Ethics of Mass Effect #1 - The Rachni

Because my opponent was tied up with something else, I will continue the debate and use this round to defend my position over my opponents and rebuttal what I can. First, my opponent only uses 1 argument in their premise to justify sparing the Rachni Queen, which they use Kantian Deontology. This is supported by saying that killing the Rachni is only a means to an end and not an end itself. Also, that no one has the right to impose their will onto another being that is equal in rationality. Second, my opponent says that my argument is a flawed premise. Stating that the Rachni living wouldn't technically constitute another galactic war because it is not how they work culturally. Secondly, that the Queen that is in the situation has no relation to the war of it's ancestors and therefore cannot be held accountable for their actions (ie: punishing a child for the crimes of the father). Rebuttal and Defense 1: The problem with using Kantian Deontology to support sparring the Rachni Queens life, is the fact that Kant's Ethics argue there is a moral absolutism involving rational actors. That a good will must be pursued, for the sake of good to happen. In this instance, as my opponent argues, Shepard must not commit genocide of an entire species because that is morally negligible and the Rachni are a species that can act rationally. This situation however isn't black and white. There is a very good reason for Shepard to act on a bad will for the sake of a good outcome, or a neutral outcome altogether. By the Rachni Queen dying, there is an absolute guarantee there will be no further incidents from this species. Only by allowing the species to live, is the possibility of a very bad outcome, come into question. A hypothetical I'd like to add to the defense, aside from all the speculation of time travel and all the theories that come with it. If you were alive and had a choice to kill Adolf Hitler before the formation of 3rd Reich knowing what would happen if he does. Would you still kill him? Kantian Ethics would argue that you cannot kill him. So through inaction and pursuing a good will, you would have allowed a terrible man to commit terrible deeds. Now to relate this to the argument at hand. Yes, there is no guarantee that the Rachni will cause further harm should they be allowed to live, however there is no certainty of the opposite being true either. Disposing of the Rachni ensures no negative actions will come from the decision. Also, the Rachni Queen states that she will not harm or cause war against the galaxy and that she only wants peace. My opponent naively believes that this is all the validation required to ensure that a peaceful outcome will come from the Rachni should you let them escape. Except, given the situation, The Rachni Queen literally is in a life or death situation made abundantly more important as she is the last of her species; any rational actor in her position would say anything to ensure their survival. She plays to the commander's sympathies, and "assures" that she wants is peace. Yeah, realistically this cannot be taken at face value for any reason. Especially given the Rachni's history. Defense and Rebuttal 2: It cannot be said for certain, that the Rachni being released from captivity would cause another great war in the future. However, as stated in my opening argument; there is no certainty that a peaceful situation would occur. My opponent argues that annihilating the Rachni species is immoral, but on whose authority I ask? The Galaxy has already determined the fate of the Rachni when they fought them to extinction then used techniques to ensure they would remain extinct. As stated in my opening argument, the Galaxy already assumes the Rachni to be no more. Allowing the Rachni to live is certainly going against what the Galaxy would want. Despite the chance that the Rachni may resolve to peace, the Rachni war was devastating in it's time. Also, commander Shepard has the duty to act on the Galaxy's best interest. Whether the Galaxy's stance is immoral or not, is irrelevant. The needs of the few never outweigh the needs of the many in a society. Therefore, killing the Rachni Queen is not only in the Galaxy's best interest, it is already believed they are extinct anyways. To argue a moral duty in this situation doesn't stack up to Shpeard's role in the situation. Since there is no time to convene a council on the fate of the Rachni and a decision must be made between life or death; the only logical and clear choice is to maintain the status quo of ensuring the Rachni remain extinct. Conclusion: There can be no assurance that letting the RQ live will ensure a peaceful outcome. Arguing that the RQ promises this, cannot for any reason be taken at face value given the circumstances. Letting the RQ live, and given their history, very well could go either way. Destruction or peace. There is no certainty of either one. Arguing that it is the morally right thing to do cannot be taken into account, when the society that Shepard represents has already determined the fate of the Rachni long ago. Shepard has a duty to act in the Galaxy's best interest, and the Galaxy's interest is clear that the Rachni should b extinct. Plus, ensuring the Rachni are extinct already maintains the Galaxy's presumption on the matter. Only by allowing the Rachni to live, do you present uncertainty. Benefit of the doubt, is not a logical choice to go against what society already expects in this situation, because ethics come into play. It may be wrong to commit murder or genocide, but if it guarantees another galactic war with the Rachni will happen, then the decision cannot be undermined due to ethical conundrums. Despite Shepard's moral compass, the Galaxy's interest is the most important in this situation.