657 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

I'd just like to point out that there is a difference between "moral ambiguity" and a "moral dilemma." A moral dilemma does not have to be morally ambiguous. On the contrary, the morality of the situation can be quite abundantly clear in a moral dilemma, yet different choices will determine a cost-benefit analysis of varying results.

 

Do you save a city about to be sacked by an invading force, but losing your element of surprise and likely undermining your own efforts to end the war? Or do you let the invading force sack the city, slaughtering the civilians, but attacking them when they are fatigued and weakened so that you can cripple their conquest and save more lives in the future?

 

There's nothing morally ambiguous about this dilemma at all. Of course, you'd rather save as many lives as you can. However, would sacrificing some in order to save more in the future be a reasonable cost? It's an imperfect situation in which you have to weigh the pros and cons of one another. It's not about morality at all, but rather which course of action can lead to the best, desired outcome.

 

Something that is morally ambiguous suggests that the morality of the situation isn't clear. It's not apparent what is "good" or "evil." It is a scenario in which makes you question your very own moral code because you do not have an answer. We are conflating reasoning and morals as if they are the same thing. There is a correlation, but that does not necessarily mean there is a causation between the two.

[MrFob]

You are correct, that's not right.

 

The player should, however, see it as a valid option.  They should be options the player should be willing to settle for if no "Golden Option" is available.  

 

That is very subjective though. A lot of players found one option or another valid. They were willing to settle for it or maybe even thought it was great.

 

I get this is not the case for you but in the end (at least IMO) it doesn't even matter. Having a no-win scenario and having to choose the least evil option can be very much a morally ambiguous choice. For example, have you played Witcher 3? Do you remember the quest "The Whispering Hillock"?

Spoiler

It's pretty much the same thing. At least it was for me. There is no "winning" option, there isn't even an option I feel particularly good afterwards. All the possible outcomes are horrid. Still, this is widely considered one of the best morally ambiguous quest decisions in the game. Do you not agree? What separates this from the ME3 ending in terms of the moral implications of the choice?

 

Note: I am not trying to defend the ending (you know that). But I think one cannot deny the moral ambiguity of the choices as presented. Having a morally ambiguous choice doesn't really affect the quality at all IMO, it's just a definition of options on your moral spectrum. If they are all close to one another, than ambiguity is given. It doesn't matter if all the options are very far on "the dark side" really.

 

You can even have a scenario the other way round: If you take a popular variation of the trolley problem where you are between two train tracks, one with 2 adults on it, the other with a child. trolleys are coming down both tracks. You can push either the child or the 2 adults off one track, whoever is left will die. In both cases, you are saving someone so both your choices are "morally good". Still, the choice itself is ambiguous.

[rocklikeafool]

The best example of a moral dilemma that I can even remember in ME1 was the Virmire choice: Kaidan or Ashley. Now, this was never hard for me, being a heterosexual male, I always threw Kaidan to the dogs. 

Because the best way to make moral choices is dependent on what your penis says, folks!

[Revan Reborn]

Because the best way to make moral choices is dependent on what your penis says, folks!

Somebody can't take a joke... Get a sense of humor, and actually read the entire OP while you are at it.

[Vortex13]

Keep in mind that as per ME1's codex, the Rachni refused to surrender, resulting in their utter extermination. The queen we meet is quite capable of advanced emotions on Noveria, that's not established before this point. 

 

It should be pointed out too that their ability to feel pain isn't really relevant Yes, a cat is also capable of feeling physical pain. I suspect most people would place far more weight on genocide against a sentient group of people than they would a cat. Multiply that times ten for a race of giant bugs murdering without any sense of distinction, who do not have any clear ability to communicate with us as a species. 

 

The only part here that works out in favor of the Rachni is their FTL capabilities. But even that is meaningless in the face of their actions during the war. I'm not going to say the Rachni got what they deserved, since ME2 and 3 have indicated that they were being mind-controlled in some capacity. But the Council acted in pretty much the most sensible way possible all things considered. 

 

 

That still doesn't excuse the Krogan killing the Rachni down to the last member of their species, especially seeing as how they themselves refused to surrender and refused any attempts at negotiations during the Rebellions prior to the Genophage. The similarity between the two species and their interaction with the rest of the galaxy is virtually identical and yet the narrative would have us view an act of actual genocide on a clearly intelligent, space faring species to be acceptable but the act of population control on another after they launched an unprovoked attack on the galaxy to be diabolical.  

 

 

Also, even if we assume that the Leviathans (who I believe were the ones behind the Rachni Wars) prevented the Queens from communicating (it makes some sense, as to keep their existence hidden) to the rest of the galaxy there was no reason to go forward with the attack on Suen when the Rachni had been pushed back and all of their FTL capabilities had been neutralized. Even then, it would be obvious to anyone accompanying Shepard through Peak 15 that the Rachni are capable of communication when the Queen actually begins talking to them. Yet Wrex, even upon seeing that the Rachni are intelligent immediately wants to kill the Queen stating that her species can't be trusted. So this supposedly mutant, poster-child of Korgan reform wants to genocide this alien race because of what happened thousands of years ago, and yet expects the galaxy to show the Krogan leniency despite what his species did to the galaxy hundreds of years ago? *Raises Eyebrow*

[Il Divo]

Or the Council made little to zero effort to get a surrender, and continued to hunt a species that was functionally defeated to extinction for mere sport. Genocide is extremely hard to prosecute on intelligent creatures, and requires concerted effort to hunt down every individual of an entire species or group, as everyone who has tried to do so in our history has discovered when they failed at managing as much. Find me a large scale war in history where the loser lost 100% of its population, and I'll concede the point that genocide was in any way necessary. The Codex is essentially an in universe history book written by the victors and has multiple deliberate factual inaccuracies. It whitewashing racially motivated killing of entire species would not be surprising.

 

Stop using the word sentient incorrectly. It is the ability to feel physical qualia subjectively (in an animal's case via posession of sensory organs and neural tissue), and has little to nothing to do with intelligence. Even ants are sentient, and there is reason to assign them some moral value because of it (i.e killing animals simply for the lulz is most definitely cruel and morally wrong). If you want to assign value to humanlike intelligence, the word is sapience, and the rachni as a species are definitively in possesion of both anyway, albiet the nature of their sapience is alien to our anthropomorphic understanding. To imply that the Noveria queen is the first anyone has met when  killing them was specifically stated to require krogan going into their underground structures within close range to do so is nonsense logic.

 

"Council" and sensible don't belong in the same sentence, and not just for monstrosities like the multiple species level genocides they are perpetrators of or accomplices to. Again how can the rachni attack anything if they are confined to a single world and dissalowed to build FTL ships? Killing them off entirely because "eh, can't be bothered with em" is morally indefensible. 

 

It's a good thing this is a video game, because applying this sort of logic to any real sentient and sapient creature in arguing for their extermination would be horrendously racist. Like, Hitler level racist, except he only killed about 60% of the target group rather than 100%.

 

When your premise begins with the aggressor species "refusing to surrender", any arguments against execution are essentially null and void. It's not our job to play nice with genocidal aliens who, from all our encounters with, kill with out any clear sense of purpose or with any regard to its effect on others. 

 

I recommend you come to terms with that before making jumps to Hitler comparisons. Hitler level racist would require that I be willing to execute every single Rachni, even those who give up fighting, which as the codex makes clear, did not happen. That doesn't apply if the entire enemy population is composed of Rachni combatants willing (and trying) to execute you to the last man. 

[Il Divo]

 

 

That still doesn't excuse the Krogan killing the Rachni down to the last member of their species, especially seeing as how they themselves refused to surrender and refused any attempts at negotiations during the Rebellions prior to the Genophage. The similarity between the two species and their interaction with the rest of the galaxy is virtually identical and yet the narrative would have us view an act of actual genocide on a clearly intelligent, space faring species to be acceptable but the act of population control on another after they launched an unprovoked attack on the galaxy to be diabolical.  

 

 

 

 

The Krogan, by all accounts, should never have been uplifted in the first place. Yes, they had to be stopped and are hypocrites to a large extent. But this again goes back to outside interference by the Council. The sheer state of Tuchanka is a pretty clear indicator that giving these guys even more advanced technology and sending them to kill other people was always going to end badly, hence the Council's responsibility in the matter. This is in contrast to the Rachni Wars, where the Council is acting in response to an aggressor, without any possibility for ending conflict. 

 

 

Also, even if we assume that the Leviathans (who I believe were the ones behind the Rachni Wars) prevented the Queens from communicating (it makes some sense, as to keep their existence hidden) to the rest of the galaxy there was no reason to go forward with the attack on Suen when the Rachni had been pushed back and all of their FTL capabilities had been neutralized. Even then, it would be obvious to anyone accompanying Shepard through Peak 15 that the Rachni are capable of communication when the Queen actually begins talking to them. Yet Wrex, even upon seeing that the Rachni are intelligent immediately wants to kill the Queen stating that her species can't be trusted. So this supposedly mutant, poster-child of Korgan reform wants to genocide this alien race because of what happened thousands of years ago, and yet expects the galaxy to show the Krogan leniency despite what his species did to the galaxy hundreds of years ago? *Raises Eyebrow*

 

 

By all accounts, the Queen can't be trusted. The very concept of the Rachni Wars proves this thoroughly and that's the basis on which the Rachni Queen can justifiably be executed. 

 

And regarding Suen: I could also be wrong on this point, but don't the Rachni also exhibit insanely high reproduction rates, as per the Krogan? That combined with their apparent bloodthirst against the Council races isn't really the best endorsement of the "just let them live on Suen" argument. 

[Vortex13]

By all accounts, the Queen can't be trusted. The very concept of the Rachni Wars proves this thoroughly and that's the basis on which the Rachni Queen can justifiably be executed. 

 

 

And going by all accounts the Krogan can't be trusted to keep themselves under control without the Genophage. If Wrex is justified in his views on killing the Rachni, then logically, the galaxy is justified in the deploying of the Genophage. What works for one works for the other in that regard.

[Giantdeathrobot]

 

1 in 1,000 sure looks like a lot, but you have to remember that Krogan females can have 1,000 offspring a year. So one kid a year, that's essentially the same as human women. And therein lies the problem with the Genophage arc, it tries to give human emotional and moral outlooks on a species that is clearly very alien to us.

 

The Krogan are an R-Selected species, their whole evolution is centered around popping out as many offspring as possible because a very large percentage of those offspring are never going to reach maturity. Really, the Krogan should place no value on an individual until they reach sexual maturity, and can then contribute to the continuation of their species. On top of that, Krogan can remain sexually active their entire adult lives, which as far as we know has no limit. Patriarch, the Krogan aid to Aria in Purgatory was a veteran of the Rachni Wars and he was still remarkably spry despite being well over 2,000 years old. So you have a species that can have up to 1,000 children a year per female, who remain sexually active their entire lives, and could quite possibly be biologically immortal. How is any of this relatable to humanity and our morals?

 

Even if the Krogan weren't super violent, and didn't cause widespread destruction across the galaxy, something like the Genophage would still be necessary as that kind of exponential population growth is unsustainable. Give unrestricted Krogan breeding a few centuries, and they will overrun the whole of Citadel space with their sheer numbers. You know how in other science fiction settings you have that Horde of Alien Locusts that devour everything in their path, like WH40K's Tyranids? Well in Mass Effect's case that's the Krogan without the Genophage.  

 

As I said, from a purely mathematical standpoint, it's "not so bad'' because it adjusts their birthrates. But from an ethical standpoint, you're not doing that. You are, like it or not, forcefully stopping 999 babies from being born. We see the severe psychological effects this has on the Krogan as a race, and several people appear not to give a toss that it might cause the race to become endangered or extinct in the future. The idea that it simply makes the birthrate the same as human's and thus solves the problem is not really supported by the games as far as I'm concerned. It is not considered normal by anyone that I remember, the best defense is that it is necessary given the circumstances. And as i see it, the circumstances have changed.

 

I also said that, yes, Krogan need a control mechanism. But it need not be as drastic as the Genophage. Wilful population control could allow the race to spread again without becoming a plague, and a strong leader like Wrex could manage this.

[Il Divo]

And going by all accounts the Krogan can't be trusted to keep themselves under control without the Genophage. If Wrex is justified in his views on killing the Rachni, then logically, the galaxy is justified in the deploying of the Genophage. What works for one works for the other in that regard.

 

Conceptually sure, but this is also overly reductive. 

 

Every indication that we've heard of the Rachni during the Wars has been that they're essentially killing machines, plain and simple. That's not a reductive statement; that's quite literally our entire experience with the Rachni - they kill - and that's all, until we encounter the Rachni Queen who is the first ever instance of a non-aggressive Rachni (which we know of), and at this point in time she wants us to free her. My defense of genocide on the Rachni stems from the assumption that every last Rachni being that the Council has ever encountered has demonstrated murderous intent, which also makes sense in the context of Reaper/Leviathan interference. 

 

The Krogan, collectively, have a lot to account for. And the genophage was necessary at the end of the day. But that doesn't neglect that the Council themselves played a key role in up-lifting this species, which all past experience indicate would have to be put down in some capacity. Not to mention, the Genophage would also affect any Krogan who (for whatever reason) was opposed to the Rebellions. 

 

The genophage is a blanket solution to a potentially multi-layered problem. The Rachni Extinction is a blanket solution to (what we know to be) a blanket problem, which again is supported by their outright refusal to surrender in any capacity. 

[Iakus]

That is very subjective though. A lot of players found one option or another valid. They were willing to settle for it or maybe even thought it was great.

 

I get this is not the case for you but in the end (at least IMO) it doesn't even matter. Having a no-win scenario and having to choose the least evil option can be very much a morally ambiguous choice. For example, have you played Witcher 3? Do you remember the quest "The Whispering Hillock"?

Spoiler

It's pretty much the same thing. At least it was for me. There is no "winning" option, there isn't even an option I feel particularly good afterwards. All the possible outcomes are horrid. Still, this is widely considered one of the best morally ambiguous quest decisions in the game. Do you not agree? What separates this from the ME3 ending in terms of the moral implications of the choice?

 

Note: I am not trying to defend the ending (you know that). But I think one cannot deny the moral ambiguity of the choices as presented. Having a morally ambiguous choice doesn't really affect the quality at all IMO, it's just a definition of options on your moral spectrum. If they are all close to one another, than ambiguity is given. It doesn't matter if all the options are very far on "the dark side" really.

 

You can even have a scenario the other way round: If you take a popular variation of the trolley problem where you are between two train tracks, one with 2 adults on it, the other with a child. trolleys are coming down both tracks. You can push either the child or the 2 adults off one track, whoever is left will die. In both cases, you are saving someone so both your choices are "morally good". Still, the choice itself is ambiguous.

Yeah it is subjective, which is part of the problem. 

 

But again, I say if the endings all seem equally invalid to someone, if there doesn't appear to be a benefit to balance the drawback, then it is no longer ambiguous, it's arbitrary.  What point is there to choose one over the other?  I haven't played Witcher 3 so I can't comment on that quest, but the Witcher universe strikes me as pretty much a Crapsack World anyway.

 

As for your trolly choice.  Again it is arbitrary.  Who are the people involved?  Why are they in that situation?  Are you allowed to even try to save everyone?  Can you just walk away?  What are the potential repercussions?

[AlanC9]

Why the governing galactic body in 2183 is less culturally evolved, and more barbaric and racist than human society was in 1948 is anyone's guess. Chalk that one up to bad writing.

We're only more evolved if you think we wouldn't actually engage in genocide if fighting something like the rachni, and then either retroactively justify it or just pretend to feel bad about it later. I have my doubts. You were just saying that genocide against the geth wasn't a problem; you figure someone couldn't whip up an argument like that about the rachni?

[AlanC9]

As for your trolly choice. Again it is arbitrary. Who are the people involved? Why are they in that situation? Are you allowed to even try to save everyone? Can you just walk away? What are the potential repercussions?

What's wrong with arbitrary? Real choices are often arbitrary; that's just how things happened to be.

[Quarian Master Race]

When your premise begins with the aggressor species "refusing to surrender", any arguments against execution are essentially null and void. It's not our job to play nice with genocidal aliens who, from all our encounters with, kill with out any clear sense of purpose or with any regard to its effect on others. 

 

I recommend you come to terms with that before making jumps to Hitler comparisons. Hitler level racist would require that I be willing to execute every single Rachni, even those who give up fighting, which as the codex makes clear, did not happen. 

As before, we've no idea how exactly the rachni wars ended due to the Codex being an unreliable source. Even if it were true that the rachni somehow fought to the last hatchling (I don't know how they would be demographically capable of still buliding ships to attack anyone at this point), it's idiotic logic. An "aggressor species" that can't even leave its own homeworld to attack anyone requires deliberate invasion and hunting to absolute extermination from every corner, nook and cranny of every individual on the planet? Humans don't even commit such atrocities against nonsapient animals that attack them on sight (i.e. no one is going into the forest to slaughter all bears because they're a threat to any human close to them). Again, come up with any major war in history where it was a military necessity to commit a 100% genocide to achieve victory. 

Hitler thought that his Aryan Race was being actively and deliberately destroyed by the existence of the Untermensch, seeing their very existence as a form of political violence. Given that not all rachni individuals are capable of even offering effective resistance via "fighting" (i.e. the unborn, children, seemingly queens, whom are immobile without their drones and can be contained indefinitely quite easily), you are essentially basing your argument on a demographical impossibility, seeing their very existence as a species as violence against your own. The logical parallels are not as far apart as you'd like to admit. 

Anyway, I'm assuming I'm being trolled by someone who can't possibly have such an utterly juvenile understanding of morality and warfare to assign collective responsibility and punishment to literally billions of individuals in a manner that is completely grossly unnecessary and monstrously immoral by virtually any system we can think of not based on metaphysics or racism, so how about we agree to disagree?

[MrFob]

@iakus:

Ah well, since the others talk about the genophage, I guess we may as well talk about the ending.

 

It's not arbitrary as the choices ll have different well defined outcomes that are causally related. They also all have upsides by the way:

Destroy: Reapers are dead, cycles are ended

Control: Reaper harvest is stopped, cycles are ended

Synthesis: Everyone lives happily ever after together in green goodness

 

You may think that these upsides do not justify the atrocities that are attached to each choice. But the point that these upsides vs. the downside are of different value for each individual subjectively is exactly what makes these choices morally ambiguous.

 

As for the trolley problem, it's a theoretical thought experiment/exercise, it kinda depends on the fact that you don't have more information. Imagine someone knocks you unconscious and puts you in the position without further info. The choice still needs to be made. Well, I guess you could refuse but so could Shep in the EC.

[Il Divo]

We're only more evolved if you think we wouldn't actually engage in genocide if fighting something like the rachni, and then either retroactively justify it or just pretend to feel bad about it later. I have my doubts. You were just saying that genocide against the geth wasn't a problem; you figure someone couldn't whip up an argument like that about the rachni?

 

It's probably even worse in this instance since at least a Rachni-Genocide can be attributed to the Rachni consisting of a completely murderous population. That's a pretty big mitigating factor vs. the Quarians. 

[Iakus]

What's wrong with arbitrary? Real choices are often arbitrary; that's just how things happened to be.

This isn't real though.  This is part of a story.  And as such something should come of such a choice which, in RL, would likely be deeply traumatizing to a lot of people..

[Il Divo]

As before, we've no idea how exactly the rachni wars ended due to the Codex being an unreliable source. Even if it were true that the rachni somehow fought to the last hatchling (I don't know how they would be demographically capable of still buliding ships to attack anyone at this point), it's idiotic logic. An "aggressor species" that can't even leave its own homeworld to attack anyone requires deliberate invasion and hunting to absolute extermination from every corner, nook and cranny of every individual on the planet? Humans don't even commit such atrocities against nonsapient animals that attack them on sight (i.e. no one is going into the forest to slaughter all bears because they're a threat to any human close to them). Again, come up with any major war in history where it was a military necessity to commit a 100% genocide to achieve victory. 

Hitler thought that his Aryan Race was being actively and deliberately destroyed by the existence of the Untermensch, seeing their very existence as a form of political violence. Given that not all rachni individuals are capable of even offering effective resistance via "fighting" (i.e. the unborn, children, seemingly queens, whom are immobile without their drones and can be contained indefinitely quite easily), you are essentially basing your argument on a demographical impossibility, seeing their very existence as a species as violence against your own. The logical parallels are not as far apart as you'd like to admit. 

Anyway, I'm assuming I'm being trolled by someone who can't possibly have such an utterly juvenile understanding of morality and warfare to assign collective responsibility and punishment to literally billions of individuals in a manner that is completely grossly unnecessary and monstrously immoral by virtually any system we can think of not based on metaphysics or racism, so how about we agree to disagree?

 

Hitler was the aggressor all the way through. That's quite a bit different to a species willing to engage in mindless murder against every last man, woman, and child without any efforts to communicate any kind of intent. 

 

That's not trolling, that's identifying coherent differences in circumstance. Collective responsibility is being assigned to a collective entity. There are no non-Rachni (that we know of) hiding out in civilian cities fearing for their children. Identify a clear-cut civilian Rachni population who was impacted and I'll concede the point. 

 

Hitler scenario: a maniac willing to murder an entire group of people who have demonstrated no sense of aggression for his own deluded sense of power.

 

Rachni scenario: genocide against a genocidal enemy willing to execute your entire population, with no indication of stopping under any circumstances. 

 

One of these things is not like the other. 

 

Edit: And claiming the Codex as unreliable in lieu of another source is an invalid argument. This is further supported by Leviathan/the Reapers themselves playing a role in driving the Rachni collectively insane. 

[Quarian Master Race]

We're only more evolved if you think we wouldn't actually engage in genocide if fighting something like the rachni, and then either retroactively justify it or just pretend to feel bad about it later. I have my doubts. You were just saying that genocide against the geth wasn't a problem; you figure someone couldn't whip up an argument like that about the rachni?

I don't think we would. Collectively, we have higher levels of thinking than base urges for wanton violence even if some minority members on our species choose to act on them.
 

That wasn't a genocide by any definition of the word in our universe or the ME one. It was essentially a commercial recall. Since they are by all scientific and legal definitions nonsentient until (possibly) the space magic Reaper code upgrades, the geth "uprising" was a malfunction induced industrial accident. It's more equivalent to something like Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi than the Holocaust, except on a much, much larger scale obviously. Turning off a malfunctioning piece of software that is physically incapable of suffering is not morally wrong in any sense outside of morality systems that use metaphysics or place arbitrary values on certain subjective aspects of existence, and are therefore invalid. Indeed, if that piece of software poses a danger to the well being of sentient beings, it is a moral imperative to do everything we can to ensure the level of suffering it is enable to inflict is minimal, much like corporations are required to recal a vehicle with faulty brakes, or a medicine that has unintended side effects unless they want to face harsher punishments under consumer protection laws.

They couldn't whip up any such argument not based on ridiculous metaphysics or racism, since by empirical standards the rachni are sentient, sapient creatures that operate in a manner in no way dissimilar to any Earth animal analouges including humans.

[N7Jamaican]

I want issues that are current now (with a futuristic twist) that will tests ones convictions. So yes.  Mass Effect 1 this.  Let a Hanar spew his nonsense about the Enkindlers on the Presidium without a liscense? A mother and uncle arguing about whether to treat a baby in womb to cure a disease or birth the baby and take a risk of them dealing with it?

[Vortex13]

Conceptually sure, but this is also overly reductive. 

 

Every indication that we've heard of the Rachni during the Wars has been that they're essentially killing machines, plain and simple. That's not a reductive statement; that's quite literally our entire experience with the Rachni - they kill - and that's all, until we encounter the Rachni Queen who is the first ever instance of a non-aggressive Rachni (which we know of), and at this point in time she wants us to free her. My defense of genocide on the Rachni stems from the assumption that every last Rachni being that the Council has ever encountered has demonstrated murderous intent, which also makes sense in the context of Reaper/Leviathan interference. 

 

The Krogan, collectively, have a lot to account for. And the genophage was necessary at the end of the day. But that doesn't neglect that the Council themselves played a key role in up-lifting this species, which all past experience indicate would have to be put down in some capacity. Not to mention, the Genophage would also affect any Krogan who (for whatever reason) was opposed to the Rebellions. 

 

The genophage is a blanket solution to a potentially multi-layered problem. The Rachni Extinction is a blanket solution to (what we know to be) a blanket problem, which again is supported by their outright refusal to surrender in any capacity. 

 

 

Even with every last Rachni hell bent on killing every non-Rachni in sight, the complete extinction of a species that no longer had the capability to wage interstellar warfare was entirely unnecessary. The Krogan were in the exact same situation when they were fighting the Rebellions; though they could negotiate they refused to; yet the Council didn't push them back to Tuchunka and then proceed to kill every last member of their species. An invasion by a hyper aggressive species is going to end badly I agree, but it's a matter of how far the galaxy went in defending itself that is the difference. For all intents and purposes, the Genophage was a slap on the wrist compared to what happened to the Rachni; there are still billions of Krogan left on their home world, there is exactly one Rachni queen left in the galaxy (at least as far as we know).

 

 

You keep mentioning the Council's fault for uplifting the them, but when do we start holding the Krogan accountable for their actions? Are we to blame everything wrong with the Krogan on the Council, the Salarians in particular, and ascribe only the good qualities to the Krogan themselves? There has to be a point were we can go: "This is entirely the Krogan's mess." otherwise how can we demonstrate that they are mature enough as a species to handle their own affairs?

 

I mean if the Krogan can't be held accountable for any reprehensible act because they weren't ready to be uplifted, then the same would apply to the Rachni and their war since it was the Leviathans/Reapers controlling them. 

 

 

 

EDIT: 

 

As a side note, even with the Rachni's invasion of Council space, and their undoubtedly violent interactions with the inhabitants of said space, it's interesting to note that planets captured by the bugs were able to be reclaimed after the war. Compare this to the Krogan Rebellions and worlds that are environmentally wrecked or are still uninhabitable well into the events of ME 1-3.

 

Say what you will about the Rachni, but at least they were better caretakers of their captured worlds. 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Why does every single thread involving moral dilemmas devolve into Hitler? There are so many other examples in human history to choose who are far more ambiguous. Invoking Hitler reduces an argument to absurdity. It's called reductio ad Hitlerum. 

[Quarian Master Race]

Hitler was the aggressor all the way through. That's quite a bit different to a species willing to engage in mindless murder against every last man, woman, and child without any efforts to communicate any kind of intent. 

by what objective metric are you defining "agression"? He subjectively declared a certain subset of people to be more worthy of moral consideration and deemed all actions contravening the maximum utility calculation for the preferred group by the Untermensch (such as a Jew having the audacity to be a banker or scientist controlling Aryan money/ technology) to be aggressive action against it. 
 

That's not trolling, that's identifying coherent differences in circumstance. Collective responsibility is being assigned to a collective entity. There are no non-Rachni (that we know of) hiding out in civilian cities fearing for their children. Identify a clear-cut civilian Rachni population who was impacted and I'll concede the point. . 

It would seem that a basic understanding of life-cycle sciences and demographics would render your assigning of collective responsibility and value judgement upon moral worth to every individual of an entire species to be quite ridiculous here. This might apply in the case of something hiveminded like the Borg, Necromorphs, Geth, Tyranids or Skynet where there is little distinction between the two and "individuals" are just organs of a collective with little to no actual agency, but there definitively is for the rachni even if you include all the drones under single queens to be a single individual. The single natural one we meet certainly isn't mindlessly genocidal

I did describe ones "that we know of", unborn, physically immature children, queens without access to any drones etc. are by definition incapable of resistance and comparable to "civilians". Killing them serves no legitimate self defense purpose. This before the fact that we aren't really given much insight into rachni society, but any person with even a small amount of sense would probably conclude that a species capable of such technological wonders as building spaceships that circumvent general relativity (something even modern humans are incapable of) and creating music probably isn't a bunch of mindless bugs living in caves with otherwise no civilization. It took humans 50,000 years of such to develop the technological, social and culture infrastructure to get to where they are today. You don't just go from "mindless" bug to magically evolving the ability to understand highly advanced technology like FTL drives or the Crucible (which they contribute to in ME3).
 

Hitler scenario: a maniac willing to murder an entire group of people who have demonstrated no sense of aggression for his own deluded sense of power.

Rachni scenario: genocide against a genocidal enemy willing to execute your entire population, with no indication of stopping under any circumstances. 

As explained, your operative definition of "aggression" is subjective and therefore a meaningless distinction. Mine would include the ability to inflict harm, not just the will to do so. I can't just kill a toddler that desires aggression against me and hits my leg because I denied it sweets. The punishment does not fit the crime. Similarly, hunting down an executing individuals who are incapable of resistance unless you deliberately invade their planet and hunt them down to every corner of it is not morally justifiable, and slaughtering their noncombatants well past the point of military necessity definitely isn't.

An infintisemal number of individuals could then monitor Suen and report back any signs of reacquiring FTL capability, wherin the Council could deal with this in a manner that didn't involve Starship Troopers esque "kill em all". Hell, the Council devotes this listening post outside the Rachni relay even after genociding them from existence anyway.

Rachni scenario: genocide against a genocidal enemy willing to execute your entire population, with no indication of stopping under any circumstances. 

The indication of their stopping to any sane individual would have been when you are in a fleet of spaceships and they are incapable of reaching you on a toxic planet you have literally no need, nor use for. Again, humans aren't going into the forests to deliberately exterminate wild animals that would attack them on site if they could.

 

Edit: And claiming the Codex as unreliable in lieu of another source is an invalid argument. This is further supported by Leviathan/the Reapers themselves playing a role in driving the Rachni collectively insane. 

You just explained the other source that renders codex description inadequate. The fact that the Council were essentially hunting to extinction an entire species of sentients brainwashed and unethically modified into insanity against their will into engaging in self destructive violence, who are therefore not even responsible for their actions at all (as you were claiming earlier with the "collective responsibility" garbage) makes it all the more repugnant.  I'll concede, however, they certainly had no knowledge Reapers or Leviathan this at the time, so it doesn't make the Council's actions any more reprehensible than simply killing an entire sentient and sapient species down to the last individual out of ideologically motivated racial violence.

[Vortex13]

You just explained the other source. The fact that the Council were essentially hunting to extinction an entire species of sentients brainwashed and unethically modified into insanity against their will into engaging in self destructive violence, who are therefore not even responsible for their actions at all (as you were claiming earlier with the "collective responsibility" garbage) makes it all the more repugnant, though I'll concede they certainly had no knowledge Reapers or Leviathan this at the time, so it doesn't make their actions any more reprehensible than simply killing an entire species down to the last individual out of racist ideologically motivated violence.

 

 

Truth be told, I hate using that aspect of the Rachni lore. The whole "The Devil made me do it" explanation just detracts from their character (IMO). 

 

It would have been way more compelling if the Rachni were violent and they used the reversed engineered FTL tech to attack Citadel space in an aggressive expansion attempt. Then, when the Council species had pushed them back to the brink of extinction and the Queens had to send out their last ship as a fail safe, they would have begun to realize that such a stance with the rest of the galaxy was wrong. This way the current Queen would be trying to atone for past wrongs and seek to exist in peace with the rest of the galaxy. It would have made them a great foil for the Krogan at any rate. 

[Quarian Master Race]

Truth be told, I hate using that aspect of the Rachni lore. The whole "The Devil made me do it" explanation just detracts from their character (IMO). 

Agreed, I hated it when they attempted to use it for the geth with their "Heretics" as well because it detracted from their alieness, but it's there nonetheless. No point ignoring it.