to or hope to achieve, give them resources, and tell them to get under way. That's actually the primary method used today. In some places where we can get away with it, we don't even establish right or wrong. Right is the achievement of the goal. Wrong is the lack of achievement of my goals. 

 

 

Actually, it would be useful in knowing that the line of research is ineffective. And it wouldn't be immoral or unethical, so to speak. It would be impractical and uneconomical. 

 

So basically, you're just going to trial and error with human lives and calling failure a 'result' so you can go on. Brilliant.

 

Which is kindofa thing with you, those human lives. In one instance, they're valuable enough to save, to kill other people for (those terrorists you kill for a living), and in another instance they're just resources to be thrown away in research.

[Farangbaa]

Why would that make me mad? If anything, people still defending BioWare after everything they've done makes me laugh.

 

'after everything they've done'. Now, that makes me laugh.

 

Like they've killed your mom or something, c'mon.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Jesus Christ, why would someone get this upset over a playful poke at Dr Who?

 

Why would that make me mad? If anything, people still defending BioWare after everything they've done makes me laugh.

 

Given your history of posting and the mutual antagonism we seem to share, I'll simply say that you coulda fooled me with the top quote.

 

On the the second, I'll simply say that what has BW really done in huge part to warrant such treatment any more?

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

So basically, you're just going to trial and error with human lives and calling failure a 'result' so you can go on. Brilliant.

 

Which is kindofa thing with you, those human lives. In one instance, they're valuable enough to save, to kill other people for (those terrorists you kill for a living), and in another instance they're just resources to be thrown away in research.

 

The failure as a result is valuable. It tells me that the course of action leading to the failure isn't viable. It's learning from your mistakes. 

 

I do kill terrorists to protect people. Honestly, I do it because I believe in a certain kind of order, in efficiency, in economy. I don't do it for some kind of intrinsic value that is placed on human life. I don't personally feel any of that. I've seen starving children first hand and not felt a single lick of compassionate empathy. On an abstract level, I know sympathy, but that's it, on an abstract level. To be blunt, better them than me. The value I place on people is economic. Everyone has a value proportional to their output and growth for society.

 

Plus, you're trying to make it seem like hundreds of millions of people would be sacrificed over the outcome of a single experiment. I'm not throwing the lives away either. It's an investment. They are a resource to be invested in. I invest my resources into a venture, and if it pays out, there's benefits for all. If it doesn't, then it's a failed investment, and I know not to put resources into that effort or venture again. 

[Farangbaa]

Well yeah, if you're going to measure a person in $ value your views of the world, ethics and morality are perfectly fine.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Well yeah, if you're going to measure a person in $ value your views of the world, ethics and morality are perfectly fine.

 

To be fair, ethics and morality are subjective terms. I have my own sense of right and wrong, and I don't bother fettering myself to principles or scruples.

 

As long as I don't betray my goal, I'm being moral. 

[Farangbaa]

To be fair, ethics and morality are subjective terms.

Doh. That's why we can argue about them.

I have my own sense of right and wrong, and I don't bother fettering myself to principles or scruples.

As long as I don't betray my goal, I'm being moral.

You're not alone on the world.

[Arcian]

'after everything they've done'. Now, that makes me laugh.

 

Like they've killed your mom or something, c'mon.

Well, they killed my most beloved game trilogy of all time. So there's that.

 

Given your history of posting and the mutual antagonism we seem to share, I'll simply say that you coulda fooled me with the top quote.

I can assure you, the antagonism isn't mutual. I don't have the time or energy to make enemies with internet denizens with whom I disagree or those who may disagree with me. I literally have better things to do.

[Fixers0]

Well, this discussions is going nowhere.

 

Let's just all agree that Cerberus is nonsensical and that it will likely never change.

[Geoff Pinkerton]

Well this has gone off at a tangent.

 

The post was originally trying to reconcile depictions of Cerberus across the trilogy. Didn't expect a  flame war between adherents of utilitarianism and the categorical imperative.

 

My initial summary of ME2 Cerberus as a terrorist organisation* was largely based on Jacob's own assessment of the organisation. Its during one of those early conversations on the Normandy I think. He states that Cerberus has been 'called terrorists and with good reason'. I think Jacob sums it up here. He isn't actually calling Cerberus terrorists but understands why they have been labelled as such.

 

Having read the objections to this I agree that the definition is probably technically incorrect but nonetheless it is used 'with good reason' because it's appropriate given the ethics involved (or lack thereof).

 

The notion that the end always justifies the means is problematic not just on the level of abstract principle but because the end itself is open to question. 

It is also unknowable when the decision to push or disregard ethical considerations is made so its practically useless when making a moral judgement.

What is known to be a consequence or what is likely, are far more important than what is possible IMO.

 

As for Cerberus being vindicated by getting results I would argue that they, like the aforementioned Mr Hitler had more failures than successes. Shepard being the proverbial exception to the rule.  

 

Cerberus might not be terrorists but they are terroristic. The mentality and the consequences are the same. 

 

* note that I wasn't making a point about this in the original post and didn't think the description would be controversial. Kind of wish I'd rephrased it to avoid all the political and moral arguments which the topic wasn't  actually about. Still it's been interesting.  

[Display Name Owner]

One thing that has bothered me at the end of ME2 was the choice to destroy or save the Collector Base. Shepard states at the end that she intended to destroy the base. Fine. That's what they brought with them - the means to destroy the base. But whoa, out pops The Illusive Man and the ass pull of the "timed radiation pulse." Where did the equipment to do that come from? It magically appeared. Well, I guess like the rest of the plot of ME2 we're not supposed to think about it because it doesn't make any sense either.

 

Maybe they just roasted the Collectors by turning the thermostat to ludicrously high setting?

[RiouHotaru]

The fact Jacob, a member of Cerberus, calls his own organization a group of "terrorists" is literally all the proof I need.  The game doesn't have to explicitly give me examples.  It's inferred that they've done things necessary to earn them the title, proven by word of mouth from both the Alliance, and their own officers.

 

Also, the way they put together the SR2 was rathr ingenious.  Unless you spent all your time watching the purchase history of possible Cerberus agents, the individual parts and pieces, purchased across various companies, doesn't seem suspicious at all.