Last of Us (HBO Spoilers) #2

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

We’re at 22 pages.  So here’s the new thread:

@IFR

Quote

I'm not going to answer that! You'll say I'm wrong, and it will be just my luck the thread will then close, and it won't be worth it to go through the effort of starting a new one just to make a retort. And the rule of debates is that they who have the last word are the victors, so won't I feel silly then.

Here’s a brand new thread for you.  So I will ask again, if the Fireflys are allowed to kill Ellie and no cure results… was choosing to kill Ellie the moral decision?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

@Pebble thats Stubby

Quote

I agree Ellie deserves the truth,  but not sure she needs it straight away.  I might be wrong but I get the impression this was not long after she woke up.  I'm not sure telling her right then was correct.  Might not be sensible to wait a month, but maybe a day.  It is certainly an understandable lie even if its not right.

Then, instead of lying to Ellie… (hard as declining to talk really shows your hand) say they need to talk when she has recovered.  I recognize the awkwardness of that response and the paternalistic nature of that response…

[IFR]

22 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

We’re at 22 pages.  So here’s the new thread:

@IFR

Here’s a brand new thread for you.  So I will ask again, if the Fireflys are allowed to kill Ellie and no cure results… was choosing to kill Ellie the moral decision?

All right. To answer this dilemma we should set up a probability distribution on the likelihood of an effective cure being found as a result of the experiment. The best way to determine this probably would be to email Neil Druckman or Craig Maizin, let them know that we need a probability distribution on their fictional scenario to inform a debate. Failing that, I suppose one could develop some kind of Bayesian analysis from whatever information one could gather or infer on the efficacy of post-apocalypse experimental medical procedures, the ability to mobilize a cure successfully and maintain the supply consistently, etc.

This prior information would help in evaluating the dilemma. From then we can nitpick on the issue of what likelihood is the tipping point. I suppose on one extreme is that there's no likelihood and the Fireflies are just experimenting on Ellie for fun, and on the other extreme is that the success of the experiment is a virtual certainty. It will probably be somewhere in between.

But the corollary problems still exist: how effective is the cure, how sustainable is the structure to manufacture and distribute the cure, what are the side effects of the cure, must the cure be administered in some humiliating fashion (eg suppository), etc.

A lot of unknowns have to be hammered out before I can really answer you.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, IFR said:

All right. To answer this dilemma we should set up a probability distribution on the likelihood of an effective cure being found as a result of the experiment. The best way to determine this probably would be to email Neil Druckman or Craig Maizin, let them know that we need a probability distribution on their fictional scenario to inform a debate. Failing that, I suppose one could develop some kind of Bayesian analysis from whatever information one could gather or infer on the efficacy of post-apocalypse experimental medical procedures, the ability to mobilize a cure successfully and maintain the supply consistently, etc.

This prior information would help in evaluating the dilemma. From then we can nitpick on the issue of what likelihood is the tipping point. I suppose on one extreme is that there's no likelihood and the Fireflies are just experimenting on Ellie for fun, and on the other extreme is that the success of the experiment is a virtual certainty. It will probably be somewhere in between.

But the corollary problems still exist: how effective is the cure, how sustainable is the structure to manufacture and distribute the cure, what are the side effects of the cure, must the cure be administered in some humiliating fashion (eg suppository), etc.

A lot of unknowns have to be hammered out before I can really answer you.

So… is a hypothetical 50% probability of a cure justification for murdering Ellie?

[IFR]

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So… is a hypothetical 50% probability of a cure justification for murdering Ellie?

Are we talking about an ideal cure, 100% effective, the fungi will not adapt around it, perfect distribution, no side effects, high potential of repairing society so it eventually achieves a utopia, etc.?

I think so.

[Kalbear]

Is this a European or African cure? What is the carrying weight of an unladen Ellie?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Is this a European or African cure? What is the carrying weight of an unladen Ellie?

I don’t know that…. AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHH…

[Kalbear]

In more seriousness, the whole debate about the potential efficacy of the cure misses the entire arc of Joel's character and is a post hoc rationalization for his choice. The fundamental point is that Joel will save Ellie no matter what the cost is. Even if it means the cure is gone. Even if everyone in the world dies. The only cost he might not consider paying is Tommy. Everyone and everything else in the world has lesser value to him. 

For Joel, saving Ellie is giving him a second chance to save Sarah. It's redemption. And it's for him, not for her. 

[sifth]

6 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

In more seriousness, the whole debate about the potential efficacy of the cure misses the entire arc of Joel's character and is a post hoc rationalization for his choice. The fundamental point is that Joel will save Ellie no matter what the cost is. Even if it means the cure is gone. Even if everyone in the world dies. The only cost he might not consider paying is Tommy. Everyone and everything else in the world has lesser value to him. 

For Joel, saving Ellie is giving him a second chance to save Sarah. It's redemption. And it's for him, not for her. 

I mean Joel is a broken man; both the show and especially the game make this clear to us. How he kills Marlene in both adaptations makes this clear.

Edited March 16, 2023 by sifth

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

In more seriousness, the whole debate about the potential efficacy of the cure misses the entire arc of Joel's character and is a post hoc rationalization for his choice. The fundamental point is that Joel will save Ellie no matter what the cost is. Even if it means the cure is gone. Even if everyone in the world dies. The only cost he might not consider paying is Tommy. Everyone and everything else in the world has lesser value to him. 

For Joel, saving Ellie is giving him a second chance to save Sarah. It's redemption. And it's for him, not for her. 

That is probably true.

[sifth]

I believe in the video game if you  complete one of the collectible side quests, you get access to files that show the Firefly’s did procedures on other patients similar to Ellie and failed each time. It’s been a while since I played the game, but a friend recently reminded me. Also if you look at real science and how vaccines are made, the whole thing comes off looking fake.

Edited March 16, 2023 by sifth

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

In more seriousness, the whole debate about the potential efficacy of the cure misses the entire arc of Joel's character and is a post hoc rationalization for his choice. The fundamental point is that Joel will save Ellie no matter what the cost is. Even if it means the cure is gone. Even if everyone in the world dies. The only cost he might not consider paying is Tommy. Everyone and everything else in the world has lesser value to him. 

For Joel, saving Ellie is giving him a second chance to save Sarah. It's redemption. And it's for him, not for her. 

Damn it, I was coming to post precisely this.

To try to paint Joel's actions as anything but selfish means ignoring much of the show (a quarter? a third?). The whole point is that it is carefully established that Joel is a broken man who can no longer survive without Ellie and will do anything to protect her. It's not even "just" Joel's character: the entire show builds around these themes to make sure the ending will be problematic.
The show could have been the story of Joel selflessly and heroically rescuing Ellie from a bunch of murderous communists, but that's not what we saw on screen. What we see is deliberately ambiguous: the Fireflies are wrong because they don't even try to get Ellie's consent (which she may very well have given), but Joel is also wrong because he is a ruthless killer focused on self-preservation ("you keep finding something to fight for") who is no longer capable of acting for moral reasons.
I don't dwell on the Fireflies' wrongs for the very simple reason that Joel kills them all, even executing Marlene on the assumption that she will keep hunting Ellie.

Many people here act as if the Fireflies' wrongs somehow make Joel's actions right. But for that you need to ignore what takes place both before and after Joel's killing spree. And in itself, sure, rescuing Ellie from a deadly procedure she did not consent to is morally justified ; there's no question that Ellie deserves to live. But none of that absolves Joel. First, because he's not just a rescuer, but also a killer ; he makes sure everyone dies (save for the two nurses). Second, because even if his actions were not morally questionable, his motives still are. We know he doesn't do it for Ellie, because the show tells us that.

To be clear: a moral ending would have seen both the Fireflies and Joel die. Ellie is the only one who is innocent and deserves a normal life. The reason why the ending is uncomfortable is because Joel survives.

BTW the truly moral thing to do would be to wait until she turns 18 to consent and attempt the procedure, using that time to ensure she has a reasonable chance of surviving it. But if you think the Fireflies' wrongs justify Joel's actions, then by the same principle the Fireflies' actions can be defended in the name of saving the entire human race. You either choose consequentialism or you don't, but you can't say that it's ok for Joel to murder a dozen people to save Ellie when these people wanted to murder Ellie to save thousands...

Edited March 16, 2023 by Rippounet

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, sifth said:

I mean Joel is a broken man; both the show and especially the game make this clear to us. 

Yep. Again, one of the biggest strengths of the story is being able to show us the path for this very messed up guy to make some fairly horrible choices and understand precisely why he's doing it. But that doesn't mean we should agree with those choices. They 100% make sense for Joel, but it's also not awesome.

During the show one of the things I kept saying is how they need to make Joel less sympathetic and more monstrous - or at least show it. In the game he's got a rep and then does horrible things in the game too, repeatedly. It's telegraphed in the brutal way he fights and improvises and the in-your-face violence he does. It's very clear (as you say) how broken he is. I don't know how well they did that in the show, honestly, at least until very late in the show - around ep 8 - and at that point he's going around and torturing a bunch of cannibals, so him being all Jack Bauer is not that unsympathetic. Joel is kind of meant to be absolutely feared by people. He has a horrible rep. He is supposed to be scary to a point. 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

 

BTW the truly moral thing to do would be to wait until she turns 18 to consent and attempt the procedure, using that time to ensure she has a reasonable chance of surviving it. But if you think the Fireflies' wrongs justify Joel's actions, then by the same principle the Fireflies' actions can be defended in the name of saving the entire human race. You either choose consequentialism or you don't, but you can't say that it's ok for Joel to murder a dozen people to save Ellie when these people wanted to murder Ellie to save thousands...

I get what you are saying but from what I saw Joel's actions where justified because the Firefly Scientis really where skipping essential data gathering and risking everything on a very slim chance of success.  The government may have had a better chance of using Ellie to find a cure.  Joel's actions are justified inspite of his reasons for his actions.  The fireflies may have beleived they could save the human race the show really suggested for them that was a pipedream.

 

If I was running Evil Imoral post appolatiptic experiments limited I would want as much data as I could before I destroyed experimental material that took over 14 years to make.

For a start I would have infected the mother very differently.  that was a risky as hell for no sensible reason.  Put fungus Zombie in a cage, stick Mum's arm or leg in the cage to be bitten.  then there is much less chance of zombie fungus killing Mum before she gives birth or killing babe if a Mother in the late stages of Labour fails to kill zombie fungus.   I'd probably do this before Mum goes into Labour and then give her a C section.  getting the timing just right if going for a natural birth has got to be hard.   If this works as a reliable way to provide immunity in the child then this could potentially be a cure for future generations.  (although halfing them and women get only one child.) 

You would also need to know if the child could then pass on the protection to their children.  Gee you have Ellie who is technically old enough to bear children. - if only you don't cut her brain out first.

I'd also want to know if a fully turned zombie fungus Mum could give birth to a immune child.  guess this would involve strapping Zombie Mum down and artifiifal insemination.  not sure you'd get volunteers do it naturally.  If that works then you won't need to kill off healthy Mum's to make immune children and you could start a breading program.  

Its not a cure as such since this does not help those allready born.  but could provide a future for humanity if a vaccine can't be developed.  

Please don't judge me by this,  remember I said "If I was running Evil Imoral post appolatiptic experiments limited".  I'd also be very glad I would not make good breading stock.

[Rippounet]

48 minutes ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

I get what you are saying but from what I saw Joel's actions where justified because the Firefly Scientis really where skipping essential data gathering and risking everything on a very slim chance of success.

You're missing the point. The Fireflies are in the wrong, but that doesn't mean they all deserve to be killed. Just because you didn't get to know them individually doesn't mean they weren't people too.

In fact, I do believe that is the point: you condone the murder of people you don't know to prevent the murder of someone you do know. But how far are you willing to push this logic? Would you sacrifice the entire human race for your child?
I would not. I could not.

For the record, a few weeks ago in another show I was watching, the main character's mom is offered a spot in a programme to test an experimental drug that could cure her cancer but she (the main character) has to pick someone (a name on a list) that her mom will replace in the programme.
She refuses to do it and, when pressed, kills the guy who insists instead.
That is, imho, the "right" perspective. In truth, the choice cannot be made by a sane individual. I've seen the point made in several works of fiction. The comics "Thorgall" has a pretty good moment like this with Parcae : whoever kills a stranger to save a loved one is supposed to be cursed by the Gods. It's a very simple moral point, but it is not universal: cultures that value the individual more might condone it.
 

48 minutes ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

For a start I would have infected the mother very differently.  that was a risky as hell for no sensible reason.

I really dont think Ellie's mom was infected on purpose. In fact, had Marlene known that she was bitten before cutting the umbilical cord, Ellie would probably have been killed right then and there.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Rippounet

[Ran]

28 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You're missing the point. The Fireflies are in the wrong, but that doesn't mean they all deserve to be killed. Just because you didn't get to know them individually doesn't mean they weren't people too.

They were killed because they supported the murder of someone, and killing them was necessary to prevent that murder, for the most part. Yes, Joel killing the incapacitated man in cold blood or killing the guy who surrendered was immoral, but the vast majority of those killed were trying to kill him and prevent him from rescuing the person they wanted to murder. And from the perspective of making sure no one knew about what happened so that they couldn't come after Ellie afterards, well, killing them all would seem necessary.

It's not a stranger vs. not stranger thing, it's a guilt vs innocent thing. Ellie was an innocent who was going to be murdered. The Fireflies, as perpetrators, were guilty of intending her murder. They believed they had cause to murder her, but their failure to ascertain her assent made them immoral, and stopping them was morally appropriate.

I do agree that it was not intended for Ellie's mother to get infected. That was just bad luck.

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Ran

[Pebble thats Stubby]

14 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You're missing the point. The Fireflies are in the wrong, but that doesn't mean they all deserve to be killed. Just because you didn't get to know them individually doesn't mean they weren't people too.

In fact, I do believe that is the point: you condone the murder of people you don't know to prevent the murder of someone you do know. But how far are you willing to push this logic? Would you sacrifice the entire human race for your child?
I would not. I could not.

For the record, a few weeks ago in another show I was watching, the main character's mom is offered a spot in a programme to test an experimental drug that could cure her cancer but she (the main character) has to pick someone (a name on a list) that her mom will replace in the programme.
She refuses to do it and, when pressed, kills the guy who insists instead.
That is, imho, the "right" perspective. In truth, the choice cannot be made by a sane individual. I've seen the point made in several works of fiction. The comics "Thorgall" has a pretty good moment like this with Parcae : whoever kills a stranger to save a loved one is supposed to be cursed by the Gods. It's a very simple moral point, but it is not universal: cultures that value the individual more might condone it.
 

I really dont think Ellie's mom was infected on purpose. In fact, had Marlene known that she was bitten before cutting the umbilical cord, Ellie would probably have been killed right then and there.

Of course they don't deserve to die, I don't condone the death penelty for any crime.  But Joel and Ellie are living in a very different world.

Joel killing them may not have been right, but in the circumstances I can't say it was totally wrong either.  They where guilty of attempted murder.  and there was every reason to believe if allowed to live and go free they would pursue Ellie with the intetion of collecting her brain because they are true beliviers this was the only way.  and lets face it Joel was in no way able to ensure those fireflies would go to prison and thus be unable to comit more crime.

 

You might be right Ellie's Mum was not infected on purpose.  If it was accidental then I'm supprised Ellie was allowed to live given the chance she could have been born infected and just waiting like the mum to turn.

 

If it was really accidetal and they where unaware of her imunity until the biting in the mall then it makes even less sence that they would not try to gather some data first before brain harvesting.  If it was deliberate there is a greater chance of more Ellie's out there.  cos you probably would not have just infected one pregnant mother.

[sifth]

To further add just how out of his mind and broken Joel is, we have his final conversation with Ellie, before the credits. He's constantly comparing Ellie to Sarah and saying "I think you two would be friends" and in my mind, I'm thinking "dude, she'd be in her 30's, you know", but naturally in Joel's broken mind his daughter will always be 14.

Edited March 16, 2023 by sifth

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, sifth said:

Just to further add just how out of his mind and broken Joel is, we have his final conversation with Ellie, before the credits. He's constantly comparing Ellie to Sarah and saying "I think you two would be friends" and in my mind, I'm thinking "dude, she'd be in her 30's, you know", but naturally in Joel's broken mind his daughter will always be 14.

That’s an excellent point…

[Pebble thats Stubby]

18 minutes ago, sifth said:

Just to further add just how out of his mind and broken Joel is, we have his final conversation with Ellie, before the credits. He's constantly comparing Ellie to Sarah and saying "I think you two would be friends" and in my mind, I'm thinking "dude, she'd be in her 30's, you know", but naturally in Joel's broken mind his daughter will always be 14.

I think thats rather natural.  

 

I have a cousin who live on the other side of the world.  I have only seen when she visited as a young child.  I know she is far older now and had a child of her own.  But I still think of her as that 6 year old I met.  Its how I picture her as that is who she is in my memories.  and that is someone I hardly knew.  Not someone I interacted with every day for years.

 

Joel remembering her daughter as a 14 year old and comparing her to Ellie as a 14 year old recognising that 14 year old Sarah and 14 year old Ellie would have gotten along is not wierd.  Thinking of Sarah as a 30 year old when she died at 14 so never got to even be 20 as a default would be wierd.    Its only when you stop to think for a moment and apply just how long its been can you picture them the age they would be and specualte what they might be like now.