311 réponses à ce sujet

[Master Warder Z_]

One mission that I thought was actually pretty decent about this in ME1 was BDtS. Bonus points for being able to answer every protest of Balak's with a flesh wound and not even saying a word.

That bastard deserved every bullet

[KaiserShep]

I also gladly shot his second in command.

 

"I was just here to grab slaves! Now it's totally out of control."

 

[Torfan Shep intensifies]

[Sylvius the Mad]

Isn't that what we had in the trilogy?
 

I never knew what it was Shepard was going to do in the trilogy.  I can hardly claim that my choices led to sensible consequences if I didn't make any choices.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That is not at all true. There are many individual ethical principles upon which you can build an argument for what is or is not moral. Often times, these principles can conflict.

That just tells me that the principles are inartfully drafted.

 

A reasonable person cannot hold two conflicting opinions.  The circumstance you describe could only occur in the mind of a lunatic.

[In Exile]

One mission that I thought was actually pretty decent about this in ME1 was BDtS. Bonus points for being able to answer every protest of Balak's with a flesh wound and not even saying a word. 

 

I never got to play BDtS. Just never got the DLC. Sounds like maybe I should?

[In Exile]

That just tells me that the principles are inartfully drafted.

 

A reasonable person cannot hold two conflicting opinions.  The circumstance you describe could only occur in the mind of a lunatic.

 

You might not know the propositions have conflicting consequences until you examine them, however. So it is possible to run into a situation that's a moral test because you (up to that point) unknowingly held two positions whose consequences you didn't fully explore. Then you have to determine how to resolve the contradiction. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I never got to play BDtS. Just never got the DLC. Sounds like maybe I should?

It has good points and bad points.

 

There's ostensibly an "interesting moral choice" in it, but I don't see it.

[KaiserShep]

I never knew what it was Shepard was going to do in the trilogy.  I can hardly claim that my choices led to sensible consequences if I didn't make any choices.

 

In terms of dialogue, it's primarily guesswork, but the same untrue for actions you take. Take Feros, for example. You were given clear options about what you want to do, and you had an option that explicitly lets you know that you don't want your squad firing on the enthralled colonists while you neutralize them with the gas.

[DuskWanderer]

I'm not all that fond of the "evil" choices. In ME1, it was less "I'm a ruthless person" and more "I'm a petulant snippy (swear) for the sake of being that." And the next two games felt like Shepard was so obsessed with himself he would hurt others for not worshipping him.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You might not know the propositions have conflicting consequences until you examine them, however. So it is possible to run into a situation that's a moral test because you (up to that point) unknowingly held two positions whose consequences you didn't fully explore. Then you have to determine how to resolve the contradiction. 

Retreat to your first principles which presumably are the basis for those supposedly conflicting positions.

 

Seriously, why are people holding opinions without exploring them fully?

 

(sorry - I'm a bit punchy today after reading the King v. Burwell dissent)

[Sylvius the Mad]

In terms of dialogue, it's primarily guesswork, but the same untrue for actions you take. Take Feros, for example. You were given clear options about what you want to do, and you had an option that explicitly lets you know that you don't want your squad firing on the enthralled colonists while you neutralize them with the gas.

I remember that.  I wanted my squad to fire on those colonists if necessary.  Unfortunately, there was no way for me to say that.

[In Exile]

Retreat to your first principles which presumably are the basis for those supposedly conflicting positions.

 

Seriously, why are people holding opinions without exploring them fully?

 

(sorry - I'm a bit punchy today after reading the King v. Burwell dissent)

 

The King v. Burwell dissent is incoherent. 

 

In terms of morality, while lamentable, I don't think people approach morality from the POV of first principles. This is why I think most people find moral dilemmas interesting instead of, basically, rote work. They hold propositions which accord with their nebulous intuition of what's moral (and many moral propositions might accord with intuition) without exploring what might justify holding those propositions or what they might entail until confronted with a moral problem. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

The King v. Burwell dissent is incoherent.

I found it quite funny.  Scalia sounds so angry in my head when I read it.

In terms of morality, while lamentable, I don't think people approach morality from the POV of first principles. This is why I think most people find moral dilemmas interesting instead of, basically, rote work. They hold propositions which accord with their nebulous intuition of what's moral (and many moral propositions might accord with intuition) without exploring what might justify holding those propositions or what they might entail until confronted with a moral problem.

I believe I just labelled those people as lunatics.

[In Exile]

I found it quite funny.  Scalia sounds so angry in my head when I read it.

 

I like to think Scalia dictates his reasons, and read with the appropriate emphasis. 

[KaiserShep]

I remember that.  I wanted my squad to fire on those colonists if necessary.  Unfortunately, there was no way for me to say that.

 

But that's sort of the nature of the medium. If I wanted my squad to simply stay put in the Mako while I deal with this crap myself, or go back and play wicked space grace with the poor schlubs hiding in the ruins, I can't tell them that either. But the trouble with "with necessary" is determining how the character AI "judges" when something is necessary or not. How does that work? Does their health need to dip to a certain amount, or would they just need to be fired upon at all? 

[Vicex]

That just tells me that the principles are inartfully drafted.

 

A reasonable person cannot hold two conflicting opinions.  The circumstance you describe could only occur in the mind of a lunatic.

 

Uh, no. You clearly have an inapt and/or incomplete understanding of ethics and what they comprise because that simply is not the case.

 

Unfortunately, most, if not all, people have opinions on subjects that conflict when examined together.

 

 

I remember that.  I wanted my squad to fire on those colonists if necessary.  Unfortunately, there was no way for me to say that.

 

 

 

Isn't there? I think you have to first say 'wipe out everything' (or the equivalent to it) and then when your squad questions that order, you are given the choice to say something like 'try to avoid the colonists, but let nothing stop you'.

[AlanC9]

It has good points and bad points.

There's ostensibly an "interesting moral choice" in it, but I don't see it.

Well, yeah, but you don't see any moral choices as being interesting, right?

The BtdS final choice is pretty relevant here. The Paragon option is ripe for outright failure, and it appears that it has failed in ME2, but in ME3 it turns out to be a net positive.

As for BtdS itself, it's mostly more of the same-- better than the UNC missions, not quite up to the MQ stuff. But anyone who likes ME1 enough to replay it ought to give BtdS a shot

[AlanC9]

Unfortunately, most, if not all, people have opinions on subjects that conflict when examined together.

Doesn't that show that there's something wrong with holding those opinions simultaneously?

[Vicex]

Doesn't that show that there's something wrong with holding those opinions simultaneously?

 

Well, yeah... of course. The problem arises when one is pushed to identify which of the conflicting views is wrong.

 

That there is the heart of ethics and ethical debates.

[AlanC9]

I found it quite funny.  Scalia sounds so angry in my head when I read it.

Pity they don't release audio of decisions the way they do with oral arguments.

[In Exile]

Pity they don't release audio of decisions the way they do with oral arguments.

 

I don't know how SCOTUS does it, not being American, but typically decisions aren't read out unless they're oral judgments (and those are common where I'm from only at the trial/appellate levels). 

 

Uh, no. You clearly have an inapt and/or incomplete understanding of ethics and what they comprise because that simply is not the case.

 

Unfortunately, most, if not all, people have opinions on subjects that conflict when examined together.

 

Like AlanC9 says, that seems to be a symptom of not fully considering your position. I mean, it's certainly possible to hold inconsistent opinions without realizing it. But then the issue is that you haven't thought through the implications of your value. It's not really a moral problem but a value problem, because once you sort out the conflict the moral issue becomes easy. Typically people think of the moral problem as being "What should I do?" and not "What is my principled approach to ethics?"

[Vicex]

 

Like AlanC9 says, that seems to be a symptom of not fully considering your position. I mean, it's certainly possible to hold inconsistent opinions without realizing it. But then the issue is that you haven't thought through the implications of your value. It's not really a moral problem but a value problem, because once you sort out the conflict the moral issue becomes easy. Typically people think of the moral problem as being "What should I do?" and not "What is my principled approach to ethics?"

 

It's not only possible, but very common to hold inconsistent opinions and be aware of those. When you are faced with conflicting views, they need not be a question of value of one over another... especially when you are supposed to hold all ethical principles upon which you derive your morals from as equal to one another. 

 

Take for example this excerpt from guidelines on ethics in medicine:

 

 

A traditional approach to the four principles might view the “standard” Jehovah’s Witness case as a prominent example of a conflict of ethical principles.¹ A competent adult patient is refusing a treatment that has the best chance of saving his life, according to well documented studies published in medical journals. Nevertheless, the respect for persons principle mandates that physicians should comply with the expressed wishes of a competent adult patient even if the predicted consequences are unfavourable or grave. Arguably, two ethical principles could support the opposite judgment: that the physician may—or must—seek to override the patient’s refusal of a blood transfusion. The principle of nonmaleficence requires physicians to avoid harm, whenever possible, so withholding a proven, beneficial treatment is likely to have the consequence of producing harm. Although withholding a treatment is an omission rather than an action, it represents a deliberate decision taken by a physician and therefore, constitutes a course of action. The related principle of beneficence, which calls for maximising benefits and minimising harms, could also be used in support of the physician’s duty to administer a blood transfusion in contravention of a patient’s refusal.

If this is all that can be said about an analysis that relies on the four principles, this methodology could yield no clear resolution of the physician’s dilemma. One reason no resolution is forthcoming is, as Gillon has pointed out, that “the four principles approach does not provide a method for choosing”.² The principles are not a set of ordered rules with instructions for making inferences and arriving at deductive conclusions. One of the common (and misguided) criticisms of the four principles is that they constitute a deductive system and therefore, presumably, a rigid method for arriving at solutions to complex ethical dilemmas. A quite different criticism of the method makes the opposite point, finding it deficient because it does not yield clear answers to troubling moral quandaries.

 

Macklin R. J Med Ethics. 2003. 29 275-280.

 

Sure, ultimately, the common person will typically instead ask 'What should I do?', but often times that they arrive at an incorrect conclusion because they have not examined the reasons (principles) they came to that conclusion... and thus in a similar, but different, situation regarding the same set of principles, create a conflict.

[AlanC9]

I don't know how SCOTUS does it, not being American, but typically decisions aren't read out unless they're oral judgments (and those are common where I'm from only at the trial/appellate levels).

In this particular case, Scalia exercised his right to read the dissent from the bench. This is uncommon, and only used when a justice feels particularly strongly about the issue.

From the NY Times article
 

In dissent on Thursday, Justice Antonin Scalia called the majority’s reasoning “quite absurd” and “interpretive jiggery-pokery.”

He announced his dissent from the bench, a sign of bitter disagreement. His summary was laced with notes of incredulity and sarcasm, sometimes drawing amused murmurs in the courtroom as he described the “interpretive somersaults” he said the majority had performed to reach the decision.

“We really should start calling this law Scotus-care,” Justice Scalia said, to laughter from the audience.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well, yeah, but you don't see any moral choices as being interesting, right?

The BtdS final choice is pretty relevant here. The Paragon option is ripe for outright failure, and it appears that it has failed in ME2, but in ME3 it turns out to be a net positive.

As for BtdS itself, it's mostly more of the same-- better than the UNC missions, not quite up to the MQ stuff. But anyone who likes ME1 enough to replay it ought to give BtdS a shot

But that's outcome-based analysis.

 

The right thing to do in the moment was accept that there were bad things that might happen that would be your fault in you didn't prevent them, and bad things that might happen that wouldn't be your fault if you didn't prevent them.  So I chose to prevent the things that would have been my fault, and accept that the bad things that happened as a result weren't my doing, so I carried none of the moral responsibility.

 

I honestly don't remember which was Paragon and which was Renegade, because I didn't care about those categorizations when I was playing.

 

Morality is about what you do, not what results from what you do.  That would permit the morality of a choice to be dictated by chance, or to be altered retroactively.  And that's clearly nonsense.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In this particular case, Scalia exercised his right to read the dissent from the bench. This is uncommon, and only used when a justice feels particularly strongly about the issue.

Scalia read a summary of his dissent, not the entire thing.  And he added some extra mockery of the decision.
 
Apparently he elicited open laughter from Chief Justice Roberts.

Pity they don't release audio of decisions the way they do with oral arguments.

I enjoyed Scalia's oral arguments, as well.

"It may not be the law congress intended, but it may be the law congress wrote."