fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #6168 ]

[ SECRET POST #6168 ]

⌈ Secret Post #6168 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 36 secrets from Secret Submission Post #882.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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?

Of course it's a controversial statement. It's a perennial discussion.

What is the actual value of an individual human life? If we decide that it's acceptable to kill one person in order to the save the many, then is a life's value merely a matter of utility? If it is, then on what other grounds might we say it's acceptable to kill someone? And, moreover, what is the actual value of the many? What is the purpose of saving all of those lives, if they don't have value in and of themselves; and if we can decide, based on our math, that it makes sense for some of them to die? How do we decide which of them dies?

How many people is it acceptable to kill in order to save the many? Is there an upper limit? How do we decide what that limit is? Do we just need to stop before the amount reaches half the population? What if the quality of life of the remaining population turns out not to be what we anticipated? What if our killing doesn't resolve the issue we set out to tackle? In order to prevent that possibility, should we make sure there will be a beneficial outcome before killing the few, or do the good intentions of our attempt ameliorate our culpability?

All of this is circumvented by looking at the utility of the death. It doesn't matter how much worth an individual human has vs all the humans. Because that answer is obvious. If one person is worth something, all the people are worth more. Like, obviously?

The value of a human life is not the utility in life. People are worthy of life regardless of their utility for anything or anyone. But when you have a situation, such as this one, where only one known person out of everyone has the possibility of saving every other human life on the planet, her death in a specific circumstance has a value and a utility.

To make it a real life issue - Robespierre basically started/perpetuated The Terror during the French Revolution leading to thousands of deaths. Robespierre is worth the same as any other human by virtue of being alive, but his death stopped all the killing. Literally, the next day the whole thing stopped. His life was the same worth as everyone, but his DEATH was of untold value that saved countless lives.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #6168 ]

Re: Who is Your Least Favorite Character?

Re: Who is Your Least Favorite Character?

Re: Who is Your Least Favorite Character?

Re: Who is Your Least Favorite Character?

Re: Who is Your Least Favorite Character?

Re: Who is Your Least Favorite Character?

Re: Who is Your Least Favorite Character?

Re: Who is Your Least Favorite Character?

Re: Who is Your Least Favorite Character?

Re: Who is Your Least Favorite Character?

Re: Who is Your Least Favorite Character?