To be clear, the ONLY reason I'm balking at all is because I don't think saving five random people, who could be in need of a transplant for reasons entirely of their own making, to be a good enough reason to literally commit murder. Without knowing SIGNIFICANTLY more information about the situation, it's impossible to make an informed decision. As I said, there may be a situation where it's acceptable and even justified. No decision like that is made without a significant amount of deliberation and information. With that said, decisions like that would never be made in today's society as it's completely illegal to MURDER a patient in order to save another patient or any number of patients. Letting a patient die, like what happens when choosing to save the baby over attempting to save the mother, or quarantining a severely diseased and contagious patient, that's something else entirely.
The world is every man for himself, including and IMO even ESPECIALLY the West, just not in a violence filled way. Capitalism is just a more structured and legal form of it. The rules, regulations etc... surrounding many cultures simply curtail any wholesale application of violence in that way. Power simply no longer means literal physical prowess. Money is power and might now. And as we can see happening everywhere...Might absolutely makes right, just like it used to be, that Might is just applied differently. But if you're going to try and pretend that if those laws and rules didn't exist that people wouldn't be doing anything and everything in their power to get what they want or what they think is best for their family/friends/etc... you're delusional. That's precisely why those laws exist in the first place, because we as a species knew what we're capable of and knew we needed those laws to prevent us from turning into animals. We simply live in a world that's had these laws for so long that they're practically second nature to us, so rather than get in physical fights to take what we want, we post shit online, doxxing people that cross us, cancel people who do something we don't agree with, and otherwise play by the rules of today.Ironically, I am not a moral idealist at all. I believe ethics are a result of our social needs and experiences, and yes, I am well aware that horrible things still happen under the veneer of civilization. Still, you will find that as soon as society at large starts to put a price on human lives, they will soon become worthless, so we must have laws - yes - and social conventions that prevent that. And no, it's not entirely every man for himself, certainly not in the West, or even in most of the world, so dull that edge a bit. If it was truly every man for himself, you'd risk being shanked for a loaf of bread every time you exit your house. We should be mindful of the many limitations of society, but we should still respect what we do have.
The "game" hasn't changed, but the rules absolutely have.
Is there information on how and why she's making her decision? Is it based on importance of the souls in the grove or is it some other factor? Because if there's any triage happening regarding which groves to cull and which to save, that has nothing to do with importance and is instead based on the practicality and logistics around it, and has nothing to do with importance of the soul.Edit: To circle back to the original argument, by calling the Wild Hunt, the Winter Queen is essentially choosing who dies and who gets a chance to live, instead of leaving it to luck and the skill of individual grove tenders. The pods that are deemed important are moved to less affected areas, and not everyone is culled, so this is basically a scenario of the rich feeding on the poor on the Wild God hierarchy.
Also, as implied in the cinematic, she gave the grove tenders a choice. There was no guarantee Ursoc would have survivied had that grove been left alone. But there IS a guarantee that his life could save others. In an already uncertain situation where lives and possibly the entirety of your "kingdom"are already at risk, you don't take chances on "maybes." It's a simple choice. It's not an EASY one to make, but it IS simple.
Ursoc was already dead. We ARE literally talking about the afterlife here. So no it wasn't murder, it was a choice to not renew his life yet again for the benefit of the entirety of Ardenweald so that the countless other souls there could have a better chance at being renewed and for the infinite number of souls that may come there in the future.You might think that Ursoc's pod was about to fade anyway, but the clip implies that, had Ara'lon chosen to keep caring for it, he might have still had a chance, so what happened there was murder. Murder for the good of others, but still murder, and a bit messed up in that the tender was faced with a choice, but the actual victim wasn't. This is why the scenario I discussed above applies better than the train track problem.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't see how the actions of Sylvanas and the actions of the Winter Queen are at all relatable to each other, even if they're somehow connected.
If Sylvanas has been in league with the Jailer this entire time, she literally started a war to kill people to specifically send them to the Maw. She's the instigator of the entire war, every life lost as a result of this war is on her.
The Winter Queen is having to cull groves in Ardenweald in an attempt to save it from dying from a situation that is almost entirely out of her hands.
How are these two situations equivalent?