Which ending is the most morally correct?

Skraeling on 2/6/2001 at 23:11

I was kinda let down when I learned of the options I had to beat the game. I did all of them, but none of them seemed "right". I guess this is a good thing; the game breaks away from the "hero saves the world and gets the girl" mold. The Helios ending seemed morally correct, at least in accordance with the Platonic belief of Philosopher Kings and that the everyday man is unfit to rule himself and needs an enlightened (or technologically omnipotent, in this case) thing to rule in his stead. The Illuminati ending also seemed morally correct in that the invisible hand ruling the world was not corrupt, though potentially corrupt. The Stone Age ending did offer a world free from clandestine governments, so thats a point for it. My question for you: Which ending is the most morally correct?

Baron Bifford on 2/6/2001 at 23:37

In which world would people be happiest, most equal, etc.? A Dark Age would have brought more misery than benefit. An Illuminati world would have brought back the corruption of the past. Helios, however, is not a corrupt entity, and simply seeks to manage humanity to a happier future through rational administration. Except humanity may not be able to have free expression and evolve in a free way. But then, has this really been the dominant force behind humanity?

Agent Monkeysee on 2/6/2001 at 23:48

The fourth ending is the most morally correct.

Skraeling on 3/6/2001 at 01:09

Damn Straight. Nothing beats WIB swaying to techno.

Beanstalk on 3/6/2001 at 06:46

I´d say the Helios ending is best. First of all, a quote from something I wrote in another thread

Quote:

The best moment I had with the game was when JC walked up to that SOB pimp and said "You´ve got 10 seconds to beat it before I add you to the list of NSF casualties."
Firstly, because IMO this quote defines JCs personality. When he´s talking about democracy and stuff like that, he´s a bit hipocritical: He doesn´t care about democracy. He doesn´t care about conspiracies. He doesn´t even care about laws.
What he DOES care about is the well-being of those he swore to protect.
Going even further OT, this is also the reason why I think that JC would choose the "Helios" ending. A damn shame that this ending was explored the the least in the epilogue.

Second, Helios is absolutly correct in saying that he is free of all ambitions that cause corruption in human goverment. And since he already has absolute power, there is absolutly nothing you could bribe, extort or otherwise influence him.
And last but not least: "free" is a tricky term to define. I do *not* think that people would be free in Tongs new world. After the upheavel, rioting etc. that the dark age would surly cause initially, there will be a lot of places where the law of the stronger reigns supreme. Think "Raiders" from Fallout... And the new local goverments would be democratic only in the rarest of cases. More likely they will consists of warlords or triad like organizations vying for power, on the back of the common man.

On the other hand, how "unfree" would people be under JC-Helios´ rule? Call me crazy, but I think they would be *more* free then we are today. For me, free means beeing able to do whatever I want as long as I don´t harm someone else.
Name one instance were people would not be able to do something they want to do under helios rule. Remember, Helios doesn´t need to opress people, he doesn´t NEED the NSA or KGB or the Gestapo, because he hears all and sees all. And even if somebody was planning to overthrow him, all he would have to do is appear on a screen near that person and give him a verbal slap on the wrist. After that, who would be crazy enough to continue plotting after that?

Also, Helios would need a lot less laws then we have today, because a lot of laws are not prohibiting a crime, but prohibiting circumstances that may lead up to a crime. For example, even though nobody would be harmed, your not allowed to go into a closed shop, take what you need and leave the money on the counter, because it would be just to tempting to take something and NOT leave the money, which would, of course, be burglary. But since Helios sees *everything*, the a would be thief has a 99.9% chance of getting caught. Would you try shoplifting with those odds in mind? Same goes for nearly every other crime.

Likewise, Helios simply has no reason to restrict access to information (other then the location of his mainframe maybe). Why would he?

[ June 03, 2001: Message edited by: Beanstalk ]

0Trapper0 on 3/6/2001 at 14:11

This really isn't th imple question it seems like. Before you get caught up in deciding which ending is the most "correct", you must first stop and ask yourself, what is "correct" at all? Many would say it is to do what is "right", but how do we know what the "right" thing to do is?

Do we learn right and wrong from our parents? Our peers? Society? Do we decide for ourselves? If so, what gives society, or your parents the power to decide how people should behave? Many moral values are based on archaic religious scriptures, for example the Bible. If you are religious (Which is an entirely different philosophical debate) then that's all well and good; you merely obey the word of your god. But if you are not religious, or, more applicably, if you are atheistic, then you have a problem. If there is no god, then that means that there is no one that is able to fairly and objectively decide what is morally acceptable. Because to do so, it requires the judge to be at once both totally understanding of the milieu in which the moral system (and the people who shall work under it) exist, but at the same time that the the judge be also distanced enough to avoid being biased. No human being could possibly do this, so far as our understanding of psychology and other humanities tells us atleast.

So, we are now landed in a situation which Satre refers to as "Anguish". There is no god to dictate to us how to live, no one else can have the authority, so it seems that the only option is for every individual person to decide for themselves how to live their lives. Satre also believed that when one decides for oneself what is morally correct, one also sets down a moral code that one believes that everyone else should abide by. This effectively means that if you felt the Helios ending was the most morally acceptable outcome of the game, then you must also be expecting that everyone else should feel the same. While this may be the case with some situations and some people, with others this theory can collapse. Certianly, the base theory of egoism (do whatever the hell you want, its up to you) is a fairly robust moral system, however it is Satre's belief that we should universalise our own morals that many people dislike.

So, egoism then. Perhaps, in the absence of a diety to define the values of good and bad, right and wrong, it does, after all, fall to the individual to decide. Indeed, egoism is quite possibly the most widely accepted philosophical system in the world. In many western countries, the legally created laws seem to be backseated to the belief that "I can do anything I want, as long as it doesn't negatively impact anyone else". While this is perhaps a somewhat distorted version of egoism, it still holds true to the basic idea. In fact, it can be argued that everyone is an egoist, since a person will only do what they actually want to do. If you are threatened into doing something, you're still doing what you want to do, because the alternative is less acceptable to you. If you abide by the law, even if you really disagree with it, you're still doing what you want to do, because you don't want to run the risk of arrest and jailing. This system has been critised as it supposedly encourages lawlessness, and self indulgence. It is widely believed that without the enforcement of a universal set of moral laws, that there would be chaos, as everyone seeks to endulge his or her self in the very way that they see fit. However, it is believed, and to some degree it has been shown by psychologists and also by the similarities between separate relious moral values that human beings do seem to have an innate sence of right and wrong. Broadly speaking, things wouldn't change very much if the law was abolsihed.

But innate moral laws aside, this still doesn't solve the problem of how we decide which Deus Ex ending is the most morally correct. Under Satre's beliefs, they all are, it simply depends on the player. This would perhaps explain why there is a choice. Hmm? But, if you desperately seek objective universal truth, then how about utilitarianism? Simply put, this system calls for individuals to act in such a manner that will bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Everyone likes to be happy, right? So surely, it must be "good" to make people happy? Of course, we now have the problem that we need to define "happiness". Do we mean ecstatic joy, or simple contentment? Which is more valid? If I have the oppurtunity to make 25 people contented or the oppurtunity to make 5 people ecstatic, which do I chose? Then there is quality of pleasure. According to Mills (or Bentham, I always get confused on this one), pleasure of the mind, like music, art, or, and here's a stunner, philosophising are of higher quality than pleasures of the body, like sex, or getting drunk. But we again have the issue of mere humans allocating themselves the power to narrow down the definition of loose terms such as "good" or "happy".

At this point, it would be ever so easy to say "And there you have it, we can never know what ending is morally correct, because we can't know for sure what "correct" actually is"

BUT :cool:

Surely, the most correct ending is the Helios ending, since Denton is effectively creating a deity who can both know of the human condition via Denton, and also be completely objective through its own programming. Of course, it is easy to be skeptical and point out that Denton's inclusion could bais Helios, as Helios would only have the experiances of one person to analise, yet it would appear logical that one Helios had a point of reference, somewhere to begin, its universally knowing nature would allow it to observe the lives of others and use that to help build a more balanced model of the human condition on which to build its system of ethics.

This all hinges on how Helios functions. The impression I got fromt he ending sequence was that Helios would absorb Denton into itself, and then occupy his body, but if that were the case, then why not let Bob Page be absorbed instead? Since Helios would be the one in control, and the host's experiance and personality would be absorbed, they would have no influence over how Helios judged the world, since they would be effectively dead.

But if the host does still hold sway with Helios, then the entire ethical system that Helios builds falls apart due, simply, to the fact that what you then have is an omnipresent, omnisophic (? "All knowing" I think that's how you omni-whatever it), and, if I understand the UCs correctly, omnipotent (even though, technically, it is impossible for anything to be have complete power over everything due to the anylitic nature of mathmatical formulae: 2+2=4 is always true, nothing has the power to make 2+2=7) human being, still with the same biases, subjectivities, and pejudices as any other human.

A prize for anyone who read that entire post <IMG SRC="thumb.gif" border="0">

nimbus on 11/6/2001 at 20:55

I don't get the prize. But then again I have a fairly comprehensive understanding of philosophical ethics anyway :).

Anyway, though, I have quite a major problem with everybody's interpretation of the helios ending. Do you all really think that a program that reaches the sentient level is still naively oblivious to the concept of lying?

Picture this: so you're a computer, who has almost complete omniscence, access to all the information that you need to be completely powerful. Except no body, and you're quite vulnerable to this Bob page fellow and this tong guy who wants to wreck you completely. Are you concerned with peace and equity for these finicky humans anyway? What do they do for you, anyway?

Ah, but along comes this great guy. Not a middle-aged control freak with his own agenda, but a super-strong, deadly, and, oh yeah, innocent do-gooder who believes anything he's told, if you're "the good guy". What a great tool for you. Finally, you have freedom to protect yourself, and his ego won't get in the way either.

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that helios would be telling the truth. And yet, like JC, most people blindly listen to whoever flatters their moral sensibilities the most ;).

nimbus on 11/6/2001 at 21:10

Oh yeah, and as for the correct ending:

In light of the previous post, we can come to the conclusion that you have very little security in trusting the agendas of any of the three, so you can have very little prediction of the actual outcome.

BUT

Tong's biggest possible agenda is ruling Hong Kong (winning the gang wars and restoring some sort of stability by reducing the technology in the world). His ending means the balance of power will be shifted into his favor of course, but that power will be significantly less than world domination.

No matter that the world could quite possibly be happier throught the other two choices--that's really a crapshoot. Not that you can trust Tong either, but it's not in his hands. And just the simple fact that he's okay with that makes him a more trustworthy guy in the first place.

T0rp0r on 12/6/2001 at 04:05

Quote:

Originally posted by 0Trapper0:
This really isn't th imple question it seems like. Before you get caught up in deciding which ending is the most "correct", you must first stop and ask yourself, what is "correct" at all? Many would say it is to do what is "right", but how do we know what the "right" thing to do is?

Do we learn right and wrong from our parents? Our peers? Society? Do we decide for ourselves? If so, what gives society, or your parents the power to decide how people should behave? Many moral values are based on archaic religious scriptures, for example the Bible. If you are religious (Which is an entirely different philosophical debate) then that's all well and good; you merely obey the word of your god. But if you are not religious, or, more applicably, if you are atheistic, then you have a problem. If there is no god, then that means that there is no one that is able to fairly and objectively decide what is morally acceptable. ... No human being could possibly do this, so far as our understanding of psychology and other humanities tells us atleast.

Hence the quote after the cutscene for this ending, and your favoritism for the Helios ending, I take it?

Quote:

Originally posted by 0Trapper0:
So, egoism then. Perhaps, in the absence of a diety to define the values of good and bad, right and wrong, it does, after all, fall to the individual to decide. Indeed, egoism is quite possibly the most widely accepted philosophical system in the world. In many western countries, the legally created laws seem to be backseated to the belief that "I can do anything I want, as long as it doesn't negatively impact anyone else". It is widely believed that without the enforcement of a universal set of moral laws, that there would be chaos, as everyone seeks to endulge his or her self in the very way that they see fit.

I realize that you mentioned earlier that religion is a separate debate, but I think this would be a good time to point out that some religious beliefs do embrace a similar philosophy to this. For example, the Pagan (or is it Wiccan?) creed "Do what you will, harm noone." Obviously religion includes a lot of ceremony, pomp and circumstance, etc., that is not related to the moral beliefs. I think that there are certain moral beliefs that could be considered universal, such as murder is wrong (of course, the definition of murder may be different in case to case -- is execution really murder?)
OK, so I've deliberately done what you intended to stay away from, a comparison of various world religions. The point is, I think you can make some judgment about the morality of the endings withogu being tied to a specific philosophy or religion, as you stated.

Quote:

Originally posted by 0Trapper0:

However, it is believed, and to some degree it has been shown by psychologists and also by the similarities between separate relious moral values that human beings do seem to have an innate sence of right and wrong. Broadly speaking, things wouldn't change very much if the law was abolsihed.:

If the ending were to cause death for millions, then it would certainly be wrong.
I think you also make hint later of a difference between a social morality versus an individual morality.
For example, is it wrong for a country to make war, when an individual is forbidden to attack another individual?
Then morality crosses with philosophical and ideological issues, such as Tong's belief that society having a fresh start is more important than the millions of lives that might be lost in the ensuing chaos.

Quote:

Originally posted by 0Trapper0:

Surely, the most correct ending is the Helios ending, since Denton is effectively creating a deity who can both know of the human condition via Denton, and also be completely objective through its own programming. ...
This all hinges on how Helios functions.

I got the sense from certain comments made by Helios that he might become all too human once Denton was absorbed. There is one quote that goes something like ... "A corpse. I must experience what you ar experiencing."
In other words, possibly Denton's respect for others would influence the AI into making proper decisions.
But maybe the AI thinks the best thing for humanity is to create a Brave New World where humans are divided up into classes according to their abilities and are encouraged into promiscuity to prevent "archaic" monogomous relationships.

OK, so let me stop stealing from Trapper and give my own two cents.
From an individual standpoint, Denton is being forced into these decisions by others outside his influence, so in reality he is chosing between the lesser of three evils. All three have the potential to cause some harm, all have the potential to lead to a greater good.
One could argue that killing Page, thereby leaving the door open for the Illuminati to take control, actually will leave things much the same. though there are problems, as part of the new world order Denton could influence the decisions made wihtout losing any of his humanity... but how much influence would he really have when they take revered leaders and turn them into popsicles?
Taking humanity back to the stone age certainly appeals to ideals of idyllic rural settlements, without the curse of technology. Yet, how much positive technology would also be lost in this case? How many lives would be lost trying to rebuild society?
Then, I've already expressed my reservations about the Helios ending.
In each case Denton has to assume that he knows better than billions of other people on the planet. So how can that be moral?
Oops, I think I've talked myself into a corner here. If we go back to our original assumption, "Do what you will, harm noone," then either the Helios or the Illumanti ending are reasonable. In both cases, we simply don't really know what will happen to the world under its new leadership. In each case, we don't know how much affect Denton will have.

But, GUT REACTION, I chose the Helios ending, because at the time it seemed like the "moral" thing to do. Sometimes that's all that counts.

Quote:

Originally posted by 0Trapper0:
 A prize for anyone who read that entire post <IMG SRC="thumb.gif" border="0">

What do I win?

:)

Wearewe on 19/6/2001 at 16:38

I like big explosions !!!!!
:cool: