The Last of Us Part II

[Mellomania]

The trolley problem involves an inevitable outcome where someone HAS to die.

Nothing about what happened in the hospital was inevitable. It rarely is in human relations, where you can talk to people, talk half-measures, compromise, communicate, etc.

Unless you stop them Ellie has to die though?

[Mrbleedinggums]

It's not even a trolley/train switch problem.

It's like putting the train on the tracks yourself, refusing to acknowledge the people on the track, bull rushing forward in your locomotive, then realizing at the last second the one person you're about to run over is someone you care about, and even though EVERYTHING YOU DID BROUGHT YOU TO THIS MOMENT, INCLUDING YOUR INACTION AND INABILITY TO COMMUNICATE, you freak out. And instead of accepting the consequences of your vast and wild mistakes, you instead derail the train, kill dozens of people riding in the train with you, just to save the one person on the tracks. Who, by the way, was willing to be run over and resents you now for killing all those people.

Except even that doesn't make sense as an analogy, because in this analogy, running over the person on the tracks has the opportunity to save thousands of lives.

Here's how you determine if it's moral or not: if it was a complete stranger (but still a young girl) on the table, would Joel have interrupted and killed all those people? I think the answer is unequivocally no. He did it for selfish reasons, and if he's not willing to do it for strangers, he's not doing it for a moral reason, especially since there's a compelling moral counterpart. People get experimented for medical reasons all the time.

Hell, the polio vaccine (which is kind of what the TLOU story is based on), was cultivated off the "immortal" cells of Henrietta Lacks, a patient dying of cancer. The cells were taken without her knowledge, and knowing it would do nothing to cure her cancer. Her cells were so remarkable scientists felt it necessary to take them to study them. From those cells, MILLIONS OF LIVES have been saved. There's a lot of injustice re: Henrietta Lacks cells, but none of it is around taking it without her permission, most of it stems from the fact that her family saw none of the profit of the medicines developed from her cells, and court cases which said one's biological material isn't a copyrightable thing you can profit off of. The difference is Lacks was dying not from the experiment, but extemporaneously from it, but there are other patients who have died for medical experimentation, knowing full well what they were getting into.

Excellent counterpoint and I would have to say I agree with your analysis on how Joel is definitely to blame for this. I would, however, argue that morality and selfishness aren't mutually exclusive factors though. Is it selfish to want to save your loved one at all cost, even if it means at the sake of the lives of thousands of others? Yes. Is it wrong? The argument can be sufficiently made both ways.

The self-preservation of humans is in and of itself, a selfish nature. If we were to follow Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs then the second layer (Safety) would have to be fulfilled before being able to progress. That is not to say that being selfish is necessarily bad though. If someone steals food or basic needs to try to feed/care for their children then it is both bad for doing an unlawful act and good that they are sacrificing themselves at the risk of being caught/jailed to care for the lives of someone close to them.

You cannot determine whether it's moral or not based on if the young girl on the table was a complete stranger, as if that were the case then wouldn't it be just as immoral to leave the girl to her fate (let alone to perform the operation and kill the person)? A twist on the train switch problem is this: You are a doctor and you have 5 patients that urgently require a different organ to live or else they'll all die. But you do not have any organ donors available. Then a young nameless and healthy drifter comes into town that just so happens to be a perfect match for your 5 patients. Nobody will know if the person disappeared, so why not sacrifice the life of that random person to save the lives of multiple people? You're arguing for utilitarianism or the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I would urge you to please read "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" as the scenario you bring up and ask if it's moral if it were a stranger is perfectly portrayed in that excerpt. In it, the Utopian city of Omelas is able to flourish due to the eternal misery of a single nameless child who is " kept in perpetual filth, darkness, and misery."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_On...ay_from_Omelas
So, would you allow it to suffer torture for the entirety of its existence or would you save the nameless child at the cost of the lives of everybody in that Utopia? After all, the majority of people living in that town have no idea about this child and when they're old enough to learn of its fate, many are disgusted of the fact but ultimately acquiesce to the realization that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

There is a reason why human experimentation is now considered illegal unless heavily vetted, by the way. Also, regarding your polio example, if Henrietta Lacks were instead to be killed in order to harvest her cells would that make it any different? Would her family be justified in seeking vengeance for those that killed their loved one? Food for thought.

[eschatological]

Unless you stop them Ellie has to die though?

Once she's on the table, sure. But human relationships are complex, and things could have worked out differently before that. In other words......there was a period of time before the train even started moving where someone could have said, "Hey...let's not start the train up." The trolley problem assumes the train is an unstoppable, inevitable force......which is not true in the situation of TLOU.

[Fencers]

These whistling sonsofbishes are getting on my last nerve.

I literally am questioning whether I am hearing a whistling or not when not playing the game. I woke up around 4:40 this morning thought I heard the bird whistles in my kitchen.

This game has me on edge.

[Gorsameth]

Because it's not based around any valid criticisms. I've looked into a bunch of people who claim the story sucked and it begins and ends with them not liking that Joel died and being unable to accept it while proceeding to hate the game no matter what after it happened. I've even seen people argue that Joel is simply too good at what he does to die the way he did despite the fact that considering the context of the situation there was literally nothing he could have done to avoid it. While others argue that they just don't like the way he died, that if he was going to die it should be as melodramatic as possible because god forbid his death be messy, sudden or real because he's simply too good for that despite the fact that that has always been the kind of tone these games follow.

And if people hate it because Joel died? Fine, but own up to it saying the story simply sucks is just cashing in on the current popular trend, even SkillUp whose opinion I honestly believe was genuine chose to cash in on the trend when he realized how popular his review was by taking potshots at the game on twitter.

https://twitter.com/SkillUpYT/status...673990144?s=20

Only if you ignore all the people who don't even talk about Joel, or any specific character at all but instead talk about things like the mess of flashbacks, character going from near death to perfectly fine whenever it is convenient (and I mean in cutscenes, not gameplay) or any other number of examples of bad writing like the repeated times a character gets captures but somehow not killed.

(as for Joel, people can read into the story what they want. that is what stories are for but to me it seems like a very basic choice between saving humanity and a father willing to go to any lengths to save his (adopted) daughter.
A parents love for their child is a very powerful thing to play off of for a story and why tlou1 resonated for many people.

[eschatological]

Excellent counterpoint and I would have to say I agree with your analysis on how Joel is definitely to blame for this. I would, however, argue that morality and selfishness aren't mutually exclusive factors though. Is it selfish to want to save your loved one at all cost, even if it means at the sake of the lives of thousands of others? Yes. Is it wrong? The argument can be sufficiently made both ways.

Depends on which moral system you subscribe to, really. Christianity (and specifically Christ) was pretty clear on this: you must forsake even your father and mother, if you wish to follow Me. And Christianity, whatever you think of it, is the basis of Western moral philosophy. But if you want to go back to Aristotle, he talked about how the virtuous man is the vigilant man. Given this problem, he would have said that if Joel had been truly morally vigilant, he would have been clear with Ellie, and probably never take her to the Fireflies in the first place.

Non-violence as espoused by Gandhi/MLK also has similar tenets, though not really tested by MLK.

Edit: Also, I'm not saying it would be moral if it was a stranger on the table. I'm saying because Joel wouldn't have acted that way for a stranger, he is not acting morally. Defense of his family is neither moral or immoral, it is simply a selfish, self-interested animal instinct. It is part of our "baser instinct" which most moral philosophers would argue is something we have the reason to overcome, because of our ability to reason.

[everydaygamer]

Only if you ignore all the people who don't even talk about Joel, or any specific character at all but instead talk about things like the mess of flashbacks,

Not liking the flashbacks is fine I can understand why people dislike them though based on what I've seen so far (about halfway through) the flashbacks offer some the best characters moments in the game as well help to further Joel and Ellie's relationship something people complained couldn't happen because of his death.

character going from near death to perfectly fine whenever it is convenient (and I mean in cutscenes, not gameplay)

I've yet to see any character suffer an injury that they couldn't reasonably walk away from, at the very least nothing that they didn't also do in the first game. Even then that's more of a contrivance than bad writing.

or any other number of examples of bad writing like the repeated times a character gets captures but somehow not killed.

Again based on what I've seen the few instances where this happened it does make sense that they weren't immediately killed, heck the story even goes as far to explain why, but people are just choosing to ignore the context.

[Gorsameth]

Not liking the flashbacks is fine I can understand why people dislike them though based on what I've seen so far (about halfway through) the flashbacks offer some the best characters moments in the game as well help to further Joel and Ellie's relationship something people complained couldn't happen because of his death.



I've yet to see any character suffer an injury that they couldn't reasonably walk away from, at the very least nothing that they didn't also do in the first game. Even then that's more of a contrivance than bad writing.



Again based on what I've seen the few instances where this happened it does make sense that they weren't immediately killed, heck the story even goes as far to explain why, but people are just choosing to ignore the context.

keep playing and maybe you will better understand where people are coming from.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

keep playing and maybe you will better understand where people are coming from.

there are only two injury's in the whole game that are at all questionable and one of them is a less severe version of something that happens to Joel in the first game.

as to captures the all make sense why the characters aren't killed almost every time because of an outside force stepping in.

[Kallisto]

These whistling sonsofbishes are getting on my last nerve.

I literally am questioning whether I am hearing a whistling or not when not playing the game. I woke up around 4:40 this morning thought I heard the bird whistles in my kitchen.

This game has me on edge.

I'll be honest, with all their whistling I was just waiting for Negan to show up and turn out to be the leader of these guys.

[Koriani]

Only if you ignore all the people who don't even talk about Joel, or any specific character at all but instead talk about things like the mess of flashbacks, character going from near death to perfectly fine whenever it is convenient (and I mean in cutscenes, not gameplay) or any other number of examples of bad writing like the repeated times a character gets captures but somehow not killed.

(as for Joel, people can read into the story what they want. that is what stories are for but to me it seems like a very basic choice between saving humanity and a father willing to go to any lengths to save his (adopted) daughter.
A parents love for their child is a very powerful thing to play off of for a story and why tlou1 resonated for many people.

Stephen King wrote an excellent screenplay /ABC MIniseries about this *exact* type of decision. Called "Storm of the Century."
A town full of parents having to play the "good of the many vs. the good of the one" and "If its your kid - would you allow them to be sacrificed" question.

And as always in these type of morality tales - whether you agree with the final "outcome" (Just like in TLOU2) or not - the whole point is to get you talking and thinking. Because there's no one right answer.

For those who like this type of story - I highly encourage going out and finding the book (as the screenplay was of course published, even before the miniseries hit lol). Quick read but great story and quandry.

[Mrbleedinggums]

Depends on which moral system you subscribe to, really. Christianity (and specifically Christ) was pretty clear on this: you must forsake even your father and mother, if you wish to follow Me. And Christianity, whatever you think of it, is the basis of Western moral philosophy. But if you want to go back to Aristotle, he talked about how the virtuous man is the vigilant man. Given this problem, he would have said that if Joel had been truly morally vigilant, he would have been clear with Ellie, and probably never take her to the Fireflies in the first place.

Non-violence as espoused by Gandhi/MLK also has similar tenets, though not really tested by MLK.

Edit: Also, I'm not saying it would be moral if it was a stranger on the table. I'm saying because Joel wouldn't have acted that way for a stranger, he is not acting morally. Defense of his family is neither moral or immoral, it is simply a selfish, self-interested animal instinct. It is part of our "baser instinct" which most moral philosophers would argue is something we have the reason to overcome, because of our ability to reason.

True that, it really does depend which moral system you follow. I would contest (if nothing, for the sake of devil's advocate) that people who would disagree with that concept would follow more with Matthew 25:44-46

And they too will reply, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then the King will answer, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me.’ And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

and use that as justification as to not forsake anyone, even a stranger. Granted, things get muddied with the whole "killing people to save other people" but considering how wars have been justified on the sole basis of religious righteousness, I don't feel that it would be that far off if that were a major contributing factor in this scenario. (Disclosure: This is not means to extensively discuss religion as that is a forbidden topic, simply that I do agree with you on that basis and wanted to briefly reflect/comment on that part of your reply)

I can see that same argument being made with Aristotle, and hindsight is always 20/20. My counterpoint would be if someone is in the wrong and suddenly realizes what they were doing was incorrect, is it more morally vigilant to remain how they are or to change paths when they see the error of their ways? Because that is exactly what Ellie does when determining what action to do.

Fair enough and thank you for the clarification! I wasn't sure so I wanted to cover that ground in case that argument was being made. I agree, and I don't necessarily blame him. Many of us wouldn't explicitly act out if it were a stranger (hence why we have social psychological theories explaining behavioral patterns like the bystander effect) but would quickly rush to the aid of someone we care about.

[Gorsameth]

as to captures the all make sense why the characters aren't killed almost every time because of an outside force stepping in.

When you repeatedly use it, it becomes lazy/bad writing imo.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

When you repeatedly use it, it becomes lazy/bad writing imo.

it happens about two times per character. each time is a different setup and each time has a different outcome, just using an idea more then once and in different ways isn't lazy or poor writing.

[Tech614]

Bruce Straley, the original game's director and co-writer/creator of the 1st game.

You claimed a long list of people and you come back with 1 name?

Doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about. Actually you just don't since Straley is not a writer at all and you just claimed he was. He was co-director. Druckmann didn't even have a co-writer for TLOU1 he did it all on his own, TLOU2 is the one where he brought in a co-writer in Halley Gross.

[Relapses]

LOL. videogamedunkey just review this game:



A dude who's known to shit on games and go against the grain (see: his KH3 review) once again subverts expectations by... liking the fucking game. It's already getting more dislikes than his videos typically do and the comment section is awash with the same "DA STORY SUCKS N YOU SUCK FOR LIKING IT" bullshit that has filled the last fifty or so pages of this thread.

For the record, I don't even fully agree with him but God damn is the internet hivemind a predictably depressing phenomena.

[Kallisto]

LOL. videogamedunkey just review this game:



A dude who's known to shit on games and go against the grain (see: his KH3 review) once again subverts expectations by... liking the fucking game. It's already getting more dislikes than his videos typically do and the comment section is awash with the same "DA STORY SUCKS N YOU SUCK FOR LIKING IT" bullshit that has filled the last fifty or so pages of this thread.

For the record, I don't even fully agree with him but God damn is the internet hivemind a predictably depressing phenomena.

Everyone wants their internet points for sticking to the hivemind. If they don't they fall into the outsiders along with the other "undesirables.".

[Tech614]

Everyone wants their internet points for sticking to the hivemind. If they don't they fall into the outsiders along with the other "undesirables.".

Dunkey has way more subs then most of the clickbait artists so doesn't have to go for the low hanging fruit. That said it's honestly hilarious the hivemind is so upset about him, even claiming he was bought off lmao. Dunkey is a comedian, you watch him to laugh not to get deep insight into a game.

[Kallisto]

Dunkey has way more subs then most of the clickbait artists so doesn't have to go for the low hanging fruit. That said it's honestly hilarious the hivemind is so upset about him, even claiming he was bought off lmao. Dunkey is a comedian, you watch him to laugh not to get deep insight into a game.

Oh I was talking about the guys in the comments, not Dunky himself.

[Fencers]

This woman is the deadliest assassin in history.

The sheer number of zombies, humans, dogs and whatever-the-hell I have stabbed, scalped, shot, brained, lit on fire, impaled, blow-up and busted with a motherfucking brick in hand is in the hundreds.

There was a part where I stabbed a woman in the throat as she played her PS Vita. And I was like, "Damn, Ellie! You are a stone cold ruthess bitch."

This game got you playing as the grim reaper.