147 réponses à ce sujet

[-Syphon-]

Landline wrote...

Tim can not be evil simply because evil is an abstract theory with no solid definition or parameters

I believe that he is what he is at face value, someone who will ensure humanity's survival and dominance, no matter the cost.

Why be difficult on purpose? Maybe there should be different threads for this, but obviously the guy hasn't asked for definitions of evil, he's going on what 99.4% of the population would consider evil. What you'd read on the news, what you'd think of when people previously considered: is Snape evil?

As people have previously posted, is Osama evil? Maybe not, maybe what he did was just pure genius and he's furthering what should rightly be the powers of the world (in both the regimes and the people/societies that support him?)

You're saying he's not evil, (I believe) partly because of the fact he's ensuring humanity's survival and dominance.

A) What if Osama was ensuring the survival of the Taliban etc?
What if I ensure the survival of my best interests, by killing hookers in the streets?

The problem with arguing on what is evil and what is not, is that it has to be defined by what is not evil. It's intrinsic imo for a relative perspective.

So obviously wouldn't it make sense for an individual to judge for themselves: hey, if 'x' is the case (ensuring humanity's survival at any and all costs), does this make him evil?

I would think so, and I would answer the OP by saying, purely by playing the game I think he's evil (not just based on those actions), but also deluded. If survival of a few years before certain death anyway, what's the point of saving 'humanity' if humanity ceases to exist?

Also:

1 a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
2 a archaic : inferior b : causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive <an evil odor> c : disagreeable <woke late and in an evil temper>
3 a : causing harm : pernicious <the evil institution of slavery> b : marked by misfortune : unlucky

I'd say what he does is morally reprehensible, it causes discomfort and repulsion, it causes harm and most likely arises from his personal beliefs and character. But hey, who knows?

[DeadRed1488]

I can't believe how retarded some people are. He may be unethical, but he's not evil. I respect him quite alot actually.

[-Syphon-]

Neither can I. Clearly you're one of these 'retards'? The OP was asking who thinks he's evil. It doesn't necessarily have to be based off what we've currently seen genius.



If his intentions differ from what he portrays then it's highly likely he is evil, he might be using Shepard under the guise of furthering humanity, but for his own personal goals.



What Hitler did was actually quite smart, you could actually respect a lot of what he did for the country, the economy and a lot of other things, this is a ME board though. The fact remains he was an evil person, regardless of whether he's worthy of respect, ethical or unethical. I don't think there's any implication they are mutually exclusive.

[NeoGuardian86]

Illusive Man.

I like his character design and the way he is handled in Mass Effect 2..

I can see why people can agree with him.

personally i can't. I'd rather deal with the bs red tape of the Citadel and/or Alliance before dealing Cerberus. why?...

Cerberus does not know when the price is too high.  It's main goal... the advancement of all human kind is indeed a noble one. No one can blame the Salarian Special Task Force or the Asari Commandos working for the greater good of their perspective species. However like in the conversation with Miranda.

Those groups answer to a government, Cerberus does not. It is funded by sympathizers, both noble and evil, non-racist and racists alike.


I like Cerberus because it is not your comic-book typical villain, there is complexity in it.

However, to quote one of my favorite historical figures.

"You are not to be so blinded by Patriotism, that you cannot face
reality. wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it" - Malcom X

seems fitting...

[NeoGuardian86]

DeadRed1488 wrote...

I can't believe how retarded some people are. He may be unethical, but he's not evil. I respect him quite alot actually.

lemme reference you to a medical example...

you tell me if it's evil or not..


Here

and
 
Here

these are highly unethical experiments..
anybody but a blind person would say THAT IS EVIL.

being unethical, but it can lead to waht is called evil.
definition of evil is this

• Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
• Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
• Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
• Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
• Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

One can say they work to the advancement of human kind, but they do then... represents human kind. if what they do is torture, mutiliate, horribly experiment on, and kill other aliens (aggressive or not) to get their way. Than what does it say about human kind?

ruthless
don't F* with us.

Not something i'm exactly proud of.

[Dark Specie]

Hmm, I dunno if I'd really call him evil. Ruthless - that I'd call him without a doubt, but evil? He's not doing it for his own gain (at least, as long as he's serious about fightning the "greater evil" here), nor for fun nor because of insanity, so it's hard to label him evil. He's ruthless and not a nice guy at all, but to label him evil may be going too far.



That said, he's not the kind of guy I'd feel comfortable handing over the Collector base too.

[Space Shot]

No. He is just a robot operating under the 3+ laws of robotics and is consequently doing everything in his power to promote the good of humanity.

Modifié par Space Shot, 11 février 2010 - 03:40 .

[Chasedanger]

More like he's a any means neccessary manipulator. Read the book. He's a scumbag basically. Would not say evil, but definitely not someone who would be considered a hero. His only concern is preserving humanity at all costs and wanting them to have their appropriate place in the galaxy, which to him, is the top rung. Bad guy = yes, Twisted = yes, Evil..pure evil? Like Reapers wanting to exterminate all life like its a science project evil = no.

[Katarian]

Let just assume for a minute that no one knows about Reapers until Shepards starts going after Saren. Now most of the horrible experiments that we know about Cerberus performed before finding out about the Reapers. So the arguement that he is doing whatever it takes to protect humanity from the Reapers only holds up for the indocrinated people on the "dead" Reaper, and whatever he might do with the Collector's Base. Everything we saw in ME1 and from other sources can't have the Reaper threat used as justification.

[AGogley]

Caz Neerg wrote...

AGogley wrote...

He's evil, period. He was performing experiments long before there was any clue about the reapers, so I don't find the survival of the species argument very convincing. And deciding who has the "least social utility" is very evil because it values one life over another. This is the same reasoning that led the experiements on humans during WWII as well as the **** gas chambers.

Thew newest book also refers to TIM as performing evil experiments.

Doing "whatever it takes" to save yourself is wrong. There are often hard choices to make in warfare, where you have to choose the lesser of two injuries. But there are certain lines you can't cross and still call yourself a moral creature. TIM sees no such lines. Not disagreement about where that line should be but simply he sees no limits whatsoever. Anything is fair game as long as it achieves the objective.

Oh please.  Everybody values some lives over others.  If you honestly believed that every other life was as important as your own, you would take yourself out of the equation so that there would be more resources available for other people to use.  Forced to choose between saving your own kid from death, or saving somebody else's, I guarantee you'll pick yours.  So ultimately it isn't about whether lives have differential value, because clearly they do, it is a question of how to determine that value.  A question on which reasonable minds can disagree.

And if the objective is worth achieving, then yes, anything is fair game.  If someone disagrees, he can try to stop you.  By any means necessary.  You assume that calling yourself a "moral creature" is something people should strive for.  Morality is a chain which restricts the individual's ability to engage in rational action.  If an objective is truly important, and you have a chain preventing you from reaching that objective, the logical choice is to break the chain.

Oh please, yourself.  I don't value one person's life above another's.  I don't value my child above another.  Given an option to save my kid and another, who knows what I would do.  But choosing one because I have to choose one, and then choosing my own child only proves that I'm more emotionally attached than another.  But I can tell you this.  There are some things I would not do to save my children, or my wife, or even myself.  There are some things I would not do under any circumstances.

The problem for you is that you don't have an objective standard providing you with a source of morality (namely, God).  Therefore, there is no morality for you.  If there is no God there is no reason to have morality. Do whatever you will is the name of the game.  Unfortunately for you and others of your ilk, there is such a thing as good and evil and there are consequences for your action here and in eternity.

[AGogley]

Katarian wrote...

Let just assume for a minute that no one knows about Reapers until Shepards starts going after Saren. Now most of the horrible experiments that we know about Cerberus performed before finding out about the Reapers. So the arguement that he is doing whatever it takes to protect humanity from the Reapers only holds up for the indocrinated people on the "dead" Reaper, and whatever he might do with the Collector's Base. Everything we saw in ME1 and from other sources can't have the Reaper threat used as justification.

Based on what is revealed in the books and the games itself, there is no reason to believe anybody knew anything about the Reapers before Shepherd figured it out (except Saren).  It also appears that Cerberus was doing horrible experiments before even Saren's discovery. And many of the experiements hardly fit into the grand scheme of defending yourself from the Reaper threat.

[Kilo Trip]

Cerberus is NOT to be trusted.

[DeriusE]

TIM being evil depends on what you're defining as evil. He means well in what he does, but he has no inhibitions or limits to what he is willing to do. His actions and methods are undoubtedly straying into a gray area at best. TIM is willing to do anything and everything, with no limitations, to ensure the continued existence of humanity and to take and maintain human dominance over anyone and everyone else.

The very definition of evil as used in describing someone is:
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

I would say that 1 and 4 could definitely fit for TIM.

The situation with TIM comes down to the age old dilemma of how far you go to ensure victory, to the point of how far is so far that what you have to do to ensure victory isn't worth it? Some would argue that there are limits to how far you should go... that there are just some things you don't do no matter what, and that they would rather die fighting than take the "whatever it takes" road to ensure your victory. TIM can justify anything in his mind (and I emphasize anything) if it ensures victory and the survival of humanity, and even to the point of the dominance of humanity over everyone else.

And ultimately, the line Shepard says in the end if you refuse to turn the reaper over to TIM embodies the issue perfectly; something along the lines of I won't let fear change who I am and what I believe in, even in the face of possible extinction.

The paragon path is to refuse to use unethical methods and means to ensure your survival; the renegade path is to use anything and everything at your disposal to ensure your survival, bar none - the ends justify the means.

TIM is a believer in the ends justifying the means. That is something you could argue in circles about for days.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and such.

Modifié par DeriusE, 11 février 2010 - 06:16 .

[Freestorm Skinn]

Since when are revenge and spite considered good intentions? He has those in spades.

[Zhijn]

I cant recall the exact dialog but im pretty sure shepard tells TIM at the ending (if you blow it up) that TIM would just use it for his and cerebus own gain. And TIM respond is more or less Yes, more so (human dominance).

Modifié par Zhijn, 11 février 2010 - 08:59 .

[Caz Neerg]

AGogley wrote...
Oh please, yourself.  I don't value one person's life above another's.  I don't value my child above another.  Given an option to save my kid and another, who knows what I would do.  But choosing one because I have to choose one, and then choosing my own child only proves that I'm more emotionally attached than another.  But I can tell you this.  There are some things I would not do to save my children, or my wife, or even myself.  There are some things I would not do under any circumstances.

The problem for you is that you don't have an objective standard providing you with a source of morality (namely, God).  Therefore, there is no morality for you.  If there is no God there is no reason to have morality. Do whatever you will is the name of the game.  Unfortunately for you and others of your ilk, there is such a thing as good and evil and there are consequences for your action here and in eternity.

Whether or not something is a problem is a question of perspective.  To the above in red, unproven assumption is unproven assumption.  And no, we don't need to argue about it.  There is a reason certain types of belief are referred to as faith. (A belief in something which *can't* be proven.)

As for the above in blue, I agree completely.  In the absence of a supernatural being, morality is nothing but a figment of the imagination.  You can get people to agree with your imaginary constructs, but that doesn't bestow any "reality" upon them.  As a practical matter, given the number of different views which exist on the subject, and the impossibility of *knowing* who is correct, we are left with two choices.  Pick one of the available moral codes and cross your fingers hoping that it is the "correct" one, or accept that even if one is correct, the odds of your managing to pick it are slim, so you might as well choose your own path.

Modifié par Caz Neerg, 11 février 2010 - 09:28 .

[Eumerin]

TIM is utterly and completely amoral.

From Dictionary.com -

"having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong:"

Neglecting to mention that the Collector ship is a trap?  Annoying, but ultimately not that big of a deal.

Using one of your friends to bait a trap?  Once again, annoying but minor leagues as far as "badness" goes.

Conducting human experimentation on kids in order to produce more powerful biotics?  Now we're starting to get somewhere.

Blowing up a transport filled with eezo so that a bunch of pregnant mothers will have their fetuses infected with the stuff and approximately 1% (iirc that's about the right number) will have "healthy" biotics instead of malformed babies?  Worse.

Letting Thresher Maws slaughter every man, woman, and child at the colony of Akuze, along with the marine unit that was sent to investigate more or less "just to see what happens"?  Completely and utterly indefensible.  I don't care how much you want to rationalize it, or how screwed up or nonexistant your moral compass is.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR AKUZE.

PERIOD!

[Caz Neerg]

Amoral people don't need excuses. Unless they are crazy, they still need reasons though. We don't actually know what data they managed to gather from Akuze, or how valuable that data has been, so we really can't fairly say whether or not the gains were worth the cost. We don't even have a clear picture of what they thought they might gain, so we can't even really judge their motives.

Modifié par Caz Neerg, 11 février 2010 - 09:55 .

[TAJ4Life]

Markinator_123 wrote...

I really need to read Ascension, but it seems that most of people I know who has read the book seem convinced that the Illusive man is an evil individual. I never trusted him in the game and he has some morally reprehensible methods. Something tells me that he is more than an extremist.  Nonetheless, do anyone of you agree with this assertion that the TIM is evil?

Its too obvious, beat the game and decide to not blow up the collectors ship just before you beat the last boss...the look on the Illusive man's face says it all imo.

[Eumerin]

Caz Neerg wrote...

Amoral people don't need excuses. Unless they are crazy, they still need reasons though. We don't actually know what data they managed to gather from Akuze, or how valuable that data has been, so we really can't fairly say whether or not the gains were worth the cost. We don't even have a clear picture of what they thought they might gain, so we can't even really judge their motives.

Actually, the conversation with Toombs in ME1 gives you a basic idea of exactly why Cerberus did what it did at Akuze.  And it more or less distills down to "Cerberus wanted to see what would happen."

[Caz Neerg]

Yeah, I'm sure Cerberus gave Toombs regular updates on their project goals... Add to that, wasn't he just the picture of sanity when you ran into him.

Modifié par Caz Neerg, 11 février 2010 - 10:20 .

[Kayldera]

The guy is chaotic good.

[DeriusE]

Kayldera wrote...

The guy is chaotic good.

No way. Neutral Evil.