73 réponses à ce sujet

[DeathScepter]

It would be interesting to have Harry Lawson as a pseudo political religious leader that created a movement that worships the Reapers. Reaper play on Harry's inflated ego to make him "immortal" and have an "Eternal Legacy".  of course this movement is multi species. 

 

There will be other sleeper agents will in every main faction that is indoctrinated by the reapers. Yes Shepard fighting Indoctrinated Alliance Soldier to save Anderson.

 

 

Shooting and Killing Batarians is always a good idea. Indoctrinated Quarians would be interesting to kill. And your actions will effect if your allies get indoctrinated or not.

[Dunmer of Redoran]

It would be interesting to have Harry Lawson as a pseudo political religious leader that created a movement that worships the Reapers. Reaper play on Harry's inflated ego to make him "immortal" and have an "Eternal Legacy".  of course this movement is multi species. 

 

There will be other sleeper agents will in every main faction that is indoctrinated by the reapers. Yes Shepard fighting Indoctrinated Alliance Soldier to save Anderson.

 

 

Shooting and Killing Batarians is always a good idea. Indoctrinated Quarians would be interesting to kill. And your actions will effect if your allies get indoctrinated or not.

 

Indoctrination is a neat idea, but I think that it works best if there is a documented, proven way to resist or completely negate its effects. We get implied possibilities (Shepard has an arguably supernatural force of will and is able to evade Reaper power trying to control him on the Citadel with that scene where they're holding the gun) but there's nothing guaranteed. I'm kind of thinking the way that Dragon Age handles demons--they boast tremendous powers but can't just mind control anybody. They have to play to the emotions and flaws of their targets, yet not everyone can just be bamboozled or even bargained with if they don't want to be.

 

The possibility that Shepard's own team can be indoctrinated would really be something. If you cultivate good relationships, inspire confidence and so on, kind of like ME2's loyalty, each character would be guarded against Reaper influence and stand fast during the story. Those who don't receive any kind of support run a risk of falling, but if you play your cards right, anybody can be saved from turning--even Morinth.

[Arcian]

lol no

Cerberus was great in ME2 they were morally ambigious

they were **** in ME1 (generic evil villians) and ME3 (generic evil villians once again)

Anyone who uses this term obviously doesn't understand what "ambiguous" means.

 

There is nothing morally ambiguous about experimenting on and torturing countless humans for the sake of progress. There is nothing morally ambiguous about luring innocent soldiers into a thresher nest, experimenting on the survivors and then killing them when they are no longer useful. There is nothing morally ambiguous about murdering an Alliance admiral because he wanted to know what happened to his soldiers. There is nothing morally ambiguous about stealing a biotic child from her mother and then subject her to a living hell in order to turn her into a living weapon. There is nothing morally ambiguous about forcing an autistic savant to uplink with a geth network. And that's not even close to all of what they've done.

 

The Lazarus Project was the ONE decent thing Cerberus did, and as we find out in ME3, it was all a sham in order to persuade Shepard to do their dirty work. The Normandy SR2 crew was deliberately picked because they were "clean" enough for Shepard's tastes.

 

Bottomline is, Cerberus is an organization of morally decrepit monsters who stop at nothing to get what they want. They don't care about humanity at all. Humanity is just another tool for them to use to further their agenda.

[God]

Anyone who uses this term obviously doesn't understand what "ambiguous" means.

 

There is nothing morally ambiguous about experimenting on and torturing countless humans for the sake of progress. There is nothing morally ambiguous about luring innocent soldiers into a thresher nest, experimenting on the survivors and then killing them when they are no longer useful. There is nothing morally ambiguous about murdering an Alliance admiral because he wanted to know what happened to his soldiers. There is nothing morally ambiguous about stealing a biotic child from her mother and then subject her to a living hell in order to turn her into a living weapon. There is nothing morally ambiguous about forcing an autistic savant to uplink with a geth network. And that's not even close to all of what they've done.

 

The Lazarus Project was the ONE decent thing Cerberus did, and as we find out in ME3, it was all a sham in order to persuade Shepard to do their dirty work. The Normandy SR2 crew was deliberately picked because they were "clean" enough for Shepard's tastes.

 

Bottomline is, Cerberus is an organization of morally decrepit monsters who stop at nothing to get what they want. They don't care about humanity at all. Humanity is just another tool for them to use to further their agenda.

 

Actually, I'd say you're right, just with a different outcome.

 

Due to the results of said experiments, I hold Cerberus to be morally superior than most other groups. They're the only ones who give a damn.

 

I blame the alliance for making humanity weak, and I blame the Council for not doing anything to stand up to the Reapers.

 

Cerberus did what they had to do. And it worked. 

 

Your pithy emotional appeal is useless in the face of the Reapers. Cerberus' 'moral decrepency' wasn't. 

 

Evil is subjective after all. Objectively, you have no concept of the term ambiguous, nor do you understand context of scenario's or actions.

 

It's a rather childish view of reality. And, as recent survey's suggest, a sign of mental instability. Still, it's always funny to see some self-righteous idealogue fail to understand what makes the Unfettered inherently superior to the Fettered.

[Vazgen]

I'd say that Cerberus 'moral descrepance' fails as well. Their willingness to experiment on Reaper technology resulted in their indoctrination. 

[God]

Fair enough. I wouldn't say that experimenting on Reaper tech is inherently bad. It would be best however if it wasn't conducted at the highest levels of control.

[Arcian]

Actually, I'd say you're right, just with a different outcome.

 

Due to the results of said experiments, I hold Cerberus to be morally superior than most other groups. They're the only ones who give a damn.

 

I blame the alliance for making humanity weak, and I blame the Council for not doing anything to stand up to the Reapers.

 

Cerberus did what they had to do. And it worked. 

 

Your pithy emotional appeal is useless in the face of the Reapers. Cerberus' 'moral decrepency' wasn't. 

 

Evil is subjective after all. Objectively, you have no concept of the term ambiguous, nor do you understand context of scenario's or actions.

 

It's a rather childish view of reality. And, as recent survey's suggest, a sign of mental instability. Still, it's always funny to see some self-righteous idealogue fail to understand what makes the Unfettered inherently superior to the Fettered.

[citation needed]

 

Also, nice to see you're still talking straight out of your ass, Massively. Anyone who actually lives in the real world knows moral relativism is a juvenile, self-refuting fantasy entertained only by emotional and social cripples unable to reconcile themselves with reality.

[God]

[citation needed]

 

Also, nice to see you're still talking straight out of your ass, Massively. Anyone who actually lives in the real world knows moral relativism is a juvenile, self-refuting fantasy entertained only by emotional and social cripples unable to reconcile themselves with reality.

 

Take a good look at cases of Borderline Personality Disorder.

 

And yes, moral relativism is much more... realistic than absolutism and universalism. A primary criticism of Moral Absolutism regards how we come to know what the absolute morals are. For morals to be truly absolute, they would have to have a universally unquestioned source, interpretation and authority, which is an impossibility.

 

Another of the more obvious criticisms is the sheer diversity of moral opinions which exists between societies (and even within societies) in the world today, which suggests that there cannot be a single true morality.

 

You could try and say that in its purest form, moral relativism is an example of a self-refuting idea; the principle that "all moral frameworks are relative" being, itself, an absolute moral framework. In practice, though, it tends to be "All moral frameworks except mine are relative" which is instead an example of special pleading. Which is what I'd label yours as, since you seem intent to decry any morality that isn't based on your own. 

 

The above critique, however common, is rather weak as moral relativism should not be classified as a "moral framework" as it does not prescribe any moral values or principles. Moral relativism in its purest form is the observation that all moral frameworks share a common trait - that they are not absolute. Therefor, there is no moral absolute. No moral objective. There is no such thing as 'inherently wrong'. If there was, it could not exist.

It also takes the form of defining evil.

 

Sociologically speaking, it is the limit of "I/we don't like that." It is the opposite of "good" in the moral spectrum and is simply defined by Merriam-Webster as "morally reprehensible." To endure some suffering is a sign that evil is about. The definition of an activity as evil varies with time, place and circumstance. Which of course leads back to relativism. 

One man's trash is another man's treasure after all. 

[DeathScepter]

i am all for derailing threads on princple but can we get back on topic?

[wolfhowwl]

Damn Arcian's bringing the heat tonight.

[Jorji Costava]

@Massively:

 

So I had a whole long discourse on relativism written out, but in the interests of not derailing this thread too much I'll limit myself to the following:

Relativism as I understand it is, to put it crudely, the doctrine that actions are right when they are generally approved of by one's society, and wrong when they are disapproved of. This seems to imply that moral reformers and dissidents are almost always wrong, since by hypothesis they go against the dominant mores of their societies. Most notably, this doctrine would also entail that pretty much everything else you say about morality is false, since it's pretty clear that what you believe about who matters and who doesn't is entirely at odds with the beliefs of the society in which you find yourself.

 

In the context of ME, it would also imply that Cerberus is wrong about everything, since the beliefs of Cerberus conflict pretty radically with what most citizens of the alliance believe. So I find it confusing that you would want to defend moral relativism at all.

[God]

@Massively:

 

So I had a whole long discourse on relativism written out, but in the interests of not derailing this thread too much I'll limit myself to the following:

Relativism as I understand it is, to put it crudely, the doctrine that actions are right when they are generally approved of by one's society, and wrong when they are disapproved of. This seems to imply that moral reformers and dissidents are almost always wrong, since by hypothesis they go against the dominant mores of their societies. Most notably, this doctrine would also entail that pretty much everything else you say about morality is false, since it's pretty clear that what you believe about who matters and who doesn't is entirely at odds with the beliefs of the society in which you find yourself.

 

In the context of ME, it would also imply that Cerberus is wrong about everything, since the beliefs of Cerberus conflict pretty radically with what most citizens of the alliance believe. So I find it confusing that you would want to defend moral relativism at all.

 

Basically speaking, it is a 'majority rules' concept. What exactly would you imply to be a better term? I think it's more about labels than anything else. It's a label I can use.

 

Perhaps I could have specified what I meant by relativism. A quick google search tells me there's a bit of broad stroke for how you can define relativism. While I'll hesitate to define what exactly they mean, it looks more like what I say does indeed fall under a broader concept of normative moral relativism.

[Jorji Costava]

Basically speaking, it is a 'majority rules' concept. What exactly would you imply to be a better term? I think it's more about labels than anything else. It's a label I can use.

 

Generally, you want the labels you use to describe yourself to be consistent with your beliefs. Relativism, as far as I can tell, isn't. Why embrace a 'majority rules' thesis about morality when you're clearly not in the majority, morally speaking?

[God]

Generally, you want the labels you use to describe yourself to be consistent with your beliefs. Relativism, as far as I can tell, isn't. Why embrace a 'majority rules' thesis about morality when you're clearly not in the majority, morally speaking?

 

I did an edit. It appears relativism has more than one way of being pursued.

 

That said, what label would you suggest to be better? 

[Jorji Costava]

This is the last post I'll make on this, because like I mentioned before, it is rather tangential to the main discussion. Here's a definition of metaethical moral relativism (MMR) ripped straight out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

 

Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.

 

Sometimes, you get a more individualized version of moral relativism according to which the truth or falsehood of a moral judgment is relative not to groups but individual persons, but this view is so uncommon among ethicists that 'relativism' ends up being shorthand for cultural relativism. The truth is, I can't really think of a plausible metaethical view that will underwrite your other moral views (though I can't say I'm terribly motivated to do so), so I don't know what label you should use. I think you're pretty much on your own for this one.

[DeathScepter]

as interesting as discussion the morality of Cerberus and Moral Relativism truly are and having their own thread might do some good here. Right now, I am in the mood for Replacing Cerberus as a Major bad guy within M.E.3 regardless if we are shooting Batarians or New Age Cthulu Loving Hippies. both are fun to shoot.

[DeathScepter]

with me, I would have more of a believable growth between M.E.1 and M.E.2 version of Cerberus. Then Harry Lawson during M.E.2 to M.E.3 become a pseudo religious political leader that use the Ancient Alien Theories and weave it into a pseudo religious political movement, somehow making Aliens look better than they really are and overtime make it more Reaper Focused as our true "forefathers" of every single species. Harry's major trait is his ego/arrogance/pride, so why not play it up as a pseudo religious political leader that entice people to worship him as a god and a prophet of The True ForeFathers aka The Reapers.

[DeathScepter]

I always thought that the description of Henry Lawson made him a more fitting candidate for being an advocate for Control and falling victim to Indoctrination than Jack Harper was in ME2.

 

I could quite easily imagine a man that fitted Miranda's description entering into a Faustian pact type deal with the Reapers if they promised him a means of extending his lifespan.

 

 

True, Alleyd. Harry Lawson seems more of a power hungry control freak than  T.I.M./Jack Harper ever was. So your thinking is reasonable

[PresidentVorchaMasterBaits]

CERBERUS STUPID HUMANS! VORCHA MAKE BETTER REAPER ALLIES!! WE BURN ALL THINGS! VORCHA DO MORE DAMAGE WITH FIRE THAN CERBERUS DOES WITH GUNS!! FIRE BURNS EVERYTHING!!! GRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGHH!!!!

[DeathScepter]

CERBERUS STUPID HUMANS! VORCHA MAKE BETTER REAPER ALLIES!! WE BURN ALL THINGS! VORCHA DO MORE DAMAGE WITH FIRE THAN CERBERUS DOES WITH GUNS!! FIRE BURNS EVERYTHING!!! GRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGHH!!!!

 

 

Vorcha are cool with their fire, but Krogans are better than Vorchas

[PresidentVorchaMasterBaits]

YES! YES! KROGAN GOOD! VORCHA LIKE KROGAN!!! DON'T NEED FIRE! VORCHA JUST LIKE BURNING THINGS! WE BURN SEPTIC TANKS TIL THEY EXPLODE!! FIRE AND POOP FALLS EVERYWHERE! BURNING POOP GOOD!!!! RRAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWRRR!!!!!1!!!11!

[DeathScepter]

YES! YES! KROGAN GOOD! VORCHA LIKE KROGAN!!! DON'T NEED FIRE! VORCHA JUST LIKE BURNING THINGS! WE BURN SEPTIC TANKS TIL THEY EXPLODE!! FIRE AND POOP FALLS EVERYWHERE! BURNING POOP GOOD!!!! RRAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWRRR!!!!!1!!!11!

 

 

I like you. you are an excellent example of a good troll and you do pull off a good Vorcha. I am laughing hard right now. So please keep up the good work. it is a proper way to derail a thread.