Post by gothpunkboy89 on Apr 21, 2017 23:27:21 GMT
Free will has been brought up many times in relation to some aspect of the ending of the Mass Effect Trilogy. Usually as reason why an ending or at least some aspect of the ending was bad and in comparison why another ending or aspect of the ending was better over all. With the argument usually done using very simplistic reasons why free will and some aspect that might remove, reduce or allow full use of free will is bad or good depending on the person and what ending is currently being talked about.
Free will is an abstract concept that is never the same for everyone and manifests it self in so many different ways. For example the free will to pick who you will marry is a big thing for Humans but completely foreign concept to Salarians due to their social and political structure. Then you have rules and laws that come into play that can vary depending on location and species. For example the Treaty of Farixen limits the number of Dreadnoughts the races are allowed to build in a ratio of 5:3:1. A treaty that is required by all races that want to have dealings with the Council and open an Embassy on the Citadel. Which is a necessary move if any race want negotiate trade, territory, etc with the Council or any Citadel aligned races. So even if the Volus wanted to build a ton of Dreadnoughts to protect themselves do to their less then impressive physical capabilities. They are restricted by the treaty and by the agreement they have with the Turian Hierarchy. Then you have politics it self which is an entire other can of worms of a minority of people deciding how the majority will live, breath and act. All of which do not always line up with what everyone wants to happen. I'm fairly certain those people on Omega don't like that they have to pay the Blue Suns for protection but the option of not doing that is being attacked not only by Blue Suns but other gangs as well.
The game is full of complex examples of free will and it being side stepped due to situations or politics or necessity. I'm fairly certain the Krogan didn't one day realize that they were total butt holes and asked the Turians to deploy the Genophage and strip away their military, fracture their society into warring clans and all the other fun stuff Krogan have had to put up with since the end of the Krogan Rebellion. So I wonder were this over simplified logic of free will matters comes into play with regards to the ending. Usually showing up in the form of Synthesis is a bad ending because people didn't get to pick to be changed. Or Control ending with Shepard being in control of the entire Reaper army he can now impose it's will on the galaxy. Both of which are considered bad by people who don't like them. How ever when you bring up the potential the Destroy ending has of the cycle of violence restarting and synthetic life wiping out organic life. Because that was free will the destruction of billions of lives is OK. For the few Refuse ending people that Shepard not picking any of the choices for what ever their reasoning is best even though it is know that billions of lives exist on the line and will die if the choices are refused.
It is a wild hypocrisy in the logic displayed by some people with this topic from my perspective. The Catalyst is wiping out organic life every 50,000 years of it's own free will. So the logic that applies towards Destroy or Refuse we should be embracing it because it is their free will to choose to wipe out organic life. I mean if it is OK for organic life to set in motion the event that lead to all organic life being wiped out by Synthetic life then why can't Synthetic life come to the same conclusion and instigate it on their own? The Catalyst isn't a stupid VI or stuck in a loop with bad data. It came to the same free will conclusion that is cheered for by some and simply applied it into action.
This is were the issue comes into play for me when talking about the endings and free will. Because it starts to break down to individual players deciding what free will is acceptable. Applying their own will to over ride the will of another. Which is the exact opposite of free will when one chooses for another against their will. Because those people who kick start the Synthetic Life conflict post Destroy or Shepard in Refuse has imposed the same will on the rest of the galaxy as Synthesis or Control Shepard would. The same way the Turian/Salarian/Asari did to the Krogan during the Krogan Rebellion and the same way the various races did against the Quarians and the Quarians against the Geth and the Geth against the Quarians.
If you try to bring morals into support your argument it gets even more abstract and murky with the logic. Because the exact same moral argument for why the Reapers are bad and need to be destroyed can be applied that the Reapers are good and doing what is needed. To say what is the correct moral view to have is again enforcing your will on others. Which leads into the contradiction about free will being so important.
So I'm just wondering how people can come to these conclusions that are so glaringly contradictory to it's own logic.
Free will is an abstract concept that is never the same for everyone and manifests it self in so many different ways. For example the free will to pick who you will marry is a big thing for Humans but completely foreign concept to Salarians due to their social and political structure. Then you have rules and laws that come into play that can vary depending on location and species. For example the Treaty of Farixen limits the number of Dreadnoughts the races are allowed to build in a ratio of 5:3:1. A treaty that is required by all races that want to have dealings with the Council and open an Embassy on the Citadel. Which is a necessary move if any race want negotiate trade, territory, etc with the Council or any Citadel aligned races. So even if the Volus wanted to build a ton of Dreadnoughts to protect themselves do to their less then impressive physical capabilities. They are restricted by the treaty and by the agreement they have with the Turian Hierarchy. Then you have politics it self which is an entire other can of worms of a minority of people deciding how the majority will live, breath and act. All of which do not always line up with what everyone wants to happen. I'm fairly certain those people on Omega don't like that they have to pay the Blue Suns for protection but the option of not doing that is being attacked not only by Blue Suns but other gangs as well.
The game is full of complex examples of free will and it being side stepped due to situations or politics or necessity. I'm fairly certain the Krogan didn't one day realize that they were total butt holes and asked the Turians to deploy the Genophage and strip away their military, fracture their society into warring clans and all the other fun stuff Krogan have had to put up with since the end of the Krogan Rebellion. So I wonder were this over simplified logic of free will matters comes into play with regards to the ending. Usually showing up in the form of Synthesis is a bad ending because people didn't get to pick to be changed. Or Control ending with Shepard being in control of the entire Reaper army he can now impose it's will on the galaxy. Both of which are considered bad by people who don't like them. How ever when you bring up the potential the Destroy ending has of the cycle of violence restarting and synthetic life wiping out organic life. Because that was free will the destruction of billions of lives is OK. For the few Refuse ending people that Shepard not picking any of the choices for what ever their reasoning is best even though it is know that billions of lives exist on the line and will die if the choices are refused.
It is a wild hypocrisy in the logic displayed by some people with this topic from my perspective. The Catalyst is wiping out organic life every 50,000 years of it's own free will. So the logic that applies towards Destroy or Refuse we should be embracing it because it is their free will to choose to wipe out organic life. I mean if it is OK for organic life to set in motion the event that lead to all organic life being wiped out by Synthetic life then why can't Synthetic life come to the same conclusion and instigate it on their own? The Catalyst isn't a stupid VI or stuck in a loop with bad data. It came to the same free will conclusion that is cheered for by some and simply applied it into action.
This is were the issue comes into play for me when talking about the endings and free will. Because it starts to break down to individual players deciding what free will is acceptable. Applying their own will to over ride the will of another. Which is the exact opposite of free will when one chooses for another against their will. Because those people who kick start the Synthetic Life conflict post Destroy or Shepard in Refuse has imposed the same will on the rest of the galaxy as Synthesis or Control Shepard would. The same way the Turian/Salarian/Asari did to the Krogan during the Krogan Rebellion and the same way the various races did against the Quarians and the Quarians against the Geth and the Geth against the Quarians.
If you try to bring morals into support your argument it gets even more abstract and murky with the logic. Because the exact same moral argument for why the Reapers are bad and need to be destroyed can be applied that the Reapers are good and doing what is needed. To say what is the correct moral view to have is again enforcing your will on others. Which leads into the contradiction about free will being so important.
So I'm just wondering how people can come to these conclusions that are so glaringly contradictory to it's own logic.
