(Spoilers) Mass Effect 3 Ending is Evil

[Mikejames]

Can someone explain to me how Control is evil because it takes away the will of merciless genocidal abominations?

The real reason I thought it was a stupid choice was because we were literally shown five minutes ago what happens when you try to combine your own mentality with Reaper tech.

Last I checked,

It Doesn't Turn Out Well.

 

[Alarien]

The star-child clearly stated that the fact that The Illusive Man was indoctrinated prior to his attempt to assert control meant that he would be unable to assert the will required for control to work. Shepard and the Illusive Man are in different situations.

However, as I indicated earlier, I still tend towards agreement in that, given the context of the vast perspective of the reapers, who knows that Shepard wouldn't simply go down the same road, in time? Control is just too much trust for omnipotence in one hand for eternity.

 

[RJ 17]

However, as I indicated earlier, I still tend towards agreement in that, given the context of the vast perspective of the reapers, who knows that Shepard wouldn't simply go down the same road, in time? Control is just too much trust for omnipotence in one hand for eternity.

Keep in mind that Star Child had a purpose: prevent organic life from being wiped out by synthetic life. It's will and purpose became the will and purpose of the Reapers. By picking Control, Paragon Shep (presumably Paragon, at least, which is why it's the Blue option) replaces SC's will and purpose with his/her own will and purpose. This is actually narrated in the Extended Cut's version of that ending, something along the lines of "Shepard's memories, morals, and will give me guidance and purposes."

Long story short: Shepard becomes the new Star Child, and just how Star Child had the purpose of keeping synthetics from wiping out all organics, Shepard now has the purpose of preserving all forms of life in the galaxy.

 

[Alarien]

I think you created a bit of a contradiction here. By replacing the Star Child's will and purpose with his own, Shepard doesn't necessarily become the new "Star Child" with the mandate of preserving organic/synthetic life in the galaxy. He is the "new solution" that the star child indicates that they must find, as the existing "star child" solution can "no longer work." Again, Shepard is not an AI, so he is not necessarily going to be confined by the mandate given to the star child AI by the Leviathans. However, that does not mean that he won't find the same solution to be the appropriate one, given time.

I still think synthesis is far preferable to blue control, however, blue control is still acceptable.

My personal preferences are: Green > Blue Control > Red Destroy > Red Control

Just my personal ethical evaluation of the end choices.

 

[mohit9206]

I too finished the game a couple of days ago for the first time. First i would say its a great game.People who have not played it due to all the criticism should play it NOW!!
As for the ending i hate the original one.It provided no resolution or closure at all and felt empty and a cop out. I was angry.However then i played the extended ending and i must say i am satisfied. The extended ending was miles better than the original one and and i can say now that i am quite satisfied with that ending.
As for the specific ending i went for the destroy ending which i believe is the best ending to the game.Eradicating the reaper threat was Shepherds goal from the beginning and why should she do anything less than destroying them?
In short i loved ME3 with the extended ending and best ending is the destroy ending. I must say i became teary eyed at the end when Shepherds nameplate was being put up on the wall after her sacrifice. Damn i will always miss her...

 

[Sutter Cane]

Honestly I think destroy is the best ending from a moral standpoint because it's the only one where the general population of the galaxy has any free will. In the synthesis ending, everyone is modified without their consent which is pretty horrifying. In the control ending the galaxy is still subject to the whims of a single consciousness that could theoretically send in the reapers to destroy everything if it were to so choose, it's just disinclined to do so. In the destroy ending, sure all current synthetic life is destroyed, but the opportunity for new synthetic life is always possible and would be able to develop unimpeded by the reapers. no one has to become borgified, synthetic life is still able to (theoretically) live alongside organic life in the future once it springs up again, and the universe doesn't have the reapers hanging over their head anymore.

 

[Animyr]

The way I see it, Control means you accept the Illusive Man's argument, Synthesis and Refuse means you accept the Reapers' argument.

Actually, all four of the endings have you accepting the Catalyst's logic. Which is (one of) my main issues with it.

Consider it this way. The entire story (the third game especially) pretty much revolved around or heavily featured the theme of confronting the differences between different peoples and lifeforms (of which synthetic life was just one category) and resolving them with rational discussion and the forging of interpersonal relationships. Unless you play like a diehard racist, the game shows over and over and over and over that the various denizens of the galaxy aren't all that dissimilar and are entirely capable of getting along just fine, while becoming all the more powerful for the variety among them. The one exception to this is the Reapers, who are of course uncompromisingly hostile.

Then comes the ending, in which synthetic/organic conflict (excluding the reapers!), a problem we already resolved with both EDI and the geth, is suddenly not only brought back, but elevated to be the most important issue in the universe ever. That's weird, but I suppose we can explore the issue and discuss this...nope! Genocide, peace magic, mind control, or mass genocide. That's how we resolve our differences now.

You see how this is a thematic hard-right, of car-flipping velocity? It comes out of nowhere and simply has no basis or precedent in the narrative that came before. Not in lore, not in player choice, not in gameplay. None of this tells us that the four plans of action presented are either moral, appropriate, necessary or even based on an accurate picture of reality (especially if you destroyed or allied with the geth). Well, except for...

It assumed that synthetic life always wants to wipe out organic life because it has seen it happen many times before.

Sorry, but that's a blatant violation of the show-don't-tell rule. The strongest example of hostile synthetic life provided in the story itself, and the one force that gives the catalyst's declarations real credence, is the reapers...which are disqualified. Apparently, they are the solution to a problem that they themselves embody! Then there's the geth, but they're actually nice guys and wouldn't have survived without reaper help anyway.

So what does that leave us with? Synthetic races that lived millions of years ago, have never been mentioned before in the story until the last act, and who apparently always lost the wars anyway. Again, we are never shown this in the narrative. The catalyst just TELLS us. And it's upon this that Shepard's ending dilemma, and the fate of the galaxy and all the characters and cultures we know and love, is based upon. A war we know nothing about, have no emotional investment in, and have no intellectual reason to even take seriously as relevant to the modern day (again, except for the reapers).

Contrast this with, say, the Genophage conflict, which is carefully built up and explored, from multiple sides, throughout the whole trilogy. And that was a secondary conflict!

My two cents towards the "the ending isn't that bad" stance. The ending really does feel like it belongs to a different story (besides Deus Ex).

 

[votemarvel]

As to the hologram kid it was his logic that turned me against him. He said he was doing the harvest because otherwise synthetic life-forms would wipe out all organic life, not just the advanced civilisations that it did.

Yet isn't hologram kid a synthetic life-form? If it has never wanted to wipe out all organic life then why assume that others would? It's logic was found faulty because it existed.

It is not a synthetic life form, it is an artificial intelligence. It assumed that synthetic life always wants to wipe out organic life because it has seen it happen many times before. That's why it arrived atthis extreme solution in the first place. All this is explicitly stated at some time or at least strongly suggested.

An AI is a synthetic life-form. The Catalyst is no different to EDI in that regard.

So the point remains. Its logic is proved faulty by its own existence and why was Shepard unable to make that point.

Edit: Something I would like to also add is that the only time we encounter actively hostile geth is because of the Reapers. Indeed in Mass Effect 3 had it not been for Reaper interference the quarians would have wiped out the geth.

Makes you wonder how many times the Reapers have been responsible for the conflict they claim to be there to prevent.

 

[thetoddo]

I think the catalyst was the last ditch attempt of the reapers to persuade shepard into not destroying them, but in a much more subtle way, going all "Sure you could destroy us, but you'd destroy any sentient lifeform too, why not hold on to these exposed power spalks or throw yourself into this open energy beam?"

Thing is though, you never see EDI or the geth being wiped out, only the reapers, so they lied about that part, and it makes no sense either because synthetic lifeforms are basicly just tech with a smart program, so almost anything with a power coupling would be a target...
...Would be, but obviously not the case, so you could smell that lie a mile away.

synthetics and organics CAN live in peace, you proved that with the geth and quarians, so destroying them is ndeed the right choice.

Which would almost work and sort of save the ending of ME3 a bit if you didn't activate the destroy option by walking into an explosion.

ME3s ending is so bad on so many levels it's hard to keep how terrible it is in your head. The fact that the rest of the game was similarly awful gets pushed out almost entirely.

Really the whole thing would have been ok if instead of the kid it was a projection of Harbinger (or Harbinger assuming direct control of the Illusive Man's corpse) who gave almost the same speech with more of a "Our calculations conclude we cannot do enough damage to the Citidel in time to stop you from activating the Catalyst, here's why you should choose X." I would have been totally ok with the super intelligent machines realizing that they could not stop the activation and making a last appeal.

 

[CloudAtlas]

As to the hologram kid it was his logic that turned me against him. He said he was doing the harvest because otherwise synthetic life-forms would wipe out all organic life, not just the advanced civilisations that it did.

Yet isn't hologram kid a synthetic life-form? If it has never wanted to wipe out all organic life then why assume that others would? It's logic was found faulty because it existed.

It is not a synthetic life form, it is an artificial intelligence. It assumed that synthetic life always wants to wipe out organic life because it has seen it happen many times before. That's why it arrived atthis extreme solution in the first place. All this is explicitly stated at some time or at least strongly suggested.

An AI is a synthetic life-form. The Catalyst is no different to EDI in that regard.

So the point remains. Its logic is proved faulty by its own existence and why was Shepard unable to make that point.

Edit: Something I would like to also add is that the only time we encounter actively hostile geth is because of the Reapers. Indeed in Mass Effect 3 had it not been for Reaper interference the quarians would have wiped out the geth.

Makes you wonder how many times the Reapers have been responsible for the conflict they claim to be there to prevent.

That depends upon your definition of life. If you look up some definitions, you'll realize that not all of them apply. That's make the question of what life actually is, so wonderfully complex.

In any case, I made a wrong statement; what I should have said that 'synthetic life sometimes want to wipe out organic life. It doesn't matter for the validity of the Catalyst's solution, however: After all, if organic life is wiped out just once, it's too late.

And that's exactly why this argument, and similar ones, rests on faulty logic: The fact that one species of synthetic life can live in peace with organic life at some point in time does not prove that it never happens. And, according to the Catalyst, it did happen several times in the past, which led it to the conclusion in the first place that it is bound to happen again eventually.

The Geth are a particularly weak counter-example in any case. The Catalyst has one mission: Preserve organic life at any cost. It does not include the qualification: "...but only as long as organic life is not the aggressor."

 

[JediMB]

Even if you ignore the moral and thematic problems with Mass Effect 3 and its ending(s), the entire main storyline (the Crucible Arc, if you will) was shoddily put together and littered with plot holes and inconsistent character portrayals.

The Reaper personalities portrayed in ME1 and 2 (Sovereign and Harbinger) have wildly different goals from the Reapers of ME3. They were judgmental and ego-driven creatures who were willing to exterminate all intelligent life in the galaxy, with the humans as the only exception once Harbinger took an interest in them. Nothing like ME3's would-be saviors of all life.

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

They were judgmental and ego-driven creatures who were willing to exterminate all intelligent life in the galaxy, with the humans as the only exception once Harbinger took an interest in them.

Every time someone mentions the lingering remains of the Dark Energy ending I always wish that that version of the script had survived all the way through. Sure, it wasn't outright good writing, but at least it was foreshadowed.

 

[lapan]

snip

That's exactly my point as well.

Here we have an AI that tells me that i can't trust any syntetics (which would also include itself). It bases that on what an ancient race programmed it on. Now, i didn't play ME3 or the Leviathan DLC myself, but do they really present a good reason the Leviathans came to that conclusion?

The reapers never really let anyone else get that far without killing them either, and events in the Mass Effect games seemed to suggest exactly the opposite.

So, WHY should i trust the catalyst on its theory that syntetics ALWAYS destory their creators? How is destroying both a better solution?

 

[votemarvel]

That depends upon your definition of life. If you look up some definitions, you'll realize that not all of them apply. That's make the question of what life actually is, so wonderfully complex.

In any case, I made a wrong statement; what I should have said that 'synthetic life sometimes want to wipe out organic life. It doesn't matter for the validity of the Catalyst's solution, however: After all, if organic life is wiped out just once, it's too late.

And that's exactly why this argument, and similar ones, rests on faulty logic: The fact that one species of synthetic life can live in peace with organic life at some point in time does not prove that it never happens. And, according to the Catalyst, it did happen several times in the past, which led it to the conclusion in the first place that it is bound to happen again eventually.

The Geth are a particularly weak counter-example in any case. The Catalyst has one mission: Preserve organic life at any cost. It does not include the qualification: "...but only as long as organic life is not the aggressor."

The Cayalyst say though that it is inevitable that synthetic life will want to wipe out all organic, yet it doesn't.

Its premise is faulty from the start because it doesn't want to wipe out all organic life.

Surely if it were inevitable then the best thing for it to do would be to fly the Citadel and the Reapers into the nearest sun. After all it knows organics have no chance to battle the Reapers, it could be the cause of the very thing it claims to be trying to stop.

In short as soon as you add the Catalyst itself as part of its equation as to why it harvests, the whole thing starts to fall apart.

 

[CloudAtlas]

The way I see it, Control means you accept the Illusive Man's argument, Synthesis and Refuse means you accept the Reapers' argument.

Actually, all four of the endings have you accepting the Catalyst's logic. Which is (one of) my main issues with it.

You don't have to accept the Catalyst's logic - you can shoot at it, or refuse to make a decision, and bear the consequences. But I understand that's probably not what you meant. So, yes, you do have to accept its logic, in the sense that you are limited to the options presented to you. Would have been nice to be able to argue more with it, to disagree more? Probably. I didn't feel this way but I can definitely see why people were disappointed by that. Would that mean that, if only you were allowed to, you would be able to persuade the Catalyst, to show it the err of its ways? That's a hypothetical questions, but given that I have yet to see a argument of why the logic of the Catalyst is faulty that does not rest on faulty logic itself, I doubt it.

Anyway, I digress. What I meant by "accepting the Illusive Man's argument resp. the Reaper's argument" was more, how should I say it, acceptance at a deeper, thematic level. With Control, you do, in the end, what the Illusive Man has always wanted from you, and what you have rejected all the time before. With Synthesis, you agree that there can be no peace between Synthetics and Organics and that's why the only solution (other than extinction) is to eradicate the distinction.

Consider it this way. The entire story (the third game especially) pretty much revolved around or heavily featured the theme of confronting the differences between different peoples and lifeforms (of which synthetic life was just one category) and resolving them with rational discussion and the forging of interpersonal relationships. Unless you play like a diehard racist, the game shows over and over and over and over that the various denizens of the galaxy aren't all that dissimilar and are entirely capable of getting along just fine, while becoming all the more powerful for the variety among them. The one exception to this is the Reapers, who are of course uncompromisingly hostile.

Then comes the ending, in which synthetic/organic conflict (excluding the reapers!), a problem we already resolved with both EDI and the geth, is suddenly not only brought back, but elevated to be the most important issue in the universe ever. That's weird, but I suppose we can explore the issue and discuss this...nope! Genocide, peace magic, mind control, or mass genocide. That's how we resolve our differences now.

You see how this is a thematic hard-right, of car-flipping velocity? It comes out of nowhere and simply has no basis or precedent in the narrative that came before. Not in lore, not in player choice, not in gameplay. None of this tells us that the four plans of action presented are either moral, appropriate, necessary or even based on an accurate picture of reality (especially if you destroyed or allied with the geth). Well, except for...

Although I agree with everything you say about diversity, the message of the game, and so on, no, I don' see it this way.

The question of synthetic and organic life, what is life, what is sentience, and so on, I didn't feel that this stopped being part of the game after the Quarian-Geth conflict. It's just such a prominent one over the course of all 3 games. Or to put it differently: Just because an issue takes the backseat for a few hours doesn't meant for me that it disappeared. After all, you were still fighting the Reapers, this snythetic-organic life form, you did have an idea about their reason. At least, personally, I guess I didn't have the expectation that just because I was able to solve one synthetic-organic conflict meant that there will be a nice resolution for the bigger problem.
Also, the option to solve the Quarian-Geth conflict peacefully at all rests on having made a number of very specific decisions in Mass Effect 2 and 3, and is an option that is not available in a large fraction of "playthroughs". Neither in one of mine. In those cases, you were forced to commit genocide at either the Geth or the Quarians, you were not able to make peace. And, as you're being reminded by a Batarian on the Citadel at some point, it's not even the first genocide you committed.

It assumed that synthetic life always wants to wipe out organic life because it has seen it happen many times before.

Sorry, but that's a blatant violation of the show-don't-tell rule. The strongest example of hostile synthetic life provided in the story itself, and the one force that gives the catalyst's declarations real credence, is the reapers...which are disqualified. Apparently, they are the solution to a problem that they themselves embody! Then there's the geth, but they're actually nice guys and wouldn't have survived without reaper help anyway.

So what does that leave us with? Synthetic races that lived millions of years ago, have never been mentioned before in the story until the last act, and who apparently always lost the wars anyway. Again, we are never shown this in the narrative. The catalyst just TELLS us. And it's upon this that Shepard's ending dilemma, and the fate of the galaxy and all the characters and cultures we know and love, is based upon. A war we know nothing about, have no emotional investment in, and have no intellectual reason to even take seriously as relevant to the modern day (again, except for the reapers).

Maybe it's not the pinnacle of story telling, but how are you supposed to show events that happened many millions of years ago? And the raison d'etre for the Reapers' existence is already foreshadowed in the Leviathan DLC, not just at the very end.

And you don't have to buy any of what the Catalyst tells you anyway. You can just do what you came to do in the first place - destroy Reapers, and be done with it. At any cost.

 

[elvor0]

Space magic? We accept lightsabers, matter beaming regularly, and in Mass Effect we accept mass relays, element zero, dark energy and biotics and we call the ending, the combined technology of countless millions of minds across millions of years, paired with the power of the ancient mass relays, "space magic?" That's where we suspend disbelief? Really?

Let's not forget Arthur C. Clark "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

In the end, Mass Effect 3 was tremendously enjoyable. No, it was not faultless early on and there are some horrible mistakes made by Bioware/Electronic Arts in regards to rushing and DLC, but the final product, viewed away from that context was, for me, a definitive modern RPG experience.

And, frankly, if you can hear the words "had to be me, someone else might have gotten it wrong" and you aren't affected by that, you have no soul. (Personally, I never got the next comment validly (had to watch it), but when Mordin screams "I made a mistake!" it was one of the hardest things I've seen in a game, realizing how conflicted his character really was.)

Well played, well played. You're bang on, obviously there were other ways of the story ending, but it was always going to be a choice machine. Your point about Shepard may be bad ass, but to say SHE was the only one capable of stopping the reapers at the very end after millions of years is hitting the nail on the head. She's not Superman, she's a damn good soldier and she gives people hope, but it was always about unity, about everyone coming together to stop the reapers.

And yeah, I mean seriously guns fire miniature black holes, and there's a radioactive rock that gives people the force, yet a highly advanced millions of years old machine race having a highly advanced weapon is silly? I mean come on. At least the crucible has a precedent to work by speculation(nanotech(Synth), highly advanced EMP(Destroy) or just taking over the reaper AI(control)), it's not /that/ far fetched when you take every other Sci Fi work into account, on the other hand the whole idea of the mass effect field is total troll science; a magic rock that lowers or raises the mass of an object through electricity? Get outta here. If we're talking suspension of disbelief Element Zero is fucking up there, they use it for absolutely everything in the ME universe, medicine, bullets, the force, armor plating, FTL travel, red sand, fucking toothbrushes.

Though they could've done more to hint at the existence of the Crucible before it just appeared in ME3.

 

[CloudAtlas]

So, WHY should i trust the catalyst on its theory that syntetics ALWAYS destory their creators? How is destroying both a better solution?

But you don't have to! You can choose Destroy! If you choose Destroy, organic and (future, new) synthetic life still exists, and without the Reapers, there is no all-powerful entity to prevent the destruction of organic life by synthetic life to happen in the future. You trust that organic life will find a way, that it's not bound to happen... or you leave worrying to future generations.

The Cayalyst say though that it is inevitable that synthetic life will want to wipe out all organic, yet it doesn't.

Its premise is faulty from the start because it doesn't want to wipe out all organic life.

Surely if it were inevitable then the best thing for it to do would be to fly the Citadel and the Reapers into the nearest sun. After all it knows organics have no chance to battle the Reapers, it could be the cause of the very thing it claims to be trying to stop.

In short as soon as you add the Catalyst itself as part of its equation as to why it harvests, the whole thing starts to fall apart.

The Catalyst saw synthetics wiping out organics, or at least attempting to, an unspecified number of times. We have to assume that it saw it happening often enough so as to come to the conclusion that it's always bound to happen with sufficient certainty. And since it's a highly intelligent VI, it's probably safe to assume as well that it knows at least as much about statistics as our present-day statisticians do.

Again, this does not mean that every synthetic race will always eventually wipe out organic life. The Geth do not even disprove that every synthetic species will always wipe out organics, as it could still happen in the future. Anyway, it's enough if there's a chance of it happening in any given instance. No matter how small this chance is, over time, the number of created synthetic species approach infinity, and thus the probability of one species of synthetics wiping out organics approaches 100%. That's just the laws of probability. And it's not just a hypothetical exercise: as we are told, it did happen in the past. And that's why the Catalyst's logic makes sense. It might not be perfect, but it definitely has a high degree of internal consistency. And it's solution of this problem is logical too, and it's also a solution that seems to work very well. It might just not be a very moral one.

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

Space magic? We accept lightsabers, matter beaming regularly, and in Mass Effect we accept mass relays, element zero, dark energy and biotics and we call the ending, the combined technology of countless millions of minds across millions of years, paired with the power of the ancient mass relays, "space magic?" That's where we suspend disbelief? Really?

One of these things are not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong.

But seriously, the difference is that lightsabers and the force or warp cores and transporters (or biotics and element zero for that matter) are all introduced in the beginning of the story, where the framework of their respective universes are still being set up. Introducing a machine in the 11th hour that doesn't seem to work within the established framework of the universe, with the transparent and specific purpose to solve the plot, is not comparable.

And the raison d'etre for the Reapers' existence is already foreshadowed in the Leviathan DLC, not just at the very end.

You can't retroactively foreshadow something. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Space magic? We accept lightsabers, matter beaming regularly, and in Mass Effect we accept mass relays, element zero, dark energy and biotics and we call the ending, the combined technology of countless millions of minds across millions of years, paired with the power of the ancient mass relays, "space magic?" That's where we suspend disbelief? Really?

One of these things are not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong.

But seriously, the difference is that lightsabers and the force or warp cores and transporters (or biotics and element zero for that matter) are all introduced in the beginning of the story, where the framework of their respective universes are still being set up. Introducing a machine in the 11th hour that doesn't seem to work within the established framework of the universe, with the transparent and specific purpose to solve the plot, is not comparable.

The Crucible as "some kind of super weapon" is introduced in the very first hours of Mass Effect 3, you're repeatedly talking about it, and you gradually learn more about everything. The realization that something seems to be missing some time later, then you learn that indeed something is missing, something called the Catalyst, and when we learn that the Catalyst is actually the Citadel, and that it needs to be linked with the Crucible, we're still not back on Earth.

And how the Crucible&Catalyst actually work, they use well-established technology with the Mass Relays for transmission. The red beam of Destroy is not very different from EMP, something like "uploading" someone's consciousness in Control happened before, and Synthesis' admittedly fuzzy fusing of synthetic and organic life, well, it's not the first time something similar happened - look no further than Shepard herself.

Edit: elvor0 pretty much already said as much.

I'm not saying it's all executed perfectly, not at all. But to claim that everything just came out of nothing right at the end is simply factually untrue.

And the raison d'etre for the Reapers' existence is already foreshadowed in the Leviathan DLC, not just at the very end.

You can't retroactively foreshadow something. It just doesn't work that way.

I have to look at the story as it is now, and this story that includes all DLC, even though I know that this does not retroactively change anyone's experience with the game as it was released.

 

[votemarvel]

The Catalyst saw synthetics wiping out organics, or at least attempting to, an unspecified number of times. We have to assume that it saw it happening often enough so as to come to the conclusion that it's always bound to happen with sufficient certainty. And since it's a highly intelligent VI, it's probably safe to assume as well that it knows at least as much about statistics as our present-day statisticians do.

Again, this does not mean that every synthetic race will always eventually wipe out organic life. The Geth do not even disprove that every synthetic species will always wipe out organics, as it could still happen in the future. Anyway, it's enough if there's a chance of it happening in any given instance. No matter how small this chance is, over time, the number of created synthetic species approach infinity, and thus the probability of one species of synthetics wiping out organics approaches 100%. That's just the laws of probability. And it's not just a hypothetical exercise: as we are told, it did happen in the past. And that's why the Catalyst's logic makes sense. It might not be perfect, but it definitely has a high degree of internal consistency. And it's solution of this problem is logical too, and it's also a solution that seems to work very well. It might just not be a very moral one.

The Catalyst states it is inevitable.

If it is inevitable then eventually the Catalyst and the Reapers will attempt to wipe out all organics.

So the Catalyst's own logic suggests that it will eventually try to wipe out all organics because it is inevitable.

How can you not see the flaw in its argument?