253 réponses à ce sujet

[Seraphim24]

According to who?

 

 

 

According to what?

 

 

Aren't you an arbitrary authority?

 

 

Wouldn't we be arbitrary authorities?
 

 

 

Says who?

 

I can be an arbitrary authority against arbitrary authority right? So according to me, I am me and others who impose are arbitrary imposing values.

 

So my morality is the product of theirs.

 

Everywhere in the world, every society, every inch, people impose morality on others arbitrarily, so how can anyone honestly say "It's all relative?"

 

Show me a person or place in the world where that is not so, then what you say matters.

[nfi42]

I can be an arbitrary authority against arbitrary authority right? So according to me, I am me and others who impose are arbitrary imposing values.

 

So my morality is the product of theirs.

 

Everywhere in the world, every society, every inch, people impose morality on others arbitrarily, so how can anyone honestly say "It's all relative?"

 

Show me a person or place in the world where that is not so, then what you say matters.

 

 

I try to live by the premise "live and let live".  Does this mean I'm one of these people?

[Seraphim24]

I try to live by the premise "live and let live".  Does this mean I'm one of these people?

 

You emanate a moral energy I'm sure.

 

I can't say how strong it is without knowing anything else about you.

 

What someone says is of little consequence.

[nfi42]

You emanate a moral energy I'm sure.

 

I can't say how strong it is without knowing anything else about you.

 

What someone says is of little consequence.

 

Which is not an answer to my question. To be honest, at this point  I have to admit I've got no idea what pov your trying to argue. 

[Seraphim24]

Which is not an answer to my question. To be honest, at this point  I have to admit I've got no idea what pov your trying to argue. 

 

Yes you impose your morality on people near you, close to you, whether you like it or not, everyone is "one of these people." All living things face the idea of consequence and existence, relations, inevitably.

[The Hierophant]

So yeah?

[nfi42]

Yes you impose your morality on people near you, close to you, whether you like it or not, everyone is "one of these people." All living things face the idea of consequence and existence, relations, inevitably.

 

 

I just said I try not to.  Of course everything I say or do has an impact that I can't determine on others ,  that is not imposing my morality on others.

 

You can choose to view I am imposing my moral view on you if you want,  but it seems a strange outlook on life from my perspective.

 

whatever.

[Monk]

Yes you impose your morality on people near you, close to you, whether you like it or not, everyone is "one of these people." All living things face the idea of consequence and existence, relations, inevitably.

 

Err, imposing your morality on someone is determined on what you say, not what you do. When you do something you're exposing them to your morality, not imposing. This is different and changes the influence your morality has on others, based on degree of exposure.

 

In other news, i had no problem with the Paragon/Renegade system, except for when they showed me the options i didn't have available because i wasn't playing "extreme" enough.

[AlanC9]

 
Everywhere in the world, every society, every inch, people impose morality on others arbitrarily, so how can anyone honestly say "It's all relative?"
 

The specific content is relative. If you want to say that it's also all arbitrary, then.... sure, but so what?

[Dean_the_Young]

I can be an arbitrary authority against arbitrary authority right? So according to me, I am me and others who impose are arbitrary imposing values.

 

Since you dismiss 'arbitrary' critiques on the basis of being arbitrary alone, no. You can't, unless arbitrary hypocrisy is a social value for your universal morality.

 

If arbitrary is inherently self-disqualifying, then the only valid positions will be non-arbitrary sort, which must be able to be demonstrated and not simply assertion. Assertion alone is arbitrary- demonstration requires logical proof.

 

 

 

So my morality is the product of theirs.

 

 

But you've dismissed their morality as inherently flawed and un-true. If your morality's foundation is the output of false and erronious arbitrary assumptions, it itself will be arbitrary and false.

 

 

 

Everywhere in the world, every society, every inch, people impose morality on others arbitrarily, so how can anyone honestly say "It's all relative?"

 

 

 

By not presuming that their own morality is the only valid one in all respects deriving from some unquestionable legitimizing source, and respecting the differences in moral judgements of others where possible (and not too far outside the acceptability of the viewer's).

 

 

Show me a person or place in the world where that is not so, then what you say matters.

 

 

 

You have this backwards- you're the one who claims there's a universal morality out there being practiced by vague, undefined groups that the rest of us are ignoring. Having made the exceptional claim, it falls on you to demonstrate it exists.

 

My position is that your claim of a higher, truer, more universal morality isn't- that it's the same sort of moral posturing that plenty of other groups do. Claims to exclusive universal truths, higher morality, and dismissal of outsiders as ignorant, even willfully, and pitiful to boot are classic social conditionings to religions and ideologies... and cults.

 

Hardly unique, and hardly universal.

[congokong]

I think most choices in Mass Effect were gray. Paragon/renegade is not equivalent to being black/white or right/wrong. Far from it. Paragon/renegade are merely labels for means justify the ends/ends justify the means or idealism/practicality.

 

There are only a few choices in the ME series that I feel are black/white, as in cut-and-dry easy moral/smart choices. These include saving Samara/Morinth, which is basically a "choice" of being good or evil. Another is killing/saving the Breeder, an example of smart/stupid, which is an even more clear cut case than saving the rachni queen a second time.

 

Choices are gray when both sides can be well argued, and most in the ME series can.

[J. Finley]

What I didn't really like about the paragon/renegade system was that it more or less encourages players to play a certain way instead of choosing for themselves. You pretty much lost out on content if you took the middle ground.

People were also more likely to pick the red or blue options not because of the context of the choices themselves, but just because it was paragon or renegade.

I don't want to think "click here for good guy/bad guy choice" when looking at the dialogue wheel, I want to have to contemplate the decisions.

[FrietzMG]

Hope not.

 

Life is grey and not black and white, good or evil. There are only different perspectives from different people.

[Seraphim24]

Since you dismiss 'arbitrary' critiques on the basis of being arbitrary alone, no. You can't, unless arbitrary hypocrisy is a social value for your universal morality.

 

If arbitrary is inherently self-disqualifying, then the only valid positions will be non-arbitrary sort, which must be able to be demonstrated and not simply assertion. Assertion alone is arbitrary- demonstration requires logical proof.

 

 

 

But you've dismissed their morality as inherently flawed and un-true. If your morality's foundation is the output of false and erronious arbitrary assumptions, it itself will be arbitrary and false.

 

 

 

By not presuming that their own morality is the only valid one in all respects deriving from some unquestionable legitimizing source, and respecting the differences in moral judgements of others where possible (and not too far outside the acceptability of the viewer's).

 

 

You have this backwards- you're the one who claims there's a universal morality out there being practiced by vague, undefined groups that the rest of us are ignoring. Having made the exceptional claim, it falls on you to demonstrate it exists.

 

My position is that your claim of a higher, truer, more universal morality isn't- that it's the same sort of moral posturing that plenty of other groups do. Claims to exclusive universal truths, higher morality, and dismissal of outsiders as ignorant, even willfully, and pitiful to boot are classic social conditionings to religions and ideologies... and cults.

 

Hardly unique, and hardly universal.

 

What if someone wants you to presume though? Then you are immoral for failing to adhere to their desire for a morality. Yes, you might fit in better with mainstream society or something, but you are a coward to me.

 

I believe it's impossible to "presume" wrong anyway, presumptions don't exist for no reason. 

 

Ultimately, you are picking a side one way or another.

 

So yes, everyone emanates a universal morality, some of greater or lower quality than others.

 

And it's far more the province of governments, corporations, state entitites, message boards, than it is religions or cults.

 

And it's not that i'ts arbitrary, it's none of it's arbitrary.

[AlanC9]

What if someone wants you to presume though? Then you are immoral for failing to adhere to their desire for a morality. Yes, you might fit in better with mainstream society or something, but you are a coward to me.

*shrug* Sure, but so what? That's got nothing to do with moral systems. It's just how human interactions work.
 

I believe it's impossible to "presume" wrong anyway, presumptions don't exist for no reason. 

If a guess can be wrong, why not a presumption?
 

So yes, everyone emanates a universal morality, some of greater or lower quality than others.
 

It's become unclear what you mean by "universal" in this context.

[Seraphim24]

*shrug* Sure, but so what? That's got nothing to do with moral systems. It's just how human interactions work.
 

If a guess can be wrong, why not a presumption?
 

It's become unclear what you mean by "universal" in this context.

 

Well even a guess or something makes sense, it just shows you have X confidence in the idea.

 

I think universal just means accepting everything as valid. If a 6th century document has someone go "Yeah such and such king was really crazy he ate babies in front of us all one day" you don't go "Oh well it must be biased, it must be this, it must be that"

 

You can understand all kinds of things if you just listen to people.

[AlanC9]

Well even a guess or something makes sense, it just shows you have X confidence in the idea.

OK, but then what's the problem with a presumption being wrong? You were confident, and you were wrong.

I think universal just means accepting everything as valid. If a 6th century document has someone go "Yeah such and such king was really crazy he ate babies in front of us all one day" you don't go "Oh well it must be biased, it must be this, it must be that"

What does "everything must be valid" mean? That sounds like straight-up relativism, actually.

[congokong]

What I didn't really like about the paragon/renegade system was that it more or less encourages players to play a certain way instead of choosing for themselves. You pretty much lost out on content if you took the middle ground.
People were also more likely to pick the red or blue options not because of the context of the choices themselves, but just because it was paragon or renegade.
I don't want to think "click here for good guy/bad guy choice" when looking at the dialogue wheel, I want to have to contemplate the decisions.

To an extent, that is the fault of the player, not the game. ME2 was the only game that really forced you into a certain alignment, although a skilled player could do paragade very well. Technically, ME1 encouraged one alignment too, yet it was very easy to get high charm/intimidate points without much moral investment in either bar. Ex: After a little more than one bar, you can get up to 10 points in charm/intimidate. Very few persuasion options required more than that.

[Seraphim24]

OK, but then what's the problem with a presumption being wrong? You were confident, and you were wrong.

What does "everything must be valid" mean? That sounds like straight-up relativism, actually.

 

If someone made a presumption, then they had some basis for making it.

 

It's not relatavism it's saying there is a basis, it's then what you do about it.

 

Besides you guys say cults like their a bad thing

 

This is the thing, every single organization in most DA/ME Bio games is pretty corrupt and coercive, the renegade/evil route is usually better for the precisely the reasons you guys have illuminated (you reject the artificial morality imposed by such organizations)

 

If I'm taking everything you and Dean are saying to heart, then the correct way to play every Bio game is full dark side etc, because only then are you not guilty of supporting the corrupt organizations with their arbitrary norms.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

If it's gone I'll be happy. I hate black and white morality meters in games. It creates a situation where either they have to make very stilted "good guy" and "bad guy" choices, or they have to stamp absolute morality on situations where the "good" and "bad" choice aren't clear and you end up throwing your character off course and ending up with someone totally different than you intended by interpreting choices differently than the writers had to in order to stuff every choice into two neat boxes. By all means, include interrupt prompts, include the option to be a huge jerk, that's fine. They don't have to take that out just because they stopped dividing all your choices into either morally right or wrong without context. 

[J. Finley]

To an extent, that is the fault of the player, not the game. ME2 was the only game that really forced you into a certain alignment, although a skilled player could do paragade very well. Technically, ME1 encouraged one alignment too, yet it was very easy to get high charm/intimidate points without much moral investment in either bar. Ex: After a little more than one bar, you can get up to 10 points in charm/intimidate. Very few persuasion options required more than that.

Yeah, I get you. I played exclusively paragade and the only way I wasn't locked out of certain choices in ME2 was importing a fully maxed ME1 Shepard, and making sure to play some missions sooner than others. On one hand I sort of enjoyed it, but there was no way I would have known to do that on my first playthrough. Certainly that's not an issue in the third game, but it also takes a step back in the way it strips away any kind of neutral dialogue to begin with.

 

I agree with your point before on paragon/renegade not being strictly good or evil though, because I try not to look at them in that way as well. Dealing with Petrovsky is a good example of this I think, as keeping him alive is considered paragon but people can immediately use a renegade interrupt right after to express that they aren't being a goody two shoes about it.

[ssanyesz]

I wonder if i can play a vicious pro-human diplomat Udina like Ryder, or can i become the next TIM-Ryder, who commits atrocities to increase human influence in Andromeda, or a Sith Inquisitor Ryder who just wants more power for him/herself. Or a Ryder who is just pure psycho who likes killing aliens.

 

But at the same time i want to play a Ryder who is a diplomat and want the peaceful coexistence of humans and andromedans. Or a soldier who just follow orders. Or and explorer who just curious about everything without any ill intent.

 

I wonder how many playing room we get, if removing paragon/renegade system increase freedom and role playing options then so be it!

[Winke Ahhon]

I don't think (or want) Paragon to be good and Renegade to be evil. I've always thought of it like:

 

 

Paragons are akin to the Cap' in that they do they're job minus the sarcasm and more of a humble mentality, yes ma'am kinda attitude.

 

 

 

 

 

And Renegade be like the greatest action hero of all time...well late 80s early 90s ..... who are that wise cracking guy who talks **** to his bosses is ruthless to his enemies saves people because its the right thing....even if he complains about what a pain in the ass it is for him to do it

 

 

 

But really that was more like ME1 dialogue options for Shep. I wasn't a huge fan of the changes in ME2 and 3 but I am hopeful we get a return to this kind of definition again in MEA

[Dean_the_Young]

If someone made a presumption, then they had some basis for making it.

Hardly. There are plenty of ill-founded and unjustified presumptions floating around, like this one.

 

It's not relatavism it's saying there is a basis, it's then what you do about it.

 

 

Moral relativity neither requires nor refutes moral basis.

 

 

Besides you guys say cults like their a bad thing

 

 

Not bad, merely unobjective while frequently claiming exclusive objectivity.

 

 

This is the thing, every single organization in most DA/ME Bio games is pretty corrupt and coercive, the renegade/evil route is usually better for the precisely the reasons you guys have illuminated (you reject the artificial morality imposed by such organizations)

 

 

How is rejecting artificial morality imposed by others for artifical morality imposed by you 'better' in a moral sense?

 

 

 

If I'm taking everything you and Dean are saying to heart, then the correct way to play every Bio game is full dark side etc, because only then are you not guilty of supporting the corrupt organizations with their arbitrary norms.

 

 

I won't speak for Alan, but that would be an incredibly incompetent reading of what I've been saying.

[Seraphim24]

Hardly. There are plenty of ill-founded and unjustified presumptions floating around, like this one.

 

That's not possible.

 

I was going to do the same quote thing you do but I find it exhausting, so I'll go with

 

1. Not all artificial moralities are created equal, as stated previous some people are triggered by many things, but have lots of authority.

2. You didn't play BG rampaging through the wilderness, murdering Drizzt in cold blood for his swords? BORING MR DEAN.

 

Again, if treating artificial moralities is wrong because relativism, then true relativism would mean attacking artificial moralities. The truth path through artificial moralities would be to destroy all of them. Moreover since anyone can invoke their artificial morality as superior to another artificial morality it's literally just majoritarianism, not relativism.

 

In contrast, many artificial moralities can be subsumed by other, greater ones, with no loss whatsoever to anyone.