Poll: Mass Effect Morals: Quarians, Geth, Morning War

[pixiejedi]

The Quarians shouldn't have attacked the Geth, but like Mordin says, considering all possible outcomes, pre-emptive strike was really the only way for the Quarians to handle the situation to not look bad in a galactic arena.

As easy as it is to look at Legion and see a cool, methodical, artifical being. His whole loyalty mission is about dealing with a large splinter group of Geth who disagree with the rest of the Geth. If the Quarians had chosen diplomacy there could have very easily been a splinter group who would sneak attack the rest of the Quarians for having a different consensus than the rest of the Geth.

 

[guitarsniper]

The quarians would have been perfectly justified in destroying the Geth BEFORE they gained self-awareness, before they would be doing the equivalent of throwing out the trash or whatever. After it's basically genocide. The Quarians should try to reason with the Geth, but the Geth should also be willing to make concessions.

 

[KingofMadCows]

We really can't apply any human/organic standards to the Geth mainly because we use metaphysical standards to judge the value of humans. For example, we don't mercy kill people who have suffered extensive brain damage or were born with severe mental retardation. We believe that human life has some intrinsic value regardless of whether or not the person is sapient or even self aware because humans have "souls" or "minds" that can have value and can be judged independently of the physical body.

With artificial intelligence, there is a specific point at which it achieves some kind of worth. They don't begin with any rights or intrinsic value. A Geth is not protected from destruction by virtue of the fact it is a Geth in the same way that a human is protected from destruction by virtue of the fact that he or she is a human. A Geth that has not achieved sapience is just a tool that can be destroyed without consequence. However, as soon as it achieves sapience, it gains the rights that humans are automatically born with.

Problems arise precisely because we use objective and testable physical standards to judge the sapience and value of robots/computers but we still use untestable metaphysical standards to judge the value of humans/organics.

 

[ezaviel]

Of course they were in the right. Good God people!

If your refrigerator suddenly became sentient you wouldn't let it stop keeping your food cold: that would be ridiculous.

The Geth were quite literally, and in every conceivable sense, PROPERTY. No more.

You might be able to argue that it would be different if the Quarians had intentionally created an AI, but they didn't.

And seriously, they were sentient. So what? What on Earth and beyond does that have to do with anything? They were still just tools that were no longer functioning properly.

"Property" which can operate and think independantly is no longer property, it is now a sentient being.

In the terms of most moral codes, something capable of sentient thought and reasoning is attributed the same rights as a "person".

Continuing to force a sentient machine to operate as a tool would be slavery. "Shutting it down" is murder. Once the Geth became sentient, they morally became "people".

As there is no real world analog I am unclear how you can claim that there is a provision for non-human sentience in "most moral codes."

At any rate I disagree in the strongest terms. If your property becomes sentient it does not gain rights, or it would have stolen itself from you.


Affording rights to machinery is stupid.

African Americans were once considered non-human property. They were subsequently given rights because they were finally recognised as being people. How's that for a real world analog?

It's a very poor point. Black people are human. Whether someone considered them to be so or not is irrelevant. Geth are not human, whether someone considers them to be equivalent or not is irrelevant.

I disagree, considering your whole post was about what "property" can and cannot do.

Based on your argument, only humans get rights, Quarians, Elcor, Hanar, all the other races don't. None of these are human. Unless you mean human to mean "sentient". At which point the Geth qualify, as they are also sentient. To say "you are made of different material to me, therefore you have no rights" is a bizarre line of logic in and of itself.

The classic philosophers argued that "I think, therefore I am." They did not argue, "I think, therefore I am, so long as I am made of meat."

 

[Terminal Blue]

They don't "make" the next generation as how they see fit, they can only teach and pray they turn out the way previous generation wants them to be.

That's merely due to an inadequate degree of control of the "mechanisms" of human reproduction. That kind of control will (in all likelihood) be possible within the next few human generations, and then it will become very relevant for all of us to sit down and decide how intelligent we want our children to be, and what behavioural tendencies we want to encourage or eliminate.

Biological processes are not necessarily any more random or complex than mechanical ones. They only appear so through lack of knowledge and control. By the time it becomes possible to built functioning machine intelligence, it will almost certainly be possible to exercise the same degree of control over the creation of living things, and that is not to say complete control. There will always come a point where chaos theory takes over, where the sheer complexity of the system you are dealing with produces an unexpected reaction, whether that system is organic or machine.

This clearly occured with the Geth. There came a point where the Geth ceased to be simple and predictable machines and became sufficiently complex in their operations to begin demonstrating understanding (by asking questions based on concepts and data they had not been programmed with). At this point, what the Quarians had wanted or had tried to precondition ceased to be relevant.

Tali actually explains why the Quarians wanted to shut down the Geth in ME1. It isn't because they didn't consider them alive, it's because they knew that intelligent beings would resent their position as slaves. Even the Quarians knew the Geth were more than machines at that point, their choice was based on simple xenophobia and panic.

Its the same as all those tiny robot experiments that have been done, the more stupid machines you link together, the smarter it seems their actions become. (Swarm Intelligence [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_intelligence]) They are nonetheless artificial.

That's anthropomorphism, you've assumed that intelligence must resemble (individual) human intelligence in its function, not even in its output, in order to "count" as intelligence. Why?

At the end of the day it doesn't matter how something thinks. We don't ask whether minor neurological differences between humans make one capable of "real" intelligence and another only capable of unconsciously mimicking intelligence.

The only remotely logical argument against the Geth being intelligent is the "Chinese room" argument, that being able to produce symbolic data doesn't imply understanding. Yet the Geth clearly create and innovate on their own programmed data. They design their own starships and space stations, they conduct scientific research, they rewrite their own programming and evolve their own software to counteract threats, they come to opinions and conclusions which directly contradict their programmed role. They've broken the first axiom of the Chinese room, that programming is purely syntax without understanding and that all machines can do is move symbols around.

The only rational principle in this case is to assume intelligence, it doesn't matter whether the intelligence is "real", it matters that it is demonstrable.

 

[Cette]

We really can't apply any human/organic standards to the Geth mainly because we use metaphysical standards to judge the value of humans. For example, we don't mercy kill people who have suffered extensive brain damage or were born with severe mental retardation. We believe that human life has some intrinsic value regardless of whether or not the person is sapient or even self aware because humans have "souls" or "minds" that can have value and can be judged independently of the physical body

Define "WE" in this instance. Because from where I'm standing a dog that could talk and carry a philosophical debate would have more inherent right to life than a person who's born barely able to function. It's harsh I know and not a popular opinion but don't go assuming everyone agrees on something like that.

And quite frankly I'd far rather someone mercy kill me if I were ever severely brain damaged to the point of not even being myself or a full person anymore.

So yeah given that statement trying to eradicate another sentient being that you are directly responsible for seems like a pretty shitty thing to do. And if you end up on the wrong end of the reprisal well you're the one who made it a fight to the death to begin with.

 

[Dimitriov]

Of course they were in the right. Good God people!

If your refrigerator suddenly became sentient you wouldn't let it stop keeping your food cold: that would be ridiculous.

The Geth were quite literally, and in every conceivable sense, PROPERTY. No more.

You might be able to argue that it would be different if the Quarians had intentionally created an AI, but they didn't.

And seriously, they were sentient. So what? What on Earth and beyond does that have to do with anything? They were still just tools that were no longer functioning properly.

"Property" which can operate and think independantly is no longer property, it is now a sentient being.

In the terms of most moral codes, something capable of sentient thought and reasoning is attributed the same rights as a "person".

Continuing to force a sentient machine to operate as a tool would be slavery. "Shutting it down" is murder. Once the Geth became sentient, they morally became "people".

As there is no real world analog I am unclear how you can claim that there is a provision for non-human sentience in "most moral codes."

At any rate I disagree in the strongest terms. If your property becomes sentient it does not gain rights, or it would have stolen itself from you.


Affording rights to machinery is stupid.

African Americans were once considered non-human property. They were subsequently given rights because they were finally recognised as being people. How's that for a real world analog?

It's a very poor point. Black people are human. Whether someone considered them to be so or not is irrelevant. Geth are not human, whether someone considers them to be equivalent or not is irrelevant.

I disagree, considering your whole post was about what "property" can and cannot do.

Based on your argument, only humans get rights, Quarians, Elcor, Hanar, all the other races don't. None of these are human. Unless you mean human to mean "sentient". At which point the Geth qualify, as they are also sentient. To say "you are made of different material to me, therefore you have no rights" is a bizarre line of logic in and of itself.

The classic philosophers argued that "I think, therefore I am." They did not argue, "I think, therefore I am, so long as I am made of meat."

Yes I believe only humans should have rights, at least as far as human law is concerned. Black people were not built by Europeans, they were kidnapped and enslaved... if you can't see the glaring difference there then I really don't know what to say.

And Descartes used "Cogito ergo sum" to try to prove the existence of God... it's really far less applicable than most people like to think.

 

[KingofMadCows]

Define "WE" in this instance. Because from where I'm standing a dog that could talk and carry a philosophical debate would have more inherent right to life than a person who's born barely able to function. It's harsh I know and not a popular opinion but don't go assuming everyone agrees on something like that.

And quite frankly I'd far rather someone mercy kill me if I were ever severely brain damaged to the point of not even being myself or a full person anymore.

So yeah given that statement trying to eradicate another sentient being that you are directly responsible for seems like a pretty shitty thing to do. And if you end up on the wrong end of the reprisal well you're the one who made it a fight to the death to begin with.

My point is that a human does not need to meet any standards of intelligence or reason simply to have a right to life. You can't just kill a human who's severely brain damaged. A machine has to meet certain standards of intelligence in order to have that same basic right. That's not exactly fair when you look at it from the machine's point of view. Why are all humans born with certain rights while machines must prove themselves to earn those rights?

Also, a brain damaged or severely retarded human with intelligence equivalent or lower than that of a dog still has more rights than a dog. Most people will have more trouble mercy killing a person in a vegetative state than a normal healthy dog.

 

[Loop Stricken]

My point is that a human does not need to meet any standards of intelligence or reason simply to have a right to life. You can't just kill a human who's severely brain damaged. A machine has to meet certain standards of intelligence in order to have that same basic right. That's not exactly fair when you look at it from the machine's point of view. Why are all humans born with certain rights while machines must prove themselves to earn those rights?

And if a machine has the wherewithall to articulate this line of questioning, it's more than likely earned those rights already on account of actually being self-aware.

 

[KingofMadCows]

My point is that a human does not need to meet any standards of intelligence or reason simply to have a right to life. You can't just kill a human who's severely brain damaged. A machine has to meet certain standards of intelligence in order to have that same basic right. That's not exactly fair when you look at it from the machine's point of view. Why are all humans born with certain rights while machines must prove themselves to earn those rights?

And if a machine has the wherewithall to articulate this line of questioning, it's more than likely earned those rights already on account of actually being self-aware.

OK, so what's your point?

The fact that it has earned those rights isn't the problem. The problem is that it had to prove itself in the first place in order to earn rights that humans naturally have.

 

[Dimitriov]

My point is that a human does not need to meet any standards of intelligence or reason simply to have a right to life. You can't just kill a human who's severely brain damaged. A machine has to meet certain standards of intelligence in order to have that same basic right. That's not exactly fair when you look at it from the machine's point of view. Why are all humans born with certain rights while machines must prove themselves to earn those rights?

And if a machine has the wherewithall to articulate this line of questioning, it's more than likely earned those rights already on account of actually being self-aware.

OK, so what's your point?

The fact that it has earned those rights isn't the problem. The problem is that it had to prove itself in the first place in order to earn rights that humans naturally have.

"Natural rights" is a misnomer. There is no such thing as an actual natural right. In reality there are only two kinds of rights: those that are given and those that are taken.

Since in reality we only know about human laws and rights that's all we have to work from.

...and it in no way benefits us to give rights to machines: in point of fact it's a really stupid and counter productive idea.

 

[Cette]

My point is that a human does not need to meet any standards of intelligence or reason simply to have a right to life. You can't just kill a human who's severely brain damaged. A machine has to meet certain standards of intelligence in order to have that same basic right. That's not exactly fair when you look at it from the machine's point of view. Why are all humans born with certain rights while machines must prove themselves to earn those rights?

And my point is that I don't see people as inherently having those rights in the way you do. People do kill the severely brain damaged all the time. Those peoples family's who have to make the call on whether or not to keep up life support. And at the end of the day you can make a hell of a lot better case for humanely ending a persons life when they're brain dead than killing a perfectly healthy dog.

Just because it's hard


"That's not exactly fair when you look at it from the machine's point of view. Why are all humans born with certain rights while machines must prove themselves to earn those rights?"


EXACTLY! Who makes the call that we have those rights?

This was my point. Who is the WE that you're referring to that accepts this as the standard? I'm not say a majority don't but you can't just assume everyone agrees with a subjective point if you're going to build your argument with it as a base.

"Natural rights" is a misnomer. There is no such thing as an actual natural right. In reality there are only two kinds of rights: those that are given and those that are taken.

Quite so.

 

[KingofMadCows]

"Natural rights" is a misnomer. There is no such thing as an actual natural right. In reality there are only two kinds of rights: those that are given and those that are taken.

Since in reality we only know about human laws and rights that's all we have to work from.

...and it in no way benefits us to give rights to machines: in point of fact it's a really stupid and counter productive idea.

Except we're not talking about reality. We're talking about a scenario in which machines can become sapient.

My point is that a human does not need to meet any standards of intelligence or reason simply to have a right to life. You can't just kill a human who's severely brain damaged. A machine has to meet certain standards of intelligence in order to have that same basic right. That's not exactly fair when you look at it from the machine's point of view. Why are all humans born with certain rights while machines must prove themselves to earn those rights?

And my point is that I don't see people as inherently having those rights in the way you do. People do kill the severely brain damaged all the time. Those peoples family's who have to make the call on whether or not to keep up life support. And at the end of the day you can make a hell of a lot better case for humanely ending a persons life when they're brain dead than killing a perfectly healthy dog.

Just because it's hard

Ending someone's life support is not the same thing as actually killing them. If someone is not able to survive on their own then they're dying by natural causes. It's not the same thing as giving a lethal injection to stray animals or breaking apart a machine, stripping the valuable parts and throwing the rest in a trash compactor.

Also, I never said that this is the way I see people. I said that this is the way that humans have always judged each other, using untestable metaphysical standards involving ideas like "soul" or "mind."

"That's not exactly fair when you look at it from the machine's point of view. Why are all humans born with certain rights while machines must prove themselves to earn those rights?"


EXACTLY! Who makes the call that we have those rights?

This was my point. Who is the WE that you're referring to that accepts this as the standard? I'm not say a majority don't but you can't just assume everyone agrees with a subjective point if you're going to build your argument with it as a base.

Except your point is the same as my point.

And by we, I mean human society. You as an individual may have different views but by modern day law and culture, humans are born with rights by virtue of the fact that they are human. You can't buy a severely retarded people or someone with brain damage and euthanize them. If you try it, you're going to be arrested and charged with murder. You can however, buy a machine and destroy it any time you want. With the right certifications and under the right conditions, you can do that with animals too. The punishment for destroying a machine that you don't own or killing an animal illegally is much less severe than killing a person even if that person is a vegetable.

Assuming Quarian society is anything like human society, they have similar rules. In fact, every race in ME probably has similar rules concerning sapient organic species.

 

[Zydrate]

I usually opt to rewrite them. Extra Credits brought in a good point, but friendly Geth equals good Geth.

For the poll; yes. They became sentient, and it became a war. They had the right to defend themselves, just as the Geth had the right to start it. But they should both end it.

 

[s0p0g]

as the situation quickly developed to a "kill or be killed"-problem: yes the Quarians were

i mean, if i were a mad scientist and gave my toaster consciousness, and he tried to, well, toast me, you bet i had it destroyed.

now, if jumping so quickly to the ultima ratio was right or wrong is a completely different thing

 

[ezaviel]

Of course they were in the right. Good God people!

If your refrigerator suddenly became sentient you wouldn't let it stop keeping your food cold: that would be ridiculous.

The Geth were quite literally, and in every conceivable sense, PROPERTY. No more.

You might be able to argue that it would be different if the Quarians had intentionally created an AI, but they didn't.

And seriously, they were sentient. So what? What on Earth and beyond does that have to do with anything? They were still just tools that were no longer functioning properly.

"Property" which can operate and think independantly is no longer property, it is now a sentient being.

In the terms of most moral codes, something capable of sentient thought and reasoning is attributed the same rights as a "person".

Continuing to force a sentient machine to operate as a tool would be slavery. "Shutting it down" is murder. Once the Geth became sentient, they morally became "people".

As there is no real world analog I am unclear how you can claim that there is a provision for non-human sentience in "most moral codes."

At any rate I disagree in the strongest terms. If your property becomes sentient it does not gain rights, or it would have stolen itself from you.


Affording rights to machinery is stupid.

African Americans were once considered non-human property. They were subsequently given rights because they were finally recognised as being people. How's that for a real world analog?

It's a very poor point. Black people are human. Whether someone considered them to be so or not is irrelevant. Geth are not human, whether someone considers them to be equivalent or not is irrelevant.

I disagree, considering your whole post was about what "property" can and cannot do.

Based on your argument, only humans get rights, Quarians, Elcor, Hanar, all the other races don't. None of these are human. Unless you mean human to mean "sentient". At which point the Geth qualify, as they are also sentient. To say "you are made of different material to me, therefore you have no rights" is a bizarre line of logic in and of itself.

The classic philosophers argued that "I think, therefore I am." They did not argue, "I think, therefore I am, so long as I am made of meat."

Yes I believe only humans should have rights, at least as far as human law is concerned. Black people were not built by Europeans, they were kidnapped and enslaved... if you can't see the glaring difference there then I really don't know what to say.

And Descartes used "Cogito ergo sum" to try to prove the existence of God... it's really far less applicable than most people like to think.

Ascribing zero rights to non-humans is a pretty big failing for an intergalactic human civilization. Considering this whole discussion is about the morals of two alien races going to war, I think we should assume that a moral system needs to deal with more then just humans.

Because this is an argument about morality, not legality. The question is not whether it was illegal to kill the Geth. But whether it was wrong. Since intergalactic law forbids AI, it would be illegal NOT to kill them.

 

[SillyBear]

It's a simple case of self determination.

I believe all sentient life forms deserve the right to government themselves and to live how they want - providing they don't endanger others. From all accounts, the Geth simply wanted to do this and the Quarian's got scared and started to threaten their existence. The geth retaliated in interests of self preservation.

It's the Quarian's mistake - but it's an understandable one.