Can we get choices that really matter and have a effect?

[Lersayil]

If that's what you mean, then I don't think it makes any difference. I think it's plain to see whether or not there are differing moral beliefs/values, otherwise there would be no conflict in the first place. Simply acknowledging that does nothing unless it impacts your action.

It changes the perspective and personality of the characters. From such change interesting philosophical discussion may arise, which may lead to different actions. It sets a different tone to the story.

I'm not sure why those terms would be a problem for you.

Again, defining good and evil is the basis of morality. If there is no moral evil, then there is no moral good and you're left with what you want and don't want to do, rather than what you should and should not do.

There is nothing dehumanizing about either term because they are used to describe humans (moral beings). People don't tend to describe an animal as being evil even if it may do things that would be considered evil if a human were to do it.

Our definition of good and evil differ greatly. Evil is used on humans exactly to dehumanize them. To differentiate them and create an us vs them scenario. Basically its something to disassociate them from us, and dismiss arguments by them. Label them as a lesser to us. You do not empathize with evil. You do not negotiate with evil. You do not listen to evil. You do not respect evil. Its a more severe, absolute version of saying they are irredeemably wrong. I would never use it on a human unironically (and before anyone brings it up, yeah, not even on mass murdering bastards).

Also, I hate to pull a Nietzsche, but people really shouldn't adhere to morality as rules. They should make their own decisions, based on their own experience, forming their own morality, and accept that others do the same. Looping back to what you said... a person wanting to do good is different (and imho better) from one that does good because he follows a set of rules that define what is good, and doing good is good because the rules say so.

That's the game's label. All it would take is a Miqo'te labeling all the other races non-human or sub-human to justify their demise. Emet attached labels such as "not alive" to the living so he could justify killing them.

Emets whole argument only holds up to a degree, because there are vast differences between a shard dwelling race and an Amaruotian. Even if we don't take everything he says as objectively true, they were superior in most ways by miles. One could argue (based on how they define life) that the difference is so large that its hard to consider us living in comparison.

If a miqo'te makes the same argument, it has a lot less weight to it, since they are barely any different from the rest of the races.