fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #6168 ]

Oh man there sure are a lot of people even here who missed that Joel didn't save Ellie for the profound individual-vs-civilizational moral reasons they've invented, he did it because of his own purely self-interested emotional investment in her as a proxy for his dead daughter. That's why he doesn't tell her what he did afterwards. If he thought it was morally defensible, that it was based on his true right-vs-wrong/Omelas convictions or his well-founded misgivings about the Fireflies, he would have told her the truth even if it ended up costing him his relationship with her, because her life and those beliefs are more important than that.

He doesn't tell her because he didn't do it because of that. He did it because of his self-interested emotional investment in his relationship. If she breaks off their relationship because she disagrees with his choice, it completely nullifies the purpose of what he did. This was the whole point of the story, this is what everything the character has said and done was leading up to.

To this day I have no idea why people project their Good, Projective Daddy issues onto this character with abstract moral grandstanding in no way reflects the reality of the story as told. It seriously blows my mind.

Especially after TLOU2 debunks this misinterpretation beyond a shadow of a doubt: do you think Naughty Dog was wrong about their own story/intent? Seriously? And yet that's what it comes down to.

Go hug your dad or play mini-golf with him or something. He's probably a decent guy. Joel isn't.

Oh, we're not talking about Joel in this thread anymore. We're talking about the anon who thinks they're a really great person because they'd kill their child, mom, and wife, and thinks that anyone who wouldn't do the same is terrible.

Eh there's a lot of melodramatic grandstanding from both sides in this thread from what I can see about the ~doom of civilization~ and how anon would "stay in Omelas" but the reality is we all live in Omelas under capitalism and none of us have walked away from the multitudes of unwilling sacrifices made in the name of our comforts.

Regardless of your philosophical perspective on the moral rightness of Joel's actions at the hospital, Joel himself simply did not do what he did for these moral or philosophical reasons. Like, objectively. Unambiguously. As text. Because Joel sucks.

Would some other person do what Joel as a moral objection against predicating the advancement of civilization on the (potentially unwilling) sacrifice of the few for the sake of the many? Possibly. Or out of respect for Ellie's life/individual autonomy? Also possibly. Or because the Fireflies' methods may not be as legitimate or certain as they first suggested? Sure.

But that other person would have said so to Ellie, and then would have dealt with the fallout of her potential disagreement with that choice. Joel lies to her to remove that possibility, because what if that is what she wanted? She's made allusions to that being the case throughout the game. Not only might she think he was a monster and break ties with him, but she might find some way to go back, some other group willing to try it. Then he loses what he actually cares about, which was never his principles, nor Ellie herself nor her right to choose what happens to her, but his own feelings towards her and his chance to regain what he lost. His lie is calculated entirely with this in mind.

Joel is awful and the story rightfully condemns him as such.

+1000

I don't care about Joel. I care about real people who make declarations about how great they are, supposing they'd always do the "right" thing (whatever they've told themselves that happens to be), that the strength of their convictions would never fail, and that anyone who falters when actually faced with a painful ethical dilemma is a bad person. I care about real people who lack any understanding or empathy for those with ordinary human weaknesses, and then pat themselves on the back for what they view as their own moral righteousness. They care so much about people that they hold them in contempt.

But the discussion isn't about how "anyone who falters when faced with an ethical dilemma is a bad person" it's about a particular guy who shot up a hospital for the sake of his own feelings to the common good of no one but himself then lied about it purely to conserve his own benefit.

I appreciate your graciousness toward human failings, but respectfully, if that's not a "bad person", who _is_?

That's the discussion I'm interested in. I never played that game, so I'm not worried about its characters. I can say, from what you've described, that it seems like Joel isn't a good person. But I'm a lot more concerned with the real person here who thinks taking one life to save the many isn't an ethical dilemma.

+1
I know about Last if Us only that there is some zombie fungus, that is all. Probably this Joel character isn't good.
But this anon who thinks that "greater good" is good and everything else is bad and we are all bad people for choosing loved ones weirds the hell out of me

Wow. You seem to have some deep seated issues there, my friend.

No, it’s just manufactured outrage anon out here doing their thing.

Entirely possible, but that still points to issues they need to work through. Who would have thought that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one would be a controversial statement?

Re: Who is Your Least Favorite Character?

(Anonymous) - 2023-11-26 18:11 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Who is Your Least Favorite Character?

(Anonymous) - 2023-11-26 18:35 (UTC) - Expand

THANK YOU JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.

Apparently having the position that "saving humanity" > "self-interested saving of dead daughter proxy" is "oooooh you think you're a gReaT pERsOn". My god.

As I said, I just finished the game, and if this is what the fandom is like I'm gonna pass. And I thought the worst stupid-ass misreadings were in the MDZS fandom....

The TLOU fandom legit makes me feel insane because it's not like this AAA zombie cover shooter required Ulysses levels of media literacy to understand. Like, was I the stupid one???? If Joel makes some unambiguously heroic decision to "save" Ellie from the dastardly murderous Fireless, like they seemed to think, then the whole story is pointless. The narrative is empty. It would have the depth and meaning of Mario saving the Princess from Bowser. But his final conversation with Ellie might as well be them turning to the camera to say "JOEL DID NOT RAMPAGE THROUGH A HOSPITAL MURDERING UNARMED DOCTORS AS A RIGHTEOUS ACT, HE DID SO BECAUSE HAVING A SECOND CHANCE AT RAISING A DAUGHTER IS MORE IMPORTANT TO HIM THAN BOTH THE POSSIBILITY OF A BETTER FUTURE AND THAT PROXY DAUGHTER'S OWN WANTS."

Then TLOU2 comes out and it treats Joel badly and it's shocked pikachu face and tears of rage all the way down from the fandom while I'm sitting there like. Yes. That was the text. That was the story. That was always the story. You deluded yourself into thinking otherwise because????? Feelings??? You really liked Joel and Ellie???? Something something giraffe????

Honestly just seems to be daddy issues, man. Or, like, they would save Ellie. And Joel saved Ellie! So Joel has to be morally right. Because they're morally right! My strong protective feelings regarding my loved ones trump the lives of all others and the betterment of humanity and the wishes/desires/free will of said loved ones if it means I lose them because that's sad for me--- no, because it's wrong! It's wrong not to want that! You're the evil one, not me! So you get essays of spin about what is not by any means an ambiguous narrative.

Personally, I'd like to think that I'd make a different choice, but even if I didn't, I would lay it all out for the person I loved why I made that choice (Fireflies didn't actually seem like they knew what they were doing, they misrepresented themselves/the risks/the possibility of a cure and the ramifications were lethal). But if I did so, I would know that they might hate me for it. Or that they might go back, or to someone else with medical skills/scientific knowledge, to try again, and I might lose them anyway.

I'd also like to think I wouldn't just murder everyone I saw and would use the minimal amount of lethal force required, take my loved one, hold the doctors hostage, and be like "alright, we're going to wake her up and see what she thinks about this" with the door open to coming back if they improve their extraction technique, etc., or finding another group that's more above board. Joel doesn't do this because this isn't what motivates him. What motivates him is 100% satisfaction for his own feelings through his desire for a daughter do-over. If he does this, he might lose her. So he doesn't. BECAUSE JOEL SUCKS HE IS THE WORST.

All of this! The ONLY thing that gives me pause and the slightest approval for Joel is that we have no idea if anyone told Ellie it was a fatal procedure. I'm big on informed consent. Wake her up, ask her if they told her. Does it change her mind? But Joel took that choice away from her, too. He didn't do it because the procedure might be against Ellie's wishes, or that it won't work. He did it because he would be hurt by her death. He seemed pretty damn sure she would have marched right back there, otherwise why lie?

As you said, the text explicitly lays out that Joel is Not A Good Person. Tess says it right out, we see it when Joel leaves that family with a small child to die, being on "both sides" of the help-me-ambush, he won't let Ellie talk about Sam because it makes him uncomfortable, etc. This man does not give a shit about anyone but himself. He "saves" Ellie for himself, not because the procedure might be unethical/impossible. I do not understand why people are getting so up in arms defending him.

And speaking of Tess, omg... She gets infected trying to get Ellie to the capital and she tasks Joel with seeing it through to the end with the hope that the infections can stop. And Joel just shat all over her death because he never got over Sarah's. Man, Joel is an asshole.

Thank you I feel so much less insane talking to someone else who was able to parse and understand the narrative of this AAA zombie cover shooter. Joel was a POS from the start and the story goes out of its way to recount the ways but d'awwwwwwwwwww he has Dad Feelings, and d'aaawwwwww Ellie is cute, and d'aaaaawwwww the zoo and suddenly it's shocking that he's treated like the POS he always was and has remained (albeit one with understandable, human failings, which is what makes the story compelling).

Seriously, this. I was warned by a friend who had played the game a while ago that people were rabid about defending Joel. Even when I got to the end and was ranting to her about what a piece of shit Joel was, she kept giving me the arguments trying to defend him, because while she recognizes intellectually that he's a horrible person, she still likes him. Which is fair. I love plenty of morally reprehensible characters. (Hi Fannibals!)

I thought that was the extent of it. "Yeah, he's a shitty person but I love him anyway." Or, "I love my selfish immoral grandpa!" I could deal with THAT. But full, unflinching defense of his morality?? No. Absolutely Not. What are you people doing???

No. The position in contention is, "I would kill my child, my mom, and my wife, and anyone who doesn't is a bad person."

The position of contention is that I would allow my child, my mom, and my wife, and MYSELF to go through with the procedure because it's the right thing to do. Anyone who would prioritize their own life over the lives of millions is, by definition, a bad person....

Is it possible that, when the chips are down, I can't go through with it? Absolutely. And I would be a horrible person and probably wouldn't be able to live with myself. There are multiple examples of people throughout history who have not done the right thing in the moment and then basically killed themselves, either directly or through drinking because they can't handle their own immorality.

Also, keep in mind that this is in a very specific set of circumstances. This isn't a whim. This is 20 years, TWO DECADES, after billions of deaths, with no end in sight. No vaccine attempt has worked. Society has collapsed, everyone is either in imminent danger of death all the time or living under martial law being abused by the military and each other. Suddenly, something changes, someone has developed immunity (a thing which happens in real life) which could absolutely lead to a vaccine (again, a thing that has happened in real life). Something that has the slightest chance of returning humanity to the life they had before, of saving millions of lives from death, starvation, abuse, etc. Something that can defeat this plague. This is, quite literally, the saving of the entire human race. And you think it's moral to leave an entire planet of people to die because you'll be sad that one specific person has died?

You seem to have some issues that you need to work through.

It would not make you a horrible person. It would make you ordinary. How can you say you want to save humanity when by your definition most people are, due to their ordinariness, horrible people?

It is not moral to sacrifice someone because you've decided it's the right thing to do, without them having a say or a choice in the matter. It's especially not moral to do it for what is, as far as I can tell from my knowledge of this story, something that's experimental and is not guaranteed to work.

When we create vaccines in real life, we do not kill people with natural immunity in order to synthesize them. We certainly don't do it while lying to them about the process, keeping from them the knowledge that they're going to die. That would be deeply, deeply unethical, in any context.

Do you think it would be okay for you force your loved ones into it, if they knew exactly what was about to happen to them and they told you "no?" And what if it didn't work? What if you forced your loved ones to die for nothing?

It is not moral to sacrifice someone because you've decided it's the right thing to do, without them having a say or a choice in the matter. It's especially not moral to do it for what is, as far as I can tell from my knowledge of this story, something that's experimental and is not guaranteed to work.

You are correct, but right answer here is to force the unarmed doctors (who may very well not know that she has not consented, or at least, you can't say for certain that they do, the only person you've confirmed to know is their leader who you also know hides many things from her followers) to wake her up at gunpoint then ask her if this is what she wants, not slaughter everyone involved and lie to her later about what happened.

The problem is that, within the story - and this is what drives Joel to act the way he does to get the end he wants - Ellie has strongly implied that she would want to go through with it, even if she hasn't stated outright "yes the Fireflies can kill me to create the vaccine". Therefore, Joel removes that choice from her. He would rather have a living daughter than a chance at saving the world, even if that means murder, even if that means overriding her autonomy.

And that is what leads directly to the events of the sequel. (Where the "correct" answer to the dilemma is given in the form of Abby and her father. Her father (correctly) asks her what she would want in that situation, and her father (correctly) agrees to respect that.)

It is not moral to sacrifice someone because you've decided it's the right thing to do, without them having a say or a choice in the matter.

Where did that come in? Where did I say that I would outright MURDER them if they said no, they didn't want to? This is in the context of the game, where Ellie has said that she wants to do the procedure. We can debate on whether or not she had full informed consent, but the fact of the matter is that Joel didn't care about her consent or her choices. JOEL didn't want her to die, so he took her and lied to her. It doesn't matter if she actually had informed consent or not because it doesn't change any of Joel's actions.

She didn't have informed consent? Joel killed the doctor, took her and lied to her about why the procedure didn't happen.

She did have informed consent? Joel killed the doctor, took her and lied to her about why the procedure didn't happen.

Because it was never about her. It's never about what she wanted. It was ALL about Joel.

If my child, my mom, my wife, were told "Hey, you are the only hope we have of developing a vaccine against this thing that is slowly killing the entire human race. We will need to use your brain to do it. Please come to X hospital," and they were as committed to getting there as Ellie is, I would (hopefully) help bring them to X hospital and um... not kill the doctors doing it? Cause invalidating someone's choices is a shitty thing to do normally, but to do it when the fate of the world also hangs on you not being a dick you've become a superdick. A massive asshole. A terrible person.

I mean, you are step away from saying that experiments on children are good because it benefits humanity and somehow anon objecting to that is with issues

No? I am talking about this specific instance where one specific person has the only possible key left to the saving of humanity. In this instance, saving the one specific person because otherwise you would have to confront the unprocessed death of your child and you simply Can't Have That - that's an asshole move. And for some reason people are defending the asshole as if he did a morally correct thing in saving himself some emotional pain at the expense of invalidating the choices of the specific person and condemning the human race to extinction.

I'm not extrapolating this into a universal truth that Child Experimentation Is Good. That's what everyone else seems to WANT me to be doing because otherwise they'd have to face the fact that they're not as moral as they'd like to think.

OK, we started good. Most of the people who are a bit baffled how not wanting to kill a child make them bad people do not have full information about canon. That includes me. And it was mentioned several times. So probably you are right this character is selfish etc etc. I really do not know.
And
And
THEN you had to imply. I don't even fucking know what you are implying. That we all here are amoral because we questioned black and white thinking? We are all cunts because we do not automatically consider person evil for being simply human? I don't even

Re: Who is Your Least Favorite Character?

(Anonymous) - 2023-11-26 21:42 (UTC) - Expand

It's fallible on the part of the characters who claim it that Ellie is the only chance to save humanity. (At least, I believe it is from what I recall. If they were presented as knowing this with certainty somehow, I'd just call that bad writing because nobody can know something like that for sure.) Humans would still live on for a while if she wasn't sacrificed, and there's as much of a chance of another cure being developed without needing to kill anyone as there is of the procedure on Ellie being successful -- that is, it's a toss-up.

Re: Who is Your Least Favorite Character?

(Anonymous) - 2023-11-27 00:43 (UTC) - Expand