376 réponses à ce sujet

[God]

Quick tangent that I'll put in a spoiler tag here:

 

Spoiler

It's a mistake to claim that deontologists don't do metaethics unless you've read thinkers like W. David Ross, Thomas Scanlon, Christine Korsgaard, or even John Rawls and Robert Nozick. The secondary literature on Kant's theory of practical reason alone is absolutely massive, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that deontologists avoid metaethical questions. I'm also not so sure that there's a tight fit between consequentialims and virtue ethics as you suppose; for instance, G.E.M. Anscombe, whose paper "Modern Moral Philosophy" pretty much resuscitated virtue ethics in modern ethical thought, was radically anticonsequentialist. The same was true of Judith Jarvis Thomson and Philippa Foot, both major contributors in the area of virtue ethics.

 

There tends to be an image of consequentialism of being the philosophy of the gruff badass who's willing to do horrific thing to accomplish his mission, but this picture is only half-right (and probably, substantially less than that). One of the most commonly leveled criticisms of utilitarianism is that it demands the exact opposite: It seems to require us to be full-time do-gooders. For instance, if you buy a new pair of shoes instead of donating to the Against Malaria Foundation or if you get drunk with a buddy at a sports bar instead of volunteering at a domestic violence shelter, you're failing to maximize the good and thus acting immorally. There are, I think, good responses to these criticisms, but there is also a grain of truth to them that can't be ignored.

 

A spoiler for a spoiler

 

Spoiler

I never said that deontologists don't do meta-ethics. 

 

However, as far as deontology goes as far as the game mechanics go (and probably will go), it does indeed entail the sacrifice of meta-ethics. Not because it's not possible, but because the game doesn't focus on the nuance or subtlety (or meta-ethics, ba dum tss!) The game is probably going to take an approach that is broadly dichotomous, much as it has in the trilogy as a whole: In many ways (and as the game mechanics, not the external discussion, allow me to clarify), paragon ideology is more deontological, and renegade ideology is more teleological (and more likely to utilize meta-ethics, i.e. "what is morality?" type responses).

[Jorji Costava]

A spoiler for a spoiler

 

Spoiler

I never said that deontologists don't do meta-ethics. 

 

However, as far as deontology goes as far as the game mechanics go (and probably will go), it does indeed entail the sacrifice of meta-ethics. Not because it's not possible, but because the game doesn't focus on the nuance or subtlety (or meta-ethics, ba dum tss!) The game is probably going to take an approach that is broadly dichotomous, much as it has in the trilogy as a whole: In many ways (and as the game mechanics, not the external discussion, allow me to clarify), paragon ideology is more deontological, and renegade ideology is more teleological (and more likely to utilize meta-ethics, i.e. "what is morality?" type responses).

 

 

Very briefly:

Spoiler

I think I see what the source of the confusion is now. This is probably a point I should have made earlier, but in general, metaethics is a discipline which is simply not in the business of resolving practical questions about what moral decisions to make in a given situation. Its questions are at a higher level of abstraction (i.e. "Is morality an illusion?" "Is it culturally relative?" "How are we able to know the answers to moral questions?" etc.). There isn't really any such thing as the metaethical response to questions like "Should I kill this prisoner?" or "Should I wipe out this species?" That's simply not what the discipline is for. The game can metathical questions in a thematic or abstract way, but I don't see them as peculiarly relevant to the way consequentialists make moral decisions, either in general or within the context of the game itself.

[God]

Very briefly:

Spoiler

I think I see what the source of the confusion is now. This is probably a point I should have made earlier, but in general, metaethics is a discipline which is simply not in the business of resolving practical questions about what moral decisions to make in a given situation. Its questions are at a higher level of abstraction (i.e. "Is morality an illusion?" "Is it culturally relative?" "How are we able to know the answers to moral questions?" etc.). There isn't really any such thing as the metaethical response to questions like "Should I kill this prisoner?" or "Should I wipe out this species?" That's simply not what the discipline is for. The game can metathical questions in a thematic or abstract way, but I don't see them as peculiarly relevant to the way consequentialists make moral decisions, either in general or within the context of the game itself.

 

Spoiler

Fair enough, though I wasn't trying to make that statement on meta-ethical questions being used in that regard.

 

I think that those questions can indeed be asked in the game (let's focus on that), but I don't see a deontological view (as depicted in the game, based off of previous depictions in the game) as engaging in meta-ethical questions or thought. 

 

I see the character being able to ask "what is evil anyway?", but really as far as a teleological view (again, presented within the game) goes. 

 

Otherwise, that's as far as my point here is going (I should have clarified that). I'm talking in regards to what we'll likely get in the game. It's probably not going to be nearly as complex as the actual philosophical concepts or discussion, which is why I will conclude that any meta-ethical concepts or questions raised in the game will more than likely be exclusive to the more teleological end of the spectrum (for what a character can express their views or positions as) rather than deontological.

 

And spoilers of course, since that seems to be our thing.

[Jorji Costava]

Spoiler

Fair enough, though I wasn't trying to make that statement on meta-ethical questions being used in that regard.

 

I think that those questions can indeed be asked in the game (let's focus on that), but I don't see a deontological view (as depicted in the game, based off of previous depictions in the game) as engaging in meta-ethical questions or thought. 

 

I see the character being able to ask "what is evil anyway?", but really as far as a teleological view (again, presented within the game) goes. 

 

Otherwise, that's as far as my point here is going (I should have clarified that). I'm talking in regards to what we'll likely get in the game. It's probably not going to be nearly as complex as the actual philosophical concepts or discussion, which is why I will conclude that any meta-ethical concepts or questions raised in the game will more than likely be exclusive to the more teleological end of the spectrum (for what a character can express their views or positions as) rather than deontological.

 

And spoilers of course, since that seems to be our thing.

 

This will probably be my last correspondence on this, as I have to get ready to visit some relatives pretty soon.

 

Spoiler

I think the problem is this: Questions like "What is evil" are ambiguous in the sense that they can be interpreted as first-order or second-order moral questions. On the first order interpretation, the question means "What sorts of acts or behaviors are evil?" Candidate answers to this question might be things like "harming others," "failing to maximize the general happiness," etc. But this is all within the realm of normative ethics, little different from deontologists asking questions like "What is right? What sorts of actions are permitted or forbidden? What rights to people have?" etc.

 

On the second-order interpretation, "What is evil?" means something like "In virtue of what are statements like 'X is evil' true?" Candidate answers to this question would be things like "'X is evil' is a true statement whenever X is generally disapproved of by my society," or "'X is evil' isn't literally true or false at all, because it is an expression of an attitude rather than a genuine proposition" etc. Something like utilitarianism, which says that a thing is evil if it is inconsistent with the general happiness, is just a straight-ahead first-order theory that's compatible with any number of views at the second level. Doing metaethics would simply be a matter of figuring out why the statement "Things which are inconsistent with the general happiness of the greatest number are evil" is true (assuming it is true).

 

So again, I'm not seeing much of a difference as far as how consequentialists or deontologists will bring metaethical considerations to bear on any of their decisions, in game or otherwise. Our protagonist is not likely to be a philosopher, after all, and philosophers are typically the only people who even bother using words like 'metaethics.'

[Sylvius the Mad]

The distinction between paragon and renegade needs to be eliminated because of this. As I've stated before, it should a system more akin to Idealism vs. Pragmatism: I break it down into a system of normative ethics, with the idealistic responses using more of the deontological system of ethics (what is right?), and the practical responses using more of the teleological system of ethics (what is good?).

Practical responses would also tend to delve more into meta-ethics and the language behind morality and ethics (what is moral?).

In short, idealism would do what is right: deontological ethics focus on doing what is moral based on some predetermined code or principle(s) that establish what the right thing is from the get go. It is the more uniquely "Paragon" system, though in many, many ways it comes with the expense of being more rigid, inflexible, morally dichotomous (black and white), and unable to adapt to complex moral or ethical quandaries. The guiding sentiment here is "The means reflect the end."

Pragmatism on the other hand focuses on what is good: teleological ethics are more concerned with doing the most amount of good, of minimizing suffering, and of maximizing pleasure. It utilizes utilitarianism and virtue ethics. It could be more of the "Renegade" system, but is by no means at all limited to them, as Paragons can easily utilize teleological ethics if the situation calls for it. That said, Renegades, who usually tend to be the much more practical and rational types, basically find their purpose here, especially when they implement meta-ethical language into their speech ("what is moral anyway?") Teleology is much more of a bastion for the practical and rational thinkers who will do whatever it is they have to do in pursuit of the end, the mission, the goal, the bigger picture, etc. If they have to broker a sensitive diplomatic deal to advance their goal, they'll do it. If they have to experiment on child via vivisection to cure a disease, they'll do it. The downside is that what they might have to do can very quickly become totally and completely abhorrent and terrible, and they face a lot of issues from people who think that their methods are extreme, sadistic, and psychopathic. The guiding sentiment here is "The end justifies the means."

The original definitions of Paragon and Renegade used in ME1 seemed to match this fairly closely, though the game didn't do a great job of applying those consistently. And in ME2, I wasn't able to make any sense of the P/R dichotomy at all.

A meta-ethical approach would be excellent.

[God]

This will probably be my last correspondence on this, as I have to get ready to visit some relatives pretty soon.

 

Spoiler

I think the problem is this: Questions like "What is evil" are ambiguous in the sense that they can be interpreted as first-order or second-order moral questions. On the first order interpretation, the question means "What sorts of acts or behaviors are evil?" Candidate answers to this question might be things like "harming others," "failing to maximize the general happiness," etc. But this is all within the realm of normative ethics, little different from deontologists asking questions like "What is right? What sorts of actions are permitted or forbidden? What rights to people have?" etc.

 

On the second-order interpretation, "What is evil?" means something like "In virtue of what are statements like 'X is evil' true?" Candidate answers to this question would be things like "'X is evil' is a true statement whenever X is generally disapproved of by my society," or "'X is evil' isn't literally true or false at all, because it is an expression of an attitude rather than a genuine proposition" etc. Something like utilitarianism, which says that a thing is evil if it is inconsistent with the general happiness, is just a straight-ahead first-order theory that's compatible with any number of views at the second level. Doing metaethics would simply be a matter of figuring out why the statement "Things which are inconsistent with the general happiness of the greatest number are evil" is true (assuming it is true).

 

So again, I'm not seeing much of a difference as far as how consequentialists or deontologists will bring metaethical considerations to bear on any of their decisions, in game or otherwise. Our protagonist is not likely to be a philosopher, after all, and philosophers are typically the only people who even bother using words like 'metaethics.'

 

Again, fair enough. Another thing that I should state is that I'm not trying to approach this as something the protagonist will think, but something more along the lines of how I think the game could pursue morality and ethics. 

 

The protagonist might not be a philosopher, but the writers can certainly implement philosophy into the game. As well, my question is more an example of how the game might function, not necessarily how we actually do approach the issue beyond the game.

 

This is my idea for how philosophy could be be applied meaningfully into the game. Meta-ethics might not be really delved into, but the general presence of the concept might be present in the game with, say, the consequentialist style protagonist (the character I am by far most likely to play).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Our protagonist is not likely to be a philosopher, after all, and philosophers are typically the only people who even bother using words like 'metaethics.'

All people should be philosophers.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Hitler level.. Stuart Hitler that is. 

[Dean_the_Young]

All people should be philosophers.

 

Then they'd starve, and leave the world to be lived by more practical peoples who actually do stuff for a living.

 

Excellent.

[KaiserShep]

All people should be philosophers.

 

Quite a few people already are.

 

[God]

Then they'd starve, and leave the world to be lived by more practical peoples who actually do stuff for a living.

 

Excellent.

 

Bruce Lee was asked by his mother and her family what he would do with himself when he told them he was going to college to study Philosophy.

 

He responded "I shall think long and hard about unemployment lines."

[Sylvius the Mad]

Then they'd starve, and leave the world to be lived by more practical peoples who actually do stuff for a living.

 

Excellent.

An unexamined life is not worth living.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bruce Lee was asked by his mother and her family what he would do with himself when he told them he was going to college to study Philosophy.

 

He responded "I shall think long and hard about unemployment lines."

In the biopic, the line was "I shall think deep thoughts about being unemployed."

[God]

An unexamined life is not worth living.

 

Maybe to you and me. But others have their own interpretation to personal ideology.

[Dean_the_Young]

An unexamined life is not worth living.

 

Hardly need to be a philosopher to examine life.

 

You do, however, need to be something besides a philosopher to live it.

[Il Divo]

An unexamined life is not worth living.

 

I dunno. As someone with a philosophy degree, I have no regets. On the other hand, I've seen no shortage of people who seem happy enough without it. ​

[Sylvius the Mad]

I dunno. As someone with a philosophy degree, I have no regets. On the other hand, I've seen no shortage of people who seem happy enough without it. ​

As the saying goes, ignorance is bliss.

[KainD]

An unexamined life is not worth living.

 

Then it's not worth living period, because you never get any real answers, you only get more and more questions the further you go. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Then it's not worth living period, because you never get any real answers, you only get more and more questions the further you go.

I find it extremely beneficial to know the limits on my knowledge.

But I apply this to all things. If it matters, measure it. I dislike it when people make decisions without first examining the relevant data.

[KainD]

I find it extremely beneficial to know the limits on my knowledge.

But I apply this to all things. If it matters, measure it. I dislike it when people make decisions without first examining the relevant data.

 

True but examine-able data behind things does not have to do much with philosophy behind said things.

[Spacepunk01]

Hardly need to be a philosopher to examine life.

 

You do, however, need to be something besides a philosopher to live it.

 

We're all philosophers to some degree, but not everybody is a sofisticated philosopher.

 

Then it's not worth living period, because you never get any real answers, you only get more and more questions the further you go. 

 

The statment reads:

 

The unexamined life is not worth living.

 

When you say that because we can't find all the answers it's useless to examine life in the first place, then you've actually misunderstood the statement. We are only talking about the value of examining life, and that this search in itself has inherent value - which is to say that it's not predicated on anything else; it is not the goal, but rather the path that is essential.

 

The search for truth has inherent value and it makes life worth living. This is the meaning of the statement. 

[Rabinson]

i'm happy with a sociopath.

[KainD]

We're all philosophers to some degree, but not everybody is a sofisticated philosopher.

 

 

The statment reads:

 

The unexamined life is not worth living.

 

When you say that because we can't find all the answers it's useless to examine life in the first place, then you've actually misunderstood the statement. We are only talking about the value of examining life, and that this search in itself has inherent value - which is to say that it's not predicated on anything else; it is not the goal, but rather the path that is essential.

 

The search for truth has inherent value and it makes life worth living. This is the meaning of the statement. 

 

I really don't see any value in actions without useful results. To each their own I guess. 

[In Exile]

I really don't see any value in actions without useful results. To each their own I guess. 

 

But who gets to say whether the result is useful? Someone can just say that a deeper examination of life - and the understanding that comes with it - results in something useful. The standard of "useful" is not a very good metric.

[Bad King]

The main thing they need when writing the paragon/renegade paths is consistency which was often lacking in the ME trilogy. If we take a look at the renegade for instance:

 

ME2's renegade was generally pro-Cerberus (which was consistent with ME1's portrayal of the renegade as being more pro-human/expansionist than the paragon or neutral), but by ME3, the renegade was utterly anti-Cerberus while the paragon (who was fervently anti-Cerberus in ME2) was often somewhat sympathetic towards TIM in ME3.

 

Likewise, the renegade in ME2 was strongly pro-genophage and yet in ME3 (despite the renegade choice being to prevent the genophage cure) I found that at times, particularly in conversations with Wreav, my renegade was a cheerleader for krogan expansionism which rather contradicted previous renegade dialogue options.

 

So rather than have paragon = always understanding and sympathetic and renegade = always warmongering and obnoxious, they should go beyond simple personality traits and try to flesh out a consistent worldview for each path, which would mean that both the renegade and paragon could exhibit similar attitudes but in different contexts e.g with the renegade having the capacity for sympathy in certain situations (such as with human nationalist politicians) and likewise with the paragon having the capacity for rage and rudeness in certain situations (such as with human nationalist politicians!). This would mean that both paths would offer a more complex and fleshed out character rather than a more one dimensional character who is constantly either ultra-angry or ultra-polite regardless of the situation.

 

Furthermore, BioWare need to stop favouring the paragon path and make sure that both paths have their own positives and negatives while shaping the universe in different ways. For instance, I was expecting the council's fate in ME1 to play a big role in ME3: I was anticipating the paragon decision to lead to greater trust and unity between humans and other races (due to the Alliance rescuing the council) but at the cost of the galaxy being too complacent due to these good relations (and thus with less prepared military forces). Meanwhile, based on radio reports from ME2, I was anticipating the renegade path to be the opposite with a much larger galactic fleet (due to the Cold War style arms race between the humans and turians as mentioned on ME2) but at the cost of galactic unity with far more distrust between humans and other races. What we in fact ended up learning was that the paragon path resulted in both a more united galaxy and a stronger fleet (because apparently BioWare forgot about the human-turian arms race and the Destiny Ascension ended up being worth more war assets than all those Alliance cruisers that were wrecked in the battle against Sovereign).