442 réponses à ce sujet

[fortunesque]

They're a terrorist organization. Look at what they did to Admiral Kohoku and his men. Look at what they did on Chaska. Look at what they did to Jack.



Cerberus wants to ensure human dominance in the galaxy. They are led by a leader that believes in the ends justifying the means. As long as TIM gets what he wants, he doesn't care what happens.



So let's sum this up:

1. Cerberus wants to ensure the dominance of a particular race

2. They will do anything to reach their goals, including hurting their own

3. Their leader believes in setting humans up to their 'rightful role' as leaders of the galaxy.



Just because they are taking action about the human colonies doesn't mean that they don't have a hidden agenda. Cerberus wants to install humans as a dominant, master race in the galaxy. TIM wants to head this organization. Bluntly put, the whole idea reeks of ****ism.

[Poison_Berrie]

mcharj11 wrote...
Of course cybernetics and nano-tech would be commonly used however it is never specified hwo Shepard is rebuilt, plus it is mentioned a few tmes that nothing like that has ever been done before. He was dead not close to dead but completely dead, Jacob even says that all Shepard was, was a chunk of meat filled with tubes and anyone else would have buried him.

No due to the amount it cost Cerberus and the lack of details, project Lazarus is more than it seems, and if TIM has had Reaper tech implanted in former Cerberus agents like Grayson, it isn't so far fetched to think that Shepard is running on Reaper tech.

Maybe. Still I'm inclined to believe that reviving someone from the death would be costly regardless of the technology you use for it.
Lack of details make either a possibility, though.

[CRISIS1717]

The Illusive Man basically wants entire control over the galaxy, I doubt his dictatorship will be very pleasant to live in considering his treatment of his personnel and humans who get in his way.

[Klimy]

Cerberus are terrorists with sadistic methods to their own and even worse to alien. Hitler had "good" plans for humanity too (in a way of humanity will be only strongest and brightest) but what he did is horrible and should've been stoped at all costs.

No good means (and in this case there are not even enough good means) can justify any ill actions towards living beings that Cerberus did.

[Arijharn]

Korsriddare wrote...

Yes, because all their deeds are about making super-humans.

Well, yes in a nutshell. Correct me if I'm wrong of course, but Cerberus is primarily focussed upon humanity's military supremacy, with political clout a second.

Basically, all this talk about 'ends justify the means' and all the counter-points to it are as equally academic and thus ridiculous. Time is constantly going and research doesn't necessarily give instant results, but narrows and focusses successive research. Honestly, if someone had to die to even help assure 100 lives down the track, then I think it would actually be immoral to ignore it, because of your views on the galaxy you deciding that 1 man should live is as much acting god as my decision that his sacrifice is worth it.

Having said that, I have to destroy the collector's base because I simply think that any tech it could salvage could be as salvageable from the wreckage, enough people (100,000+) have already died and they needed to be put at peace and because I always thought you couldn't be absolutely sure you have destroyed everyone with a neutron pulse like you could with a thermonuclear explosion. Also, who's to say that they couldn't necessarily have an 'indoctrination' type effect present on the ship, and so far there doesn't seem to be a foolproof way to circumvent that process, other than from brief exposure.

That reminds me actually, considering your experience with reaper tech, how can you not of fallen under the sway of indoctrination-type thoughts?

[Spell Singer]

The Illusive Man should be renamed the Teflon Man and Cerberus seemed to be well supplied with non stick non fat pan coatings. They killed Kohuku, they tortured Tombes, they sacrificed human alliance troops on multiple occasions, etc.



To almost all of this the Teflon Man answers I didn't know. Well buddy here is a hint when you are in command: that doesn't cut it. That is a cop out. The buck stops at your desk. Both the Teflon Man and Miranda use the same lame duck excuse.



I enjoyed telling Joker to cut the channel. I look forward to kicking him through a damn window. The moment someone starts talking about "the ends justify the means" is the moment you stop listening. They never do.



Cerberus is using Shepard. It is clear he wanted the Reaper tech and not a lot more. Blowing that base to scrap metal is the only sane option I can see. The risk the radiation weapon not working is too great, given you are in a one try only situation.



After talking to the Teflon Dude I wished there was a working shower since I felt like I needed one, a lot less then when talking to Aria T'lock. He is a speciest fanatic nothing more nothing less. His goal isn't to save humanity from the reapers it is to gain the technology to dominate the galaxy. Did you never read his mission summery? Those were decidedly creepy. He is creepy...



It is very much as ME said it..."Saving the Galaxy for Humanity...one alien at a time." That is Cerberus's theme song.



I soooooo hope for the renegade option to kick him through a window. The single thing I can't figure out is why is Miranda not angry with you at the end. Even though I terminated that call from the Teflon Dude she is all smiles. Weird given her sister is hostage to her good behavior.

[Dark Glasses]

They resurrected Shepard. It's good enough for me to work for them, until Reaper situation is over.

Modifié par Dark Glasses, 08 février 2010 - 12:49 .

[Puppet Doctor]

My first playthrough I went fully Renegade and I gave the base to TIM. I don't mind working for Cerberus because I like TIM. But I knew giving him the base was a bad idea and would probably screw me over in ME3.



I did another playthrough fully Paragon and didn't give him the base and frankly I thought the ending was a bit better. It really makes me want to see ME3 now and what will happen with me and Cerberus.

[Poison_Berrie]

Arijharn wrote...
Basically, all this talk about 'ends justify the means' and all the counter-points to it are as equally academic and thus ridiculous. Time is constantly going and research doesn't necessarily give instant results, but narrows and focusses successive research. Honestly, if someone had to die to even help assure 100 lives down the track, then I think it would actually be immoral to ignore it, because of your views on the galaxy you deciding that 1 man should live is as much acting god as my decision that his sacrifice is worth it.

So basically they get free reign on their experiments, forcing people to undergo deadly experiments, just so that they can find out whether or not this is going to lead somewhere.
That's even worse than saying the ends justify the means. It's saying any end justifies the means. 

Also who is any man to force another man to kill himself just so that you might save a hundred people in a potential future situation.
"Hey dude, we need an army of cannon fodder, so we're going to trust you onto a spike. It's okay if this experiment actually works this will may allow us to reduce war casualties if the enemy doesn't counter it or something."

[Arijharn]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

Arijharn wrote...
Basically, all this talk about 'ends justify the means' and all the counter-points to it are as equally academic and thus ridiculous. Time is constantly going and research doesn't necessarily give instant results, but narrows and focusses successive research. Honestly, if someone had to die to even help assure 100 lives down the track, then I think it would actually be immoral to ignore it, because of your views on the galaxy you deciding that 1 man should live is as much acting god as my decision that his sacrifice is worth it.

So basically they get free reign on their experiments, forcing people to undergo deadly experiments, just so that they can find out whether or not this is going to lead somewhere.
That's even worse than saying the ends justify the means. It's saying any end justifies the means. 

Also who is any man to force another man to kill himself just so that you might save a hundred people in a potential future situation.
"Hey dude, we need an army of cannon fodder, so we're going to trust you onto a spike. It's okay if this experiment actually works this will may allow us to reduce war casualties if the enemy doesn't counter it or something."

First of all, re-read the part where I say: 'experiments for the sake of experiments is evil.' I can't be sure of course, but I never got the impression that Cerberus experimented for the sake of it, they experimented because they expected a certain result.

So you're okay with the idea that saving that man is okay because you're there, even though it might damn another 100, or 1000? Yes I agree it's morally ambiguous, but I think it's just as 'wrong' for you to say it's okay, because honestly if you are okay with that loss of life for the sake of saving face then and now, then I think you're the truly immoral one, because you're not doing enough to safeguard your species or the way of life.

And your hypothetical is a gross simplification of my meaning.

Let me add to this a bit by giving an example of what I mean: Did you give saresh butahi (spelling I think is totally wrong) his wife's body back even though her death and examination of her wounds could save hundreds or thousands of lives down the track? That's the scale I'm talking about. This is even though you could probably argue that the Alliance military team could be disrespecting her body (I can only imagine that close examination of a loved ones deceased body with a fine tooth comb would be somewhat disrespectful) through it's lengthly examination.

Taking objection to something because of your moralistic slant is all very well and good, just don't expect it to turn up all peaches for you is all that I'm saying, just like I don't expect it to turn out all well for me with clean results, I just think my way is necessary in the long run, even though I might find it distasteful.

(No, I can not stomach the idea of handing the base over to TIM, I just don't think it could be useful in whatever time frame the reapers could turn up, and generate good enough results)

Modifié par Arijharn, 09 février 2010 - 01:21 .

[kingpingo]

For some people it's always easy to sacrifice others for the "greater good", but when it's time to sacrifice themselves, they cry like a Quarian with tummy-ache.

[Arijharn]

That's no doubt true. Some people no doubt think of me as being morally bankrupt while I think of them as naive idealists.

[Amethyst Deceiver]

i dont dislike cerberus, i just like me more

therefore i always put my own interests (beliefs) ahead of cerberus' best interests.

[Ktauliss]

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. That is the thing about ethical Debate, My Impression of TIM is that he  believes people come in two groups 1.) Tools he can use 2.) threats that need destruction. He 'seems' to see a threat to humanity in anything that does not increase his personal power and seems willing to sacrifice his 'tools' if it will improve his 'personal' situation.

In short while he is helpful to Shepard in the short term with friends like him who needs the Reapers. The sad part is that people like him are far more common than people want to admit, and not 'just' in history.

The Council is Guilty of willful blindness and equally willful ignorance but neither fact excuses me being blind or ignorant about the hazards inherent in The Illusive Man's Handling of Cerberus

Modifié par Ktauliss, 09 février 2010 - 03:13 .

[Turin_4]

First of all, re-read the part where I say: 'experiments for the sake of experiments is evil.' I can't be sure of course, but I never got the impression that Cerberus experimented for the sake of it, they experimented because they expected a certain result.

That's fine, but if you're going to perform unethical experiments for the sake of 'others', you can hardly use those very same others and expect a blank check. And of course as for expecting a certain result, they're jumping head first into the deep end of the pool, engaging in incredibly risky science that even races who've been dealing with the related problems for centuries would be nervous about.

So you're okay with the idea that saving that man is okay because you're there, even though it might damn another 100, or 1000? Yes I agree it's morally ambiguous, but I think it's just as 'wrong' for you to say it's okay, because honestly if you are okay with that loss of life for the sake of saving face then and now, then I think you're the truly immoral one, because you're not doing enough to safeguard your species or the way of life.

It's never, ever that clear, though. Can you name one thing Cerberus has done in terms of 'mad science' that has a real shot at saving those thousands if it's successful? Or even that those thousands were ever in danger of dying in the first place? Which threat, exactly, was Cerberus using Husks to attempt to counteract? Turians? Salarians? Asari? It's been made clear throughout many Codex enties that humanity and the Alliance was already doing quite nicely in terms of making us sufficiently bristly and tough that we wouldn't be screwed with out of hand.



Or was Cerberus there when, a very short time after meeting and getting our asses kicked by the Turians, we turned around and beat the stuffing out of them ourselves?

Let me add to this a bit by giving an example of what I mean: Did you give saresh butahi (spelling I think is totally wrong) his wife's body back even though her death and examination of her wounds could save hundreds or thousands of lives down the track? That's the scale I'm talking about. This is even though you could probably argue that the Alliance military team could be disrespecting her body (I can only imagine that close examination of a loved ones deceased body with a fine tooth comb would be somewhat disrespectful) through it's lengthly examination.

That sacrifice was ultimately voluntary, thanks to Shepard's involvement. What Cerberus does is not, involving as it does kidnapping, torture, murder, extortion, and disinformation with the only real excuses being, "It was necessary," or, "Whoops, my bad, I couldn't multi-task sufficiently!" When you're playing in the big leagues like the Illusive Man is, you don't get to just pawn it off on your underlings from your cool chair in your giant solar observatory.

(No, I can not stomach the idea of handing the base over to TIM, I just don't think it could be useful in whatever time frame the reapers could turn up, and generate good enough results)

More compelling to me is the fact that every single time anyone has attempted to take on Reaper technology or goals directly and manipulate it to their own ends, be it Cerberus or even Saren, the Reapers have ended up with the upper hand. Even the Protheans only just barely managed a desperation plan at the expense of almost their entire race being enslaved and horribly twisted for the next fifty millenia, and possibly more.

[YR_Lim]

Shipwr3K wrote...

SomeoneStoleMyName wrote...

Shipwr3K wrote...

i hope you do realize that all he wanted from the beginning was that base.

Are you hinting to the possibility that he just used us for aquiring reaper technology and never cared for shepard, his crew or humanity at all?

I think his wish for humanitys survival and progress is genuine. And even IF he didnt care about shepard it would be a symbiotic relationship still, they would both benefit greatly from being allies. And both lose much on betraying eachother imo.

shepard was a tool, he was an investment. 

I suspect The Illusive Man already has acquiring Reaper tech in mind when he spent billion of credits to ressurect one man. Reaper tech is essentially priceless, billions of credits is cheap to obtain such power,

[Arijharn]

Turin_4 wrote...
It's never, ever that clear, though. Can you name one thing Cerberus has done in terms of 'mad science' that has a real shot at saving those thousands if it's successful? Or even that those thousands were ever in danger of dying in the first place? Which threat, exactly, was Cerberus using Husks to attempt to counteract? Turians? Salarians? Asari? It's been made clear throughout many Codex enties that humanity and the Alliance was already doing quite nicely in terms of making us sufficiently bristly and tough that we wouldn't be screwed with out of hand.

Or was Cerberus there when, a very short time after meeting and getting our asses kicked by the Turians, we turned around and beat the stuffing out of them ourselves?

The thing about threats is that you can never be sure where the next one comes from. For an example, do you think that when the US of A was defending itself from possible soviet aggression during the cold war it was aware of the enroaching threat from religious fundamentalism? My point being is you can never be too careful, therefore I think covering as many bases as possible is prudent.

Considering the games are never going to go into detail of how Husks work down to the real nitty gritty, perhaps it isn't the husk in of itself that was interesting to Cerberus, but perhaps it was how the nanotechnology managed to reanimate dead tissue. Lets just take this one step closer to home, perhaps the information gleaned from how this Husk worked through nanotechnology was instrumental in Project Lazarus' successful resurrection of your Shepherd.

And there you go, Project Lazarus in of itself, if they had more research into that, there's your best example of what has  'Cerberus [has] done in terms of 'mad science' that has a real shot at saving those thousands if it's successful?

Resurrection of its soldiers in engagements when a body is recoverable? Hell yes that would have enormous implications in combat situations.

Also bear in mind that it was Cerberus' 'mad science' that pushed the Alliance military-industrial complex to give the go-ahead on the SR1 Normandy construction in the first place, and that has already proven its value or will prove itself if Shepherd's talk to Rear-Admiral Malko-something is to go by.

That sacrifice was ultimately voluntary, thanks to Shepard's involvement. What Cerberus does is not, involving as it does kidnapping, torture, murder, extortion, and disinformation with the only real excuses being, "It was necessary," or, "Whoops, my bad, I couldn't multi-task sufficiently!" When you're playing in the big leagues like the Illusive Man is, you don't get to just pawn it off on your underlings from your cool chair in your giant solar observatory.

I disagree with you on that it was ultimately voluntary though (maybe it's just semantics really) simply because it had Shephard's involvement. Think about it, it was you who decided and then you explained your decision phrasing it very carefully if you had sufficient charm or intimidate.

(No, I can not stomach the idea of handing the base over to TIM, I just don't think it could be useful in whatever time frame the reapers could turn up, and generate good enough results)

More compelling to me is the fact that every single time anyone has attempted to take on Reaper technology or goals directly and manipulate it to their own ends, be it Cerberus or even Saren, the Reapers have ended up with the upper hand. Even the Protheans only just barely managed a desperation plan at the expense of almost their entire race being enslaved and horribly twisted for the next fifty millenia, and possibly more.

Those are good points too, I thought of indoctrination a lot as well and reasoned that there was still the carcass of a Human-Reaper somewhere down there, possibly complete enough to indoctrinate. It may take a while, but sifting through the wreckage could generate as much leads as otherwise.

[Peer of the Empire]

fortunesque wrote...

They're a terrorist organization. Look at what they did to Admiral Kohoku and his men. Look at what they did on Chaska. Look at what they did to Jack.

Cerberus wants to ensure human dominance in the galaxy. They are led by a leader that believes in the ends justifying the means. As long as TIM gets what he wants, he doesn't care what happens.

So let's sum this up:
1. Cerberus wants to ensure the dominance of a particular race
2. They will do anything to reach their goals, including hurting their own
3. Their leader believes in setting humans up to their 'rightful role' as leaders of the galaxy.

Just because they are taking action about the human colonies doesn't mean that they don't have a hidden agenda. Cerberus wants to install humans as a dominant, master race in the galaxy. TIM wants to head this organization. Bluntly put, the whole idea reeks of ****ism.

Doing bad things is bad but the rest of the post doesn't follow.

Ensure human dominance in the galaxy?  Hell yes, sign me up!!

[Destructo-Bot]

Also Narli Bhatia's body was superfluous in the end. The Geth that were violent were a small subset of the real Geth, and:

1.) Shepard can eliminate the heretic Geth
2.) Shepard can ask Legion for information about Geth weapons
3.) Shepard can haul a dump-truck worth of Geth weapons and bodies to the Alliance whenever he wants
4.) Even without doing all the of above the Alliance was able to push back the heretic Geth to little more than a footnote in the past year or so.

To anyone who says that sacrificing one person to help one hundred is moral; I'm coming over to your house and killing you. I promise that your death will help at least 100 others to live. You have nothing other than my word about this. Think that one over.

Also those that would wield that power of life and death have very little to stop them from simply sacrificing others to benefit themselves, as has been proven over, and over, and over in history. That is a slipperly slope as well, allowing greater wiggle room as to what is acceptable for such deeds. In short, there are a thousand reasons why "ends justify the means" and "sacrificing one to save many" are to be avoided at all cost. THEY JUST DON'T PLAY OUT THAT WAY. EVER

Modifié par Destructo-Bot, 09 février 2010 - 03:45 .

[aeetos21]

There are a lot of people on the forums who agree with the OP - though I think even more disagree but whatever, free country. The ends justify the means never bothered me so much, if you have to sacrifice a million to save a billion for example. If I had to make a call like that... yeah I know I'd be going to hell but I'd still do it. Then I would hunt down those responsible for forcing me into making that call.



Cerberus lacks that sort of compassion. It also lacks oversight and I never heard of any organization led by a single individual that could say "it knows what is best for it's people." That's why the earth isn't still in the middle ages.



And finally, Cerberus wants to see human dominance. Does that mean they're anti-alien? Eventually yes, they will have to be. If a volus and a human are gunning for the same job and the volus is clearly the better candidate according to Cerberus's logic/mission statement the human should still get the job. Doesn't get much more racist than that.

[Ktauliss]

*sigh* right back at "the Ends justify ANY means"

And there you go, Project Lazarus in of itself, if they had more research into that, there's your best example of what has 'Cerberus [has] done in terms of 'mad science' that has a real shot at saving those thousands if it's successful?



Resurrection of its soldiers in engagements when a body is recoverable? Hell yes that would have enormous implications in combat situations.

At a price-tag of Several Billion and 2+ years? Not really feasible. And nobody is arguing (very hard) that NONE of Cerberus's Research has benefits. Just that in the majority of cases we know of the COSTS are unreasonably high.

[Arijharn]

Ktauliss wrote...

*sigh* right back at "the Ends justify ANY means"

And there you go, Project Lazarus in of itself, if they had more research into that, there's your best example of what has 'Cerberus [has] done in terms of 'mad science' that has a real shot at saving those thousands if it's successful?

Resurrection of its soldiers in engagements when a body is recoverable? Hell yes that would have enormous implications in combat situations.

At a price-tag of Several Billion and 2+ years? Not really feasible. And nobody is arguing (very hard) that NONE of Cerberus's Research has benefits. Just that in the majority of cases we know of the COSTS are unreasonably high.

Now you're just looking at it at its simplistic level and even acting dense because you full well know that the more research and development is put into a project its cost and time to produce goes down and this is a trend that is followed well in real life, look at a computer's hard drive or memory as possibly the best example of this. I was going to mention the PS3 going to slimline as well, but it's pretty much accepted fact that the ps3 itself looses Sony money and they make it back with its games, as far as a technological curve though, it works well enough.

[SharpEdgeSoda]

Eh, many people here act like pure paragon, idealistic hippy saints whose naivete would never fly in the real world.

I make choices dependent on what I feel. I like Cerberus's intention, but I don't agree with what TIM allows "for the sake of humanity."

I'll kill Batarians who are thugs, but not let a wounded, defenseless one die. I'll save the council and the Rachni Queen, I let Garrus take the shot, and I blew up the Geth installation. I destroyed the Collector base...with some reluctance.

And I get max Paragon and 50% Renegade.

Modifié par SharpEdgeSoda, 09 février 2010 - 04:08 .

[Arijharn]

Destructo-Bot wrote...


To anyone who says that sacrificing one person to help one hundred is moral; I'm coming over to your house and killing you. I promise that your death will help at least 100 others to live. You have nothing other than my word about this. Think that one over.

It's as morale as the idea that saving that one mans life is worth it, even if it may damn 100's later. The thing is, you coming over to my life to attempt to kill me to prove your point is just as likely (if not less likely, since I'm now forewarned) as me killing you, either way we'd still potentially save 100 people down the line (if we both died, why we might save 200!)

I mean, isn't this sort of decision made almost every day by politicians who decide whether or not to send the country's servicemen/women into war? Some servicemen I know are okay with the idea of their deaths (although, not keen on the idea by any stretch of the imagination) because they believe strongly that they'll make the difference. This is consensual of course, but we don't really have an adequate metaphor in real life society to Cerberus (that is known)

Modifié par Arijharn, 09 février 2010 - 04:09 .