Is the master overrated as a moraly ambigious villain?

[Sorrow]

But then again, is that any better than what the Regulators were doing? Decker? The Raiders?

Killian Darkwater?

 

[bonanza]

It's got to start somewhere pal...

Sorry but this is silly. Folks, don't worry. The bright peacefully future will begin very soon. We just have to finish a bit of killing and torture here.
Reminds me of the French of Revolution. You can not found a more peacefull and just society on murder and bloodbath.

This is why "the end justify the means" will always have the same consequences. If you start violating basic principles for reaching your goals once, you will do it again and again and again.

Imagine the Master fullfiled his plans. The new intelligent mutants were to be equals to the master, not his servants. What would have happened if some of them suddenly had some kind of conflict with him over different ideas.
Seeing how the Master treats opposition in the game, what makes you think he would have threated opposition from other supermutants differently? Where is the guarantee that the future would have been peaceful? Again, seeing how the master behaves towards anyone oppsing him, this is more than doubtful.

But then again, is that any better than what the Regulators were doing? Decker? The Raiders? The thing that separates the Unity from these people is that the mutants aim to rebuild society, whereas the other groups mentioned only wish to make money and to rule over everyone else.

You fail to mention all the simple people who just want to live their lives and survive.

Also, the game provides quite a number of examples where people in charge are very positive figures. You fail to mention them.

What about Shady Sands? What about Killian Darkwater? Seems like a nice enough chap for me, although he was a bit more ambigious in the ending the devs originaly planed for junktown. What about the Brotherhood? Not the shiny knights of the wasteland as Beth stupidly tries to depict them in FO 3, but cetainly not evil.
You do as if everyone in the Fallout world was evil, or at least those in charge. But the world is filled with examples of good honest people, trying to survive by hard work and not interested in the masters plan and his dellusions of grandieur.

 

[Sorrow]

Heh, I think that Gizmo was a perfect ambiguous villain too - he had a vision - turning the dying town into a prospering entertainment centre - he would bring both safety and prosperity to Junktown, while Killian would bring only stagnation and decay.

 

[Snowguy]

Reminds me of the French of Revolution. You can not found a more peacefull and just society on murder and bloodbath.

The US? USSR? Dozens of other countries?

This is why "the end justify the means" will always have the same consequences. If you start violating basic principles for reaching your goals once, you will do it again and again and again.

I'm not sure exactly how to counter this, but remember that sometimes it's better to take a chance and act instead of sitting aside. The Master was taking a chance, hoping to change the world for the better, and to advance mankind as a species. He was trying to make up for a mistake that his predecessors made.

What would have happened if some of them suddenly had some kind of conflict with him over different ideas. Seeing how the Master treats opposition in the game, what makes you think he would have threated opposition from other supermutants differently?

The main objective of the Master was to avoid violent conflict. So I doubt he'd try to escalate an argument into something more. And when you're talking about opposition, are you talking about the general actions of the mutants around California, or his discussions with the Vault Dweller bellow the Cathedral? If A., read on. If B., remember that the VD was an intruder.

Where is the guarantee that the future would have been peaceful? Again, seeing how the master behaves towards anyone oppsing him, this is more than doubtful.

You forget that in the face of being incorrect, the Master is willing to admit he was wrong, granted someone has a reasonable argument.

You fail to mention all the simple people who just want to live their lives and survive.

What about them? If they did not oppose the Unity, they wouldn't be harmed, according to the Master.

Also, the game provides quite a number of examples where people in charge are very positive figures. You fail to mention them.

What about Shady Sands? What about Killian Darkwater? Seems like a nice enough chap for me, although he was a bit more ambigious in the ending the devs originaly planed for junktown. What about the Brotherhood?
You do as if everyone in the Fallout world was evil, or at least those in charge. But the world is filled with examples of good honest people, trying to survive by hard work and not interested in the masters plan and his dellusions of grandieur.

You were comparing him to bad people, so I compared him to other bad people. In the case that you wanted me to compare his flaws with some of the more "positive" characters in the story, than so be it.

Shady Sands: They're cool. Definitely saintly compared to the Master. Just eking out a living and such. A prime example of how good humans can be. They wanted to survive. (Like the Master.)

Killian: Fairly nice, if uptight. His only sin was fragging Gizmo without actually trying to throw him out of town like he said he would. The Master wanted peace and justice, just like Killian, only on a much larger scale.

BOS: Not really bad people, just neutral. Course, their sales of guns to their neighbors doesn't exactly further peace... Guess the only thing that the Master has in common with them is that his COC people also give out what the masses of the wastes want; in this case, healthcare.

Followers: Probably the most actively good group in the story. They try to expose a group that they see as malevolent when others would just ignore it. The Master wanted peace like they did, but in the formers case, they chose not to kill for it.


Also, you note the acts of violence and cruelty committed by mutants... Had you ever considered that it was not the Master who ordered it? It's his asshole Lieutenant with all that entitlement crap that orders the mutants around. Most mutants hadn't even met the Master. But every single one answers to Lou. And he isn't good people.

 

[Kyuu]

Also, you note the acts of violence and cruelty committed by mutants... Had you ever considered that it was not the Master who ordered it? It's his asshole Lieutenant with all that entitlement crap that orders the mutants around. Most mutants hadn't even met the Master. But every single one answers to Lou. And he isn't good people.

That pretty much epitomizes the reason why the Master's plan was fatally flawed (asides from the sterility thing, of course). Getting dipped in the Vats just makes for bigger, stronger, and sometimes stupider people. Doesn't make them better people in any other sense, so it doesn't really follow that if the Master's plan had succeeded, humanity would have been better off. Sure, supermuties are stronger and better able to endure extreme environmental conditions, as well as resistant to disease, but in the end, humanity's worst enemy has always been itself. Just would've ended up with supermutants fighting supermutants, and nothing would've really changed. Except that humanity would be very much uglier. I wouldn't want to get with any of those mutant girls.

 

[bonanza]

No they don't. The idea that every individual being has - with exceptions but still to a major extent- the right to decide by himself whats good for him (unless of course he would be violating the rights of others by his action) and the principle that ends don't justify the means are a basis of democracy, the idea of human dignity etc.

Whereas this other "philosophy" has been used by all kinds of dicators and totalitarian states.

And again, missing the point. Also, don't pretend 'the ends justify the means' hasn't been used by democracies, because they have. It is, in fact, the core of any government.

If you can't see that 'the ends justify the means' is a valid philosophical standpoint, you're a retard and there is no point in further arguing with you. People for hundreds of years have not been able to decide whether or not it is 'good' to sacrifice individuals for the greater good, yet you pretend to decide that no matter what, it's evil? Give me a fucking break.

Quick to jump to insults Sander, as always.
You problem is that you describe the question "does the end justify the means" as a question which is valid of discussion per se. What you fail to realize is that it very much depends on the question "what kind of ends should justify what kind of means?"

Anyways, if you think that "the end justify the means" is the core of a democracy, you're a retard.

Of course, even in democracies there are many cases where we use the rule "the end justify the means": However, these cases are often highly ambigious and heavily discussed.

Is a policeman allowed to safe hostages by killing the hostage-taker? Is it morally correct to shot down a passanger plane hijacked by terrorist who want to fly it into a stadium and save thousands of more lives this way?

These are examples of moraly ambigious cases of "the end justify the means" valid to be discussed.
In the former example the answer is pretty much "yes, you can kill the criminal to safe the hostage", in the later example the answer is already more difficult.

Do you really think that "may I torture and kill innocent people, turn some of them into disfigured monsters against their will, commit genocide on the rest of them based on an personal assumption of mine that these new people I create will be somehow better than what is existing now" is a valid philosphical question worthy to discuss? That this could be justified as good from any point of view?

If your asnwer is yes, then - to do your style of discussing justice- you're a retard who doesn't know jack shit about philisophical issues and is just pulling stuff out of his butt.

And don't you come with the "but the world is fucked up and the master is the only salvation " argument again - as I wrote in a paragraph I wrote you chose completly to ignore, the world is not presented as being at the brink of destruction. A fucked up desolate place? Yes. But there are no indicators implieng humanity will die out soon or won't be able to develop.

In fact, the only thing presented in the game as a major thread to human survival are the mutants, who are about to kill everything in their way. (dont they invade the human settlements in the unpatched version and kill the people there after some time?)

 

[bonanza]

Never heard of utilitarianism? Because those are exactly the kinds of questions that philosophy revolves.

You do realize utalitarism is a umbrella word covering many philosophical systems, sometimes only losely connected with each other?
In fact, there are two contrary 'schools' of utilitarism, one claiming that the right action is an action in accordance to moral rules not matter what results of it, while the other one claims that the best action is that which would generate the most happiness for the greatest number of people (so what you are propably refering to)

And you are again strawmanning because what you claim there is *not* what the Master is about nor is it what I claimed to defend.

The Master's plan revolves around mutating humans to better beings. And he needs to do that forcibly, since humans indeed do not want to be mutated. The fact that all you can say to that is 'But I don't want to be mutated' shows that you are not capable of thinking beyond the individual and considering that this will benefit the world and every *future* human immensely. That's his *motive*. The fact that his plan is flawed does nothing to change that.

What makes him morally ambiguous is that he does not do any of this for power, or destruction or any of the classical 'evil' motives. He does this to better the lives of everyone; to create beings that are much better at surviving and thriving in this world, and beings that will not go on to destroy it again.

I'm already a bit tired of the cliched hitler comparisons, but I will repeat it until you guys get it in your head. Just because you're not doing something for the sake of power, doesn't mean you're good.
When Hitler planed to wipe out the subhumans and make them servants to the masterrace (ironicly an expression the master uses himself, implying clear negative and evil connotations)
he was propably convinced aswell that he was doing it for the greater good of everyone. That he is saving the world from the jewish-bolshewick conspiracy trying to destroy the west.

In fact, Hitler often claimed how he hated the weimar republic party system, ebcause the parties wanted power for powers sake and not to better the state for its people.

Doesn't make him moraly ambigious even one inch. An insane misguided fool at best.

You are claiming that the ends are simply unnecessary, but while this is somewhat debatable, this irrelevant to the Master's motives since his motives must be understood in the context of how *he* sees the world.

How a person sees the world is pretty irrelevant to judge his actions. Again - sigh- Hitler may have entirely believed in what he was doing was good because that was his worldview. Doesn't make anything of what he did or his aims he reached for good.

Similarly, you claim that the ends consist of torturing, killing and mutating people but this is again false. The means consist of mutating people into (intelligent) Super Mutants. The killing is only necessary to stop resistance to his plan. In fact, although I may be misremembering this, I believe that he mentions simply stopping people from procreating once he has conquered the wasteland, instead of killing everyone.

I typo on your side? I claim that the means, not the ends, are torturing, killing and mutating people. And this is true. Stop switching words around. If killing is "only necessary to stop resistance" to a plan which will surely like hell spawn resistance, this is pretty much the defiintion of "means".
And youre entirely right about the remaining humans. He didnt want to kill them directly, but to stop them from procreating (again using force if someone didnt obey) and let them die out this way.
In any real life context this is exactly what would be described as a planed genocide on people, and it is nothing else in the context of a game story, no matter how much you want to twist and turn it around.


Your whole problem boils down to one thing you don't seem to understand or have thought about:
Morality is system created by people for the people. It is based on a general concensus of the majority - what is good or bad is decided by what the majority things of it. If somehow, from tommorow on 90 % of the worlds population would think that theft is something entirely justifiable, we would stop seeing it as evil. In fact it would stop being evil.

What you're trying to do is to invalidate the general idea of morality shared by millions of people and most cultural systems existing on the planet by the existance of a not very popular and heavily critised school of thought, which says that even the most evil action is good if it brings greater good for a majority of people.
If you

You go even further. You say: This good doesn't have to be something the majority of existing people would agree upon as being good.
It is enough if one authistic, insane individual ridden by dellusions of grandieur percieves this goals as being good in his own little world (Quote: You are claiming that the ends are simply unnecessary, but while this is somewhat debatable, this irrelevant to the Master's motives since his motives must be understood in the context of how *he* sees the world.)

Youre saying that the idea of good and evil shared by a majority of people and cultures are "only one point of view" because there exists a school of thought called act utiltiarism.

Youre basicly impleing that against all our moral principles, we should see Hitler (and I hate to prove Godwyns law again but fuck it) as a good or at least morally ambigious person because for all we know, he could have really believed that the result of his actions would be a better world for future generations.

Utalitarism: the idea that bad actions may be done to reach more happiness, or even more extreme the idea that only your motivations are important, regardless of the means _and_ the outcome may be interesting philosophical thoughts.
To some extent, they maybe even shared by many people.
(Many people will agree that "murdering" the passengers of a highjacked plane to safe thousand of other lives is a justified hting to do)

However, a majority of people will stop agreeing with those schools of thought as soon as the ends become so doubtful and debatable, and the means so horrible (torture, wicked experiments, killing of innocent, genocide- all things the master already did or planed to do in order to fulfil his plan) like in the case of Hitler or the Master.

Our common moral system, based on what is anchored in a majority of cultures, traditions and normative systems around the world, considers such people evil or insane. And your utilitarism won't change that.

You did "go all relativiston me" in your first post. Well, I'll go even more relativist on you. There is no arbitrary metaphysic idea of good. What is good and bad is decided by the people.
Until you can prove me that a significant number of people would consider killing hundreds, experementing with people against their will, commiting indirect genocide on a huge number of people for reaching a highly uncertain and debatable goal a good thing, just because the person behind it was driven by "good" motives I will have to reject your arguments.
Most people would call such a person insane or evil.

And that's what the master is. He is a insane or evil madman who has a nice philosophical background for his actions. That makes him a bit more deeper that your typical "lol I want to destroy the world" villain (although it makes him hardly unique), but it doesn't make him moraly ambigious.

The master is ready and willing to kill and harm innocents in masses to fulfill his plans. He is willing to make experiments with hundreds of people (at least I guess the size of his mutant army which is in its majority consists of stupid muties will be near those numbers) resulting in a severe and irrebarable mental damage to them (read, turning them into INT 3 hulks). Although we do not know if hes activly ancouriging it, but we know that he is accepting the extermination of a whole city full of disfigured, but sentinent once human beings (Necropolis) by his armies.
We know he plans a (indirect if you will) mass genocide on a large amount of people who won't be turned into mutants.
The bad vault raiding ending implies that he is, again maybe not activly encouriging but accepting, the deaths of at least dozens of of vault cizitens by the hands of his mutants. (Which seems somewhat illogical since he could need every unradiated human he could get - at this point we can think about how much sense it makes to argue about the motivations of a somewhat incosinstently written character).

Plus his goal is highly debatable, since noone really knows if his supermutants will really be a peacefull more advanced society.

But hey, if regarding all those aspects you and others think that the only flaw in the masters plan is the sterility of his mutants - thats cool. However, then you'll have to accept that your idea of morality is way off the morality rooted in history, tradition, normative systems and the majority of people.

Thats fine, but don't force others to accept your twisted view of good/bad and moral ambigiousness.

 

[Sorrow]

But hey, if regarding all those aspects you and others think that the only flaw in the masters plan is the sterility of his mutants - thats cool. However, then you'll have to accept that your idea of morality is way off the morality rooted in history, tradition, normative systems and the majority of people.

Morality created by majority of human race? By cattle, by worms?
Then, morality is truly worthless.

he was propably convinced aswell that he was doing it for the greater good of everyone. That he is saving the world from the jewish-bolshewick conspiracy trying to destroy the west.

So?
Communists were trying to destroy the West.
Also, according to your morality talk, actions of Adolf Hitler were morally good, because the majority of Germans were perceiving them as good.

I think that humanity is a mistake. We, the Decepticons will correct that mistake.

 

[Sander]

I'm already a bit tired of the cliched hitler comparisons, but I will repeat it until you guys get it in your head. Just because you're not doing something for the sake of power, doesn't mean you're good.
When Hitler planed to wipe out the subhumans and make them servants to the masterrace (ironicly an expression the master uses himself, implying clear negative and evil connotations)
he was propably convinced aswell that he was doing it for the greater good of everyone. That he is saving the world from the jewish-bolshewick conspiracy trying to destroy the west.

In fact, Hitler often claimed how he hated the weimar republic party system, ebcause the parties wanted power for powers sake and not to better the state for its people.

Doesn't make him moraly ambigious even one inch. An insane misguided fool at best.

Actually, it does make him morally ambiguous. Yes, you heard me right, if Hitler's actual motives were to create a better world for everryone, he is a morally ambiguous character. 'OMG Hitler is like the most evil man evar'.
Of course, if Hitler's actual motives were 'a better world for everyone', I must be living in a completely different world. Hitler's goals were, at best, a better world for every Aryan. At best. At worst, his goals were 'give me ze power' or 'kill all the jews'.

I typo on your side? I claim that the means, not the ends, are torturing, killing and mutating people. And this is true. Stop switching words around. If killing is "only necessary to stop resistance" to a plan which will surely like hell spawn resistance, this is pretty much the defiintion of "means".

Yes, I meant means. Typo.

And youre entirely right about the remaining humans. He didnt want to kill them directly, but to stop them from procreating (again using force if someone didnt obey) and let them die out this way.
In any real life context this is exactly what would be described as a planed genocide on people, and it is nothing else in the context of a game story, no matter how much you want to twist and turn it around.

Hah, again, means to an end. And if I may say so, stopping procreation is hardly on a same level as actual genocide.

Your whole problem boils down to one thing you don't seem to understand or have thought about:
Morality is system created by people for the people. It is based on a general concensus of the majority - what is good or bad is decided by what the majority things of it.

I know a dozen philosophical systems that disagree with you right there. Stop claiming absolute truth when you don't have it.

If somehow, from tommorow on 90 % of the worlds population would think that theft is something entirely justifiable, we would stop seeing it as evil. In fact it would stop being evil.

What you're trying to do is to invalidate the general idea of morality shared by millions of people and most cultural systems existing on the planet by the existance of a not very popular and heavily critised school of thought, which says that even the most evil action is good if it brings greater good for a majority of people.

No, I'm invalidating moral relativism, which is what you are advocating.
And, in fact, I am *not* invalidating it, I am noting that other philosophical systems that assume an absolute morality are valid philosophical alternatives as well. Something that you still refuse to see because the majority must be right!

You go even further. You say: This good doesn't have to be something the majority of existing people would agree upon as being good.
It is enough if one authistic, insane individual ridden by dellusions of grandieur percieves this goals as being good in his own little world

No, I am not claiming that that automatically makes his *actions* good or beneficial. I am claiming that that makes that person's motives good *and it does*. Look up the definition of 'motive', please.

Youre saying that the idea of good and evil shared by a majority of people and cultures are "only one point of view" because there exists a school of thought called act utiltiarism.

Youre basicly impleing that against all our moral principles, we should see Hitler (and I hate to prove Godwyns law again but fuck it) as a good or at least morally ambigious person because for all we know, he could have really believed that the result of his actions would be a better world for future generations.

Utalitarism: the idea that bad actions may be done to reach more happiness, or even more extreme the idea that only your motivations are important, regardless of the means _and_ the outcome may be interesting philosophical thoughts.
To some extent, they maybe even shared by many people.
(Many people will agree that "murdering" the passengers of a highjacked plane to safe thousand of other lives is a justified hting to do)

However, a majority of people will stop agreeing with those schools of thought as soon as the ends become so doubtful and debatable, and the means so horrible (torture, wicked experiments, killing of innocent, genocide- all things the master already did or planed to do in order to fulfil his plan) like in the case of Hitler or the Master.

Our common moral system, based on what is anchored in a majority of cultures, traditions and normative systems around the world, considers such people evil or insane. And your utilitarism won't change that.

You did "go all relativiston me" in your first post. Well, I'll go even more relativist on you. There is no arbitrary metaphysic idea of good.

Go go invalidating thousands of years of philosophical advances.

 

[Kyuu]

And if I may say so, stopping procreation is hardly on a same level as actual genocide.

From my point of view, it's possibly worse. At least with genocide, you're just outright killing them.

How miserable would the existence of all those people be, knowing they're the last humans, that their genes, their ways of life, everything they've worked their whole lives for, is going to die with them, having no progeny to pass the torch to. A world without children is a hopeless one. Seems like the most excruciating form of torture imaginable.

I doubt many, if any, would consider the supermutants to be continuing humanity. I know I wouldn't.

Most would either commit suicide or band together to at least try and overthrow the Master, I think. In the end, even if every single human gave in and let themselves die out, it's still a form of genocide, really.

 

[Sander]

From my point of view, it's possibly worse. At least with genocide, you're just outright killing them.

I'd rather be alive and not have children than be dead.

How miserable would the existence of all those people be, knowing they're the last humans, that their genes, their ways of life, everything they've worked their whole lives for, is going to die with them, having no progeny to pass the torch to. A world without children is a hopeless one. Seems like the most excruciating form of torture imaginable.

Which is more or less the Master's point.

I doubt many, if any, would consider the supermutants to be continuing humanity. I know I wouldn't.

Most would either commit suicide or band together to at least try and overthrow the Master, I think. In the end, even if every single human gave in and let themselves die out, it's still a form of genocide, really.

It's a form of delayed, indirect 'genocide', yes.

 

[bonanza]

Actually, it does make him morally ambiguous. Yes, you heard me right, if Hitler's actual motives were to create a better world for everryone, he is a morally ambiguous character. 'OMG Hitler is like the most evil man evar'.
Of course, if Hitler's actual motives were 'a better world for everyone', I must be living in a completely different world. Hitler's goals were, at best, a better world for every Aryan. At best. At worst, his goals were 'give me ze power' or 'kill all the jews'.

The Master isn't looking for a better future for everyone. In fact, he is planing a better future for a small minority of unradiated people who can be turned into intelligent mutants. He doesn't care about the rest of humanity, he even wants to commit genocide on them. (it is genocide, theres no debate about it period)

Sounds exactly the same like creating a better world for aryans while gazing ze jews and turning the slavic untermenschen into illiterate slave people and decimiate them (one idea to do this was...guess what? forbid them to procreate)
Thanks for proving my point Sander.

The Master is even using the same vocabulary "The Unitiy will bring above the Masterrace".
Dude, how many parrarels do you need?

The rest: Later, im sitting on the train and my battery is runnin low.

EDIT: Real quick:

From my point of view, it's possibly worse. At least with genocide, you're just outright killing them.

I'd rather be alive and not have children than be dead.

How generous of the master. Id rather have children and be alive aswell.

How miserable would the existence of all those people be, knowing they're the last humans, that their genes, their ways of life, everything they've worked their whole lives for, is going to die with them, having no progeny to pass the torch to. A world without children is a hopeless one. Seems like the most excruciating form of torture imaginable.

Which is more or less the Master's point.

Give me a fucking break. Its the masters point? You mean he realy wants to help these people, who are in a hopeless situation, by...taking away the last minimum of hope? Thats even twisted for your standarts.

I doubt many, if any, would consider the supermutants to be continuing humanity. I know I wouldn't.

Most would either commit suicide or band together to at least try and overthrow the Master, I think. In the end, even if every single human gave in and let themselves die out, it's still a form of genocide, really.

It's a form of delayed, indirect 'genocide', yes.

Indeed it is. Without the ' '

 

[Sander]

The Master isn't looking for a better future for everyone. In fact, he is planing a better future for a small minority of unradiated people who can be turned into intelligent mutants. He doesn't care about the rest of humanity, he even wants to commit genocide on them. (it is genocide, theres no debate about it period)

He does care about the rest of humanity, and also wants to evolve that rest of humanity. You're misrepresenting the Master's goals here, as he *is* planning a better future for everyone. He needs to evolve everyone for that, as he sees it, but that *is* his goal.

Sounds exactly the same like creating a better world for aryans while gazing ze jews and turning the slavic untermenschen into illiterate slave people and decimiate them (one idea to do this was...guess what? forbid them to procreate)
Thanks for proving my point Sander.

The Master is even using the same vocabulary "The Unitiy will bring above the Masterrace".
Dude, how many parrarels do you need?

Ooh, nice, now you're even equating the Master with Hitler. Good job, sir!

The Master isn't trying to rid the world of a group of people, he's trying to evolve that group of people. There's a very big difference.

How generous of the master. Id rather have children and be alive aswell.

Nice derail, sir.

Give me a fucking break. Its the masters point? You mean he realy wants to help these people, who are in a hopeless situation, by...taking away the last minimum of hope? Thats even twisted for your standarts.

Nice dig at me, sir.
He's not doing it torture people, nor to end a culture, nor to take away people's hope. In fact, he's not taking away people's hopes: he's offering them a better (in his eyes) hope.
He's doing it to evolve a culture. That's it.

Pst: Means to an end, again.

 

[bonanza]

He does care about the rest of humanity, and also wants to evolve that rest of humanity. You're misrepresenting the Master's goals here, as he *is* planning a better future for everyone. He needs to evolve everyone for that, as he sees it, but that *is* his goal.

What? He isn't planing a better future for everyone. How he is he planing a better future for those people he wants to rid of every hope and commit indirect genocide on because *unfortunatly* they are not fit for being mutated?!

Ooh, nice, now you're even equating the Master with Hitler. Good job, sir!

The Master isn't trying to rid the world of a group of people, he's trying to evolve that group of people. There's a very big difference.

Why are you deliberitly liying about the FO story? Of course he wants to get rid of one group of people.
How are his plans presented in Fallout 1:

[]Create a new evolved race out of those who are fit for mutation, allow the rest to life their remaining days out, but forbid them procreation and this way take all hope away from them and wipe out an entire race of sentient beings

[]Create a new evolved race with those fit for mutation and live in peace with those who are remaining normal humans. Either by leaving them just in peace and searching your own spot in the wasteland to build your perfect society or by even cooperating with them and helping them

Please mark the appropriate. Shouldn't be to hard.
The master's plan involves to commit genocide on those who cant be mutated succesfuly. Considering that the number of those who can be mutated (prime humans) is a crass minority, the master isn't doing "what would bring the most happiness to the greatest number of people". (->whether or not the master would like to mutate all humans if it was possible is irrelevant. As soon as he found out that the FEV is unusable for the majority of the worlds population, he should have given up his plans if his motivation was really to "bring the most happiness to the greatest number of people")

Nice dig at me, sir.

Someone who is calling people retards in discussions shouldn't go all pussy about a small ironic side comment.

He's not doing it torture people, nor to end a culture, nor to take away people's hope. In fact, he's not taking away people's hopes: he's offering them a better (in his eyes) hope.
He's doing it to evolve a culture. That's it.

Why do you lie?
Hes not doing it to evolve a culture. He is doing it for creating a new culture, and get rid of everyone who doesn't have the phyisical condition to be made part of that culture.

How is he not taking away people's hopes? What is he offering the remaining radiated people? In fact, how is he of offering to the the prime humans who will be succesfuly mutated a better future? Considering the fact tham most prime humans will be drawn from the safe vaults, he isnt doing them any service. After all, life in the Vault is considerably better then life in the wasteland.


"in his eyes" Yes because hes insane. But anyways, you want philosophy? Here you have it.

Your attempt to prove that the master is somehow devoted to the principles of utilitarism has utterly failed. His initial plan may be to do what is best to the greatest number of people, but when he realizes that only a small fracture of people will *profit* from his plans, he doesnt stop his actions. No, he even activly tries to make life miserable for the great majority non-prime humans.

Both his actions and the ends are not justified from a utalitarian point of view.

Your emphasis on the ' good motive' has little to do with utilitarism. It is more reminding of the Kant'ish moral system, where an action is valued by its motivation. If you're motivation is good, no matter what the end result is, you did good.

However, Kant wouldn't be Kant if he didn't add an important limit to this: Your "good motivtion" is only valid as long as you do your very best, everything in your power, to ensure that your good motivated action will have no negative effects. Only then are you excused if your action results in something bad.

The Master didn't do any of this. In fact, he is activly encouragin all kinds of horrible consequences to his "good motivated" plans. If we follow Kants system, this does make him evil or insane at best. Not good, not morally ambigious.

 

[Sander]

What? He isn't planing a better future for everyone. How he is he planing a better future for those people he wants to rid of every hope and commit indirect genocide on because *unfortunatly* they are not fit for being mutated?!

He wants to mutate everyone, maybe you should re-read some stuff.

Why are you deliberitly liying about the FO story? Of course he wants to get rid of one group of people.
How are his plans presented in Fallout 1:

[]Create a new evolved race out of those who are fit for mutation, allow the rest to life their remaining days out, but forbid them procreation and this way take all hope away from them and wipe out an entire race of sentient beings

[]Create a new evolved race with those fit for mutation and live in peace with those who are remaining normal humans. Either by leaving them just in peace and searching your own spot in the wasteland to build your perfect society or by even cooperating with them and helping them

Please mark the appropriate. Shouldn't be to hard.

Nice false dichotomy.
Again, he wants to mutate everyone, not just the non-irradiated people. Extinction of the human race as is is an integral part of his plans.

The master's plan involves to commit genocide on those who cant be mutated succesfuly.

No. It involves disallowing procreation of non-mutated humans. That's it.

Considering that the number of those who can be mutated (prime humans) is a crass minority, the master isn't doing "what would bring the most happiness to the greatest number of people". (->whether or not the master would like to mutate all humans if it was possible is irrelevant. As soon as he found out that the FEV is unusable for the majority of the worlds population, he should have given up his plans if his motivation was really to "bring the most happiness to the greatest number of people")

FEV is usable on almost everyone. Most just come out dumber, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing for the Master's plans.

Someone who is calling people retards in discussions shouldn't go all pussy about a small ironic side comment.

I didn't realise I was pussying out.

Why do you lie?

I'm sorry, what? I do not lie, asshole.

Hes not doing it to evolve a culture. He is doing it for creating a new culture, and get rid of everyone who doesn't have the phyisical condition to be made part of that culture.

No, he aims to evolve everyone, and allow everyone to live out their lives without procreation.

How is he not taking away people's hopes? What is he offering the remaining radiated people? In fact, how is he of offering to the the prime humans who will be succesfuly mutated a better future? Considering the fact tham most prime humans will be drawn from the safe vaults, he isnt doing them any service. After all, life in the Vault is considerably better then life in the wasteland.

Yes, not the point. He's not doing this for individual happiness, but actual survival of the human race. The human race goes extinct if they don't adapt, or they'll destroy the world again (in his eyes). His aim is to evolve everyone into Super Mutants, so that everyone is equal, ending strife and the fear of another destruction of the planet.

"in his eyes" Yes because hes insane. But anyways, you want philosophy? Here you have it.

Your attempt to prove that the master is somehow devoted to the principles of utilitarism has utterly failed. His initial plan may be to do what is best to the greatest number of people, but when he realizes that only a small fracture of people will *profit* from his plans, he doesnt stop his actions. No, he even activly tries to make life miserable for the great majority non-prime humans.

Both his actions and the ends are not justified from a utalitarian point of view.

Wrong. From his perspective, both are justified from a utilitarian point of view since 'greatest happiness for the greatest number of people' has *two* qualifiers, not just the amount of people but also the quality of happiness per person.

Your emphasis on the ' good motive' has little to do with utilitarism.

The *Master's* philosophy is a utilitarian one. My evaluation of his *motives* as either good or bad evaluate his *goals* in the context of that *utilitarian* philosophy.

The Master didn't do any of this. In fact, he is activly encouragin all kinds of horrible consequences to his "good motivated" plans.

No he isn't. Seriously, as soon as he realises his plan is flawed *he destroys the entire plan*. How the fuck is this encouraging 'horrible consequences'?

 

[Kyuu]

I'd rather be alive and not have children than be dead.

To each his own.

Which is more or less the Master's point.

Wait, I'm confused here... what is the Master's point? I'm pretty certain you don't mean that torturing humanity with utter despair is the Master's point, as it would seem from the context.

 

[Sander]

Wait, I'm confused here... what is the Master's point? I'm pretty certain you don't mean that torturing humanity with utter despair is the Master's point, as it would seem from the context.

No, his point is to end the human race as is.
To evolve it to a species that can better handle the Wasteland and to create a superior race with no need for strife.

 

[bonanza]

He wants to mutate everyone, maybe you should re-read some stuff.

Even if he wants, it is only a small fracture of people who will *really* profit from that. The vast majority will be turned into dumb mutants who do not profit from it in any way.

Again, he wants to mutate everyone, not just the non-irradiated people. Extinction of the human race as is is an integral part of his plans.

It doesn't really matter if he wants to mutant everyone or just exterminate the radiated humans.
The outcome for the radiated is about the same: Either be turned into a dumb mutant or life a hopeless life knowing youre the last of your race - both cases are very negative scenarios for the majority of people.

The master's plan involves to commit genocide on those who cant be mutated succesfuly.

No. It involves disallowing procreation of non-mutated humans. That's it.

It's a form of delayed, indirect 'genocide', yes.

lol.

FEV is usable on almost everyone. Most just come out dumber, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing for the Master's plans.

But its a bad thing for the majority of people who won't profite from it (As I already wrote, either as dumb mutants or hopless and doomed last remainders of their species...doesnt really make a difference)

That's a direct contradiction to the principles of utilitarism.

His aim is to evolve everyone into Super Mutants, so that everyone is equal, ending strife and the fear of another destruction of the planet.

How will the dumb mutants be equal to the superintelligent ones? That's a contradiction in itself.

Wrong. From his perspective, both are justified from a utilitarian point of view since 'greatest happiness for the greatest number of people' has *two* qualifiers, not just the amount of people but also the quality of happiness per person.

Of course, if Hitler's actual motives were 'a better world for everyone', I must be living in a completely different world. Hitler's goals were, at best, a better world for every Aryan.

Lol, I thought "greatest happiness for the greatest number of people" has *two* qualifiers?

No he isn't. Seriously, as soon as he realises his plan is flawed *he destroys the entire plan*. How the fuck is this encouraging 'horrible consequences'?

Don't play dumb.
I'm not gonna type it out for you again.

The master is ready and willing to kill and harm innocents in masses to fulfill his plans. He is willing to make experiments with hundreds of people (at least I guess the size of his mutant army which is in its majority consists of stupid muties will be near those numbers) resulting in a severe and irrebarable mental damage to them (read, turning them into INT 3 hulks). Although we do not know if hes activly ancouriging it, but we know that he is accepting the extermination of a whole city full of disfigured, but sentinent once human beings (Necropolis) by his armies.
We know he plans a (indirect if you will) mass genocide on a large amount of people who won't be turned into mutants.
The bad vault raiding ending implies that he is, again maybe not activly encouriging but accepting, the deaths of at least dozens of of vault cizitens by the hands of his mutants. (Which seems somewhat illogical since he could need every unradiated human he could get - at this point we can think about how much sense it makes to argue about the motivations of a somewhat incosinstently written character).

The *Master's* philosophy is a utilitarian one. My evaluation of his *motives* as either good or bad evaluate his *goals* in the context of that *utilitarian* philosophy.

And here we come to the core of everything. So - in his insane mind - the Master has a utalitarian motivation.
To get on the same page: His *actions* and their results are not utalitarian.

So the only thing remaining is his motivation.
And here's news for you: Under these circumstances, evualuating if his motivation is good or bad is as important as evaluating if his (nonexistend) haircolor is green or blue.

Neither the common moral system shared by the majority of people, nor any developed and respected philosphical system give a *shit* about the good motivation, if its so misguided and poorly reflected in the actual actions of the person and the consequences as in the masters case.

As I already explained, the philosophical system being close to valuing the *pure* motivation is Kants writing about the good will.
However, the master doesn't fullfil Kants requirement.
Considering how intelligent he is, he could have foreseen all the flaws his plan contained.

That a society consisting of super intelligent and super dumb beings could never be equal, therefore a chance for a better future would be slim.
He could have come to the conclusion that his motivation is not utilitaristic , because it will bring not the most happiness to the most number of people. (in utilitarism, The quantitive aspect is clearly dominating the qualitative aspect, everything else would be absurd. As you have proven yourself by your direct contradidction I quoted )
He could have seen that if the survival of the "human" race brings pain to a majority and only hapiness to a small minority, then this survival is not a utilaristic goal anymore.
He could have seen that all those acts of violants his mutants commit in his name are unessecary and prevented them.

He did non of it. He is superintelligent, so it could have not been a mental problem for him.
So what was the reason?

a) Either he is just poorly written in this aspect
b) he is insane
c)he didn't care

His motivation may be an utalitarian one from his point of view, only if he conciously blended out every doubt about it.
And that makes his motivation irrelevant.

We do not care about lunatics, terrorists, suicide bombers because they *may* have "good" motivations. Because those people use their good motivations to justify ill actions for themselves, without a real honest, self-critical evaluation if these motivations are *really* good.

Its the same with the master.

 

[Ausir]

BTW, wouldn't it make sense to merge this thread with this one:

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38424

?

 

[Brother None]

No, they ask different questions, and one hinges on the assumption of the other. It'd be a mess, merged