657 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Suppose Bob is taking a week-long out of town trip and asks Bill to water his flowers while he's out. Bill promises to do so but fails to water the plants, and as a result, the flowers wither and die. It seems plausible to suppose that Bill is responsible and blameworthy for the death of the plants, despite the fact that he took no direct action to cause their death.

He did, though. He agreed to water them. This influenced Bob's behaviour (expecting Bill to water the plants, and not finding someone else to do it).

Bill's bad act there wasn't his failure to water the plants. It was his lying to Bob about it.

[UpUpAway]

I didn't reach that conclusion.

I was sent to stop Balak. I stopped Balak. While he was there, he set in motion events that killed some people. That's on him, not on me. Moral culpability cannot be sensically tied to inaction.

 

Shepard was not sent to stop Balak... he/she overheard a distress call from Kate and opted to go land on the asteroid to try to help.  At no point does Hackett give him/her the mission as an assignment.  If anything, Shepard has been sent to stop Saren (by the Council) and has been derailed by Hackett on any number of occasion with other assignments important to the Alliance... but X47, he/she decides to do on his/her own.

 

A subtle "moral dilemma" presented in the game that is often missed is whether or not it is morally right for Shepard to be doing any of the side missions at all... or should he/she be focused solely on stopping Saren?  Whether or not this moral dilemma is well presented in the game is another question... the alternative consequence of Saren getting away and succeeding in allowing the Reapers into the galaxy is never presented as an option. 

 

So, if you think about it, anyone who even starts X47 has already risked letting the biggest terrorist in the galaxy go in order to save a few hostages and a small human colony.  (A question was posed above... is there reason to believe that Shepard believed his assertion about catching Balak later?  I think the best proof that he did believe he could do both is probably in the fact that Shepard even started the X57 mission.)

[mikeymoonshine]

On the one hand I like grey area on the other I felt everything in DA:I was a bit too grey, the Inquisitor couldn't really be a bad guy most of the time, you had to be the hero. You could be a harsh-ish hero but you had to be one. Which makes it feel like there is less choice. That said, I don't like the black and white thing either. 

[Jorji Costava]

He did, though. He agreed to water them. This influenced Bob's behaviour (expecting Bill to water the plants, and not finding someone else to do it).

Bill's bad act there wasn't his failure to water the plants. It was his lying to Bob about it.

 

Who said anything about lying? Perhaps Bill just forgot, and forgetting is exactly a voluntary act. One can reasonably held responsible for negligence even if that negligence does not consist in one actively doing anything. Also, suppose we make the following revision to the thought experiment: There is no one else Bob can find who will water the plants (perhaps they're very stinky, and Bill is the only person within distance who has the requisite tolerance for the smell). In that case, the fact that Bill may have influenced Bob's behavior in some way by agreeing to do it plays no role in the death of the plants, because had he not agreed, the plants would die anyway. Nonetheless, if Bill agrees to do it and yet fails to do so, he's responsible.

 

Anyways, there is a very extensive literature on whether or not absences can be causes; for a very recent (and highly amusing) contribution to this discussion, see the paper below (linked from here):

Spoiler

[Iakus]

I didn't reach that conclusion.

I was sent to stop Balak. I stopped Balak. While he was there, he set in motion events that killed some people. That's on him, not on me. Moral culpability cannot be sensically tied to inaction.

The point being, it would be reasonable to assume that while Shepard is saving the hostages, Joker would be out there tracking Balak and taking him out.

 

Alas he appears to have been busy updating his extranet bookmarks...

[von uber]

Funny really. First playthrough I was all 'ooh, cure the gebophage! ' and if peace wasn't an option 'oooh shiny collective Ai species!'.
Now it's sabotage and scrap the toasters as I've thought about it more - and I really am convinced it's not a deliberate thing from bioware that this has happened.

[Revan Reborn]

Funny really. First playthrough I was all 'ooh, cure the gebophage! ' and if peace wasn't an option 'oooh shiny collective Ai species!'.
Now it's sabotage and scrap the toasters as I've thought about it more - and I really am convinced it's not a deliberate thing from bioware that this has happened.

Perhaps you have just became cynical and lost your humanity overtime? BioWare makes it pretty clear what choices they'd want the player to choose. Synthesis is a perfect example of what BioWare believed was the "best" ending for ME3. Saving the quarians, making the geth independent, and curing the genophage all seem to be things BioWare wanted players to achieve.

[DaemionMoadrin]

SW:TOR has lots of excellent moral choices although I think they could have gone further with it. Sometimes it's just silly, like refusing a reward for the quest and getting it anyway... or in the Jedi Consular main quest, shielding afflicted jedi costs you some of your strength... but actually doesn't. It would be a much more difficult choice to save people if your character actually lost something each time. I doubt we'd see all that many saviours if the ritual weakened you each time.

 

Same for Mass Effect, really. Most choices have insignificant consequences and have to give out points (Paragon/Renegade, light side/dark side, open palm/closed fist) to make them relevant. Which then narrows situations down to binary outcomes.

 

This is why I liked the Witcher (the first one, still haven't had time to play the other 2) because you don't have a morality system but your choices have consequences that change how the game plays out. I mean sure, ME had this too ... to some degree... but it was always tied to morality.

 

Sometimes the correct choice would be a harsh one and you were "punished" with renegade points for it (and usually behaved like a jerk). I'd rather have a protagonist with a consistent personality and no morality points.

 

This brings me back to DA2. The friendship/rivalry system we had there worked beautifully and no matter if you slaughtered all of Kirkwall or helped orphans across the street, you didn't become a renegade/paragon.

 

I'm sure I had some sort of point to make but I wrote this post while getting several calls and now... uh... it'll make sense. To someone. I hope.

[von uber]

Perhaps you have just became cynical and lost your humanity overtime? BioWare makes it pretty clear what choices they'd want the player to choose. Synthesis is a perfect example of what BioWare believed was the "best" ending for ME3. Saving the quarians, making the geth independent, and curing the genophage all seem to be things BioWare wanted players to achieve.

Hardly - more looking at the lore which bioware seemingly didn't. And it's ironic you say I lose my humanity and yet say synthesis is the best ending - the very definition of not being a human anymore.

[UpUpAway]

Hardly - more looking at the lore which bioware seemingly didn't. And it's ironic you say I lose my humanity and yet say synthesis is the best ending - the very definition of not being a human anymore.

 

Oh, really?  It seems to me that for a bunch of endings that lacked so much in variety and difference, there is a LOT of difference in how different people here interpret those endings and a LOT of disagreement as to what Bioware "intended" to be the best choices in the game.  If it's all so clear, why is there so much arguing over it?

[DaemionMoadrin]

Perhaps you have just became cynical and lost your humanity overtime? BioWare makes it pretty clear what choices they'd want the player to choose. Synthesis is a perfect example of what BioWare believed was the "best" ending for ME3. Saving the quarians, making the geth independent, and curing the genophage all seem to be things BioWare wanted players to achieve.

 

Yes, because BioWare -never- thinks things through.

 

The Geth were predictable and never lied, because they didn't understand the concept. If the old Geth promised to stay in their territory and not interfer with the rest of the galaxy, then you could trust them. The new Geth are individuals now (however that worked, most unnecessary upgrade ever), so now they are unpredictable. They do not have the same needs as other species, which makes them superior in many ways. Over time, they'd overrun the entire galaxy... even if they initially didn't have any plans for that.

 

Synthesis ending makes no sense. If you already saved the Geth, reconciled them with the Quarians and got EDI to research ways to safely boink with Joker... then organic/synthetic co-existence has been proven already. We get along already. Why would you mess with the physical bodies of everyone in the galaxy? Why rape every living being with nonsense space magic? "Add your essence to the magic fountain and it will change everyone in the kingdom" ... bleh.

This only shows that BioWare has no idea about anything. The difference between synthetic and organic has never been the stuff they were made of, it was the way they think. I don't see how clogging up the synthetic hardware with unnecessary organic DNA would help the programs understand emotions and desires. That's like sneezing into your PC case and expecting a game to understand your feelings. Even worse... if the Geth are saved, then they have the Reaper upgrade and that means they are individuals with emotions already. EDI was one from the start. Synthesis wouldn't change -anything- for them.

Adding synthetic particles to organic cells isn't going to change anything either. We've had cyborgs before (Shepard as the most famous one) and it's not like people will behave any differently now that their eyes glow in the dark or that they can access the net directly in their brain.

 

Destroy ending has problems, too. Sure, you eradicate all synthetic life in the galaxy (awesome how the energy knows that it needs to fry a Geth program on server X but not touch the environmental control program running on server Y) but that leaves a power vacuum. Remember the leviathans? Those guys only stopped ruling the galaxy because the reapers hunted them down. Now that the reapers are gone and galactic civilization is weakened from the war and the destruction of much of their technology by red space magic... what exactly stops the rulers of old to rise from their slumber in the dark of the oceans and claim what used to be their realm? You basically trade an extinction cycle for eternal slavery.

 

Control is marginally better, as long as you can convince yourself that the AI copy of Shepard won't be a tyrant. You get to keep all the resources, all the knowledge and abilities of the Reapers. You control the galaxy, no one can stand against you. This allows the Geth to survive because now you can stop them if they spread too widely. The problem is: Power corrupts. How likely is it that AI Shep has safeguards to prevent them from exterminating the hanar because they are big, stupid jellyfish and Shep has had enough of their silliness? I still wonder why Shepard had to be disintegrated during the upload process. You'd think making a copy would work better if the original wasn't in agony and dying. What if that corrupted the datastream? Is AI Shep even a full copy or just a new theme run by the catalyst?

 

That leaves refusal, which is the best option. Rocks fall, everyone dies. Next cycle gets a headstart and wins. The only reason why this option wasn't popular is because we were too attached to "our" cycle and the people in it. Oh... and it required someone else to use the crucible, so basically we only postphoned the RGB decision by 50.000 years.

 

You will notice that none of these choices are about morality. They are about practicality. If you went by morals, then the most popular choices (Destroy and Synthesis) would be the worst ones. One requires you to sacrifice all synthetic life and quite a lot of your advanced technology, the other changes the physical bodies of everyone in the galaxy without their consent (which for some might be a fate worse than death). Refusal means throwing away everything you've done until then and leave it up to the next cycle. Control keeps the status quo and enforces peace... which might lead to stagnation but is otherwise the "best" choice if you went by morals.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Who said anything about lying? Perhaps Bill just forgot, and forgetting is exactly a voluntary act.

Agreeing is a voluntary act.

If Bill says he'll water the plants and then doesn't, he lied. Lying doesn't require intent, just falsehood.

One can reasonably held responsible for negligence even if that negligence does not consist in one actively doing anything.

I disagree. If I didn't volutarily accept the obligation, then the obligation doesn't exist.

I can't neglect an obligation that doesn't exist. Things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics.

Also, suppose we make the following revision to the thought experiment: There is no one else Bob can find who will water the plants (perhaps they're very stinky, and Bill is the only person within distance who has the requisite tolerance for the smell). In that case, the fact that Bill may have influenced Bob's behavior in some way by agreeing to do it plays no role in the death of the plants, because had he not agreed, the plants would die anyway. Nonetheless, if Bill agrees to do it and yet fails to do so, he's responsible.

But if Bill doesn't agree, he's not. Therefore, it's the agreement that creates the obligation, not the failure to water.

Your position only holds if you think Bill is reaponsible for the death of the plants even if Bill didn't agree to water them. And that's absurd.

Anyways, there is a very extensive literature on whether or not absences can be causes; for a very recent (and highly amusing) contribution to this discussion, see the paper below (linked from here):

Spoiler

Thanks for the links.

[Revan Reborn]

Hardly - more looking at the lore which bioware seemingly didn't. And it's ironic you say I lose my humanity and yet say synthesis is the best ending - the very definition of not being a human anymore.

Synthesis was BioWare's "best ending." My best ending was High EMS Destroy.

 

Oh, really?  It seems to me that for a bunch of endings that lacked so much in variety and difference, there is a LOT of difference in how different people here interpret those endings and a LOT of disagreement as to what Bioware "intended" to be the best choices in the game.  If it's all so clear, why is there so much arguing over it?

We know Synthesis was BioWare's "intended" best ending. They confirmed this and it was also in the original script. It was meant to be the solution that resolved everything.

[UpUpAway]

Synthesis was BioWare's "best ending." My best ending was High EMS Destroy.

 

We know Synthesis was BioWare's "intended" best ending. They confirmed this and it was also in the original script. It was meant to be the solution that resolved everything.

 

Read again, Revan... I said "intended best choices in the game"... wasn't talking specifically... and the part I highlight about the Synthesis Ending involved it being unilaterally the "very definiition of not being human anymore."  Considering that there are many views of morality that have made people (who are fully human genetically) be considered by masses of other people to be inhuman monsters,  I was disputing the absoluteness of that statement.

 

Plus, given your track record of implying that any bit of propaganda that comes out of Bioware's offices hints at absolute and irrefutable canon lore... I'm more inclined to just dismiss your "arguments" now as lame attempts at making self-fulfilling prophecies.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The point being, it would be reasonable to assume that while Shepard is saving the hostages, Joker would be out there tracking Balak and taking him out.

Alas he appears to have been busy updating his extranet bookmarks...

There's no such thing as a reasonable assumption. Assumptions occur outside the reasoning process.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Synthesis was BioWare's "best ending." My best ending was High EMS Destroy.

We know Synthesis was BioWare's "intended" best ending. They confirmed this and it was also in the original script. It was meant to be the solution that resolved everything.

Luckily, BioWare's intent is irrelevant.

[Xen]

It never fails to make me chuckle whenever I see posters on BSN hugely over inflate the importance of human/organic life to a hilariously ridiculous degree, when it really doesn't mean ****. Honestly, if the best argument that you could possibly come up with to justify your existence over a Geth is that you have a "soul"( ), then I'm sorry but you're not worth saving.

LOOOOOOOOLLL. BSN delivers yet again


Importance of human/organic life has nothing to do with metaphysical garbage like having a "soul", you misanthropic imbecile. Go out in public and actually try to kill someone you don't like, and see how well that defense holds up, instead of edgelording on an internet forum like a brooding wuss. No one cares that you've reached the 9th grade and finally discovered nihilism.

When you do finally snap, please point the gun at yourself first rather than your classmates/ co-workers. 

[Revan Reborn]

Luckily, BioWare's intent is irrelevant.

Exactly. It doesn't matter what BioWare intended as long as they make all choices credible and legitimate. If they are shaping the game in such a way that further reinforces their own bias onto the player, then it shatters player agency and undermines the power of player choice. What BioWare needs to do a better job of is delivering both sides to an issue, rather than giving us a lopsided interpretation that would lead to only one true "moral" choice.

[Sylvius the Mad]

LOOOOOOOOLLL. BSN delivers yet again


Importance of human/organic life has nothing to do with metaphysical garbage like having a "soul", you misanthropic imbecile. Go out in public and actually try to kill someone you don't like, and see how well that defense holds up, instead of edgelording on an internet forum like a brooding wuss. No one cares that you've reached the 9th grade and finally discovered nihilism.

When you do finally snap, please point the gun at yourself first rather than your classmates/ co-workers.

Except he's right. Having a soul would only have moral relevance if we could demonstrate that relevance, and we can't even demonstrate that the soul is there.

You also made the mistake of conflating law and morality, which have no necessary connection.

[Xen]

 

Except he's right. Having a soul would only have moral relevance if we could demonstrate that relevance, and we can't even demonstrate that the soul is there.

No disagreement, but you clearly didn't read the post. I never said anything about souls having relevance. If you want my opinion, metaphysical concepts of consciousness like "souls" likely don't exist (as if you couldn't tell by my usage of the term "garbage" for the concept).
 

You also made the mistake of conflating law and morality, which have no necessary connection.

Contrary to the tired cliche that I won't repeat, unless you are just aimlessly ruminating on tautologies in a philosophy 101 class or hotbox with your stoner friends (such as the pointless discourse above based upon entirely arbitrary deontological definitions of "inaction"), legislation and morality absolutely are connected. You see, here in reality, law is a system for governance of the behaviors of people created by said people, whom adhere to certain systems of morality which define the acceptability of said behaviors. Whether or not you wish they were connected is irrelevant.

[AlanC9]

Contrary to the tired cliche that I won't repeat, unless you are just aimlessly ruminating on tautologies in a philosophy 101 class or hotbox with your stoner friends (such as the pointless discourse above based upon entirely arbitrary deontological definitions of "inaction"), legislation and morality absolutely are connected. You see, here in reality, law is a system for governance of the behaviors of people created by said people, whom adhere to certain systems of morality. Whether or not you wish they were connected is irrelevant.

So they're connected in the sense that morality causes legislation?

[DaemionMoadrin]

Remember that time when you wrote a long post relevant to the topic and no one commented on it because arguing semantics was more important?

[AlanC9]

Importance of human/organic life has nothing to do with metaphysical garbage like having a "soul", you misanthropic imbecile. Go out in public and actually try to kill someone you don't like, and see how well that defense holds up, instead of edgelording on an internet forum like a brooding wuss. No one cares that you've reached the 9th grade and finally discovered nihilism.
When you do finally snap, please point the gun at yourself first rather than your classmates/ co-workers.

What's the non-metaphysical-garbage case for valuing organic life over other life, again?

[UniformGreyColor]

@UniformGreyColor:  Have you ever actually attended Philosophy101... it's glorious.

 

The class is filled to the brim at the beginning with people saying:  Oh man, philosophy... yeah - I got thoughts... this'll be easy.

 

By the end of the first day the terror in their eyes is delicious. 

 

After that... it was raining candy for me every day. 

 

No, I have not actually attended a formal Philosophy class, but I have had many philosophy discussions/debates with people online. I think the biggest mistake people make when talking philosophy is that they let their own personal bias of morality get in the way of what is reasonable. many people can't see that sometimes there is not "best choice". I've also read some philosophy books including 'Essays in Existentialism'.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Contrary to the tired cliche that I won't repeat, unless you are just aimlessly ruminating on tautologies in a philosophy 101 class or hotbox with your stoner friends (such as the pointless discourse above based upon entirely arbitrary deontological definitions of "inaction"), legislation and morality absolutely are connected. You see, here in reality, law is a system for governance of the behaviors of people created by said people, whom adhere to certain systems of morality which define the acceptability of said behaviors. Whether or not you wish they were connected is irrelevant.

Morality is wholly irrelevant to law. Law is a system to direct behaviour. The supposed moral basis for it has no material effect.