2368 réponses à ce sujet

[fraggle]

Does this sound like something a benevolent entity would do? Someone who wants to help you? The motives are clearly that of an antagonist.

 

The Catalyst wants to preserve them before they are forever lost to the conflict. It says that. I don't care for leak scripts as they are not in the game. And I don't see how what it says is relevant to what I say anyway. Of course organics become a Reaper, but that's only the consequence. We were discussing the motives.

 

So, while I personally destroy the suckers every time so far because we need no one to decide over our fate, from a completely neutral perspective I do not think the Catalyst is evil. I just can't see it. I already stated why.

[capn233]

Don't know.  I chose destroy every time.

[Kynare]

I chose it because it makes an interesting story with different possibilities of where it could go in the future, and I love stuff like that. My Shepard chose it because she was battered, bleeding, half-dead, desperate and unwilling to undo everything she had achieved with the geth and EDI. Quite frankly, logic should have very little to do with it. She didn't have a forum site to sit on and debate about it for days, but she did have indication from a credible source (Cerberus, multi-billion dollar company with established scientists who brought her back from the dead) that it was feasible. So she used her gut instinct, took a hold of the control rods to see what would happen and it worked. Yippee.

Personally, I didn't take the Paragon Control speech as a dictatorship. It seemed pretty clear that the Shepard AI was placing heavy emphasis on how every living being deserved to make their own choices in life (unless their choice is to destroy the entire galaxy, of course), and it would take a role as more of a passive protector in case more beings like the Reapers decide to come around, and/or diplomat if the galaxy comes to accept its help. Especially since the majority of the galaxy would still be incredibly hostile towards the Reaper forms, I highly doubt an AI with Paragon Shepard's morals and ideals (and that is what Control achieves) would impose itself on people without regard.

It's the Renegade speech that sounds more like a dictatorship. And their logic would be like TIM's. Disagreeable and with questionable motives. But still a form of logic nevertheless.

[Faust1979]

Because things change over time and you may start to believe that your Shepard isn't the same person he was when he first started and had come to realize that an alternative option might be the best one

[Mordokai]

The Catalyst is not evil, it's not your typical villain type. I tend to think people label it as villain because they don't agree with its methods. Neither do I, but how I see it, it thinks like a machine, it thinks it actually "helps organics ascend", and that it preserves their knowledge and essence. It is not doing what it does out of pure spite or hatred, it was tasked to so something and it chose to do it the way we know.

But the method it chose doesn't make it evil imo. It just has a different perspective and opinion of these things.

The Reapers are just pawns too, created to fulfill their master's objective, they are not villains.

 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions comes readily to mind.

 

Also, how many Nazis claimed they were "just following orders"?

 

Oh yeah, I'm invoking motherfuking Godwin here.

[angol fear]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions comes readily to mind.

Also, how many Nazis claimed they were "just following orders"?

Oh yeah, I'm invoking motherfuking Godwin here.

It has nothing to do with nazis. The comparison is irrelevant. The catalyst preserves life, it changes its form in a new and higher form of life. It's the catalyst solution to avoid organic life being destroyed entirely. I don't see anything in common with the nazis. And every reaper knows what he is doing, they know about the ascension of organic life and the order they impose on chaos. They are not "just following orders" and the purpose has nothing evil. they are doing what they were programmed for, and this purpose is actually good (while the method isn't). Evil is a matter of purpose not a matter of method.

[Reorte]

 Evil is a matter of purpose not a matter of method.

Not really. Evil done with good intentions is still evil (the world would be a lot better off with far fewer people but a deliberate attempt to achieve that by killing a few billion people would be downright evil).

 

I'd also question their intentions, since their intent is to wipe out the actual civilisation and just have a record and Reaper-form remnant.

[jtav]

I don't think the Catalyst is evil because it's not a moral agent.

And I choose the other two endings because I like them better. Simple as that.

[Obadiah]

I don't see why the Catalyst being evil matters so much to the choice - I think it is evil, and I did like that fact that we were forced to deal with it.

There are people in the ME universe, mostly Batarians, who think Shepard is evil for the destruction of the Bahak system, and Balak may even so decide to work with Shepard.

[angol fear]

Not really. Evil done with good intentions is still evil (the world would be a lot better off with far fewer people but a deliberate attempt to achieve that by killing a few billion people would be downright evil).

I'd also question their intentions, since their intent is to wipe out the actual civilisation and just have a record and Reaper-form remnant.

So what is evil ?

[Reorte]

So what is evil ?

The obvious reply to that is "buy a dictionary," but it's a good question, particularly if you rule out the supernatural aspects. I suppose a deliberate course of action that causes a lot of suffering is, possibly tempered by those occasions where the alternatives are worse - although even then it would still remain evil IMO if there was no concern about that suffering. Just my off-the-cuff thoughts though.

[Monica21]

The obvious reply to that is "buy a dictionary," but it's a good question, particularly if you rule out the supernatural aspects. I suppose a deliberate course of action that causes a lot of suffering is, possibly tempered by those occasions where the alternatives are worse - although even then it would still remain evil IMO if there was no concern about that suffering. Just my off-the-cuff thoughts though.

But is a child evil when he stomps out an ant hill? Based on what we know of the Reapers, they don't have a concept of morality. To a child, those ants are just ants. They're nothing. The Reapers are evil in the same way a hurricane is evil. They arrive, cause destruction and death, and then are gone again.

[Dantriges]

..., they don't have a concept of morality. ...

 

Which is a funny thing, considering that they have databases with a billion years worth of religion and philosophy from countless civilisations and the very peope who came up with that in ascended form. They should get at least the concept, even if they discarded them as no longer viable. .Ah they probably dropped them in the trashcan or zipped in some inaccessible part.

[Monica21]

Which is a funny thing, considering that they have databases with a billion years worth of religion and philosophy from countless civilisations and the very peope who came up with that in ascended form. They should get at least the concept, even if they discarded them as no longer viable. .Ah they probably dropped them in the trashcan or zipped in some inaccessible part.

I don't think that morality is as easily understood as that. Even if it were, what would cause the Reapers to aspire to having a moral code? A moral code is inefficient. It's chaotic and therefore goes against their own core programming. They might easily understand the concept while deciding that it's worthless.

[Dantriges]

They are 100.000+ super intelligences (at least they are supposed to be), They can figure something out. The average human has some understanding how ants tick or what their pet dog wants and these species don´t build databases, which we steal every decade or so, because our whole existence is centered on the ants. They should have some idea about the concept of morality.

 

I never said that they should have a moral code of their own, only that they should get the concept. It´s pretty obvious thatthey discarded the idea of having one. So they are no children, who don´t know better, more like people who don´t give a f***.

[Reorte]

But is a child evil when he stomps out an ant hill? Based on what we know of the Reapers, they don't have a concept of morality. To a child, those ants are just ants. They're nothing. The Reapers are evil in the same way a hurricane is evil. They arrive, cause destruction and death, and then are gone again.

The child's excuse is ignorance and inexperience.

[Tim van Beek]

 

The obvious reply to that is "buy a dictionary," but it's a good question, particularly if you rule out the supernatural aspects. I suppose a deliberate course of action that causes a lot of suffering is, possibly tempered by those occasions where the alternatives are worse - although even then it would still remain evil IMO if there was no concern about that suffering. Just my off-the-cuff thoughts though.

Geez, one moment I thought someone would start to cite from Kant's "Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals", glad we dodged that bullet   .

But, if you are looking for a secular and rational foundation of morality, the enlightenment is a good place to start.

 

 

But is a child evil when he stomps out an ant hill? Based on what we know of the Reapers, they don't have a concept of morality. To a child, those ants are just ants. They're nothing. The Reapers are evil in the same way a hurricane is evil. They arrive, cause destruction and death, and then are gone again.

A hurricane is unable to form a will or an intention. 

The child may not be able to understand what it is doing and what the consequences of its actions are.

The reapers have both an intention and understand their actions and their consequences, but accoding to you in order to be evil, they themselves need some sense of morality. That is surprising! The way most people use the word "evil", I thought that it is enough if the ones who judge have a sense of morality, not the ones who are judged.

 

 

Evil is a matter of purpose not a matter of method.

 

And that's very surprising, too. Humanity has discussed this question for thousands of years: Do the ends justify the means? To what extend? 

There is a lot of literature about it. A lot of the most "interesting" villians both in real life and in fiction start out as good guys with good intentions, which then get corrupted over time by the more and more extreme means they think they need to employ. 

 

There is a reason why "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is a proverb.

[Dantriges]

[irony on] But the Reapers are the ubermenschrobot and cannot be judged by mere weak mortals and their flawed morality.[irony off]

 

Well, if the amoral super AI tells me where its off button is, dont be surprised that I push it. It might be, that it thinks its pov is superior but in that moment, the human point of view is that counts. Well, seems that its idea is not so hot, when it´s dumb enough to tell me, how to kill it. 

[Monica21]

The child's excuse is ignorance and inexperience.

And what do grown-ups do when they find a trail of ants marching across their kitchen counters? It's not so different.
 

A hurricane is unable to form a will or an intention.

The Reapers don't either. The Reapers are following a billion-year-old program.

The child may not be able to understand what it is doing and what the consequences of its actions are.

And what are the consequences, exactly? An ant hill gets destroyed. Are we really concerned about a few hundred non-sapient critters that we'll call a child "evil" for kicking over an ant hill?

The reapers have both an intention and understand their actions and their consequences, but according to you in order to be evil, they themselves need some sense of morality. That is surprising! The way most people use the word "evil", I thought that it is enough if the ones who judge have a sense of morality, not the ones who are judged.

The Reapers are an AI following a program. It does not follow that they are intelligent and understand their actions. The only thing that happens when you reach the Crucible is that they tell you that you've altered the variables; translated, you've altered their programming. It does not follow that they need to think like an organic.

The problem with a word like "evil" is exactly what you describe. Who decides what's evil? A hurricane can easily be described as evil, even with no motivation, simply because there is a path of destruction in its wake. The Reapers can be described as such too. However, ascribing some kind of arbitrary morality to a machine and determining that its actions are deliberately evil because of its programming is something I can only describe as problematic.

[larsdt]

 

 

Geez, one moment I thought someone would start to cite from Kant's "Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals", glad we dodged that bullet   .

 

I'll try moving the focus to something else and see if any one follows 

 

Threads and topics in this forum about the game ending are about moral choices and trying to / giving up on understanding the Catalyst. Not much about how we are force fed to choose between synthetics and organics. Maybe I'm stupid but I never saw that coming. Not in ME1&2 and not in ME3 until the mission on Rannoch. My Shepard does not fight Reapers because they are synthetics. It's "we fight or we die". I'm OK with the Geth getting a software upgrade.

 

Then Catalyst comes along and tells me synthetics always revolt against organics      . I simply don't believe that so no destroy ending from me. I want the Geth to get a chance in this galaxy. They are no more dangerous than the Krogan with Genophage cured. That also means Synthesis is a no-go. That concept is way beyond my comprehension. Plenty of space magic in the game already.

[Reorte]

And what do grown-ups do when they find a trail of ants marching across their kitchen counters? It's not so different.

Different motivations. If it's possibly evil to destroy ants then one has no justification, the other does (whether or not that's sufficient is beside the point in this case, I think). Both method and purpose matter.

The Reapers don't either. The Reapers are following a billion-year-old program.

In which case the Reapers aren't really any more than VIs with no genuine sapience.

And what are the consequences, exactly? An ant hill gets destroyed. Are we really concerned about a few hundred non-sapient critters that we'll call a child "evil" for kicking over an ant hill?

There are degrees, from merely "mildly naughty" to "name will be cursed for all eternity."

[Monica21]

In which case the Reapers aren't really any more than VIs with no genuine sapience.

That's pretty much what I'm saying. The Catalyst shows you that they aren't much more than highly engineered machines. They may talk and threaten, but they're still machines and the core of their function is a program that Shepard has altered by his actions. They can't alter the program by themselves. Heck, Star Child isn't even aware enough to realize that the first attempt at opening the Citadel Relay had failed. If he did realize it, then he was unable to fix the problem himself. And he was apparently either unaware or unable to stop the Protheans from altering the signal. The Reapers might be terrifying and dangerous, but they can't learn and don't change. I don't see much evidence of sapience.