256 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

stofsk wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

stofsk wrote...

Ethical decision making, particularly consequential ethics, takes into account what might happen down the track, which amoral decision making fundamentally doesn't take into account. (because its all about immediate gains, what's right for now etc)

That has got to be the most useless "argument" I have ever heard. So in order to be farsighted and pragmatic and think about long term gains, I absolutely have to be "ethical"? Where did you get that one from?

Thousands of years of human endeavour. Or do you think I came up with terms 'consequential ethics' just now? What about utilitarianism? Deonotology?

Why do you keep confusing consequentialism with other ethics? Don't you know that Kant would look at you and all consequentialists as amoral and contrary to duty?
You speak as if "Ethics" has been a single philosophy that has established everything that is "good".

Kant hates the idea of consequentialism, because he believes that being ethical is being concerned only with the ethic of a particular action and not its result. So what do you say about that?

Conseqentialists are only concerned about the results. The ethic of an action is to be judged only by its results. Since you do not know the results of saving the base, then you should keep quiet and wait. Or present a theory of what you think, without trying so arrogantly to presume that it's already established.

I already quoted Moore to you in another thread and what he said about that. 

Furthermore, utilitarians and consequentialists are not the same. Maybe you should read Principia Ethica. Moore, a real consequentialist not a wannabee, states specifically that the "good" can never be known. Rather, what is
"right" can be, if we judge the results and not the act itself.
Both philosophies would be considered horrible by Kantian ethics.
Humian Ethics would disgaree with all three.
Aristotilian ethics would disgaree with all of them.

So what ethic are you talkign about?
IF you are truly consequentialist, then know that you cannot judge any action and know if it is right or wrong (not good or evil) until you study the results. Otherwise, you are merely speculating (illogically I might add).

Furhtermore, all leaders of human nation (at least the succesful ones), have been largely amoral. All "ethical" ones either turned out to be political disasters, or atrocious morons (Robespierre).

stofsk wrote...

How did you come up to the conclusion that amoral decision making is fundamentally only concerned about the present and not about the future?

Because it only works for the one making the decision, and whatever the **** he wants he gets if he doesn't care who gets in the way.

And what does this have to do with long term gains?
You said that an amoral person doesn't think about the future. and now you say he doesn't care about anone else. The two are not the same. Make up your mind.

An amoral person can still think about the long term future and secure his interest in both the short run and the long run. He doesn't have to be ethical to do it.

Long term gain does not necessarily mean the good of everyoen involved. That's a good position to take, but it's an opinion. One can think that being selfish is the only right thing to do.

Furthermore, an amoral person can logically determine that he is better off if the society he is in is better of as well. He doesn't need to be ethical to determine that.

People assume that ethics lead to caring about others and society.
An ahistorical fantasy.
It's seeking to improve one's life and then one's society that leads to conceptions of ethics, as tools of societal control. 

But one does not need to abide by them, or to give them any supernatural importance, in order to do what is beneficial to him, his loved ones, his group, his society, his nation for both the long term and the short term.  

stofsk wrote...

So Machiavelli was only concerned about the short term gains of the Prince?

No, Machiavelli was concerned with how a Prince should rule in a wildly different political system than what we in the west have. Machiavelli isn't considered an authority on ethics, but on being an utter bastard.

Ha, different. Right.
Machiavelli is considered to be the father of modern politcial science. Of course ethics is irrelevent, as it's not a science.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 février 2010 - 12:43 .

[OfTheFaintSmile]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...
Well great example how indoctrination work is Shiala's story how she and Benezia become  tools in Saren's hands before they realize what was hapened.
And like i said early if such powerful Asari as Benezia become so easy victim of indoctrination then imagine how quick weak in compare to Asari human mind can fail a prey of indoctrination because indoctrination waves are impossible to detect before will be too late.

The Matriach went there with the arrogant assumption that she can deal with it.
As the video logs in the Cerberus ship show, the signs of indoctrination are slow and clear. Headaches, hallucinations come first and then develop into loss of control. That process takes time and Cerberus can easily deal with it.
So while those being indoctrinated wouldn't notice, those who monitor them would and would thus be able to rotate them regurarily.

Ad keep in mind that the Matriach was indoctrinated by Sovereign. The Collector base has no reaper inside it, except the larva Reaper. It likely can't even indoctrinate yet and even if it can, I doubt it can be as powerful as a full grown Reaper's indoctrination.

And once again. You don't know if there is indoctination in the base. By studying it, we can find out and destroy it if need be. IF you destroy it first, just becuse there is a small risk, then you will never truly find out, unless through meta-gaming.

That's right you need a reaper in proximity to indoctrinate, and there are none anymore in the base.

[Caz Neerg]

stofsk wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

stofsk wrote...

Ethical decision making, particularly consequential ethics, takes into account what might happen down the track, which amoral decision making fundamentally doesn't take into account. (because its all about immediate gains, what's right for now etc)

That has got to be the most useless "argument" I have ever heard. So in order to be farsighted and pragmatic and think about long term gains, I absolutely have to be "ethical"? Where did you get that one from?

Thousands of years of human endeavour. Or do you think I came up with terms 'consequential ethics' just now? What about utilitarianism? Deonotology?

How did you come up to the conclusion that amoral decision making is fundamentally only concerned about the present and not about the future?

Because it only works for the one making the decision, and whatever the **** he wants he gets if he doesn't care who gets in the way.

So Machiavelli was only concerned about the short term gains of the Prince?

No, Machiavelli was concerned with how a Prince should rule in a wildly different political system than what we in the west have. Machiavelli isn't considered an authority on ethics, but on being an utter bastard.

If anything, amoral decision making is alot more flexible is ascertaining what is good for both the short run and the long run.

No, it isn't. That has to be most useless 'argument' I have ever heard.

Amoral does not mean short-sighted and entirely focused on the self.  It merely means not constrained by moral codes.  Someone can be amoral and still be dedicated to a cause, or a nation, an idea, or a group of people.  You can be completely amoral and still take into account long term consequences.  You seem to be confused about what the word means.  What you are describing is more of a live-for-today because you might die tomorrow hedonist.

And going by the utilitarian sentiment of the greatest good for the greatest number, you would probably save the base just on the off chance that it might save civilization as we know it, and the number of people Cerberus might kill from using it is nowhere close to the number the Reapers will kill if they win.  And Machiavelli was a genius of politics.  His works should be required reading for all students of political science and political philosophy.

[Northern Sun]

OfTheFaintSmile wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...
Well great example how indoctrination work is Shiala's story how she and Benezia become  tools in Saren's hands before they realize what was hapened.
And like i said early if such powerful Asari as Benezia become so easy victim of indoctrination then imagine how quick weak in compare to Asari human mind can fail a prey of indoctrination because indoctrination waves are impossible to detect before will be too late.

The Matriach went there with the arrogant assumption that she can deal with it.
As the video logs in the Cerberus ship show, the signs of indoctrination are slow and clear. Headaches, hallucinations come first and then develop into loss of control. That process takes time and Cerberus can easily deal with it.
So while those being indoctrinated wouldn't notice, those who monitor them would and would thus be able to rotate them regurarily.

Ad keep in mind that the Matriach was indoctrinated by Sovereign. The Collector base has no reaper inside it, except the larva Reaper. It likely can't even indoctrinate yet and even if it can, I doubt it can be as powerful as a full grown Reaper's indoctrination.

And once again. You don't know if there is indoctination in the base. By studying it, we can find out and destroy it if need be. IF you destroy it first, just becuse there is a small risk, then you will never truly find out, unless through meta-gaming.

That's right you need a reaper in proximity to indoctrinate, and there are none anymore in the base.

Then what about the Reaper tech you encounter in one of the "N7: Abandoned Mine" assingment? There was no Reaper there, and it still indoctrinated the miners and turned them into husks.

[Stofsk]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Why do you keep confusing consequentialism with other ethics? Don't you know that Kant would look at you and all consequentialists as amoral and contrary to duty?
You speak as if "Ethics" has been a single philosophy that has established everything that is "good".

Kant hates the idea of consequentialism, because he believes that being ethical is being concerned only with the ethic of a particular action and not its result. So what do you say about that?

I wouldn't say anything related to Kant, since I didn't refer to him at all. And I wasn't confusing consequentialism with other ethical systems, I was using it as one example.

Conseqentialists are only concerned about the results. The ethic of an action is to be judged only by its results. Since you do not know the results of saving the base, then you should keep quiet and wait. Or present a theory of what you think, without trying so arrogantly to presume that it's already established.

I've already presented a theory, keeping the base is too risky and too unpredictable. Blowing it up takes away a resource that has only been observed to liquify human beings into constructing a reaper. That's it. It doesn't have any redeeming qualities at all, it holds no promise of doing so, and giving it to Cerberus would be giving someone like TIM access to pretty obscene technology whose sole purpose appears to be the creation of reapers.

Furthermore, utilitarians and consequentialists are not the same.

Of course they're not exactly the same, they're however varities of a similar principle.

IF you are truly consequentialist, then know that you cannot judge any action and know if it is right or wrong (not good or evil) until you study the results. Otherwise, you are merely speculating (illogically I might add).

Except I'm not speculating. I blew up the base, denying TIM something he would use against not just reapers but everyone else in the galaxy. The man is a clear megalomaniac, and Cerberus isn't a trustworthy organisation - its track record brings serious doubt as to their competence. Blowing up the base is ethical since the result is that it denied TIM another resource in his quest for power.

How it relates to the reapers is a complete false dilemma. Like I parodied for the umpteenth time, just because you save the base doesn't mean there will be anti-reaper intel magically discerned from it. And also, just on that regard, some intel WAS taken by EDI - it's proven in the ending cutscene. So for right now, the consequences are clear. I didn't sacrifice any intel because I already got it, I denied TIM something he wanted to increase his power, and I stopped the Collectors and by extention the reapers from creating a human reaper out of the bodies of hundreds of thousands of people. As I already stated before, no technology inside that base would yield results against the reapers - no weapons technology can help, because the Thanix cannon already proved a match for the Collector ship, and no defences stopped it.

Furhtermore, all leaders of human nation (at least the succesful ones), have been largely amoral.

That's a spurious argument. Ethical leadership is not an impossibility, ethical leaders have also existed and been succesfful, and amoral leadership has often resulted in atrocities being committed and haven't been universally successful either.

All "ethical" ones either turned out to be political disasters, or atrocious morons (Robespierre).

As opposed to great amoral stalwarts like Joe Stalin.

And what does this have to do with long term gains?
You said that an amoral person doesn't think about the future. and now you say he doesn't care about anone else. The two are not the same. Make up your mind.

The two are also not mutually exclusive, no matter what you think.

An amoral person can still think about the long term future and secure his interest in both the short run and the long run. He doesn't have to be ethical to do it.

*snip*

Of course he can. But that doesn't make his behaviour ethical, and maybe the problem we're having is this fundamental disagreement. If you want to extol amoralism go right ahead, but I'm not buying it. I've met plenty of amoral people in life, and I despise them since they take advantage of others for their own gain.

Ha, different. Right.

Don't be obtuse. I was obviously referring to how different the two political systems are, separated by the centuries.

Machiavelli is considered to be the father of modern politcial science.

He is considered to be one of the founders of modern political science. He is not the only one, though I admit his influence is strong even today.

[DeathsHands5]

This discussion is getting way too deep, like a college ethics discussion as someone said on page 5.



I think we need to chill a bit on the subject, everyone's getting argumentative and aggressive. Not helpful. We're on the trail to Off-Topic Land.

[Stofsk]

I've said all I've wanted to on the subject at any rate. It's good to exchange ideas, but not to go around in circles forever.

[KnightofPhoenix]

[quote]stofsk wrote...

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Why do you keep confusing consequentialism with other ethics? Don't you know that Kant would look at you and all consequentialists as amoral and contrary to duty?
You speak as if "Ethics" has been a single philosophy that has established everything that is "good".

Kant hates the idea of consequentialism, because he believes that being ethical is being concerned only with the ethic of a particular action and not its result. So what do you say about that?[/quote]
I wouldn't say anything related to Kant, since I didn't refer to him at all. And I wasn't confusing consequentialism with other ethical systems, I was using it as one example.[/quote]

Do you even know what Deontology means? Kant is the deontologist par excellence.

[quote]stofsk wrote...



[quote]Conseqentialists are only concerned about the results. The ethic of an action is to be judged only by its results. Since you do not know the results of saving the base, then you should keep quiet and wait. Or present a theory of what you think, without trying so arrogantly to presume that it's already established.[/quote]
I've already presented a theory, keeping the base is too risky and too unpredictable. Blowing it up takes away a resource that has only been observed to liquify human beings into constructing a reaper. That's it. It doesn't have any redeeming qualities at all, it holds no promise of doing so, and giving it to Cerberus would be giving someone like TIM access to pretty obscene technology whose sole purpose appears to be the creation of reapers.[/quote]

Knowing how to create reapers = knowing how to destroy them.
Medicine has developped alongside poison making. To know one makes it easier to know the other.

Constructing reapers requires a great technological insight.
Possessing great technological insight on the reapers means, in theory, knowing all their strengths and waeknesses.
One does not need to buid a reaper to do all this. Indeed, one can only build a reaper if he knows them inside and out. Knowldege prescedes construction. Building reapers is not a necessity at all.
Knowledge IS power. To relinquish it is irresponsable.
We know nothing about the Reapers. Acquiring knowldge about them, which can only be acquired if we study how they are built, is essential to any logical mind.

It has all the "redeeming" qualities it needs to be perserved for studies.


[quote]stofsk wrote...



[quote]Furthermore, utilitarians and consequentialists are not the same.[/quote]
Of course they're not exactly the same, they're however varities of a similar principle. [/quote]

No. Utilitarianism is hedonistic at the core. Consequentialism is not.

[quote]stofsk wrote...



[quote]IF you are truly consequentialist, then know that you cannot judge any action and know if it is right or wrong (not good or evil) until you study the results. Otherwise, you are merely speculating (illogically I might add).[/quote]
Except I'm not speculating. I blew up the base, denying TIM something he would use against not just reapers but everyone else in the galaxy. The man is a clear megalomaniac, and Cerberus isn't a trustworthy organisation - its track record brings serious doubt as to their competence. Blowing up the base is ethical since the result is that it denied TIM another resource in his quest for power.

How it relates to the reapers is a complete false dilemma. Like I parodied for the umpteenth time, just because you save the base doesn't mean there will be anti-reaper intel magically discerned from it. And also, just on that regard, some intel WAS taken by EDI - it's proven in the ending cutscene. So for right now, the consequences are clear. I didn't sacrifice any intel because I already got it, I denied TIM something he wanted to increase his power, and I stopped the Collectors and by extention the reapers from creating a human reaper out of the bodies of hundreds of thousands of people. As I already stated before, no technology inside that base would yield results against the reapers - no weapons technology can help, because the Thanix cannon already proved a match for the Collector ship, and no defences stopped it. [/quote]

Give me evidence as to how TIM was planing to use it aggresively against everyone else. And even if he did, as a pro-human hegemonist, I wouldn't cry a river over it. 
The Council races and the alliance are not trustworthy either, or do I need to give you a list of what they have done?
TIM's "quest for power" is potentially in the benefit of mankind. Until proven otherwise, you are speculating. 

We never said that there is magical intel. But we still study it.
SOME intel was taken by EDI. Not all. You do not know. You could have missed valuable intel. Or not. The difference is, I can actually study the base and see if I am right or wrong, you can't. You will have to resort to your speculation and baseless assumptions.
The radiation pulse also killed the collectors and stopped them from building the Reapers. Point moot.

"No waepon technology can help"

Facepalm. I see you know everything already that you have already determined what is needed and what it not, against an enemy that we know nothing about. Quite impressive.

[quote]stofsk wrote...



[quote]Furhtermore, all leaders of human nation (at least the succesful ones), have been largely amoral.[/quote]
That's a spurious argument. Ethical leadership is not an impossibility, ethical leaders have also existed and been succesfful, and amoral leadership has often resulted in atrocities being committed and haven't been universally successful either. [/quote]

Amoral or pragmatic leaders being succesful is more common than those obsessed with ideals.
That's not to say that they didn't have a cause in mind.

[quote]stofsk wrote...



[quote]All "ethical" ones either turned out to be political disasters, or atrocious morons (Robespierre).[/quote]
As opposed to great amoral stalwarts like Joe Stalin.[/quote]

He wasn't amoral. He embraced communist (or at least Bolshevic) ethics, which you disagree with.
And politically speaking, Stalin was a success. Robespierre wasn't.

[quote]stofsk wrote...
[quote]And what does this have to do with long term gains?
You said that an amoral person doesn't think about the future. and now you say he doesn't care about anone else. The two are not the same. Make up your mind.[/quote]
The two are also not mutually exclusive, no matter what you think.[/quote]

I never said they are necessary mutually exclusive. You said that they are necessarily mutually inclusive, which I have shown is not the case.
Please try to be coherent. 

[quote]stofsk wrote...
[quote]An amoral person can still think about the long term future and secure his interest in both the short run and the long run. He doesn't have to be ethical to do it.

*snip*[/quote]
Of course he can. But that doesn't make his behaviour ethical, and maybe the problem we're having is this fundamental disagreement. If you want to extol amoralism go right ahead, but I'm not buying it. I've met plenty of amoral people in life, and I despise them since they take advantage of others for their own gain. [/quote]

They are not ethical to you. And I do not think they actually care.
I've met many absolutists in life and I disprespect them since they think they know the truth and cannot imagine logic and flexibility taking precedence over their ideals.

[quote]stofsk wrote...



[quote]Ha, different. Right.[/quote]
Don't be obtuse. I was obviously referring to how different the two political systems are, separated by the centuries. [/quote]

The ways politics works however has been the same since millenia. That's why we keep studying people like Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Ibn Khaldun, despite different systems.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 février 2010 - 01:35 .

[Sturmwulfe]

Without going into too much detail or anything, I don't think humanity alone could stop the Reapers (even with shady old Cerberus possibly learning something without disastrous consequences of keeping that base), and there's no accounting for what would happen if other races discovered what Cerberus was up to. For all we know, since they tend to ignore the Reaper threat, they'd probably see humanity as the threat and of course, this wouldn't bode well. Something tells me that the Reapers haven't had to deal with an organized and united galaxy before. It's possible EDI found information in the Collector base and Ship of the Reaper's existence, and that may get the ball rolling. I'd much rather have a combined galaxy of humans, turians, asari, salarians, volus, elcor, hanar, drell, krogan, quarian, and geth working together for a common goal. That's a lot of people, a lot of diverse skills, and a lot of various view points that could contribute to a better solution overall than hoping an unethical pro-human organization that doesn't answer to anyone will do what's necessary for galactic diversity and survive and flourish. As said before earlier in the post, if the Collector base remains intact, who knows if they won't try to use the technology to build their own Reaper out of 'alien' races? TIMmy is kind of a douche when it comes to trusting him to do the right thing for a lot of issues. And given Cerberus' past horrific scientific failures (Thresher Maw attacks, Thorian control, cruel experiments, oh my!), something tells me there's a reason disenfranchised scientists were probably shunned by their colleges and recruited by Cerberus and subsequently end up being killed by their own research. Just saying.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sturmwulfe wrote...

Without going into too much detail or anything, I don't think humanity alone could stop the Reapers (even with shady old Cerberus possibly learning something without disastrous consequences of keeping that base), and there's no accounting for what would happen if other races discovered what Cerberus was up to. For all we know, since they tend to ignore the Reaper threat, they'd probably see humanity as the threat and of course, this wouldn't bode well. Something tells me that the Reapers haven't had to deal with an organized and united galaxy before. It's possible EDI found information in the Collector base and Ship of the Reaper's existence, and that may get the ball rolling. I'd much rather have a combined galaxy of humans, turians, asari, salarians, volus, elcor, hanar, drell, krogan, quarian, and geth working together for a common goal. That's a lot of people, a lot of diverse skills, and a lot of various view points that could contribute to a better solution overall than hoping an unethical pro-human organization that doesn't answer to anyone will do what's necessary for galactic diversity and survive and flourish. As said before earlier in the post, if the Collector base remains intact, who knows if they won't try to use the technology to build their own Reaper out of 'alien' races? TIMmy is kind of a douche when it comes to trusting him to do the right thing for a lot of issues. And given Cerberus' past horrific scientific failures (Thresher Maw attacks, Thorian control, cruel experiments, oh my!), something tells me there's a reason disenfranchised scientists were probably shunned by their colleges and recruited by Cerberus and subsequently end up being killed by their own research. Just saying.

You speak as if it's impossible to keep the base and have allies at the same time.
I sought a cure for the genophage, am planing to settle the Quarian and geth dispute and enlist both of them into the war, all while preserving the base. Cerberus is not going to reveal it to anyone. It will most likely remain a secret.
Furthermore, Cerberus, being extremily ressourceful and willign to fight the REapers, are a valuable ally. And if we are goign to talk about "unethical allies", then I can point out that every single species you have just listed was responsable for acts that can be seen as "unethical".

It is always a possibility that Cerberus will abduct aliens and use them to create a Reaper. But it's unlikely. We know that million of aliens are required to create a reaper. Cerberus doesn't have the ressources to abduct millions. And even if it did, it would attract too much attention to itself, which is not what a secretive organisation wants.
So the chances of TIM wanting to build a reaper is unlikely.
Assuming that he does seek to do so. If the death of millions leads to the saving of trillions, then the action is justified. Only through meta-gaming can we know that it's unnecessary.

The only thing I agree with. Yes, Cerbrerus is not here to make sure diversity flourishes. Nor is it here to make sure it dies either. It just wants to ensure humanity's interests.
The only way I can destroy the base and not feel bad about myself, is if I was an ardent multiculturalist cosmopolitan who sincerly believes that we can all live together and coexist, despite all historical evidence that points to the contray. Only then would I destroy the base and not support Cerberus. But this is another way of putting ideals over efficiency. I simply can't do it.  

[sedrikhcain]

by preserving the base, you are messing with technology that you don't understand. Hasn't that gotten the (purely) organics in the universe into more than enough trouble already?

[DeathsHands5]

DeathsHands5 wrote...

This discussion is getting way too deep, like a college ethics discussion as someone said on page 5.

I think we need to chill a bit on the subject, everyone's getting argumentative and aggressive. Not helpful. We're on the trail to Off-Topic Land.

KnightofPhoenix, it's better if we stick to the point....

Modifié par DeathsHands5, 11 février 2010 - 02:30 .

[Kileyan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The only way I can destroy the base and not feel bad about myself, is if I was an ardent multiculturalist cosmopolitan who sincerly believes that we can all live together and coexist, despite all historical evidence that points to the contray. Only then would I destroy the base and not support Cerberus. But this is another way of putting ideals over efficiency. I simply can't do it.  

Gaah I'm gonna go crazy.

Even if you are the most ardent multiculteralist who thinks everyone can coexist, what does that have to do with anything in the ME situation? There will not be any cultures if we don't win against the Reapers. There is no question of putting ideals ahead of efficiency. They are not a benevolent races that is showing up to kill the bad guys and pat the good guys on the head for sticking to their morals. To them we are nothing more than different strains of bugs, to be squashed and take from us anything that our civilization might have done that was useful and new over the over 1000's of civilizations they have wiped out before.

Our moral dillemas that are discussed ad nauseum on most any internet board, don't really apply to something this catostrophic. It might seem totally deplorible to do something to just gain some crude oil or fresh water access. That same act might be much more pallatable to a world leader or a general if it isn't about resources, but the survival of the entire galaxy. What would you do in that situation, do what was needed and take the guilt upon yourself, or doom the whole human race so that you could stick by your morals?

Some that make these decisions are monsters, or history will portray them as such. Others that make hard decisions that later generations see as immoral, didn't take it likely. Many that make those decisions live with it affecting the rest of their lives.

Oh and when I use the word "you", not singling you out KnightPheonix

[Kileyan]

sedrikhcain wrote...

by preserving the base, you are messing with technology that you don't understand. Hasn't that gotten the (purely) organics in the universe into more than enough trouble already?

So? you think if you speed dial the Reapers with "oops didn't mean to touch that gate", they'll just turn around and go asleep again?

It is a sealed deal, you gonna make it worse by exploring their tech and finding how they work is gonna be bad? Essentially right now, the reapers are things of Mythology, we know as much about them as the mythical god Zeus. Sure couldn't hurt to explore any intel on them that we can. Seriously, can you imagine any military unit taking over the main base of their enemy, by total surprise............. then not taking the information held in the commanders vault?

Modifié par Kileyan, 11 février 2010 - 02:44 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Kileyan
I think you compeltely misunderstood my point, as you are arguing what I am arguing.

What I said was. The main argument against giving the base to Cerberus is because they are pro-human dominance. By denying Cerberusthe base, one is putting ideals over efficieny, which I just said I cannot do, even if I share similar ideals.

[FlintlockJazz]

Caz Neerg wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...
No, that's all your opinion, and is as baseless as everything else, people made a choice based on their own internal logic and ethics or that of their chraracter, just because you believe personally that the practical choice is saving the base does not make it so, for another destroying a base that is potentially harmful to the long term survival of their species is the practical course of action, the evidence for which has been presented to you.  Stop dictating your beliefs as fact, Paragon and Renegade are both valid approaches just different perspectives, that is all.

From an out of universe perspective, yes, they are both valid perspectives.  From an in universe perspective, they don't yet have clue one how to fight the Reapers when they arrive.  The logical conclusion at this point is that barring some miracle, everybody is going to die.  Throwing away *any* source of knowledge in the current situation is simply not a rational choice, even if it is a moral one.

False, I disagree, there are plenty of in-universe reasons to destroy the base based on logic, and is totally rational.  You know the illusive man will abuse it, as if you ask him if he intends to make a reaper he does not answer the question, coupled with the fact that you know Cerberus has performed horrific experiments before, and have their own agenda.  Also, you don't know if you will be able to destroy the base later despite people claiming otherwise, and even if they can they won't know whether it was a bad idea until it's too late and Cerberus have already got the technology or moved it to somewhere hidden where they can study it in greater depth.  People saying that it's the same as us taking the technology from german experiments in WW2 are missing an important point: we didn't carry on those experiments, Cerberus will.  If the races have not worked out the Mass Relays yet then they are not going to  work out the Reaper-manufacturing process in time to make anything worthwhile, and that is about the only thing there that seems to be worthwhile, since everything else the Collectors have doesn't seem much more advanced than what we already have. 

EDI has already datamined the base's computers and got information from it, and I doubt the Collectors will have anything that will help against the reapers, since their weapons don't seem that advanced and the reaper-tech will probably be useless except to use it to make a reaper (which is the stupidest plan I can think of). 

At least that is one way of viewing it, and I'm sure you can point out evidence to the contrary, but that is the point: it was a judgement call you get to make which has no real right or wrong answer, despite what you might sit there and say, just what you personally conclude is right.  As the Geth say, you may say 1 is less than 2, but I say 2 is less than 3, we are both right. 

But then, it appears that some people seem to think that only their conclusions matter...

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Did you see what they were doing in there? It would be like keeping a concentration camp in WWII because it might be 'useful.'

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but many, many high-ranking National Sozialists (N.A.Z.I. is censored) were utilized shortly after WWII to prevent Western Europe from completely destroyed. SS officials as advisors to the U.S. Army in towns to prevent chaos, or the most significant, von Braun as head of NASA. von Braun isn't necessarily all that bad, but his V-1 and V-2 technology sometimes utilized slave labour. We used von Braun to get to the moon and eventually develop ICBMs; nothing close to a collector base, but I just wanted to throw that information out there.

That being said, I destroyed the damn thing!

Modifié par Dr. Peter Venkman, 11 février 2010 - 10:03 .

[TLK Spires]

oh look, this thread again. ok.







you are effectively giving space hitler a galactic oven. this is why saving the base is considered renegade.

[azurelynx]

Gotta repay that 4 billion credits TIM used on me o.O

[FlintlockJazz]

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Did you see what they were doing in there? It would be like keeping a concentration camp in WWII because it might be 'useful.'

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but many, many high-ranking National Sozialists (N.A.Z.I. is censored) were utilized shortly after WWII to prevent Western Europe from completely destroyed. SS officials as advisors to the U.S. Army in towns to prevent chaos, or the most significant, von Braun as head of NASA. von Braun isn't necessarily all that bad, but his V-1 and V-2 technology sometimes utilized slave labour.

Yes, but the Allies did not continue those experiments.  Cerberus would, TIM tells you this by not answering the question when asked if he would make another reaper.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 11 février 2010 - 10:04 .

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Did you see what they were doing in there? It would be like keeping a concentration camp in WWII because it might be 'useful.'

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but many, many high-ranking National Sozialists (N.A.Z.I. is censored) were utilized shortly after WWII to prevent Western Europe from completely destroyed. SS officials as advisors to the U.S. Army in towns to prevent chaos, or the most significant, von Braun as head of NASA. von Braun isn't necessarily all that bad, but his V-1 and V-2 technology sometimes utilized slave labour.

Yes, but the Allies did not continue those experiments.  Cerberus would, TIM tells you by not answering the question when asked if he would make another reaper.

The Allies shielded war criminals to make the occupation of recently defeated Germany easier. German missile tech was picked up, despite many time slave labor being used for the production of various parts. The guy running this program was put in charge of NASA. This same technology gave us ICBMs. That's all I am trying to point out.

Modifié par Dr. Peter Venkman, 11 février 2010 - 10:06 .

[GnusmasTHX]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Did you see what they were doing in there? It would be like keeping a concentration camp in WWII because it might be 'useful.'

Yeah...

[IceTitan]

 The only problem I see about Keeping the base, is that cerberus, won't use it for the best of the galaxy. They'll use it to fight the reapers, then afterwards dominate the galaxy. There's some tech in there that in the wrong hands no matter how good the intentions are by shepard, will screw over everyone. 

My reason in destroying the base was on the first playthrough was that I had no interest in seeing cerberus enslave the galaxy. Since they would of used it against the alliance and the non humans if the reapers ever got defeated.

Some knowledge and weapons aren't worth the long term nightmare they'll cause in the end. Might make killing the reapers easy, but it'll just bite you even harder. 

But if I had control on who would be allowed to using the base and making it Shepards personal base and preventing cerberus from using it. Then might of kept it.

But considering the fact that it has the death of tens of thousands of humans at it's core, and you'd be using that very same technology, isn't very ethical. The Illusive man for all I know may as well be a reaper agent, that manipulates things using humans as his pawn since their more useful and practical. I know his eyes could be simple cyber implants, but they seemed to focus on them alot in the game like their trying to tell you something.

It's wrong, for several reasons, but the core of it is being that cerberus would control it. Which is bad in itself for the long term.

[gotthammer]

azurelynx wrote...

Gotta repay that 4 billion credits TIM used on me o.O

[Massadonious1]

If there was a way to study reaper tech without keeping the base, then I would be all for it, but as it stands, no, it needed to be destroyed.



I don't think I could set up camp in Auschwitz and conduct experiments, different or otherwise, without being constantly reminded of what was being done there.