233 réponses à ce sujet

[Hrulj]

What are the main arguments for people to support Geth over the Quarians?

[Eleonora]

I'd guess a lot of people view the geth as sentient beings, and blame the quarians for starting the war against the geth in the first place. The quarians tried to destroy them because of their newfound sentience and the phrase "does this unit have a soul?" freaked them out a lot. The geth drove the quarians away from Rannoch during the Morning War, but did give them the opportunity to leave (as they thought annihilating their creators wouldn't be a good decision). The geth still regarded co-existance with their creators as a future possibility.

However, during the events of ME3, the quarians again opted for war against the geth, which led to the geth seeking help from the reapers out of necessity. They are acting in self-defence, while the quarians are clearly on the offensive.

 

Also, I guess some people have lost Tali in ME2 which makes choosing the geth a little less hard as well.

 

 

Personally, I see both sides as valid choices, but I always go for peace between the two unless I'm rp'ing a certain way or going for a failshep playthrough.

[Hrulj]

I'd guess a lot of people view the geth as sentient beings, and blame the quarians for starting the war against the geth in the first place. The quarians tried to destroy them because of their newfound sentience and the phrase "does this unit have a soul?" freaked them out a lot. The geth drove the quarians away from Rannoch during the Morning War, but did give them the opportunity to leave (as they thought annihilating their creators wouldn't be a good decision). The geth still regarded co-existance with their creators as a future possibility.

However, during the events of ME3, the quarians again opted for war against the geth, which led to the geth seeking help from the reapers out of necessity. They are acting in self-defence, while the quarians are clearly on the offensive.

 

Also, I guess some people have lost Tali in ME2 which makes choosing the geth a little less hard as well.

 

 

Personally, I see both sides as valid choices, but I always go for peace between the two unless I'm rp'ing a certain way or going for a failshep playthrough.

But the geth arent sentient. They are a sentience, no individuality. A massive computer programme controling hardware units

 

Didnt they stop due to programing limitations?

 

Quarians had to act. The Geth were building a dyson sphere around the sun where Rannoch is. That would make the planet unlivable for organics, exterminate all plant life, and due to that animal life as well. 

[Kynare]

To make a change and have an interesting future with robots? I'm tired of the same ol' meat sacks.

[Remix-General Aetius]

only way to kill Han Gerrel off.

[themikefest]

I choose them to see what happens. Its funny watching Tali or Raan make no effort to stop the upload. How pathetic. They never cared about their own species

[Quarian Master Race]

Outside of silly lolvideogame reasons like getting to perform genocide for "teh evulz"? They think with their feels rather than logic of what is most useful for the war effort and least dangerous to galactic stability. Most people lap up the obvious propaganda video and totally buy the ridiculous "self defense" excuse for allying with the Reapers due to one sided presentation in ME3 (compared to the whole of in universe lore at large) and are perfectly willing to betray reliable allies for unreliable but more sympathetic (to them) toasters despite the fact that there is no strategic reason to do so. Similar reasons motivate more than 90% of players to cure the Genophage even though doing the math either way points to the obvious conclusion that this is a terrible idea (losing salarian support and practically inevitable krogan resurgance).

Amusingly, choosing the geth in lieu of the quarians isn't the ethical choice by any rational system either. They aren't sentient, so denying them ability to use Reaper tech to wipe out their creators causes no suffering of note except that of organics which could have potentially been prevented via geth utility to the war effort (which is objectively less than that of the quarians). One could make arguments for allowing them said code if it didn't result in losing the quarians, but I don't think those reasons are particularly good either without the metagaming knowlege that the newly ascended geth can be controlled or destroyed by the endings. 

[KaiserShep]

Because reaper code is a hell of a drug. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

But the geth arent sentient. They are a sentience, no individuality.

Sentience doesn't require individuality.  The geth are sentient, because the geth, taken collectively, is a sentience.

 

In ME3, the current war was started by the Quarians.  The first war was started by the Quarians.  Yes, Rannoch would have been destroyed by the geth, but that was the Quarians' fault for making the geth in the first place.

 

I don't see how one can make a make a moral argument for siding with the Quarians.

 

One can, however, easily make an argument from self-preservation for opposing the geth, which would involve siding with the Quarians by default.

[Hrulj]

Sentience doesn't require individuality.  The geth are sentient, because the geth, taken collectively, is a sentience.

 

In ME3, the current war was started by the Quarians.  The first war was started by the Quarians.  Yes, Rannoch would have been destroyed by the geth, but that was the Quarians' fault for making the geth in the first place.

 

I don't see how one can make a make a moral argument for siding with the Quarians.

 

One can, however, easily make an argument from self-preservation for opposing the geth, which would involve siding with the Quarians by default.

But if a Geth was taken on a trip to another sistem, before reaper upgrades, it couldnt function. It would be less inteligent than a warren. Without numbers they cant do basic things, like comunication, trade, travel. Destroying all Geth is equal to killing one person due to the fact that individuality doesnt exist and geth in fact are one person in many replaceable bodies. Is it better to kill 1 or 17 000 000?

 

What should they have done? Ask the Geth to leave? What if they refuse? Give them land and let them live on Rannoch? Most Geth were just machines without inteligence, and only small number of them gained inteligence. If Geth stay on Rannoch there would be war. We humans are a single species yet we fight each other. Geth and Quarians are not only different, but Geth are not limited by Organics limit of food, rest, freedom. They could outproduce Quarians, and in that case, why share the planet when you can own it?

 

Easy, Quarians have been treated like s**t, even companies make sure to write "No Quarians wanted" when looking for workers, nevermind anything else. Its like the treatment of jews in nazi Germany pre-war, except this one lasts for 3 centuries

At same time the Geth have killed bilions and more probably tens of bilions of Quarians and spent 300 years without reaching out or trying to establish normal relations with anyone in the entire galaxy. In fact they would attack and kill anyone entering their "space" What is more they were building Dyson spheres that would make all planets in Geth controled systems uninhabitable for Organics and that would destroy all organic life already present there.

[Sylvius the Mad]

What should they have done?

Not created the geth in the first place.

Once they had, they should have accepted that they had made a mistake and lived with the consequences.

The Quarian attemp to destroy the geth isn't morally defensible.

[Hrulj]

Not created the geth in the first place.

Once they had, they should have accepted that they had made a mistake and lived with the consequences.

The Quarian attemp to destroy the geth isn't morally defensible.

They didnt create geth as AI but as simple machines. The fact that a single geth cant match a dog equivalent when it comes to inteligence even after 300 years shows how gradual the change was.

 

And what are those consequences? Extermination by machines that would eventualy rebel, only in greater number and with more inteligence?

 

Why not? Their machines gained inteligence and they tried to contain the spread of that by shutting down the machines before its too late. Except it was too late. Since Geth arent individuals, the Quarians technicaly didnt kill a single geth, only disasembled the hardware, while Geth have killed tens of billions of Quarians, and only reason they didnt kill of all Quarians is due to software limitations they had at the time. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

And what are those consequences? Extermination by machines that would eventualy rebel, only in greater number and with more inteligence?

Also known as evolution.

They made their bed. They can die in it.

Why not? Their machines gained inteligence and they tried to contain the spread of that by shutting down the machines before its too late. Except it was too late. Since Geth arent individuals, the Quarians technicaly didnt kill a single geth, only disasembled the hardware, while Geth have killed tens of billions of Quarians, and only reason they didnt kill of all Quarians is due to software limitations they had at the time.

The assumptions you're making here are legion.

[Quarian Master Race]

Sentience doesn't require individuality.  The geth are sentient, because the geth, taken collectively, is a sentience..

Hardly. I agree that individuality isn't particularly relevant, but sentience requires subjective perception. The ability to "feel" in other words. Organics in the ME setting all almost certainly have it, including nonsapient animals such as varren or pyjaks. However the geth show no concrete evidence of this. They can make judgements and perform actions based upon their mathematical programming and the inputs provided (i.e "perspective") but it's simple logic. An example is the schism with the Heretics, caused due to a rounding error. I can't even really say that they are operating beyond a highly advanced boolean logic, but it certainly isn't sentience. Sapience, absolutely, indeed the geth are orders of magnitude more intelligent than any individual organic when networked in large numbers, but that has little to do with sentience. 
 

In ME3, the current war was started by the Quarians.  The first war was started by the Quarians.  Yes, Rannoch would have been destroyed by the geth, but that was the Quarians' fault for making the geth in the first place.

Who started it isn't really relevant. The quarians created the geth to serve them and improve their lives and existences, it would be silly to allow the geth a level of self determination that has no benefit or is detrimental. When the geth refused shutdown orders, the quarians made the logical decision of attempting to deactivate and reprogram them to fix the malfunction. When this failed, and the geth occupied their worlds and began attempts to destroy Rannoch, a war to retake them was easily justified by simple material needs due to their biology.

 

I don't see how one can make a make a moral argument for siding with the Quarians.

I don't see how one can't. Of the two, they are the only beings that can suffer. The geth are machines, moral systems based around organic concepts like sentience and individuality cannot don't apply to them, and it is erroneous anthropomorphization in trying to do so. Legion itself admits to this and corrects a Shepard that tries to assert an opinion to the contrary in ME2 (when presenting the options of either destroying or rewriting the flawed code of the Heretics). Their only value to us is in the material and economic input used to construct them. Destroying them isn't really a moral issue, because they don't suffer and can be quite easily recreated assuming the knowledge and materials are there. There's no intrinsic value to be had except what they provide to organic beings.
 

Not created the geth in the first place.

Once they had, they should have accepted that they had made a mistake and lived with the consequences.

The Quarian attemp to destroy the geth isn't morally defensible.

Ignoring beneficial technologies is ignorant Luddism. There's literally no rational reason to do so if such technologies can be used for improving our existence, which AI technologies in the ME universe certainly can and do.

They did. They accepted the mistake of not controlling geth development as well as they could, as well as strategic mistakes that resulted in the deactivation order failing, losing the war and the geth continuing to pose a danger and detriment to their intended purpose of improving organic existence. Further, they continued to strive towards correcting this mistake, and indeed have defeated the geth militarily and are on the path to ultimate success in ME3 of either destroying or reacquiring control of them before the Reapers get involved on behalf of the geth.

Given that the geth can undoubtedly be used to great benefit, I would agree in theory that destroying them isn't a morally defensible position (due to aforemention Luddism). In practice, if the geth refuse to submit to reprogramming and control and there is no option to force this upon them, than destroying them is the most rational course of action given the danger they present unchecked and the lack of material benefit for their being given self agency. Since this for some reason is not an option (I can either give them code upgrades and let them ascend even further over organics while maintaining self determination and posing an even greater danger, or destroy them), I take the safer of the two options. In the short term you lose their potential material value as military and labour equipment, but you also mitigate the risks they pose, and in the long term you can easily make replacement technologies that learn from the lessons of what went wrong with the geth and pose less of a risk.

[Hrulj]

Also known as evolution.

They made their bed. They can die in it.
The assumptions you're making here are legion.

Evolution is that Quarians should die? But not that all synthetics must die?

 

They did what we do. Inteligent beings always create and use tools. Thats what geth are. Equal to a car, dishwasher or stove. 

 

Legion is 1000+ programmes. A mobile server. If we count all alternatives, there is a total of 3 geth "beings" in existance. The "heretics" the "normal" geth and legion.

[Youknow]

Not created the geth in the first place.

Once they had, they should have accepted that they had made a mistake and lived with the consequences.

The Quarian attemp to destroy the geth isn't morally defensible.

The Quarians that exist now did not create the Geth. Should these people be punished for the actions of people in the past? 

 

This happened. The Quarians that did make the geth did suffer the consequences. They were essentially booted from their homeland. Should their children continue to suffer for that? This makes no sense. 

 

Yes it is. It was their land first, and the robots could have easily packed up and left at any given time, but instead, they just sat there on Rannoch. Even worse is that most of the people on the ships were not even fighters, so you essentially let an entire nation of innocents die because you think that their actions are defensible. The only thing that the Quarians did wrong was deciding to fight the Geth when the reapers were actively invading the galaxy. What good comes from regaining the planet if your entire species is going to be wiped out anyways? 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I wrote a long response to this, but I lost it.

Hardly. I agree that individuality isn't particularly relevant, but sentience requires subjective perception. The ability to "feel" in other words.

Congratulations. You just convinced me that I don't value sentience.

Organics in the ME setting all almost certainly have it, including nonsapient animals such as varren or pyjaks. However the geth show no concrete evidence of this. They can make judgements and perform actions based upon their mathematical programming and the inputs provided (i.e "perspective") but it's simple logic. An example is the schism with the Heretics, caused due to a rounding error. I can't even really say that they are operating beyond a highly advanced boolean logic, but it certainly isn't sentience. Sapience, absolutely, indeed the geth are orders of magnitude more intelligent than any individual organic when networked in large numbers, but that has little to do with sentience.

It seems to me that the salient difference between sentience and sapience is that we have yet to identify the specific process by which sentience operates.

That doesn't make it more valuable. What does?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Evolution is that Quarians should die? But not that all synthetics must die?

I made no normative claim.

They did what we do. Inteligent beings always create and use tools. Thats what geth are. Equal to a car, dishwasher or stove.

They're also intelligent beings who create tools.

Why do they have less worth?

Legion is 1000+ programmes. A mobile server. If we count all alternatives, there is a total of 3 geth "beings" in existance. The "heretics" the "normal" geth and legion.

You're implicitly valuing individuality. Why?

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Quarians that exist now did not create the Geth. Should these people be punished for the actions of people in the past?

This happened. The Quarians that did make the geth did suffer the consequences. They were essentially booted from their homeland. Should their children continue to suffer for that? This makes no sense.

I actually made this exact claim in the post I lost.

The only thing that the Quarians did wrong was deciding to fight the Geth when the reapers were actively invading the galaxy.

That was incredibly stupid.

Non-intervention is always a morally acceptable choice. If I stay out of the conflict, the Quarians lose. So if I'm going to change that, I need a really good reason (or to make the decision on amoral grounds).

[Hrulj]

I made no normative claim.
They're also intelligent beings who create tools.

Why do they have less worth?
You're implicitly valuing individuality. Why?

They feel no pain, nor anything else. They have no limits on themselves. Geth can build other geth without limits of food. As long as there is resources enough to build one, they can build more. I value individuality because individuality is what makes a person. Geth dont have it. Despite there being bilions of geth bodies, there are only 3 geth at any given time without reaper code upgrades. Even if we take that Geth are living beings, I would rather kill 3 to save 17 000 000 than kill 17 000 000 to save 3.

[Youknow]

 

That was incredibly stupid.

Non-intervention is always a morally acceptable choice. If I stay out of the conflict, the Quarians lose. So if I'm going to change that, I need a really good reason (or to make the decision on amoral grounds). 

 

 

So do you think refuse should be the choice made at the end as well? I mean, if you don't help everyone else with their conflicts, your entire galaxy is essentially wiped out. Or... Ascended as the catalyst put it, so should that happen. I agree that the choice to fight the geth was incredibly stupid, but the only people NOT being stupid in ME3 were the turians really. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

So do you think refuse should be the choice made at the end as well? I mean, if you don't help everyone else with their conflicts, your entire galaxy is essentially wiped out. Or... Ascended as the catalyst put it, so should that happen. I agree that the choice to fight the geth was incredibly stupid, but the only people NOT being stupid in ME3 were the turians really.

For all the claims that people like a tightly woven narrative, ME3 doesn't have one.

[Quarian Master Race]

I wrote a long response to this, but I lost it.
Congratulations. You just convinced me that I don't value sentience.
It seems to me that the salient difference between sentience and sapience is that we have yet to identify the specific process by which sentience operates.

That doesn't make it more valuable. What does?

If you don't value sentience than you shouldn't try using it as a moral argument in favour of the geth position. Geth do not suffer even when violently disembodied from their platforms (i.e shooting, frying, crushing etc.), nor do they suffer when their programs are deleted, so using that subjective feeling which they don't possess as a basis for argumentation on their behalf is flawed, and an example of misplaced anthropomorphization. 

If you subscribe to a purely mechanistic view of metaphysics, perhaps. It is still categorically an assumption given that you are presupposing that those processes can be identified in an empirical manner which can be fully understood and replicated in their entirety to create a being which will produce the same outputs given the same inputs, a position not supported by modern science. It is also a hypothetical in the ME universe given we hear the same arguments and questions of existence are answered in a manner not dissimilar to our own understanding. What is not hypothetical is that the geth consciousness can be and is understood as an entirely nonsentient mechanistic system by our examples of in universe experts in the field of artificial intelligence (Dr. Gavin Archer, Admiral Daro'Xen, Dr. Shu Qian). Moreover, I don't know where you are going with this. You base the choice to allow the certainly sentient quarians to suffer and die based on a belief that organic minds might be somewhat comparable to complex machines?

Even if that were the case, so what? Then their grievances and judgements are ultimately no more valid than those of the quarians from an objective point of view. Add onto that the geth don't suffer and the quarians do. Collective responsibility arguments apply to the geth (as the are literally a collective intelligence) but not to the quarians (due to being individuals). Is "justice" your argument, much like Legion's/ Geth VI's? Justice is an entirely subjective concept, and the geth version of it seems to be based on ill informed system based on virtue ethics of what is morally right or wrong (while presupposing that they themselves are sentients analogous to and deserving of the same considerations that organics are, which they aren't according to the information we have and Legion's own admission on Shepard's assertion that "geth aren't like organic life, don't apply our morality to them" is a "logical" judgement).

Moreover, why should that take primacy in the middle of a war for survival? Utilitarian justice (the concept I accept as most valid in making a decision in this instance) would come to the opposite conclusion, the quarians are both objectively worth more to the war effort, they are already your ally and there is virtually zero chance that any significant number of them of them will choose to ally with the enemy (as the geth have shown to be predisposed to on numerous occasions when it suits their objectives), or become an insurmountable existential threat to organic existence in the future. They are higher reward and lower risk, unless your objective involves ensuring synthetic dominance over organics.
 

 

Non-intervention is always a morally acceptable choice. If I stay out of the conflict, the Quarians lose. So if I'm going to change that, I need a really good reason (or to make the decision on amoral grounds).

This is sort of an irrelevant argument seeing as you can't stay out of the conflict if you wish to progress. Moreover, making such a choice on moral grounds when the enemies who are dedicated to your extermination are not fettered by such considerations is extremely unwise. Had the Reapers stayed out of the conflict, the geth would have been annihilated (as they are shown to be once the element of Reaper intervention, the code upgrade is removed)due to an inability to counter the quarian weapons. However, you've not much basis to make the claim that the same outcome would happen to the quarians, since the absence of your character's presence would have changed their strategic approach to the conflict entirely (they would have remained on the defensive and likely adopted new objectives if they couldn't have disabled the Reaper upgrades themselves).

Your "really good reason" is that by staying out of the conflict, you both lose a definite, very powerful historical ally in the quarians and their possession of a Fleet with more utility than any other in the galaxy, and allow the Reapers to maintain a definite, very powerful ally in the geth, reducing your own chances of success at whatever objectives you may have greatly (unless your objective is Reaper victory). Further, this doesn't even consider the possiblity of geth assistance as well (due to it being metagame knowledge before the arc is initiated). You'd have to be simply incompetent to make such a decision. No, intevening and helping the quarians disable the Reaper upgrades all the way up to Rannoch and then abandoning them is not at all non interventionary, or even close. Arguably, dissalowing the Reaper code upgrade is more cognizant to this goal since it reduces the conflict back to the pre intervention status quo where only the geth and quarians were major players, but it's ultimately not a very relevant argument either way because "intervention" is extremely ill defined and difficult to do so.

 

 I agree that the choice to fight the geth was incredibly stupid, but the only people NOT being stupid in ME3 were the turians really. 

Hardly. As Han'Gerrel argues in ME2, where do you expect the quarians to put all the civilian noncombatants that are not only taking up space in the cargo holds of their ships and thus greatly reducing their utility to the war effort, but also are in the line of fire when the ships are used for combat operations? Do you honestly expect the quarians to not only operate at greatly reduced efficiency, but potentially extinct themselves in the Reaper war for the interest of everyone but themselves? The plan they had involved answering these questions with virtually zero risk to themselves due to non Reaperized geth posing no threat. Its only flaw was unforseen Reaper intervention which required the geth to willingly enslave themselves to beings who were also going to wipe them out anyway for some reason, in the hope that the quarians wouldn't wipe them out (Xzibit logic anyone?).
 

[Asharad Hett]

What are the main arguments for people to support Geth over the Quarians?

 

In the Geth war, there isn't a good guy.  Some sympathize with the Geth's right to live.  Some sympathize with Quarrians who lost their home.  I can see both sides, and I worked to resolve conflict peacefully.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If you don't value sentience than you shouldn't try using it as a moral argument in favour of the geth position.

I'm questioning why anyone is using it in favour of the Quarian position.

 

I'm not arguing that we should favour the Geth.  I'm arguing that we have insufficient cause to favour the Quarians.

If you subscribe to a purely mechanistic view of metaphysics, perhaps.

I don't, but nor have I ruled it out.

 

I'm operating from a position of metaphysical uncertainty.  I would need cause to hold a specific metaphysical position, and I have yet ever to see one.

 

There are far to many epistemological questions we would need to answer before we could even approach metaphysics.

It is still categorically an assumption given that you are presupposing that those processes can be identified in an empirical manner which can be fully understood and replicated in their entirety to create a being which will produce the same outputs given the same inputs, a position not supported by modern science.

I'm not assuming that.

 

But nor am I assuming the opposite.

It is also a hypothetical in the ME universe given we hear the same arguments and questions of existence are answered in a manner not dissimilar to our own understanding. What is not hypothetical is that the geth consciousness can be and is understood as an entirely nonsentient mechanistic system by our examples of in universe experts in the field of artificial intelligence (Dr. Gavin Archer, Admiral Daro'Xen, Dr. Shu Qian). Moreover, I don't know where you are going with this. You base the choice to allow the certainly sentient quarians to suffer and die based on a belief that organic minds might be somewhat comparable to complex machines?

Given that changing the outcome of the conflict saddles me with the responsibility of that choice, but not changing it doesn't, absolutely.

 

If the Geth win, I have zero culpability.  If the Quarians win, I have some culpability.  If that culpability comes with any moral harm at all, that's greater than zero.

 

Why risk it?

 

Note, the Geth were not actively hunting the Quarians through space.  They seem content to leave the Quarians be.  There was a option for peaceful co-existence, but the Quarians decided they needed to fight over a specific piece of real estate.  This quest of theirs to regain Rannoch was foolish, and had been for centuries.

 

If you want to stop the Geth, then fight them.  Just as the Turians fought the Krogan.  But don't claim that there's some moral imperative behind it.  It's just self-preservation.

Even if that were the case, so what? Then their grievances and judgements are ultimately no more valid than those of the quarians from an objective point of view. Add onto that the geth don't suffer and the quarians do. Collective responsibility arguments apply to the geth (as the are literally a collective intelligence) but not to the quarians (due to being individuals). Is "justice" your argument, much like Legion's/ Geth VI's? Justice is an entirely subjective concept, and the geth version of it seems to be based on ill informed system based on virtue ethics of what is morally right or wrong (while presupposing that they themselves are sentients analogous to and deserving of the same considerations that organics are, which they aren't according to the information we have and Legion's own admission on Shepard's assertion that "geth aren't like organic life, don't apply our morality to them" is a "logical" judgement).

Popular morality and logic often seem to have little to do with one another.

 

My argument isn't based on justice, nor do I expect I will ever make such an argument without first finding even a vaguely adequate definition of justice.

 

My argument is that there is no moral reason to favour the Quarians over the Geth unless we make assumptions about the Geth being of less moral value.  And that's what they are - assumptions, and entirely without foundation.

 

There's also no moral reason I can think of that would favour the Geth over the Quarians without assuming that the Geth are of equivalent value.  What I'm looking for is the moral path in the absence of knowledge regarding the moral standing of the Geth as compared to the Quarians.  If we do not know whether the Geth have equivalent moral value (and we don't), what's the moral choice?

the quarians are both objectively worth more to the war effort

Do we know that when the choice is made?  Is there a way to see that?

This is sort of an irrelevant argument seeing as you can't stay out of the conflict if you wish to progress. Moreover, making such a choice on moral grounds when the enemies who are dedicated to your extermination are not fettered by such considerations is extremely unwise.

Siding with the Quarians was being defended on moral grounds, and I think that's nonsense.  I was trying to dismantle that reasoning to show how broken it was.

 

If I were to stay out of the conflict (which Shepard can do - that choice simply isn't modeled by the game), the Geth would win.  No one seems to dispute that.

 

Okay, so if we allow the possibility that there's a moral angle to the Quarian-Geth conflict, changing the outcome makes us responsible for it.  Not changing the outcome doesn't.  Since I need to sever the Geth connection to the Reapers, I then need to make up for that by siding with them in their conflict with the Quarians.  Otherwise, I'm responsible for the Quarian victory.  But I'm not responsible for the Quarian defeat, because that was already going to happen.

 

The Quarians started the fight.  The consequences of that fight are their fault.  Intent follows the bullet.