271 réponses à ce sujet

[Pauravi]

Shandepared wrote...

Agreed, however you downplayed those feelings as though they weren't important. I'm sorry, but justice for the wronged is more important than the life of the criminal.

I understand you feel that way, and I did from the beginning.  I don't agree, and I never imagined that we'd come to common terms to be honest.  I was just trying to convey is why I don't think that "justice", or at least your definition of it, is a useful concept.  My ideal is based on compassion first, and a rational analysis of what provides the greatest tangible benefit for the living.  Yours is based on an arbitrary definition for what is "fair" coupled with placing importance on the emotional prerogative to absolve anger by retribution.  The two are simply not compatible.  Frankly, I think my methods make for a more peaceful and stable society in general.  I doubt you agree, but that is a very large topic not suited for this thread or forum.

[Speakeasy13]

Chaos-fusion wrote...

Usually save him, since he turns himself in anyway.

Meh. To the brass on Citadel he has done nothing against the law. Emily Wong says they weren't even gonna convict him since it was in Omega. It'd be different if he killed himself in battle. But murdering 10 of your comrades out of sheer cowardness and THIS is you idea of making up for it? Don't make me laugh.

As my (cannon) Renegade would say, "If that's what you want."

[Speakeasy13]

Pauravi wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Agreed, however you downplayed those feelings as though they weren't important. I'm sorry, but justice for the wronged is more important than the life of the criminal.

I understand you feel that way, and I did from the beginning.  I don't agree, and I never imagined that we'd come to common terms to be honest.  I was just trying to convey is why I don't think that "justice", or at least your definition of it, is a useful concept.  My ideal is based on compassion first, and a rational analysis of what provides the greatest tangible benefit for the living.  Yours is based on an arbitrary definition for what is "fair" coupled with placing importance on the emotional prerogative to absolve anger by retribution.  The two are simply not compatible.  Frankly, I think my methods make for a more peaceful and stable society in general.  I doubt you agree, but that is a very large topic not suited for this thread or forum.

Somehow I get the feeling you're pro-life and against capital punishment. I don't disagree with you, but ONLY because there's no justification in executing the wrong people without proper evidence. What if the guy is innocent? How can the justice system possibly make up for a mistake like that?

Such pro-life sentiment does not apply in this case. Sidonis IS guilty. Garrus may have closure regardless of his living or surviving, but the families of those 10 people he MURDERED deserves justice. It's the only way that could benefit them and help them move on.

[Collider]

I let Garrus kill him. Strange how I had to manuever with the analog stick to get that done. Anyway, I would feel like I was betraying Garrus if I warned Sidonis. Seemed like Sidonis deserved it. Blood for blood.

[Collider]

Shandepared wrote...
Better that a 100 innocent men be executed than a single guilty man go free. After all, that guilty man might kill an innocent person and you don't want innocent deaths on your hands now do you?

I have to say that I feel this question - if 100 was 1 instead, is a rather complicated one.  An innocent man may become a guilty one. A guilty man may become an innocent one as well. People aren't bound to crime or innocence - a guilty man was once an innocent one. Without knowing anything else, I'd rather the guilty person go free and the innocent person spared. At least I may still have the opportunity to hunt down the single guilty person.

[Speakeasy13]

Shandepared wrote...

Pauravi wrote...

Frankly, I think my methods make for a more peaceful and stable society in general.  I doubt you agree, but that is a very large topic not suited for this thread or forum.

Yes, I understand your reasoning. I believe in deterrence, I suspect you believe in rehabilitation. It would seem my morality is based in large part on "karma". I don't believe the universe can give people what they deserve, but I do believe that people can.

Sedonis deserves death and Garrus deserves to have his vengeance. We aren't talking about the Crips and the Bloods here. This wasn't a senseless killing, it was a calculated one done out of cowardice and greed. I also understand the fears of a blood fued, but I don't see any indication that will result from this.

There was another point raised earlier by someone else: why did you bother taking Garrus to the Citadel to find Sidonis if you were planning to stop him from killing him? What did that gain either of you? I understand that in game terms you can't talk to Garrus about it until afterwards but if we ignore the limitations of game-design I don't see why you couldn't talk to him about how wrong it is to hunt down and kill this murderer while still on Normandy.

Is that what you'd have really done?

Is it necessary for Garrus to see Sidonis suffering? In the end is that not vindictive, a concern for Garrus 'feelings' and not for justice? Or is Sidonis life really your main concern? Mine frankly is to the well-being of my team-mate and I don't see any evidence that his killing Sidonis will mess him up. After all, he's killed a lot of people already.

Anyway, as you know I don't believe that you "become as bad as they are" when you kill a killer. It was the killer who killed first, the killer who betrayed your friends. When you give them just payback for it you are only ensuring they pay the full price for their dastardly deed and allowing your anger an outlet on the appropriate target. Botting up those kinds of feelings isn't healthy, and allowing the guilty to go free is not justice.

Perhaps I am less the logical realist I like to think I am.

I'll even toss you a stick: if you want an example of revenge taken too far look at Zaeed.

Zaeed's case is different. Vido is a living, breathing threat and a menace to inter-galactic society. If the only way to get rid of him is to kill all those innocent workers along the way, then so be it. It's not because I enjoy killing the innocent, it's because by doing so you end up saving more lives. Zaeed's own revenge is irrelevant to the just cause but an added benefit.

Sidonis is no where near as a threat as Vido ever will be. Killing him is a favor to Garrus, and to himself. You're just putting him out of his own misery.

But truth be told, I trust both Zaeed and Garrus enough to back up their judgment. They've both decided their respective target needs to die and who am I as a friend to say otherwise? I might not agree with Zaeed's over-the-top methods but I'd back him up to the end. Same with Garrus. Shoving their guns aside and standing bewteen them and the target (which tends to be 90% of all the paragon interrupts) is the rudest thing you can ever do to a friend.

[Speakeasy13]

Shandepared wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

Somehow I get the feeling you're pro-life and against capital punishment. I don't disagree with you, but ONLY because there's no justification in executing the wrong people without proper evidence. What if the guy is innocent? How can the justice system possibly make up for a mistake like that?

Better that a 100 innocent men be executed than a single guilty man go free. After all, that guilty man might kill an innocent person and you don't want innocent deaths on your hands now do you?

On a serious note: if you had the option to have Sidonis arrested, like in he's going to prison for the rest of his life, then I'd support that. Granted I wouldn't take that option because in ME2 you need all the morality points you can get... otherwise my scars start healing and I don't like that.

Depends on the guilty man - is he Vido or is he Sidonis? If it's Vido than I would pull the trigger without hesitation, knowing full well that he'd kill so many more than 100 innocent men when he had the chance; if it's Sidonis I'd let him live this time - this guy is not capable of doing more damage to anyone other than himself - I'd not let him go punished if I had the choice, but at least I won't have to worry about him in the future, so might as well help the innocent first.

[Collider]

Agree with Flies_by. You can't have 10 people's deaths on your hands like that and expect mercy.

[SetAsEssential]

I usually let him live mostly because I'm curious if he'll make a small appearance in ME3. Missed out on the reunion with Gianna Parasini with my main Shep since I got her killed in the first game, so I'm keeping most people alive in ME2 no matter how small a part they play in the game.

[Pauravi]

Shandepared wrote...

I don't believe the universe can give people what they deserve, but I do believe that people can.

Sedonis deserves death and Garrus deserves to have his vengeance.

That's your evaluation, anyway.  My point was that what he "deserves", and in  fact fairness in general is not an objective topic.

There was another point raised earlier by someone else: why did you bother  taking Garrus to the Citadel to find Sidonis if you were planning to stop him from killing him? ... if we ignore the limitations of game-design I don't see why you couldn't talk to him about how wrong it is to hunt down and kill this murderer while still on Normandy.  Is that what you'd have really done?

Yep.  If I could.  If I had to justify it in-game, I'd say that I'd want Garrus to hear Sidonis' side (and so would I), and that this may make it easier to talk Garrus out of it.  Anyway, not relevant to overall topic.

Speakeasy13 wrote...

Somehow I get the feeling you're pro-life and against capital punishment.

You'd be wrong.  I'm against capital punishment and pro-choice.  I'm against capital punishment because of moral concerns as well as the fact of an imperfect justice system.  I am pro-choice because being technically "alive" is not the only relevant concern; I don't believe that a fetus is a "person" and doesn't necessarily deserve rights separate from or even in conflict with the mother's right to self determination.

I don't disagree with you, but ONLY because there's no justification in executing the wrong people without proper evidence. What if the guy is innocent? How can the justice system possibly make up for a mistake like that?

You can't, and I agree.  This is one reason I am against capital punishment.

Flies_by_Handles wrote...

You don't think it's possible to reconcile retribution and rehabilitation; that instead it's one or the other?

One automatically impinges on the other to some degree, but no I don't believe they are completely mutually exclusive.
It's just that I don't see retribution as a useful or worthy goal of a judicial system.

Our justice system's effectiveness is a whole other issue but given Sidonis' decision to betray his friends and so cause their death, he is not entitled to live.

I don't believe we are allowed to make that judgment, not as individuals and not as a group.
We punish people for believing that they do have that right and acting on it.  If we wish to take that moral directive seriously, we cannot exact that sort of punishment, not for anything.  On a somewhat more practical note, I believe that the sort of punishment allowed within a society's judicial system has an effect on the overall attitude of the citizens within it.  If you wish to breed a compassionate society, you must abide by compassionate laws.

Modifié par Pauravi, 15 mars 2010 - 12:55 .

[UnknownVisitor]

I let Sidonis die. He deserves it and even my Paragon Shep let's Garrus kill him.

"Hello, my name is Garrus Vakarian. You killed my squad. Prepare to die."

[Gabey5]

i let him live...he was already screwed in the head from what he did...and garrus was starting to annoy me with his constant revenge....

[Pauravi]

Flies_by_Handles wrote...

Your first line seems to imply that there is a higher power dictating what we should value and hold as moral. Afterall, if individuals or a group can't decide that, then who does?

I find it very funny that you said that, because I am about as staunchly atheist as they come (although I try not to be annoying about it).  I do see why you made that assumption though.

My answer is that morality doesn't come from a higher power, but rather that there are certain rules we must hold ourselves to if we wish to actually practice certain ideals.  My primary ideal is compassion, and by compassion I mean the idea that we should respect life in general and especially people (sapeint beings posessing personhood) in the best capacity that we can.

If I wish to take that idea seriously as a core value, then death as retribution for a crime, no matter how severe, should be ruled out.  After all, the fact that someone else does not share my moral code should not alter my moral code -- if it does then I am no longer following it, and I am letting this other person's "broken" morals dictate the terms on which society functions.

My response, then, is that my moral code doesn't "come from above", but is a logical result of choosing a particular ideal.  You may choose a different ideal to function on, such as "fairness", and you may come to different conclusions that are equally correct and that are, of course, dependent on how you define "fairness".  I just happen to believe, for various reasons, that the society that creates the most good for the most people is one that functions on compassion.

As far as a compassionate society goes, Sidonis' death does not represent any sort of gratuitous suffering.

But that does not make it compassionate, at least not according to the definition I am functioning on.

I understand and respect what you've said so far and I don't think your opinion is wrong. However, I do think it is a bit too idealistic and not always applicable to what happens in real life.

I think we can make it applicable if we decide as a whole to make it so, especially if we do it little-by-little.  I do not pretend that it is a trivial matter -- it requires changing people's outlook on things like punishment, and anger and emotional pain is a big obsticle.  Also, as our little discussion has illustrated, not everyone has the same idea of what is the best solution to the problem, or even the best core ideal.

But do I think that my outlook could create a real functional system?  Yes, I do.  I don't believe there is such a thing as "too idealistic" -- you must always have greater goals if we want to improve our society.  But does that mean that I think it is plausible for everything to turn on it's head overnight?  No of course not.  I understand that real life is complex and that other people have different ideas, and that any real approach to implementing my ideas would take many years of slow change.  That doesn't keep me from holding the idea that mine are the most beneficial, however.  Acceptance of the status quo means you've given up and are content with whatever exists.

Modifié par Pauravi, 15 mars 2010 - 02:35 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

The loyalty mission isn't about Sidonis, but Garrus. Yeah, Sidonis probably deserves to die - but not by Garrus. Garrus isn't a murderer. He's been through a lot and has changed from the first game. you can either let him keep going down that darker path, or bring him back to where he was before. So you shouldn't decide whether or not he deserves to live or die, but what kind of person you will influence Garrus to be. If you kill him, you harden Garrus. If you don't kill him, Garrus realizes all of the anger and hatred and starts to turn back.

[Bigdoser]

Pauravi wrote...

Flies_by_Handles wrote...

Your first line seems to imply that there is a higher power dictating what we should value and hold as moral. Afterall, if individuals or a group can't decide that, then who does?

I find it very funny that you said that, because I am about as staunchly atheist as they come (although I try not to be annoying about it).  I do see why you made that assumption though.

My answer is that morality doesn't come from a higher power, but rather that there are certain rules we must hold ourselves to if we wish to actually practice certain ideals.  My primary ideal is compassion, and by compassion I mean the idea that we should respect life in general and especially people (sapeint beings posessing personhood) in the best capacity that we can.

If I wish to take that idea seriously as a core value, then death as retribution for a crime, no matter how severe, should be ruled out.  After all, the fact that someone else does not share my moral code should not alter my moral code -- if it does then I am no longer following it, and I am letting this other person's "broken" morals dictate the terms on which society functions.

My response, then, is that my moral code doesn't "come from above", but is a logical result of choosing a particular ideal.  You may choose a different ideal to function on, such as "fairness", and you may come to different conclusions that are equally correct and that are, of course, dependent on how you define "fairness".  I just happen to believe, for various reasons, that the society that creates the most good for the most people is one that functions on compassion.

As far as a compassionate society goes, Sidonis' death does not represent any sort of gratuitous suffering.

But that does not make it compassionate, at least not according to the definition I am functioning on.

I understand and respect what you've said so far and I don't think your opinion is wrong. However, I do think it is a bit too idealistic and not always applicable to what happens in real life.

I think we can make it applicable if we decide as a whole to make it so, especially if we do it little-by-little.  I do not pretend that it is a trivial matter -- it requires changing people's outlook on things like punishment, and anger and emotional pain is a big obsticle.  Also, as our little discussion has illustrated, not everyone has the same idea of what is the best solution to the problem, or even the best core ideal.

But do I think that my outlook could create a real functional system?  Yes, I do.  I don't believe there is such a thing as "too idealistic" -- you must always have greater goals if we want to improve our society.  But does that mean that I think it is plausible for everything to turn on it's head overnight?  No of course not.  I understand that real life is complex and that other people have different ideas, and that any real approach to implementing my ideas would take many years of slow change.  That doesn't keep me from holding the idea that mine are the most beneficial, however.  Acceptance of the status quo means you've given up and are content with whatever exists.

My thoughts too, imo what garrus was doing was not justice, garrus said he can still see the good in him if you let him live. As garrus said "its easy to view things as black and white but shades of gray he can't do" he was letting his hatred control him.

Modifié par Bigdoser, 15 mars 2010 - 02:45 .

[Computron2000]

Shandepared wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...

Duh, i do not talk about you becoming the thing you hunt or such. I  am talking about logical consequences.

We'll cover our tracks. Also you can say the same thing for ANYONE you killed at any point in the games.

Did you shoot Ethan Jeong? Maybe he has some rich relatives.

Did you get into a violent confrontation with Captain Ventralis? Well maybe he has was of value to somebody too.

You do know the first question asked is "does the deceased have any enemies.", followed by CCTV footage, fingerprints, etc. Also after the first few rounds of you kill X->X relatives kills you->Your brother kills Y->X and Y relatives kills your brother etc, no evidence is required for condemnation by either side.
 
And yes as Shepard, you had better be ready for enemies trying to kill you qv. various dictators for examples. That's the choice taken when you kill someone that has friends/family/relatives/employees/anyone with a strong enough motive. Fortunately you have a thing called reload button in case you die that exists in games.

[Exile Isan]

I let Sidonis live. Mainly because he's already paying for his crime and if Garrus truely wants Sidonis to suffer letting him live is the best way to do that, killing him would just be doing Sidonis a favor. I also have to wonder does Garrus want to kill Sidonis for revenge or assauge his own guilt over his mens deaths? The expression on Garrus' face when Sidonis talks about seeing their faces in his dreams, food having no taste. etc makes me think Garrus has been feeling the same thing. Also I disliked how Garrus was going to kill him. Sniper shot from above, really Garrus? You can't even look your victim in the eye? That's not like you. The cold bloodedness of it made me worry about him.  

Another thing is that, if you talk to Sidonis, anytime during the last half of Shepard's conversation with him (when he's leaning over the railing) Shep's no longer in Garrus' scope, he could have taken the shot at anytime. He didn't. That proves to me that he's not really sure about what to do. Besides if you let Garrus shoot him you don't get the "shades of grey" conversation.

[Chaos-fusion]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

Chaos-fusion wrote...

Usually save him, since he turns himself in anyway.

Meh. To the brass on Citadel he has done nothing against the law. Emily Wong says they weren't even gonna convict him since it was in Omega. It'd be different if he killed himself in battle. But murdering 10 of your comrades out of sheer cowardness and THIS is you idea of making up for it? Don't make me laugh.

As my (cannon) Renegade would say, "If that's what you want."

Sidonis didn't know that. Besides, he basically murdered 10 people so sure he should answer for that, but it's okay to murder him for revenge? I can't call it justice.

Besides, Garrus' "I want him dead!" feelings are best ignored, since he realised in ME1 he only wanted Dr. Saleon/Heart dead because he got away, not because of what he did to the people. .. Assuming you took the paragon route for that bit, otherwise he doesn't realise it and likes to just kill people to solve problems.

Modifié par Chaos-fusion, 15 mars 2010 - 06:15 .