Ethics of Mass Effect #1 - The Rachni

For my final round, I will rebuttal my opponents defense and then conclude why the resolution is wrong. First Rebuttal First, my opponent in the last round didn't even defend Deontology, only criticized my position and proposed that my framework be thrown out altogether because philosophical reasoning? Kantian framework also has it's faults; so then the debate would come down to the voters deciding which choice they like more, or whoever is more popular, since both framework's are merely philosophical ideologies. Nonetheless simple reasons why we can't completely use Deontology in this matter either. Universizable actions: Kant doesn't explain what actions to perform as rational actors; he only tells us which maxims to act on. All they are is rules to base any decision you make, not an actual definitive suggestion as to which actions you should take. Therefore you can't disprove Kant's ethics per-say as applicable to the situation. Which is why my opponent used this framework to support the resolution, because the resolution can't be refuted under Kant's categorical imperatives. Therefore my opponents First Rejection is nullified, as the same could be said about their framework as there is no clear decision that their framework proposes. However, under "categorical imperative 1", my framework is also justified and can't be "thrown out" as my opponent presumes, so disregard these statements. Why can't egotism be a universizable action? Or even Christianity? My framework is a unversizable action. [1] Second, society doesn't have to do anything regarding anyone else. Society chooses what to do based of a collective consensus, and even then not all of society agrees. The collective consensus concerning the Rachni as stated, was made clear in the first war by eradicating the Rachni to extinction. Third, a decision has to be made concerning the resolution. Although we cannot know the complete consequences of our actions, we can refer to the past as a precedence for steps we should take. The Rachni were previously thought to be exterminated, and everyone was seemingly content with it. As I said in my third round, there is no guarantee what will happen if the resolution stands. However, given the circumstances it is clear that by killing the queen there is an assurance that the Rachni will not be a problem in the future. Fourth, in the situation we can weigh two individuals interests because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Even if it is regarding life an entire species, the situation calls for an immediate action. Again, society does not have to align itself with any moral absolutism for the sake of moral theory. The galaxy already determined during the Rachni wars, that extinction of the Rachni was acceptable; again there is no reason to determine that this stance has been changed. Fifth, pragmatically speaking a moral ideology does not better suit the situation. Realistically, the Rachni is just an old enemy of the galaxy once thought exterminated and now a survivor remains. Although it's one queen, she can still multiply and produce thousands of her kind and control all of them. Sixth, it does not destroy the value of life using my framework. While Deontology does precede due to it's ambiguous definitions in which decisions must be made, my framework advocates value of life in a more specific way. I argued that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The life of several is more valuable than the life of one. Just because there is no immediate threat in the situation proposing the resolution, the possibly the resolution proposes is very well in the realm of creating a future enemy. (I will refer to this later on explaining the breakdown later on) Seventh, there is no guarantee the Rachni will positively effect the galaxy either. Just because the possibility exists doesn't mean that society must be compelled to give that chance. My framework proposes that the galaxy's interest must take precedence in the situation. The galaxy determined the fate of the species already. Substance To rebut the clarification: "THE RACHNI ARE OF ZERO THREAT TO THE GALAXY" This is 100% percent false. The Thorian encountered on the planet Feros was just one species that could control the minds of others. It enslaved an entire colony, in spite because of a deal gone wrong. In the situation, we are witnessing the Rachni taking control of an Asari to communicate. Also, the Queen has the ability to reproduce many from her eggs, with the possibility of spawning another queen. So, from one can spawn many. Rachni are really tough creatures and it took an army of Krogan to fight the Rachni where they were because of their abilities. My premise is not ridiculous. Cars are an inanimate object. They do not gain sentience and roam around destroying other cars. The Rachni are a sentient species capable of advanced logical reasoning. There is a reason to not to believe to the Rachni queens desires. The situation shows that she was undergoing tests and experimentation in a hidden lab. She was a prisoner, who tried to break free by attacking Shepard before the encounter altogether. She learned through fear, that Shepard obviously destroyed her thralls on his march towards the confrontation. As a logic reasoning life form, she is in a life of death situation. Her only defense is a plea to Shepard. Why are we to believe she isn't lying? How do we know she doesn't hold grudge, after all her entire species was pushed to extinction. It's not the war that could push her to be violent towards the galaxy, but being an unwilling test subject to experimentation is a very strong case. The whole reason Saren sent Benezia to Noveria was to oversee the project was to weaponize the Rachni through indoctrination. So to even claim they aren't dangerous is nonsensical and naive. Fact is the Rachni do pose a threat. We cannot accept the queen's word of peace, when Shepard literally defeated her thralls with ease; and now holds her life in the balance. Her only defense is a promise of peace. Yet there is no face value, she was just experimented on and kept prisoner to be turned into a weapon. That sounds like a big reason to hold a grudge on the Galaxy. My Opponent is also neglecting the history of the Rachni, the reason they didn't focus on expansion is because they didn't have the technology. Only once the Salarians stumbled on them did they capture the crew and learn how to rebuild their interstellar ship. So expansion is very well within their parameters. So they do pose a real threat. Conclusion My opponent wanted to dismiss my framework because it isn't applicable to the resolution. To reiterate: 1.) The ends justify the means. Killing the Rachni ensures that they will not pose a threat to the galaxy. done and over with. It is certain, within the scopes of the situation to know that killing the queen ensures no further instance. 2.) Shepard has to act on the interest of everyone. Humans are unfamiliar with the Rachni war. Shepard doesn't know what truly happened during the Rachni wars and how much was lost and sacrificed. He is no qualified to make a decision based on his feelings alone. Therefore the interest of the Galaxy takes precedence. The Galaxy determined that the Rachni needed to be pushed to extinction during the Rachni wars. They knew more of the Rachni then, and it was collective effort of the majority. So it is safe to assume, the galaxy doesn't want the Rachni around. 3.) The right choice, is the one which most people will be satisfied. Since we cannot know the future, satisfaction is left to a value of numbers. The entire Galaxy believes the Rachni extinct and are seemingly content with this resolution. If the Rachni live and sometime later rampage out of nowhere, that doesn't suit the galaxy's interest at all. Summary: The entire purpose of Commander Shepard is to stop a great destruction from hitting the galaxy. Saren had just unleashed a weapon on Eden Prime that could potentially destroy the citadel, and then take over the entire galaxy. Shepard fits into my framework better, because everything he does is for the Galaxy's best interest. Sparing the Rachni isn't in the galaxy's best interests because they already made a decision concerning the Rachni. Furthermore, just because it's all nice and "good" and morally just to save life; it's not a realistic argument in the situation provided. The Rachni could potentially be very dangerous. One species took on the entire galaxy. To rebirth this species only takes 1, check it, 1 queen. She could run off and hide out of sight. Lay thousands of thralls, and possibly another queen or two; then the galaxy will be faced with another catastrophic incident. Yes it is realistically, logically, and morally, to just let her die. The Galaxy already assumes the Rachni are extinct anyways, nothing will change should the queen die; while although any benefits that could be obtained are lost, it is also said that any negative effects are also lost. ___End___ So kinda funny, the voting is ultimately up to what the voters think is the best course of action just like in the game. Thank you to my opponent for this match, and ability to debate. I wish you didn't have to forfeit a previous round; and i look forward to more ME debates. I love this game. http://www.owl232.net...