416 réponses à ce sujet

[ArcanistLibram]

Giving the Collector base to the Illusive Man is akin to making Udina Councillor.

[dan107]

senojones wrote...
I would blow it up without hesitation, I won't let fear dictate who I am. You can call me crazy or stupid all you want, but you just sound pitiful. At least have the decency to clearly add yourself to that list of human sacrifices.

I gotta admit, its surprising to see so much support for keeping the Collector base with such cold logic, the lack of basic morals and lack of faith in Shepard + his team is kinda sad. If survival is the only thing you care about when threatened of existence in the galaxy, then I feel sorry for you.

Talk about logic all you want, you'll still sound like a coward to me.

Umm.. What should you care about when facing the threat of species extinction if not survival?

Modifié par dan107, 04 février 2010 - 01:49 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

senojones wrote...
I would blow it up without hesitation, I won't let fear dictate who I am. You can call me crazy or stupid all you want, but you just sound pitiful. At least have the decency to clearly add yourself to that list of human sacrifices.

I gotta admit, its surprising to see so much support for keeping the Collector base with such cold logic, the lack of basic morals and lack of faith in Shepard + his team is kinda sad. If survival is the only thing you care about when threatened of existence in the galaxy, then I feel sorry for you.

Talk about logic all you want, you'll still sound like a coward to me.

No offense, but I am glad my country is not lead by people like you.

[Stofsk]

dan107 wrote...

So to bring this back to what you said earlier "if the means are evil, or immoral, then the outcome will be immoral." If you maintain that, as well as that killing Hitler to prevent his murders is evil, you are committed to the position that the outcome of preventing Hitler's mass murders is evil as well. Obviously that's not the case. Your position is logically inconsistent.

Strawman distortion. Killing Hitler to prevent WW2 is a classic example of choosing the lesser of two evils. The outcome of preventing WW2 (if it's a given that killing Hitler would prevent WW2) outweighs the immoral act of murdering someone before he is guilty of the crimes he will commit later on in life. But it doesn't negate it. There is no inconsistency.

What's stopping you from presenting a more realistic dilemma that's applicable to the situation?

Which situation? If your goal is get someone to admit they're happy to kill one person to save ten, because it's a bargain, you won't get it from me. See above; the moral outcome of saving 10 people outweighs the act of killing that 1 person, but it doesn't negate it. This all began when you said you'd happily sacrifice half of the galaxy if it would save the other half. Its like you're obsessed with the idea that anything excuses an end that you see as correct, failing to realise that 'the ends justify the means' is pure consequentialist thinking, which I've been advocating. The ends do justify the means; if the means are moral, so too will the ends.

[dan107]

stofsk wrote...
Strawman distortion. Killing Hitler to prevent WW2 is a classic example of choosing the lesser of two evils. The outcome of preventing WW2 (if it's a given that killing Hitler would prevent WW2) outweighs the immoral act of murdering someone before he is guilty of the crimes he will commit later on in life. But it doesn't negate it. There is no inconsistency.

Alright, so by extension you would agree that preventing the death of all life outweighs the immoral act of murdering half of life, and is thus justifiable? In that case, what's your problem with my initial statement?

This all began when you said you'd happily sacrifice half of the galaxy if it would save the other half. Its like you're obsessed with the idea that anything excuses an end that you see as correct, failing to realise that 'the ends justify the means' is pure consequentialist thinking, which I've been advocating. The ends do justify the means; if the means are moral, so too will the ends.

I think you're missing the point of the concept "the ends justify the means". It's only applicable when the means in question are immoral. If the means themselves are moral, they need no justification.

[this isnt my name]

Better to make it go boom, TIM makes it clear that he wants human supremicy, that is not good, as a result I want to kill him in ME3, I thought he changed and focused on the real threat, but still as greedy as ever.

[Stofsk]

dan107 wrote...

stofsk wrote...
Strawman distortion. Killing Hitler to prevent WW2 is a classic example of choosing the lesser of two evils. The outcome of preventing WW2 (if it's a given that killing Hitler would prevent WW2) outweighs the immoral act of murdering someone before he is guilty of the crimes he will commit later on in life. But it doesn't negate it. There is no inconsistency.

Alright, so by extension you would agree that preventing the death of all life outweighs the immoral act of murdering half of life, and is thus justifiable? In that case, what's your problem with my initial statement?

...The fact that you're advocating mass murder of billions of people? EDIT: And presenting that choice as though it were the only one available, or if it were the only one, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I think you're missing the point of the concept "the ends justify the means". It's only applicable when the means in question are immoral. If the means themselves are moral, they need no justification.

What utter rubbish! The phrase 'the ends justify the means' is classic consequentialism, vs virtue ethics or deontology! It has been appropriated by morally bankrupt people but its meaning isn't meant to imply commiting immoral acts towards a moral outcome; that is utterly absurd. It is meant to illustrate the relationship actions have towards consequences, for goodness sake.

Modifié par stofsk, 04 février 2010 - 02:19 .

[The_mango55]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

That's because they understand that it was an obscenely stupid idea to keep the base. Every bit of Reaper tech that's been recovered has led to indoctrination.

You mean the Thanix Cannon is going to lead to indoctrination!?

OH NOES!

[Stofsk]

The_mango55 wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

That's because they understand that it was an obscenely stupid idea to keep the base. Every bit of Reaper tech that's been recovered has led to indoctrination.

You mean the Thanix Cannon is going to lead to indoctrination!?

OH NOES!

The Thanix cannon isn't actual reaper tech. It's turian tech that was based upon what was observed from Sovereign's 'cutting beam' weaponry, and extrapolated from there.

[senojones]

No offense, but I am glad my country is not lead by people like you.

None taken, our civilization hasn't evolved into a very pretty one either.

[dan107]

stofsk wrote...

dan107 wrote...

stofsk wrote...
Strawman distortion. Killing Hitler to prevent WW2 is a classic example of choosing the lesser of two evils. The outcome of preventing WW2 (if it's a given that killing Hitler would prevent WW2) outweighs the immoral act of murdering someone before he is guilty of the crimes he will commit later on in life. But it doesn't negate it. There is no inconsistency.

Alright, so by extension you would agree that preventing the death of all life outweighs the immoral act of murdering half of life, and is thus justifiable? In that case, what's your problem with my initial statement?

...The fact that you're advocating mass murder of billions of people?

To save billions more. Did you not just admit that it would be justifiable to kill one person to save millions? Is it the numbers that you have the problem with here, i.e. it's ok to kill 1 to save millions, but it's not ok to kill billions to prevent twice as many from dying?

What utter rubbish! The phrase 'the ends justify the means' is classic consequentialism, vs virtue ethics or deontology! It has been appropriated by morally bankrupt people but its meaning isn't meant to imply commiting immoral acts towards a moral outcome; that is utterly absurd. It is meant to illustrate the relationship actions have towards consequences, for goodness sake.

Are you arguing semantics here? I don't care what you call it. If an action is moral in and of itself, it requires no further justification. If an action is immoral, justification is required. A good enough outcome may justify the immoral actions to get there. Thus the phrase the ends justify the means.

[marshalleck]

The_mango55 wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

That's because they understand that it was an obscenely stupid idea to keep the base. Every bit of Reaper tech that's been recovered has led to indoctrination.

You mean the Thanix Cannon is going to lead to indoctrination!?

OH NOES!

Thannix cannon wasn't made by Reapers.

Every time organics come into contact with actual Reaper technology, devices of Reaper origin, it ends up going very badly.

Dragon's Teeth, the IFF, the ancient "alien object" that Dr. Qian encountered and studied in the first book which presumably woke up Sovereign, or drew its attention.

Modifié par marshalleck, 04 février 2010 - 02:29 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

senojones wrote...

No offense, but I am glad my country is not lead by people like you.

None taken, our civilization hasn't evolved into a very pretty one either.

I like humanity and its history as it is.
But I respect your determination about your position, even though I do not share it all.

[Nayt Navare]

Cerberus+Terroist.



I am a die hard patriot of the United States (well, and Canada, my mother is an immigrant), but would I work with Bin Laden to save mankind from a completely alien threat? Yes. I wouldn't betray my country or ideals while doing so, and neither does Shepard in ME2. Mankind (and in Mass Effect, the galaxy) needs to work together. But I would hardly hand over the alien tech to a terrorist (if I didn't shoot him in the head afterwards anyhow.)



An extreme example, perhaps, but it's essentially the equivalent of the Mass Effect 2 storyline, and props to Bioware for how the wrote it and handled it.

[loboME2]

JasonPogo wrote...

Well when I took Zaeed with me he told me when someone gives you a wepon you don't complain it is dirty you just use it. And the IM agreed with him. But look at it this way. They sent a team into the dead Reaper. The were all mind ****ed. What makes you think a Collecter base that is run by Reapers in a part of space that is next to imposible to get to will in any way help you? Everyone they send to the base would just end up slaved to the Reapers.

It may be a collector base run by reapers, but other than the human reaper (which was destroyed), I tot that most of the tech should be the collector's. i.e no indorination.

[KnightofPhoenix]

marshalleck wrote...

The_mango55 wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

That's because they understand that it was an obscenely stupid idea to keep the base. Every bit of Reaper tech that's been recovered has led to indoctrination.

You mean the Thanix Cannon is going to lead to indoctrination!?

OH NOES!

Thannix cannon wasn't made by Reapers.

Every time organics come into contact with actual Reaper technology, devices of Reaper origin, it ends up going very badly.

Dragon's Teeth, the IFF, the ancient "alien object" that Dr. Qian encountered in the first book.

What about the conduit (reverse engineered mass relay)? What about altering the keepers (studying reaper bio-engineering technology that created the keepers, which allowed the Protheans to alter their signal)? What about the data created by the Protheans that allows Shepard to control the citadel (manipulating and controlling Reaper technology)?

And without the IFF, we couldn't make it to the deep core. So what's your point?
Sure, some people got indoctrinated. But we got something essential in return. Without which, we could never stop the collectors.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 04 février 2010 - 02:35 .

[Stofsk]

dan107 wrote...

To save billions more. Did you not just admit that it would be justifiable to kill one person to save millions? Is it the numbers that you have the problem with here, i.e. it's ok to kill 1 to save millions, but it's not ok to kill billions to prevent twice as many from dying?

Is your wall of ignorance particularly thick today? Because I swear you're either ignoring my points or just messing with me.

Are you arguing semantics here?

No, I'm arguing ethics. It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't care what you call it. If an action is moral in and of itself, it requires no further justification. If an action is immoral, justification is required. A good enough outcome may justify the immoral actions to get there. Thus the phrase the ends justify the means.

Quite clear. Consequentialists argue that if the outcome is good, the action preceding it must be good. And the corroloary to that is, if the actions taken are good, the outcome must be good - hence the phrase, the ends justify the means. If an action is bad it will lead to bad outcome. If an action is 'mostly bad' but is aimed at prevented a 'worse bad' then the outcome is better, but not necessarily a good one. Deontologists argue that the action itself has a kind of 'rightness' or 'wrongness' to it, independent of the outcome. The fact you think an action 'in and of itself' can be moral, shows you don't understand consequentialism.

[tmp7704]

Abriael_CG wrote...

The message from the rachni queen in ME2 lets you know that the rachni acted like they did because they were pushed to do so (probably by the reapers).
So yeah, everything leads to the conclusion that they're both valuable assets, and the chaotic stupid will probably regret destroying them.

Let's consider it for a minute. An extremely dangerous race which already has the track record of being pushed into war with the rest of galaxy (likely by the Reapers) is let to spread unchecked while you know the Reapers are coming back.

Yes, the conclusion here would be they're going to wind up as valuable assets. Question is, for whom?

Maybe it's the stupid good that's going to have their regrets there...

[dan107]

SE JN wrote...

Cerberus+Terroist.

I am a die hard patriot of the United States (well, and Canada, my mother is an immigrant), but would I work with Bin Laden to save mankind from a completely alien threat? Yes. I wouldn't betray my country or ideals while doing so, and neither does Shepard in ME2. Mankind (and in Mass Effect, the galaxy) needs to work together. But I would hardly hand over the alien tech to a terrorist (if I didn't shoot him in the head afterwards anyhow.)

An extreme example, perhaps, but it's essentially the equivalent of the Mass Effect 2 storyline, and props to Bioware for how the wrote it and handled it.

What if the US was asleep at the switch? What if they refused to even acknowledge the alien threat, while bin Laden was the only one with both the will and the ability to do something about it?

Personally, I'd rather give the base to the Alliance than to Cerberus, but the Alliance doesn't want to get involved. So the choice is work with Cerberus or do nothing.

[loboME2]

SE JN wrote...

Cerberus+Terroist.

I am a die hard patriot of the United States (well, and Canada, my mother is an immigrant), but would I work with Bin Laden to save mankind from a completely alien threat? Yes. I wouldn't betray my country or ideals while doing so, and neither does Shepard in ME2. Mankind (and in Mass Effect, the galaxy) needs to work together. But I would hardly hand over the alien tech to a terrorist (if I didn't shoot him in the head afterwards anyhow.)

An extreme example, perhaps, but it's essentially the equivalent of the Mass Effect 2 storyline, and props to Bioware for how the wrote it and handled it.

If you really wanted to tie them together, then Bin Ladin has to have reason to do what he did. example: keep the world in constant conflict so as to be ready for war with aliens. Of course, we can add that he has underlings who went too far (9/11). In such a case, I would certainly hand alien tech to him. Wouldn't you?

[Deamon023]

The_mango55 wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

That's because they understand that it was an obscenely stupid idea to keep the base. Every bit of Reaper tech that's been recovered has led to indoctrination.

You mean the Thanix Cannon is going to lead to indoctrination!?

OH NOES!

And don't forget human tech skipped few hundred years thnx to reaper tech aswell, I made the thing explode mainly cuz I'm confident that TIM will use it to gain more power for Cerberus or just the thought TIM would become indoctrinaded by the Reapers and none understands that tech good enough (yet) to keep it in check, just thinking about the IFF sending the coords of the Normandy has a small scale example.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Endo322 wrote...

I wish there was a 3rd option where you keep the base but don't hand it to Cerberus.

Guess that's too much to ask though

THIS^^^^, A thousand times!

10 interwebs granted to you.lol

[vyvexthorne]

I like how this turned into some sort of weird political debate... but it's not politics, it's a game.. and as such you should be rewarded for being good or evil.. You should be able to play the game as an evil sinister bastard if you so choose. But you can't. The rewards just aren't as great.. Basically this game is .. you can be good.. or a jerk. The renegade responses never seemed evil or bad to me.. just really jerky. It's a very linear story that allows you to take some steps to the side to make it feel like there are more options than there really are.

[KalliChan07]

Keeping the collector base gives Cerberus the power to dominate other alien species.

It -is- a bad decision to keep the base if you want to preserve balance in the Universe.  Your team is mostly alien, not only that but a majority of them want to preserve life / balance.  With this in mind, of course your team isn't going to agree with you giving a known terriorist human group the power of Reaper tech.

[jmood88]

marshalleck wrote...

The_mango55 wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

That's because they understand that it was an obscenely stupid idea to keep the base. Every bit of Reaper tech that's been recovered has led to indoctrination.

You mean the Thanix Cannon is going to lead to indoctrination!?

OH NOES!

Thannix cannon wasn't made by Reapers.

Every time organics come into contact with actual Reaper technology, devices of Reaper origin, it ends up going very badly.

Dragon's Teeth, the IFF, the ancient "alien object" that Dr. Qian encountered and studied in the first book which presumably woke up Sovereign, or drew its attention.

Again, the Citadel and relays were traps and even they turned out to be tools for everyone else, a dead Reaper is not the same as what was intentionally left behind to keep every race in the galaxy in check.