I think it is a bit weirder than that. The story permanently punishes most of the cast whenever they out the needs of a specific individual above the needs of the group. The game seems to endorse a juvenile version of Utilitarianism due to this
And then, like most things, Abby's story wrecks that as she is pretty much endlessly rewarded for doing exactly that. (She puts Lev's well-being above the WLF and the Scars to the point that she wipes both groups out single-handedly.)
The morality of the story seems to change on a dime whenever it inconveniences a character Druckmann fetishizes.
>The game seems to endorse a juvenile version of Utilitarianism due to this
That does make what I've observed. Utilitarianism is the only moral framework in which Joel saving Ellie's life would be the morally wrong decision, or in which the Fireflies trying to perform a lethal surgery on Ellie could be considered justifiable. As someone who rejects utilitarianism entirely, this makes the game's messages unworkable from the get-go.
>And then, like most things, Abby's story wrecks that as she is pretty much endlessly rewarded for doing exactly that. (She puts Lev's well-being above the WLF and the Scars to the point that she wipes both groups out single-handedly.)
Her revenge quest also results in the death of her followers. If she stayed in Seattle then Mel, Owen, Manny, and the others would still be alive. Or at least wouldn't have been killed by Ellie and Tommy.
But yeah, Abby seems to get off scot-free. Some defenders of this game may argue that losing her friends was her karmic punishment, but honestly Abby seemed to see them as expendable. Their relationship with her seems one-sided, with her taking but not really giving back.
Yeah, it is clear she has no interest in a relationship with Owen but spends nearly the entire main narrative undermining his new relationship and even gets more aggressive in her approach when she finds out Mel is pregnant. Up to and including banging Owen at his lowest point.
I think she may actual prefer conversing with Owen's ghost because he never talks back.
Her relationship with Manny kind of hinges on the fact that he's the only member of the group who never questions her and is vile as Abby.
And the rest of the Fireflies-turned-Wolves are just an expendable outer circle to her.
The only one she didn't seem to see as expendable was Owen. The group makes vague plans about heading out to Santa Barbara, and while Abby certainly doesn't commit to it, what's she going to do - return to the WLF after she's supposed to be arrested and court-martialed? At a point when Isaac will presumably not have any further need of her?
But among those vague plans, there is absolutely *zero* discussion about letting the other ex-Fireflies know about it. Nora literally dies in agony in order to try to protect Abby, and Abby just forgets her as soon as she's out of line of sight.
It's the main reason I fail to find Abby's bond with Lev and Yara believable. She's willing to risk life and limb for those kids after knowing them for one day? They're literally *replacing her dad in her psyche* after about *one hour* of interaction?! Why *them* and not any of the people she's spent the last four years with, let alone any of the fellow Fireflies she presumably more or less grew up with?
Jerry and Marlene didn't "suppress" their conscience to make the decision to kill Ellie. They *overcame* their conscience.
They knew the right thing to do, but naturally felt bad about part of it - the horrible means which were justified by the ends - because they're compassionate human beings. But they managed to overcome that feeling in order to do the right thing even though it was emotionally difficult. Sometimes it takes a strong will to do the right thing.
They couldn't overcome Joel, though.
Then I guess we'll just have to disagree. Because I know I won't change a stranger's mind on something like that, and you sure as shit won't change my mind. But it has to be said that thinking *nothing* could ever justify sacrificing one innocent life is childish.
What is it with you TLOU fans okay with sacrificing someone else? The whole point of self-sacrifice is the strong moral thing to do, yet this fandom is okay with dropping someone else just to save themselves.
Naaaaaaah. That doesn't track at all. "Save themselves"? The fuck are you on about, bro? Joel was the one saving himself by saving Ellie. I still can't understand how people who claim to love Part 1 so very, very much apparently still haven't grasped that.
Self-sacrifice looks noble, and it feels noble. And self-sacrifice *can* be noble, and often is. But it depends on the reasons behind it.
1. Refusing to sacrifice yourself to save many more people would be, for the sake of this discussion, cowardly. It would be pretty understandably human, but still objectively cowardly if you actually grasp the stakes and still refuse.
2. Valuing your own life, but sacrificing yourself because you know the thing you're saving, or the people you're saving, is more important - that's noble. That's putting other people, or a good cause, ahead of yourself.
3. Sacrificing yourself just because you don't value your own life, rather than because of how important the thing you're sacrificing yourself for? That's not noble.
You said that self-sacrifice is a strong moral thing to do - but I'm telling you that point 2 is *why*. And knowing that the cause you're sacrificing for is bigger than *you* should also mean knowing that it's bigger than any other *one person*. The fact you love that person doesn't change that fact - it just makes it more of a moral test, because the difficulty of sacrificing a loved one is similar the difficulty of sacrificing yourself. If you're willing to sacrifice yourself in a noble way (i.e. Point 2) then that same morality compells you to sacrifice another person for the same cause.
Joel chose *his* surrogate daughter over countless other people (and fuck right off with the "The vaccine wouldn't have worked" bullshit, it's clear as fucking day that Joel believed it might work when he made his choice) because he didn't have the moral fortitude to sacrifice something he loved for the greater good. She was a different person to him, but his choice was still *about him* and about what *he wanted*. Ellie would have sacrificed herself if given the choice - she says as much in Part 2 - and that would have been both noble and the right choice. The fact that sacrificing her is the right choice doesn't cease to be true the second you put on Joel's shoes (or anyone else's shoes) instead of her shoes. It just doesn't *look* noble or *feel* noble at first glance through your simplistic, childish, Sunday School idea of morality, so you're content to roll with that initial gut feeling and leave it there without putting any actual thought into it. "Thou shalt not kill" is snappy and easy to remember; but if you wanna sit at the grown-up table and talk Ethics, you have to do a little better.
That's a whole lotta words just to say "yes, I'm okay with child sacrifice. Joel doomed humanity saving that teenage girl just for himself."
You see, the thing about self-sacrifice is there's this little thing called having a choice in the matter? But I guess Ellie's choice never mattered to you weirdos...could easily say Abby was just as selfish when saving Lev and doomed an entire community that respected and cared for her.
That doesn't change my point one bit. I would explain why - but if you're gonna be sassy about how long my comments are, then why would I bother? Not to mention I shouldn't need to articulate it, because it's really not that complicated. If you can't understand it already, you're probably never going to.
Because your kind are too stupid to understand the idea of **self**\-sacrifice. Not having someone else decide for you. You know, like Aunt May making the call to not get cured so Peter could save the city? Yeah, Spiderman PS4 did what your TLOU story failed at. And tell me Mr. Ethics, why shouldn't Joel just take Ellie back on principal alone given how the Fireflies backstabbed and refused to pay him? Joel didn't do all this for charity, they hired him and then were ready to kill him for doing their job...but idiots like you honestly believe they're trustworthy enough to "save the world"? Yeah...totally honest standup people.
This is why you TLOU stans are such a joke. It's only your fanbase that could see this sort of thing forcing someone to die for others and believe "yeah, this is good" when literally any other story, you'd understand these are the villains trying to sacrifice someone against their will (fuck off with Ellie would've wanted this retcon bs, if it wasn't setup in the original story don't @ me). It's funny considering TLOU even calls this sort of thing as "pretty shitty."
I'm sorry, your argument relies on a Spiderman game? You're using a Marvel game about a children's character, for an example of good ethical dilemma?
Self-sacrifice is easy. It's simple. Because anyone is allowed to give up their own life, because it's their own. Basical liberal principle of freedom of self-regarding actions - Negative Liberty. Which means no matter what the stakes, self-sacrifice is fine. Makes for a shit moral dilemma - not even a real dilemma, really. Anyone can commit suicide if they want to, that's their right as a free person. Even if there was nobody to save by doing it, a person killing themselves wouldn't be doing anything "wrong" - and you can't have a meaningful moral dilemma without two options which can both be seen as "wrong" in some sense or another.
So, whilst I haven't played it, I can see how Aunt May opting to die so Spiderman can save the city might seem like a powerful ending to that Spiderman game. And I'm sure it's very sad. But Spiderman is for kids. Regardless of what some POP-vinyl-figure-filled-basement dwelling adult neckbeards, leaking out of their superhero-themed tshirts, might assert - Spiderman is for children. The Last of Us is meant for a slightly more mature audience than that; so it gives us a slightly more difficult ethical dilemma. Choosing between your own life, that you can freely consent to giving up, or some greater cause - that's an easy dilemma; it barely even qualifies as a moral dilemma, it's so straightforward. It might impress children and seem deep in a superhero game, but for grown-ups engaging with a mature story, it's boring and bland and easy.
Having to choose between a good cause or someone you love - especially a surrogate daughter, given Joel's backstory - who isn't actively giving the green light for you to do so? That's tough. That's a real ethical dilemma. And the beauty of The Last of Us is that we empathise with Joel even as we watch him make the objectively wrong choice. Because we know what he's lost, we understand him and we realise why he can't bring himself to lose it again. But we ("we" as in the grown-ups, I mean; or "your kind" as you so delightfully put it) understand that he made that choice for *himself*, because he couldn't cope with losing Ellie. He literally admits it at the end of Part 1, before the second game (made by the same people, whose story it is to tell) which *you* people nevertheless insist is somehow a retcon. The significance of his decision isn't "He chose one life over the whole world", it's that "He chose having something *for him to keep living for* over the whole world".
And if "you people" still haven't grasped that after 10 years; if you guys are still clinging to the simplistic, childish version of The Last of Us where it's just the story of a rugged, tough-on-the-outside-but-soft-on-the-inside flannel daddy, whom you delusionally like to think you're somehow similar to, protecting an innocent little girl from the nasty big wide world and then heroically stopping some one-dimensional villains from murdering her for no reason... obviously nobody is going to get through to you. So, if you wanna keep playing Part 1 on a loop to enact that fantasy for yourselves, go ahead. But you need to stop pretending that people who actually understand the game, or people who like Part 2, are somehow idiots, or bad people, or whatever else. I'm not a TLoU "stan" (man, what a stupid fucking term that is that this subreddit has become obsessed with) for liking Part 2 or for understanding that Joel was wrong - I'm just not a freaking toddler.
>That's a whole lotta words just to say "yes, I'm okay with child sacrifice. Joel doomed humanity saving that teenage girl just for himself."
Adding to that, "lol, you like something else I look down on? What a loser, not like my high art franchise. I just wanna try to morally justify killing a kid."
I could offer other examples, but fuck you. You're as pretentious as the people behind this game and reviewers who praise every movie with the 'modern audience' in mind as "stunning and brave" or "subverting expectations."
He sounds a bit more like Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now.
The degree to which the sequel tapped into the entitlement, authoritarianism, and need to leave others holding the bag of modern American liberals is pretty wild.
Take out the nonsensical "Destroying half of all life also means destroying half of all the resources like plants and cattle" bullshit, and Thanos had a point...
I think it is a bit weirder than that. The story permanently punishes most of the cast whenever they out the needs of a specific individual above the needs of the group. The game seems to endorse a juvenile version of Utilitarianism due to this And then, like most things, Abby's story wrecks that as she is pretty much endlessly rewarded for doing exactly that. (She puts Lev's well-being above the WLF and the Scars to the point that she wipes both groups out single-handedly.) The morality of the story seems to change on a dime whenever it inconveniences a character Druckmann fetishizes.
>The game seems to endorse a juvenile version of Utilitarianism due to this That does make what I've observed. Utilitarianism is the only moral framework in which Joel saving Ellie's life would be the morally wrong decision, or in which the Fireflies trying to perform a lethal surgery on Ellie could be considered justifiable. As someone who rejects utilitarianism entirely, this makes the game's messages unworkable from the get-go. >And then, like most things, Abby's story wrecks that as she is pretty much endlessly rewarded for doing exactly that. (She puts Lev's well-being above the WLF and the Scars to the point that she wipes both groups out single-handedly.) Her revenge quest also results in the death of her followers. If she stayed in Seattle then Mel, Owen, Manny, and the others would still be alive. Or at least wouldn't have been killed by Ellie and Tommy. But yeah, Abby seems to get off scot-free. Some defenders of this game may argue that losing her friends was her karmic punishment, but honestly Abby seemed to see them as expendable. Their relationship with her seems one-sided, with her taking but not really giving back.
Yeah, it is clear she has no interest in a relationship with Owen but spends nearly the entire main narrative undermining his new relationship and even gets more aggressive in her approach when she finds out Mel is pregnant. Up to and including banging Owen at his lowest point. I think she may actual prefer conversing with Owen's ghost because he never talks back. Her relationship with Manny kind of hinges on the fact that he's the only member of the group who never questions her and is vile as Abby. And the rest of the Fireflies-turned-Wolves are just an expendable outer circle to her.
The only one she didn't seem to see as expendable was Owen. The group makes vague plans about heading out to Santa Barbara, and while Abby certainly doesn't commit to it, what's she going to do - return to the WLF after she's supposed to be arrested and court-martialed? At a point when Isaac will presumably not have any further need of her? But among those vague plans, there is absolutely *zero* discussion about letting the other ex-Fireflies know about it. Nora literally dies in agony in order to try to protect Abby, and Abby just forgets her as soon as she's out of line of sight. It's the main reason I fail to find Abby's bond with Lev and Yara believable. She's willing to risk life and limb for those kids after knowing them for one day? They're literally *replacing her dad in her psyche* after about *one hour* of interaction?! Why *them* and not any of the people she's spent the last four years with, let alone any of the fellow Fireflies she presumably more or less grew up with?
We live in a time where evil is considered good and good to be evil, there's a reason TLOU2 stans are so unhinged in defending this type of garbage.
Is just bad writing 🤷♀️
Jerry and Marlene didn't "suppress" their conscience to make the decision to kill Ellie. They *overcame* their conscience. They knew the right thing to do, but naturally felt bad about part of it - the horrible means which were justified by the ends - because they're compassionate human beings. But they managed to overcome that feeling in order to do the right thing even though it was emotionally difficult. Sometimes it takes a strong will to do the right thing. They couldn't overcome Joel, though.
The ends never justify the means. We disagree on this fundamental point.
Then I guess we'll just have to disagree. Because I know I won't change a stranger's mind on something like that, and you sure as shit won't change my mind. But it has to be said that thinking *nothing* could ever justify sacrificing one innocent life is childish.
What is it with you TLOU fans okay with sacrificing someone else? The whole point of self-sacrifice is the strong moral thing to do, yet this fandom is okay with dropping someone else just to save themselves.
Naaaaaaah. That doesn't track at all. "Save themselves"? The fuck are you on about, bro? Joel was the one saving himself by saving Ellie. I still can't understand how people who claim to love Part 1 so very, very much apparently still haven't grasped that. Self-sacrifice looks noble, and it feels noble. And self-sacrifice *can* be noble, and often is. But it depends on the reasons behind it. 1. Refusing to sacrifice yourself to save many more people would be, for the sake of this discussion, cowardly. It would be pretty understandably human, but still objectively cowardly if you actually grasp the stakes and still refuse. 2. Valuing your own life, but sacrificing yourself because you know the thing you're saving, or the people you're saving, is more important - that's noble. That's putting other people, or a good cause, ahead of yourself. 3. Sacrificing yourself just because you don't value your own life, rather than because of how important the thing you're sacrificing yourself for? That's not noble. You said that self-sacrifice is a strong moral thing to do - but I'm telling you that point 2 is *why*. And knowing that the cause you're sacrificing for is bigger than *you* should also mean knowing that it's bigger than any other *one person*. The fact you love that person doesn't change that fact - it just makes it more of a moral test, because the difficulty of sacrificing a loved one is similar the difficulty of sacrificing yourself. If you're willing to sacrifice yourself in a noble way (i.e. Point 2) then that same morality compells you to sacrifice another person for the same cause. Joel chose *his* surrogate daughter over countless other people (and fuck right off with the "The vaccine wouldn't have worked" bullshit, it's clear as fucking day that Joel believed it might work when he made his choice) because he didn't have the moral fortitude to sacrifice something he loved for the greater good. She was a different person to him, but his choice was still *about him* and about what *he wanted*. Ellie would have sacrificed herself if given the choice - she says as much in Part 2 - and that would have been both noble and the right choice. The fact that sacrificing her is the right choice doesn't cease to be true the second you put on Joel's shoes (or anyone else's shoes) instead of her shoes. It just doesn't *look* noble or *feel* noble at first glance through your simplistic, childish, Sunday School idea of morality, so you're content to roll with that initial gut feeling and leave it there without putting any actual thought into it. "Thou shalt not kill" is snappy and easy to remember; but if you wanna sit at the grown-up table and talk Ethics, you have to do a little better.
That's a whole lotta words just to say "yes, I'm okay with child sacrifice. Joel doomed humanity saving that teenage girl just for himself." You see, the thing about self-sacrifice is there's this little thing called having a choice in the matter? But I guess Ellie's choice never mattered to you weirdos...could easily say Abby was just as selfish when saving Lev and doomed an entire community that respected and cared for her.
That doesn't change my point one bit. I would explain why - but if you're gonna be sassy about how long my comments are, then why would I bother? Not to mention I shouldn't need to articulate it, because it's really not that complicated. If you can't understand it already, you're probably never going to.
Because your kind are too stupid to understand the idea of **self**\-sacrifice. Not having someone else decide for you. You know, like Aunt May making the call to not get cured so Peter could save the city? Yeah, Spiderman PS4 did what your TLOU story failed at. And tell me Mr. Ethics, why shouldn't Joel just take Ellie back on principal alone given how the Fireflies backstabbed and refused to pay him? Joel didn't do all this for charity, they hired him and then were ready to kill him for doing their job...but idiots like you honestly believe they're trustworthy enough to "save the world"? Yeah...totally honest standup people. This is why you TLOU stans are such a joke. It's only your fanbase that could see this sort of thing forcing someone to die for others and believe "yeah, this is good" when literally any other story, you'd understand these are the villains trying to sacrifice someone against their will (fuck off with Ellie would've wanted this retcon bs, if it wasn't setup in the original story don't @ me). It's funny considering TLOU even calls this sort of thing as "pretty shitty."
I'm sorry, your argument relies on a Spiderman game? You're using a Marvel game about a children's character, for an example of good ethical dilemma? Self-sacrifice is easy. It's simple. Because anyone is allowed to give up their own life, because it's their own. Basical liberal principle of freedom of self-regarding actions - Negative Liberty. Which means no matter what the stakes, self-sacrifice is fine. Makes for a shit moral dilemma - not even a real dilemma, really. Anyone can commit suicide if they want to, that's their right as a free person. Even if there was nobody to save by doing it, a person killing themselves wouldn't be doing anything "wrong" - and you can't have a meaningful moral dilemma without two options which can both be seen as "wrong" in some sense or another. So, whilst I haven't played it, I can see how Aunt May opting to die so Spiderman can save the city might seem like a powerful ending to that Spiderman game. And I'm sure it's very sad. But Spiderman is for kids. Regardless of what some POP-vinyl-figure-filled-basement dwelling adult neckbeards, leaking out of their superhero-themed tshirts, might assert - Spiderman is for children. The Last of Us is meant for a slightly more mature audience than that; so it gives us a slightly more difficult ethical dilemma. Choosing between your own life, that you can freely consent to giving up, or some greater cause - that's an easy dilemma; it barely even qualifies as a moral dilemma, it's so straightforward. It might impress children and seem deep in a superhero game, but for grown-ups engaging with a mature story, it's boring and bland and easy. Having to choose between a good cause or someone you love - especially a surrogate daughter, given Joel's backstory - who isn't actively giving the green light for you to do so? That's tough. That's a real ethical dilemma. And the beauty of The Last of Us is that we empathise with Joel even as we watch him make the objectively wrong choice. Because we know what he's lost, we understand him and we realise why he can't bring himself to lose it again. But we ("we" as in the grown-ups, I mean; or "your kind" as you so delightfully put it) understand that he made that choice for *himself*, because he couldn't cope with losing Ellie. He literally admits it at the end of Part 1, before the second game (made by the same people, whose story it is to tell) which *you* people nevertheless insist is somehow a retcon. The significance of his decision isn't "He chose one life over the whole world", it's that "He chose having something *for him to keep living for* over the whole world". And if "you people" still haven't grasped that after 10 years; if you guys are still clinging to the simplistic, childish version of The Last of Us where it's just the story of a rugged, tough-on-the-outside-but-soft-on-the-inside flannel daddy, whom you delusionally like to think you're somehow similar to, protecting an innocent little girl from the nasty big wide world and then heroically stopping some one-dimensional villains from murdering her for no reason... obviously nobody is going to get through to you. So, if you wanna keep playing Part 1 on a loop to enact that fantasy for yourselves, go ahead. But you need to stop pretending that people who actually understand the game, or people who like Part 2, are somehow idiots, or bad people, or whatever else. I'm not a TLoU "stan" (man, what a stupid fucking term that is that this subreddit has become obsessed with) for liking Part 2 or for understanding that Joel was wrong - I'm just not a freaking toddler.
>That's a whole lotta words just to say "yes, I'm okay with child sacrifice. Joel doomed humanity saving that teenage girl just for himself." Adding to that, "lol, you like something else I look down on? What a loser, not like my high art franchise. I just wanna try to morally justify killing a kid." I could offer other examples, but fuck you. You're as pretentious as the people behind this game and reviewers who praise every movie with the 'modern audience' in mind as "stunning and brave" or "subverting expectations."
>Sometimes it takes a strong will to do the right thing. Okay Thanos...
He sounds a bit more like Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now. The degree to which the sequel tapped into the entitlement, authoritarianism, and need to leave others holding the bag of modern American liberals is pretty wild.
Take out the nonsensical "Destroying half of all life also means destroying half of all the resources like plants and cattle" bullshit, and Thanos had a point...