Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

What if you were Joel?

MassiveDump
Posts: 3,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 9:35:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
~BEWARE:~
~THE LAST OF US SPOILERS AHEAD~

Joel was to take watch over Ellie, a girl who was immune to the zombie infection and bring her to a hospital out west where they could find a cure.

Along the way, Joel becomes more attached to Ellie and begins to treat her like his own daughter, considering he lost his own when the infection first broke out.

Upon arrival, Joel finds out that to get the cure, they have to kill Ellie in surgery, who is now the only person Joel cares about at this point.

Ellie is unconscious and cannot make the decision for herself.

The options are:

1. Let Ellie die.
2. Kidnap Ellie and drive to a safe settlement in Wyoming.

If Ellie dies, the world is happy.
If Ellie gets kidnapped, Joel is happy, and Ellie will never know that Joel killed a hundred people in the hospital to save her.

The question is this: Would you make the whole world happy by making yourself miserable in return?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 9:38:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yer equating the world's happiness with my misery in this scenario. The former is rich, emotional connection while the latter is literally life and death. There's really no comparison other than the way you happened to word the scenario.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
MassiveDump
Posts: 3,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 9:44:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 9:38:48 AM, Noumena wrote:
Yer equating the world's happiness with my misery in this scenario. The former is rich, emotional connection while the latter is literally life and death. There's really no comparison other than the way you happened to word the scenario.

In other words, Joel f*cked up.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 9:47:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 9:44:19 AM, MassiveDump wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:38:48 AM, Noumena wrote:
Yer equating the world's happiness with my misery in this scenario. The former is rich, emotional connection while the latter is literally life and death. There's really no comparison other than the way you happened to word the scenario.

In other words, Joel f*cked up.

What does the OP refer to?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
MassiveDump
Posts: 3,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 9:51:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 9:47:25 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:44:19 AM, MassiveDump wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:38:48 AM, Noumena wrote:
Yer equating the world's happiness with my misery in this scenario. The former is rich, emotional connection while the latter is literally life and death. There's really no comparison other than the way you happened to word the scenario.

In other words, Joel f*cked up.

What does the OP refer to?

The Last of Us. Joel kidnapped Ellie, killed lots of people, and lied to Ellie about what happened after finding out that Ellie would have wanted to die.
mathdebator
Posts: 72
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 10:00:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Considering how messed up the world was, I don't think killing a girl to have a "chance" of making a vaccine will do any good, especially since the Fireflies would have total control over it. It could easily be used to gain absolute power: hey there, join me and I'll give you a vaccine!

It would be unlikely that they would administer the vaccine, if ever made, to a large group of people without sufficient evidence. How sketchy would it sound if someone went up to you after all these years and said, "dude I have a vaccine let me stab you with this needle". Yeah, I don't think so.

More success would come out of it if they agreed to join Joel's brother's group and form a small nation that would restart civilization. They do not have enough information on Ellie to conclude that they will get anything out of killing her. They could begin by taking DNA samples, etc.

If I were Joel, no way in hell I would let Ellie die. I mean, what if they returned to his brother's camp, lived there long enough to gain knowledge of the world, and managed to produce a vaccine/treatment on their own through experiments on infected. Possibly give other outcasts who used to be specialists food & shelter in exchange for their knowledge. There you have it, a solution! Ellie is safe, humanity can be saved, and everybody is happy (maybe)!

--

However, I have always wondered if they outbreak is only limited to North America. That night when zombies began attacking, wouldn't the rest of the world be smart enough to quarantine themselves? Or was it a sudden worldwide mutation?
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 10:03:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 10:00:02 AM, mathdebator wrote:
Considering how messed up the world was, I don't think killing a girl to have a "chance" of making a vaccine will do any good, especially since the Fireflies would have total control over it. It could easily be used to gain absolute power: hey there, join me and I'll give you a vaccine!

It would be unlikely that they would administer the vaccine, if ever made, to a large group of people without sufficient evidence. How sketchy would it sound if someone went up to you after all these years and said, "dude I have a vaccine let me stab you with this needle". Yeah, I don't think so.

More success would come out of it if they agreed to join Joel's brother's group and form a small nation that would restart civilization. They do not have enough information on Ellie to conclude that they will get anything out of killing her. They could begin by taking DNA samples, etc.

If I were Joel, no way in hell I would let Ellie die. I mean, what if they returned to his brother's camp, lived there long enough to gain knowledge of the world, and managed to produce a vaccine/treatment on their own through experiments on infected. Possibly give other outcasts who used to be specialists food & shelter in exchange for their knowledge. There you have it, a solution! Ellie is safe, humanity can be saved, and everybody is happy (maybe)!

--

However, I have always wondered if they outbreak is only limited to North America. That night when zombies began attacking, wouldn't the rest of the world be smart enough to quarantine themselves? Or was it a sudden worldwide mutation?

I think something like 4 billion people are infected, so yeah...
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
MassiveDump
Posts: 3,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 10:06:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 10:00:02 AM, mathdebator wrote:
Considering how messed up the world was, I don't think killing a girl to have a "chance" of making a vaccine will do any good, especially since the Fireflies would have total control over it. It could easily be used to gain absolute power: hey there, join me and I'll give you a vaccine!


Well, the fireflies seemed to be a hell of a lot smarter than everyone else.

It would be unlikely that they would administer the vaccine, if ever made, to a large group of people without sufficient evidence. How sketchy would it sound if someone went up to you after all these years and said, "dude I have a vaccine let me stab you with this needle". Yeah, I don't think so.


Their loss I guess. But they could have someone get bit just for lawlz (and evidence I guess) to show people.

More success would come out of it if they agreed to join Joel's brother's group and form a small nation that would restart civilization.

Good point, I'll take it.

They do not have enough information on Ellie to conclude that they will get anything out of killing her. They could begin by taking DNA samples, etc.


That was actually explained in a cutscene. Pretty sure whatever prevented the infection was lodged into her brain somehow and there was only one way to get it out.

If I were Joel, no way in hell I would let Ellie die. I mean, what if they returned to his brother's camp, lived there long enough to gain knowledge of the world, and managed to produce a vaccine/treatment on their own through experiments on infected. Possibly give other outcasts who used to be specialists food & shelter in exchange for their knowledge. There you have it, a solution! Ellie is safe, humanity can be saved, and everybody is happy (maybe)!


I like it.


However, I have always wondered if they outbreak is only limited to North America. That night when zombies began attacking, wouldn't the rest of the world be smart enough to quarantine themselves? Or was it a sudden worldwide mutation?

I assumed the latter, otherwise a million plot points would have just disappeared.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 12:17:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 9:35:18 AM, MassiveDump wrote:
~BEWARE:~
~THE LAST OF US SPOILERS AHEAD~

Joel was to take watch over Ellie, a girl who was immune to the zombie infection and bring her to a hospital out west where they could find a cure.

Along the way, Joel becomes more attached to Ellie and begins to treat her like his own daughter, considering he lost his own when the infection first broke out.

Upon arrival, Joel finds out that to get the cure, they have to kill Ellie in surgery, who is now the only person Joel cares about at this point.

Ellie is unconscious and cannot make the decision for herself.

The options are:

1. Let Ellie die.
2. Kidnap Ellie and drive to a safe settlement in Wyoming.

If Ellie dies, the world is happy.
If Ellie gets kidnapped, Joel is happy, and Ellie will never know that Joel killed a hundred people in the hospital to save her.

The question is this: Would you make the whole world happy by making yourself miserable in return?

I thought that, in a way, the ending really made one ponder deontology vs consequentialism. Generally speaking, to the consequentialist, having Ellie undergo surgery that would, all things being equal result in her death but the potential saving of hundreds of thousands. Generally speaking, to the (non-consequentialist) deontologist, killing Ellie would be categorically immoral, regardless if her death resulted in the saving of many.

The ending also, as I see it, aptly demonstrates how difficult momentous moral decisions become when loved ones are on the line. Had some person whom Joel had not cared for was immune (and perhaps didn't have to escort halfway around the country), Joel would probably not interfere with the surgery.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 10:57:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You can't sacrifice a person's life for the sake of the group. especially that you don't know if that sacrifice is going to be fruitful at all.

Also, in the case the sacrifice is sure to be efficient, the person to be scarified need to agree.

And here I don't take in consideration the feelings of Joel.

if in order to save lives you need to kill one life , you are not doing the right thing, for you never know whose life is worthier.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2013 3:59:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 9:35:18 AM, MassiveDump wrote:
1. Let Ellie die.
2. Kidnap Ellie and drive to a safe settlement in Wyoming.

Joel was an idiot for not seeing how things were going to end up from the beginning. Anyone, including Ellie, would have known it was a death march from the beginning.

If I were in Joel's shoes I would have told Ellie that the odds of her surviving exploratory surgery before the world went to hell would have been low. With the world in chaos it would be near if not at zero. Long before getting her accost the country.

The naivety of Joel up until the end is baffling. I would have let things play out, and then volunteered for suicide missions afterwords.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2013 4:01:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 10:00:02 AM, mathdebator wrote:
Considering how messed up the world was, I don't think killing a girl to have a "chance" of making a vaccine will do any good, especially since the Fireflies would have total control over it. It could easily be used to gain absolute power: hey there, join me and I'll give you a vaccine!

Basically, zombie-riddled anarchy is better than authoritarian states circa 1200s is the claim here. I'd prefer the latter by a fairly long shot.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Passionate
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 4:57:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 9:38:48 AM, Noumena wrote:
Yer equating the world's happiness with my misery in this scenario. The former is rich, emotional connection while the latter is literally life and death. There's really no comparison other than the way you happened to word the scenario.

it would've been better if the game had two Alternate endings
Passionate
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 6:02:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 9:35:18 AM, MassiveDump wrote:
~BEWARE:~
~THE LAST OF US SPOILERS AHEAD~

Joel was to take watch over Ellie, a girl who was immune to the zombie infection and bring her to a hospital out west where they could find a cure.

Along the way, Joel becomes more attached to Ellie and begins to treat her like his own daughter, considering he lost his own when the infection first broke out.

Upon arrival, Joel finds out that to get the cure, they have to kill Ellie in surgery, who is now the only person Joel cares about at this point.

Ellie is unconscious and cannot make the decision for herself.

The options are:

1. Let Ellie die.
2. Kidnap Ellie and drive to a safe settlement in Wyoming.

If Ellie dies, the world is happy.
If Ellie gets kidnapped, Joel is happy, and Ellie will never know that Joel killed a hundred people in the hospital to save her.

The question is this: Would you make the whole world happy by making yourself miserable in return?

I was actually thinking about making a debate about the moral permissibility of what Joel did; I would defend it.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 6:06:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/11/2013 3:59:48 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:35:18 AM, MassiveDump wrote:
1. Let Ellie die.
2. Kidnap Ellie and drive to a safe settlement in Wyoming.

Joel was an idiot for not seeing how things were going to end up from the beginning. Anyone, including Ellie, would have known it was a death march from the beginning.

If I were in Joel's shoes I would have told Ellie that the odds of her surviving exploratory surgery before the world went to hell would have been low. With the world in chaos it would be near if not at zero. Long before getting her accost the country.

The naivety of Joel up until the end is baffling. I would have let things play out, and then volunteered for suicide missions afterwords.

Joel wasn't a doctor and likely had zero medical or biological knowledge (aside from what was relevant and necessary to him).
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 6:07:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 4:57:13 AM, Passionate wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:38:48 AM, Noumena wrote:
Yer equating the world's happiness with my misery in this scenario. The former is rich, emotional connection while the latter is literally life and death. There's really no comparison other than the way you happened to word the scenario.

it would've been better if the game had two Alternate endings


I disagree; I generally don't like it when a game is perfectly linear throughout the entire thing and then randomly has multiple endings. NaughtyDog is king in the videogame industry at telling linear stories and I was very satisfied with it.
Passionate
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 4:18:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 6:07:30 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:57:13 AM, Passionate wrote:
At 7/10/2013 9:38:48 AM, Noumena wrote:
Yer equating the world's happiness with my misery in this scenario. The former is rich, emotional connection while the latter is literally life and death. There's really no comparison other than the way you happened to word the scenario.

it would've been better if the game had two Alternate endings


I disagree; I generally don't like it when a game is perfectly linear throughout the entire thing and then randomly has multiple endings. NaughtyDog is king in the videogame industry at telling linear stories and I was very satisfied with it.

well i agree with your stance however unlike other games of naught dog there were no remarks made regarding the ending but on this one if you read certain reviews or comments you will find people mentioning some kind of discomfort for its ending. :)
Passionate
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 4:30:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't know the story, but I do know that if my daughter was dead I wouldn't give a fvck about the rest of the world. So I wouldn't sacrifice Ellie.