This post is flaired **Show Only**. Therefore, all comments that discuss *any* aspect of the games **must** be properly spoiler tagged.
1. All post titles must **NOT** include spoilers from the latest episode or The Last of Us Part I and II. Minor show spoilers are allowed in your title **ONE WEEK** after episode airing.
2. Any untagged discussion of the games (including subtle hints) in posts without the **Show/Game Spoilers**, **Fancast [Show/Game]**, **Funpost [Show/Game]**, or **Meme [Show/Game]** flair will result in a **ban**. To tag a spoiler comment, use the `>!spoiler!<` tag which displays as >!spoiler!<.
3. If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team.
---
Refer to the [spoiler guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLastofUsHBOseries/wiki/spoiler-guide) for our spoiler policy and to learn how to flair and title your posts appropriately.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ThelastofusHBOseries) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It isn't a "debate" though. The show and the game pretty clearly show he is in the wrong. It is why he lies to Ellie. It is why he killed Marlene. He knows he is wrong.
Now that doesn't mean doctors trying to kill Ellie without her consent are in the right. Or that Joel doesn't have valid reasons for wanting to save Ellie. But every single person and every new person born will have to live in this world because of Joel's actions. If we were writing a history book, he would be remembered as a monster.
And what about Ellie? Granted we will never know for sure but her words in last nights episode show a person who would have very likely given her life for a cure. What happens if/when she learns what really happened? The survivors guilt she will experience. What about the choice that was taken from her?
I get Joel is one of our protagonists and it is very easy to empathize with him. But just because some fans can't accept it, doesn't mean it is a debate. He is wrong.
Not a press quote but what the people who made the show/game have said. When discussing the material, it's important to know what they were thinking when they made their decision. And in this case it's that there isn't a right answer but what matters is we know why Joel did what he did.
And yes ellie said that which is why it's such a great ending, there's really no right answer. Allowing your daughter would be something nearly no father can do.
Ellie is not his daughter. It is not his choice to make for her. So his love is more important than Ellie's wishes and the world?
The people made a game, and >!s a sequel to the game!< that shows he is wrong. So yes I understand there is no easy answer for him. That he would selfishly want to save his "surrogate daughter". But at what cost?
If the debate is what would you do in that situation, I get it. But the debate is not about right and wrong. He is wrong. He is not Ellie's father. t isn't his choice to make for her. And he doomed the world. How is he right? Please explain how he is not?
Ellie may not be his blood-daughter but she's essentially his daughter at that point. He sees her as his daughter and she sees him as his father or a father figure, to say she is not his daughter really undermines their relationship and the significance of that moment.
Disagree with the ending all you want but considering it's about how far you will go to save your loved ones there is no right choice. The only thing he was definitely wrong about was not giving her the choice, but neither him or Marlene would give her the choice because they feared she would do the opposite of what they want.
It was a selfish moment done to saved a love one. I never said he was right, in fact if (which is a very very big if) her death results in a cure then yes he is wrong for saving her. But the ending is not as simple as that, people who agree with what he did have valid reasons as well. Heck I found a 9 year old thread explaining that the infrastructure is not there to synthesize a cure and distribute it world wide. I've seen people say that the fire flies would not be fair with distributing it.
I will agree with what the show runner has said. People for a decade have been debating on whether Joel was right or wrong but all we can know is his motivations in that moment and that is what makes it such a complex story.
I will say this again that to just say he is not her father really gives a disservice to their relationship and what they have gone through, at the end of the game he is for all intents and purposes her father.
>!And speaking of part 2, it shows that because joel is her adopted father she goes through such trauma, because to her, her father was brutally murdered. I wouldnt say it shows what Joel did was wrong, if anything it shows Marlene was in the wrong for keeping ellie and Joel in the dark. in fact the doctor even wasn't going to go through with it at first until convinced otherwise. It does show what lengths revenge will take you to and it does show what consequences happened due to joels decision. It also shows that because of what joel did, Ellie got to have a wife and child, however her quest for revenge would harm that!<
>It was a selfish moment done to saved a love one.
That sounds almost noble. Joel did what he did to save himself from more grief and trauma. Ellie as a person nor her wishes were ever a part of his decisions.
Which is a great part of this ending. That's sort of why I said it was selfish. He absolutely loved her but his reason for saving her was selfish due to the reasons you stated.
You seem to be missing my point, and maybe that is my fault for not articulating it better. You are arguing that in Joel's shoes people would choose to do the same thing. You are trying trying to rationalize why he would do what he did. I understand why he chose to do what he did. I am not arguing otherwise. A parent would give up almost anything to save their child. Yes that is a debate. In his shoes, would you or I choose to do what Joel did?
But debating whether what he did is right or wrong is not a debate. Even if Ellie was his daughter, a) that wasn't his decision to make b) his actions will cost the lives of thousands, if not millions, of daughters.
That is not debatable. And that is where I am agreeing with OP here. Yes, I understand why he did what he did. Yes, in his shoes I may do the same thing. But what he did was wrong, it was not heroic, and will have long lasting consequences.
>!And speaking of 2, not only do we get the answer emphatically of what Ellie would have chosen for herself. We also see the damage that choosing revenge causes. Sure we can debate about the ethics of not telling Ellie. Of Marlene's actions. And on and on. But that is a different debate!<
There is a right answer. It's the one that saves the world.
That is why it matters that Joel doesn't choose it, and why he lies. He knows it.
But instead of just saying that, the easy way out is to just pretend that there wasn't a cure.
I replayed the remaster again because of the show and it's clear there too. But you don't need the context of the games to see it in the story.
It is entirely possible to say "if I were in such a position I'd do the same while knowing full well that what I would do is damn the whole world".
No game spoilers but the game creator has said when testing the game they polled people's opinions on the ending.
For those who didn't have kids, it was split 50/50 whether what Joel did was right.
For those who had kids, it was 100% across the board - they agreed with Joel.
My point is, you can't sit here and say the is one right answer. There is one right answer in your view, but clearly good, kind-hearted people will disagree. If saving the world is the only metric that matters, sure. But the whole point is, that's not the only consideration anymore.
It’s weird. Like, objectively, I can see from an outside perspective that what he does is questionable. Now that it’s been made clear that this is an issue raised by the show lol.
But I have a child. And I literally didn’t see the question in front of me until it was pointed out on the sub - because I would do the same thing. I wouldn’t willingly let my child die for anything. Not one thing. I’d fight to the death to prevent it. Like it’s not even a half second consideration. I get it. The whole world is fucked because of this. But is it any more so than it was before her immunity was discovered? Would it really change things? No. I’m not letting my child die for anything, much less a “maybe, probably.”
Right! Like I didn’t think anything of it at all, even just as a viewer mind you, because … obviously. Someone wants to kill your kid… you just kill them back. But apparently it’s a huge question mark lol oops.
>There is a right answer. It's the one that saves the world
"Save the world", are you a super hero or a God OP?
You shouldn't ask of Joel to act with the wisdom of a God and see him as the human he is.
Also think of yourself as the human you are too while you're preaching the "holier than tho" that comes with the god complex you are showing.
The fate of humanity shouldn't be tasked into one man's hands, no human should be asked to sacrifice its own child for the concept of humanity that is much bigger than himself and that he has no control over, rather than his immediate feeling of love for his child.
Being human is understanding what Joel chose to do and indirectly chose to not hold him accountable for his decision out of human empathy (wether you have children yourself or not) above the concept that saving the world was something that he or anyone should have been tasked with. That is not your, nor mine nor Joel's responsibility to save humanity, especially in this world were humanity already lost 20 years ago (as the show portrayed countless times, other humans are often a bigger threat to survivors than the infected themselves)
What you aren't liking isn't Joel's decision, it is that the decision was given to him to begin with, which is terribly unfair.
God complex?
I'm saying that it is understandable why Joel did something that he should not have done. I don't think I have been unclear on this point.
The story is meaningless without the cure being within reach and Joel deciding to destroy any chance of it.
You can say the fate of humanity shouldn't be in one person's hands and that's true enough, but this is a fictional story. It's how the plot happens. This is where meaning comes from.
It's also not his child. Ellie is not Sarah. Why does this person that is not his child take priority over all the other people that are not his children?
Understanding why Joel kills the Fireflies does not then require coming up with justifications for why it was the right decision. It wasn't the right decision, nor did it respect Ellie's wishes.
"It can't be for nothing". Joel makes it for nothing.
>I'm saying that it is understandable why Joel did something that he should not have done. I don't think I have been unclear on this point.
Your problem isn't the decision he made, but the fact that the decision was given to him to begin with, that is terribly unfair for Joel, any human that would have been in Joel's place, and for humanity as a whole.
Hence why the God complex, saying you would have made a decision differently for the greater good of humanity is assuming that humanity is your responsibility. It isn't because you are human and you should react like a human would, that's why most of us who get this don't blame Joel. It is a God's like creature responsibility and not just one man's.
Nobody is saying they would do different, the burden of that choice is too emotional. But from a utilitarian perspective there isn't a debate that even with a low chance of success, it's the correct choice to sacrifice Ellie. Even Ellie would likely agree if given the choice. Joel chose the understandable, but immoral option.
We all do this daily.
This is why we have a hard time accepting that he did anything wrong I think, it shines a light on our own selfish hearts. We totally would do the same thing as Joel, despite it being the wrong thing. And that haunts us.
It's not selfish though, just being human with emotion and animal like instinct to preserve our own offsprings, maybe it's just that the utilitarian concept doesn't bode well with human's nature, after all we're the ones who named the concept based on some criteria. Genetics of humans and evolution of the species as a whole couldn't care less about utilitarian.
I could get deep into the moral philosophy here, I have a degree in it, but suffice it to say there are very good reasons why we don't base our morals on what is 'genetic' or 'natural.'
You bring up a good point though and a fault of basic and classic utilitarianism and that is to follow it to a T requires an almost Buddhist level of stoicism that is not a reasonable expectation for anybody.
The answer most people come to is somewhere in between, we need to consider people's emotion when creating viable moral expectations, while also considering the harm it can do if we let it be the sole motive for our actions.
I think it is very situational. We are a civilized species and when it comes to more "mundane" things we are more rational, apply our common sense of fairness or rightfulness to the best of our abilities and aren't acting like an animal would or by a genetic function (i won't go into the consciousness and determinism theory rabbit hole here). Now take a situation of survival, threat of death, that's when even the most civilized human can and will revert to its most primal form, especially a mother/father that wants to protect its child, that's where the genetic evolution comes out. Many if not most parent would do what Joel did with little to no care for "the greater good of humanity" (which in itself is a debate, to me it looks like humanity already lost 20 years ago on outbreak day).
I also took philosophy classes in high school, i was majoring in humanities and litterrature (I am originally from France and this used to be an option in HS). I remember going over Stoicism and the teacher saying that this is realistically against human nature as we are rational but also very emotional creatures and the coldness that the behavior teaches isn't a socially acceptable way. Only care about what you can control is nice when it comes to regulate emotions and think more rationally about what to do, but it stops when the stakes are unbereable (losing my child) and here that is something that i would have taken control of.
>It's also not his child. Ellie is not Sarah. Why does this person that is not his child take priority over all the other people that are not his children?
>
Oof, terrible take all around, haven't you watched the show?
>The story is meaningless without the cure being within reach and Joel deciding to destroy any chance of it.
>You can say the fate of humanity shouldn't be in one person's hands and that's true enough, but this is a fictional story. It's how the plot happens. This is where meaning comes from.
Fictional often mirrors our own reality, blunt of you to think the outcome from a real life Joel would have been any different, even if it were you in his shoes, which you have a terrible time understanding and doing.
Not all stories are meant for happy ending, more often than not in real life, endings are somewhere in between. As far as life on earth in general, endings aren't good, ask the dinosaurs, they roamed this earth much longer than humans have before they went extinct.
It’s so off putting when people take the side of the fireflies and make them out to be the moral equivalent of the worlds saviors as if they can do no wrong.
In the very first episode of the show Tess almost gets killed because the Fireflies blow up a building.
People just think because they aren't as bad as Fedra, that they're the de facto good guys. Sure they're "freedom fighters" but their methods rely primarily on bombing shit.
In the words of a true lawful good archetype (Captain America) "we don't trade lives". Even the beloved hero in shiny armor wouldn't kill one for the rest.
THIS, OMG, THIS!
OP, to say that the Fireflies are the “good guys” in this scenario is terribly short-sighted. Do you really think that the Fireflies only ever harmed FEDRA? David himself says the Pittsburgh QZ fell as a combination of FEDRA and Fireflies. The Fireflies were essentially waging war against FEDRA (for the record, I don’t side with FEDRA, either) and there was for sure collateral damage of bystanders being harmed or even killed due to Firefly actions.
They are nothing but incompetent and dangerous idealists in presentation in the show and game. Joel maintains a low opinion of them for obvious reasons. This idea that they are suddenly “good guys” simply doesn’t exist. Look how they treated Joel in the hospital for other examples. They were prepared to kill him for the most minor infraction.
I don't know how they can be any clearer. The Fireflies are the good guys. They are the only ones even trying to find a cure.
Anyone is free to argue about the death of the author, but the authorial intent is quite clear.
Legalistic arguments, which ignores that Ellie said "it cant have been for nothing". She was ready to die already with Riley.
Also ignores that the Fireflies didn't just cap Joel, instead escorting him out. That would have been the rational thing to do.
But the Fireflies don’t know that she was ready to die with Riley. They don’t know that she says “it can’t all be for nothing”. As far as we know from the story (you have placed a lot of emphasis on the fact that we can only decide based on what we see in the story), the Fireflies have not asked Ellie if she is willing to be killed to extract the essence of her immunity.
Ellie makes plans and says that “after” she will go anywhere with Joel. She is not expecting this encounter with the Fireflies to be fatal.
That’s not a “legalistic argument”. That’s the Fireflies deceiving and killing a child for what they have decided is the greater good.
The legalistic argument doesn't justify Joel killing everyone including the people surrendering, nor does it justify killing Marlene after he's disabled her. It doesn't justify him lying to Ellie about what happened.
The Fireflies are acting as the plot demands (as is anyone else), but the point is that Joel is choosing his suffering over the world. When Marlene tells him what's happening, Joel says "find someone else."
The fireflies can't speak with Ellie before because doing so would rob the dramatic moment where Joel tells Ellie what happened. The speed of the surgery is to set up that moment to reveal Joel's character. That's the key thing here. Everything sets up that moment.
And just as well, why didn't the fireflies deceive Joel? If they are so villainous they could have just shot him outside or after he woke up. He could have just never woken up. Yet they did wake him up, they did talk to him, and they escorted him out to live out the rest of his life.
Again, the point is that no one is wholly, clearly right or wrong here.
Joel murders 10 or 15 people. I believe that to be emotionally understandable, but morally unjustified. He kills many people for the sake of one.
“For the greater good” has been used to justify atrocities throughout history. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example. Persecution of particular groups viewed as a threat (which is illogical, you might say, but I’m sure a mountain of justifying evidence would be presented to you by the persecutors if you asked). “It’s just one girl vs the whole world”. It was just two cities vs the whole world.
Joel’s justification for killing Marlene is that he believes she will hunt Ellie down if she lives.
I think Marlene didn’t kill Joel because they believed he might be useful again in the future. In their eyes, he had just delivered to them the cure for the cordyceps disease. A feat they feared impossible. His “reward” is that he gets to live and perhaps be useful to them again in future.
I think the stage is clearly being set for the breakdown of the relationship between Joel and Ellie as a result of his actions and lying to her. Had he not acted as he did, she would be dead, and likely he would be too, as he would probably finish what he started after the death of his first daughter. And there the story would end.
In episode 2 Joel dismisses the possibility of a cure because he's heard it before, and nothing materialized. Fedra may have tried to find a cure but they haven't produced anything. And there's no evidence they are trying. There is evidence the Fireflies are trying.
We also do know the Fireflies are the closest things to good guys.
If they weren't, they would have just executed Joel as soon as he protested. But they didn't.
No they weren't. What would be the point of walking him out just to shoot him outside?
If their aim was to just kill Joel no matter what they would have done it when he was unconscious.
>Anyone is free to argue about the death of the author, but the authorial intent is quite clear.
The intent is making a hard choice that there is no right or wrong answer. The people who made the show and the game have said that as well.
>Anyone is free to argue about the death of the author, but the authorial intent is quite clear.
Well speaking of authorial intent, they also show a version of FEDRA in the flashback of a FEDRA leader that is kind and sympathetic to Ellie, and where they really do view themselves as necessary to keep people safe. The FEDRA Ellie grew up in would not have agreed with the KC FEDRA.
And this was purposefully shown, by the creators in the show, to show FEDRA is not 100% bad. Meanwhile Fireflies are setting off bombs and killing innocent people. Even having teenagers like Riley create and set off bombs. This isn't a simple either/or.
The Boston FEDRA was doing the same things as the KC FEDRA.
And I skimmed through episode 1 again, there's no bombings by the fireflies that kill innocent people. They are attacking "meaningless fedra targets", there's no instance shown or implied that the Fireflies hurt civilians. That's a possibility in the game but even there, it's not targeting civilians nor does it show them hurting anyone besides military.
We don’t actually know if anyone else was trying for a cure. In the first episode, the Atlanta QZ is referenced as a manufacturer of pharmaceuticals. Who’s to say they haven’t been trying for a cure?
I think the majority of folks who are arguing against your take are simply pointing out that *immediately* performing a procedure that will not only be fatal to (thus far) the only known immune human, but will result in a finite amount of testing samples, is reckless.
Of course, it's reckless. So is hiding Ellie from FEDRA who would presumably have the expertise and facilities to get a cure. It's also reckless for Joel to be the only one helping her, rather than recruiting Tommy at the very least to help make the journey. Let alone not telling Henry what's happening so they can help too.
But instead, there's a cross-country journey about Joel getting attached to Ellie.
The immediacy of the surgery is a plot contrivance, sure, to create the moment where Joel decides what to tell Ellie. Ellie cannot know at that moment what is happening, because then Joel cannot lie to her. If Ellie volunteered and Joel attacked anyway, there is no drama about whether she accepts his version of events.
He also wasn't doing it because of some notion that they were rushing or didn't get Ellie's consent. First thing he says when he realizes what is happening is "Find someone else."
Joel wants to give Ellie a life even if she hates him for it. That is the core of the story.
>The cure was possible.
Says who? Look, scientists were able to make a covid vaccine in record time because a) it was *a bunch* of scientists and b) they had plenty of resources. Do you really think some doctor in an abandoned hospital was going to make a cure for something we were told in episode 1 is almost impossible to cure?
Right?! I’m guessing ppl who keeps insisting about the vaccine or the cure don’t remember that Indonesia had THE person who studied cordyceps her entire life come to try to figure something out… and she said bomb the city. If all the scientists and experts on cordyceps and fungi couldn’t figure out a vaccine/cure prior to the world going to shit, I highly, HIGHLY doubt a couple of fireflies could magically create one with what… one doctor and 2 nurses on site?
The narrative was Ellie is the cure. Not a single plot point suggested the vaccine wouldn’t have worked. There’s zero debate within the story about it. But some people want to pretend to be skeptical to justify Joel’s actions
The whole story is culminating in what Joel chooses to do. Without a cure, there's no choice, and there's no story. All these reasons why the cure wouldn't be viable are nontextual inventions by fans and nothing in the story suggests it. I hope people resist the cop-out of saying that the cure was impossible, because it's just a way to dodge the moral question. I'd do the same in Joel's position, but we should be honest about the implications that his choice has, because that's what makes it meaningful.
This goes back to the logistical argument, which tries to avoid the moral dilemma by pretending the cure wasn't possible.
The drama of the story is only possible if the cure is within reach.
Again, this is a story that involves a fungus (that people eat, right now) that mutates to control human bodies without spreading via spores. That isn't realistic. Yet we as the audience accept that it isn't realistic to allow the story to play out.
It feels artificial and fake to say that "the cure must have been viable because otherwise the drama doesn't work." There's no logic to that argument, it's circular.
It also doesn't make sense to say that realism doesn't matter because one unrealistic thing already happened as the show's premise. Within the context of the show we have to accept that the fungus mutated and can now infect humans because that is shown to be true. It isn't up for debate or speculation, it happened. This cure on the other hand, it didn't happen. The characters have a theory about it that may or may not work, and because of Joel's actions we will never be able to know for sure if it would have worked or not.
This is a complex story without a simple answer. I sympathize with Joel and understand his decision. But it's still heartbreaking to watch him kill all those people to save Ellie, and it's heartbreaking to see him lie about it to her afterwards.
Any analysis of this show that claims "this particular character or faction was 100% justified and good with no flaws or moral ambiguity whatsoever" is just too simplistic. FEDRA, the fireflies, Joel, Ellie, they all have good and bad aspects. They all make questionable or bad decisions at various times, and yet it's still possible to empathize with any of them and imagine how they justified those decisions to themselves.
The complexity is what makes it so good, if there wasn't moral ambiguity then the story wouldn't be so powerful. That's what makes the drama work, not some notion that the cure was a 100% guaranteed sure thing. I mean even if the cure was a 50% coin chance flip of working, there are still dramatic stakes here. On some level Marlene is right, the world is so dangerous that Ellie could die tomorrow for practically no reason at all. What's the (potentially short) life of one person weighed against a 50% chance of potentially saving the entire human race?
I can understand why people would defend Joel. I can also see why they would condemn him. If you can't see both arguments then I feel like you're oversimplifying the story in order to arrive at a clear answer, so you can resolve the psychological discomfort and cognitive dissonance. Because it's a hard thing to think that "Joel was wrong but I would have done the same thing," because then you have to live with the idea that maybe in a similar situation you'd do what Joel did.
At this point I'm rambling to no one in particular. But I think a key point here is that the "logistical argument" doesn't nullify the drama of Joel's decision. Even if the cure wouldn't have worked, he still killed a lot of people to save one person, and everyone he killed thought they were doing the right thing to save humanity. That's a huge, emotionally difficult story regardless of whether or not the cure was viable.
The cure did happen. It's inside Ellie.
I am not simplifying the story. Druckmann has said his writing philosophy is "simple story, complex characters". It's right there.
I'm not the one with cognitive dissonance. What I am pointing out here is that creating rationalizations to justify Joel's actions defeats the drama of the story. It isn't a moral dilemma if one just pretends that the cure wasn't possible or that the Fireflies were being unethical in not getting Ellie's written consent or whatever.
To remove the moral question is to invent an alternate world where Joel was in the right, which even he knows he isn't.
We don't know if the cure would have worked or not. You can't say "it happened" because no one actually used their theory to cure anyone, which means it remains a theory. The theory can't be tested now because of Joel's actions. Authorial intent doesn't matter. I don't care if Druckmann outright says "yes the cure definitely would have worked if Joel allowed them to carry out the procedure." It's not presented in context, in the script, as a definitive outcome. People with doubts about whether or not it would have worked are absolutely not oversimplifying this.
The thing is, it doesn't even matter. Joel isn't 100% "in the right" even if the cure wasn't guaranteed. It's still a moral dilemma. Even if there was a chance it could work, would that still be worth it? What about all the people Joel killed to save her, who all thought they were doing the right thing? What about the ethical dilemma of killing a doctor during the apocalypse who could potentially save lives?
In fact I would say that ambiguity about whether the cure would have worked or not makes the moral dilemma even more difficult. If we just accept that "yes the cure had a 100% chance of curing the entire human race" then there's almost no question at all, Joel was definitely wrong and a terrible person. There's no moral dilemma if the cure was guaranteed to work, it becomes a clear-cut decision.
I think it's an oversimplification to say "Joel was right," but I think it's similarly an oversimplification to say "Joel was wrong." I think you're removing the moral question by definitively arriving at the "Joel was wrong" conclusion with no ambiguity, because of some magical thinking that the cure was definitely 100% guaranteed to work and that it was ethical for the Fireflies to kill Ellie to obtain it.
The drama of the story is only possible if the cure is within reach.
No. If Ellie weren't immune and the trek was made for another reason, the drama would be the same. Joel's trauma is the same. Ellie's trauma is the same. The one thing that needs to happen in order to kickstart the story is the date at the mall. But if we center on Joel and Ellie, the true focus of the story, the cure was always in the background. The story, the way I interpret it, is about two lonely, angry people finding solace in one another. Learning to trust and to love (again in Joel's case), even amidst the apocalypse. Knowing that even when things are dire and unsalvageable, losing our humanity is often a choice. Joel chose to redeem himself in a selfish act, yes. But he also chose to save a 14 year-old girl who was going to be sacrificed for an uncertainty.
Some people just “don’t get it” when it comes to this show. It’s not about zombies or human authoritarianism, it’s about love and the bonds between us. Everything else is a bonus?
The trolley problem is about what YOU would pick. But it's always a moral compromise. YOUR child's life versus the life of EVERY child living or who will ever live. Those stakes are apocalyptically high, but in a story as remarkable as this, we are able to understand that choice.
It is as simple as this to me. She’s his daughter now and when he called her “baby girl” last week there was no world to him aside from protecting her.
Both sides have legitimate claims since Ellie was not informed of the full consequences. Even if she were, I’d view it as immoral to put that kind of a decision on a child. That doesn’t mean it’s moral for Joel to go kill a hospital full of people to save Ellie, it just means this isn’t a black and white issue. It’s one thing to argue you believe the firefly’s did the right thing. It’s another to say one side is absolutely right and the other has no moral ground it’s stand on. There is a reason that question of whether the ends justify the means is a recurring debate in a million different forms of media or in real life. If it was as simple as you make it out to be, one could justify any action as long as it was for “The Greater Good”.
You didn't add the scientific argument? the way they're doing it is the last choice if they didn't find any result on the Ellie's test.
I remember a comment from a neurologist that they should do a test using cerebrospinal fluid not straight up open brain surgery it should be the last option but nope let's open her head up.
And the doctors "Think" they're not even sure why Ellie's immune even in the game they're not sure. The only immune they got and they just want to kill her for the sake of studying why she is immune.
Also did they even think that after getting the sample from Ellie's brain is the cordyceps will still be viable and not just die out because there's no host anymore to latch on to?
Forget about logistical argument about delivering the cure because there won't be one if they failed their experiment on the only immune person they had.
The scientific argument is indistinguishable from the logistical one. Why suspend your disbelief for fungus zombies and not that the fungus zombies can be prevented or cured?
Logic and reason and common sense would say that it would be impossible for a zombie outbreak to occur. Especially with a fungus that doesn't spread by spores. But we accept that the impossible premise is valid enough to allow the story to happen.
Why do you need Joel to be a hero?
What a ridiculous opinion, clearly drugging a child without their knowledge or consent to harvest their brain without their knowledge or consent, is the right thing to do.
As a parent i ll tell you, there's nothing more dangerous in this world than a parent protecting their offspring.
Look at some animals in the wild and how they'll attack anyone who has the badluck to stumble upon them and their little ones, even if they don't directly threaten it... the expression "mama/papa bear" didn't erupt out of nowhere.
Don't underestimate humans abilities to revert to their most primal form if the situation calls for it. We're an intelligent and civilized animal, but still an animal.
In my opinion the debate itself is kinda ironic since parental instinct and protection of the offspring is actually a survival evolution trait we have and here the individual aspect of it goes against the species and aggregate aspect of it. Almost as if it conflicts with itself and we haven't biologically evolved to fit the philosophical aspect of survival that this debate throws at us.
That's exactly correct.
There is supposed to be something unsettling about Joel saving Ellie only to damn all the rest of the children in the world. There is an option to end suffering for others and he decides to prioritize his own suffering. It's selfish, but also completely understandable within its context.
For what it means, it's a flaw of our species, genetic evolution takes millions of years, and we haven't gotten to the point (if we ever make it past the next couple hundred years as a species, not looking too good so far) where we have evolved into a species that will prioritize the philosophical greater good than on our own immediate self maybe because we haven't seen an advantage to it since we are still very basic animal and so far the genetic pool of humans that have survived are the ones like Joel and in an animal kingdom context, the lioness will chose a Joel lion over a Doctor (the one from this episode) lion who brings a scalpel to a gun fight.
Kathleen was a heinous person, but Joel needs to answer her question. Is Ellie worth the whole world? Joel's answer is yes, that's an understandable answer for a father. But the answer has weight, it has consequences, ugly things must be done in order to make good on that answer.
Oh man, have you ever loved anyone in your life? I would gladly watch the rest of the world burn, but wouldn't sacrifice a loved one and I'm not even a parent. Especially since every single human they've encountered was a complete piece of shit, thinking only about their own survival, ready to kill anyone for their own good. Sacrifice for who? Humanity is already dead in their world
It's very weird to accuse someone of not having anyone they care about in their life because they see the actual moral question at play here.
The point I am making is to avoid inventing rationalizations that pretend the cure wasn't possible. In the behind the scenes interviews, it's stated that the choice is between all of humanity and one person, and it's the easiest choice of Joel's life. He knows what he's picking here. Yet, for some reason, there is a desire to pretend that he was justified doing it for some other reason than the one that is obvious to him. The story is designed to build up to this being the choice.
*Every* human they encountered was not a piece of shit. Bill, Frank, Henry, Sam, and the people of Jackson are not the only non psychopaths in the world, just the ones they met on this journey because they aimed straight for the Fireflies, not a sightseeing tour.
I guess I had forgotten about this argument, the misanthropic one. The argument that the world isn't worth saving. Misanthropy is a fun character trait in fiction, but it is nonsensical and disgusting in real life.
1. It wasn't accusation, it was a question. Multiple people have answered they would've done the same for their child and yet in every comment you act as if letting her die was the right thing to do, and you just don't get why people disagree and act like noone in their right mind would do that for a person they love. Realisticly almost everyone would.
2. In the game every human they've encountered was a piece of shit. I don't remember exactly, but Bill wasn't the same as the series. Joel barely got the car out of him, and Bill only did it cause he owed Joel a favor.
Brothers only help them out of the city cause they are in need of protection, otherwise they would probably kill Joel and Ellie for food. In the game they even leave Joel behind to save their asses.
Maria didn't put the bullet in their heads at the gate only cause of Tommy.
Nobody, I mean nobody in their world does anything out of goodness of their hearts.
3. They obviously live in a world where moral doesn't exist. When the series came out I was telling my friend that she needs to watch the series, that it wasn't about the zombies, but how the humans turn into the animals in the right circumstances, and how that was the scary part. Living in postapocalyptic world where you have to be more scared of another human being than a fucking clicker.
I was completely shocked by every human encounter I've seen in the game.
5. Good for us we're not talking about the real life, but a video game/series.
1. I've said repeatedly that Joel's choice is understandable. What I am opposed to is people coming up with alternate scenarios to pretend the cure wasn't on the table. The moral question is love vs the world, this is as explicit as can be, yet the interpretation that some people are taking is that it is a guaranteed life for Ellie vs some miniscule chance of a cure.
2. I am not discussing the games, but even there, it's more obvious that the cure was on the table. They spell out it as clearly as they can. The choice is Ellie vs. the world.
Morals exist regardless of the societal structure. They are the principles we hold in ourselves.
Also, zombie media has been making the "humans are the real threat" point since Night of the Living Dead in 1968. That's not the interesting thing that Last of Us does. It's the moral question of saving one or saving the world.
Neither he nor the fireflies are right. The point is everyone is out there doing what they think is "right" regardless of the consequences.
The fireflies don't know that the surgery would end up producing a vaccine, and they don't ask Ellie to undergo the surgery. They force her too while she's unconscious. Would she have anyways? Probably, but I like that they included that they didn't ask.
On the flipside, Joel knows this is likely what Ellie would want, and says fuck it and kills all of them anyways to get her back. Like you said, there's no reason to rationalize his actions. He's grown attached, and won't lose another "daughter". It's for purely selfish reasons. If he didn't think it's what she would've wanted he wouldn't have lied right to her face afterwards.
>Neither he nor the fireflies are right. The point is everyone is out there doing what they think is "right" regardless of the consequences.
Glad someone gets it. That's what makes it such a great ending. There isn't a right answer.
Legally speaking, a person cannot consent to medical treatment without knowing the full picture. The risks, the benefits, the procedure explained in layman’s terms. Maybe Ellie would have said yes to the surgery, aka her death. Maybe she would’ve said no. They took away her autonomy to potentially save humanity. That’s where the grayness is. A doctor is taught that patient autonomy always comes first. Not getting consent from a patient is morally, ethically, and legally wrong. And technically, Ellie is a minor so her parent/guardian is the one that would give consent for her.
Personally, I think anyone in the scientific community would hesitate to agree with the Fireflies decision. Why do such an invasive procedure that isn’t tested? You may have one shot at saving humanity; it’s better to gather as much data and take a conservative approach so that you can actually reach your end goal, not just throw it away immediately if it doesn’t work out.
Then we have the moral gray area of Joel — a person’s innate drive to selfishly protect their loved ones. He went on a killing rampage to save the one he loved even with the potential of a vaccine ending the apocalypse. Yes, the vaccine may be a shot in the dark but when you can possibly save humanity over one person, you’re also protecting your loved ones and millions of others. Joel knew deep down that Ellie likely would have said yes to the surgery, and that’s why he lies to her face at the end. The trust in their relationship is shattered in that moment.
The biggest problem to me is that Ellie was never given a choice, in both scenarios. Her fate was decided by others.
>Then we have the moral gray area of Joel — a person’s innate drive to selfishly protect their loved ones
That isn't a selfish drive... this is an evolutionary trait of many species. We protect our own offsprings. Try to get near a bear cub even accidentally and see what mama bear will do to you, even if you never intended to threaten.
Yes, definitely evolutionary, that’s why I said innate. To me, it is selfish, but the word often gets a negative connotation. It is selfish to value one life over others. Joel is valuing Ellie over the potential millions that could be saved from a vaccine. Yet he’s doing what he’s wired to do and what his grief over Sarah tells him is the right choice — protect Ellie at all costs, whether Ellie agrees with it or not.
Self preservation would be more accurate here.
Selfish is negative because it implies that Joel or Ellie weren't entitled to their right to live and be together as father and daughter and that somehow by chosing to preserve Ellie's life, Joel somehow took smth away from someone for something he wasn't righfully entitled to.
Joel didn't deprive humanity of anything bec it implies he owed Humanity to begin with
As a parent, I would do EXACTLY what Joel did. No moral dilemma. No question. I’m going to save my kid or die. And, I’m going to lie because the burden of saving the world isn’t for a 14 y/o to bear.
I do agree it wasn’t a happy ending. Joel lied to her and Ellie knows (or at least suspects). That’s going to come between them which is really sad.
I am not saying you can't identify with Joel or choose what he did.
Joel did not lie to relieve Ellie of the burden. Ellie doesn't believe him. If she did, she wouldn't have been demanding that he swear to her.
What I am saying is that you should not be creating justifications that ignore the stakes. The choice was a child or all the children. And he picked a child.
I don't think anyone is ignoring the stakes though. that's why it's such a dilemma. in the *in-show universe*, there's no guarantee that what the fireflies wanted to do with Ellie was going to work. Joel chose a definite yes--I will save *this* child, over a possible yes--this *may* save humanity. he chose not to make that gamble. you're trying to frame it like joel chose to definitely save one child over definitely saving all the children, and that's just false.
>I've seen the logistical arguments. 'How could the fireflies manufacture and distribute the cure?' This is a show that involves a fungus that takes over human bodies, over a long enough time turns them into bloaters that have superhuman strength and armor strong enough to withstand bullets, and this fungus also doesn't spread by spores. The selective suspension of disbelief is just to avoid having to deal with the moral quandary.
in the in-show universe we have to take what we're given as "reality." it's not "selected suspended belief" to take the existence of the mutated cordyceps as reality and then question the viability of mass manufacture and transport of a cure that may or may not be possible. just because one fantastical element exists doesn't mean everything else is suddenly up for debate.
He is not making a gamble because of uncertainty in creating a cure.
"Find someone else" is his words.
Also yes, you are supposed to suspend disbelief about the logistical stuff. Society would not look like that after 20 years. Everyone would have starved already if not for someone setting up guarded farms and spreading out, instead of huddling up in the quarantine zones.
We as an audience accept the premise because that's what the story needs.
It’s exactly a parent’s job to protect their child, both physically and emotionally. We lie to our kids to protect them and keep their innocence all the time.
What i meant is, that even if Ellie had agreed to it, the parent shouldn't be put in a place where they possibly sacrifice their kid for humanity. Humanity's fate isn't for Joel or Ellie to pay for.
> I've seen the legalistic arguments about Ellie's consent.
But yet, I don't think you understand them. You are implying what her consent is based on what she said but if you are right then there is no harm in actually telling her. That she was ready to die with Riley is irrelevant because she thought she was going to die. If she still wanted to die with Riley why didn't she just kill herself.
You see this as the trolley problem and for you it's simple, one life is worth less than the rest of the lives. But that is your morality and your take on the situation.
But from a story perspective it's Joel's perspective that is important. To me it's clear Joel doesn't give a shit about humanity and has already given up. He is, at the beginning of the story, just a monster that does what he is told. He didn't care that she might be the cure even when it was clear that it wasn't all BS. Even walking into SLC (I think it was SLC) he was basically saying to Ellie we can just not do this. He only goes along with her decision for one reason:
She wants to save humanity and he wants to save her
But as soon as the choice presented to him was you have to let her go to save humanity, it erased the only reason he had to save humanity. It isn't a moral choice for sure, he isn't a hero, but I don't think I am rationalizing his choice. I think it's the only choice he could make. But yeah, it's horrible:
What would Joel do for someone he loves...
Kill everyone.
Ellie didn't kill herself because Riley turned and Ellie didn't and she isn't suicidal. After all the things she's seen and done to get to the Fireflies, she wants it all to mean something. All those lives don't mean anything if she isn't the key to a cure. And frankly, even if Ellie consented Joel would still fight. This is why he lied.
The reason that the plot doesn't include Ellie explicitly signing off is that it provides the opportunity for Joel to tell her a version of what happened. The circumstances are such that he could have told the truth or lied.
I am not saying that I do not understand Joel, nor am I saying that the people who empathize with him are necessarily wrong for doing so.
I am saying is that the audience that understands Joel *does not have to come up with rationalizations* as if he's the hero saving the day. He is explicitly not saving the day and he knows it.
Joel lies because he doesn’t want to tell Ellie he murdered everyone to save her from death. He doesn’t want to tell her he potentially stopped doctors from finding the cure. He lies because he doesn’t want to lose her. Joel knows that, given the choice, Ellie may very well have gone along with the doctor’s plan which at this point in their relationship he wouldn’t have been able to handle.
However, never at any point in the game or show does it say that 100% a cure is possible. All we know is that Ellie is immune to the infection, not that she can be a cure for it. If they had succeeded with their plan, Ellie dies and no cure is made, Joel would have done the exact same thing he did (imo) anyway and kill them all for killing his daughter.
There is no right or wrong interpretation, but I know that as a father myself if someone asked me what I would have done? The exact same.
I don't want to bring the games into this too much since I tagged for just show spoilers, but it is clear there too. Ellie's life in exchange for solving the fungus is the reason Joel's actions have any weight.
The choice is between saving one life that Joel knows vs saving all the people he doesn't know.
What choice a person would make in that situation is up to them. But it is indisputable that the choice is between a guaranteed cure and not having one. There is no drama otherwise.
Seriously why make a cure for the human race anyways, from what I've experienced in my 31 years of life, people are arsesholes. We are destroying the planet, we are over populating the planet and its a really shitty time to be alive. There's no way that I'd give up my daughter/son to protect the human race, not a fucking chance. I don't think the human race deserves a second chance.
Uh if Ellie didn’t know she was DYING dying then a big +1 to Joel
And after the shit he’s seen of humanity of the last 20 years maybe he decided ya know what it isn’t worth salvaging to what it “once was” if that’s even possible
I wouldn’t make the argument that the fireflies are as bad as FEDRA but I don’t think I would trust the life of someone I love to *just* the information Joel was given in that room.
Admittedly, at face value, it sounds like they’ve got it figured out but… do they? It’s just this one doctor and while they are undoubtedly in short supply, all doctors are not created equally. After all, someone’s gotta graduate at the bottom of the class.
If I were Joel, I would try to find different people, maybe the right people, that could at least give another opinion or try find a way to make a cure without killing her. It would be worth a shot when you consider we are talking about killing the only immune person we know of in the entire country, if not the world. What’s if this guy blows the one shot at saving humanity because he’s wrong? He was even talking about their limited power supply before he started the surgery. How do we know they could even preserve what they were taking out her body? There were just too many questions.
Anyway, Joel flat-out lied to Ellie about it and he kind of lost me by doing so, but the the point still remains that he didn’t have enough info to trust them with her life and death. Luckily, she’s still alive and while she’s still alive, imo, there is still hope.
>She is adamant when Joel was trying to talk her out of it before they meet the Fireflies.
Unless she knew it was going to kill her, we still don't know if she'd want it. (I think she would, to be fair, but you need to frame her understanding accurately)
This is a ridiculous take and post. OP essentially said that all arguments that disagree with me are wrong because it’s a show and the writers could’ve have written in a legitimate reason that the cure could have worked, while also making “real world” type observations. Which one is it? Are we in a fantasy world where the firefly’s could have conjured up the science and logistics to support the cure? Or the real world where someone’s love for another takes precedence over some sketchy militias Ill founded belief in saving the world? If you’re looking at it through a “real world” lense then the odds of success for the murder of Ellie resulting in a cure are much less than 0.01%.
It's already a fantasy world where a fungus can control the bodies of humans.
I don't think people are wrong solely if they identify with Joel. What is wrong is creating rationalizations to pretend that Joel is justified for some other reason than parental instinct. He isn't a hero, and what he's doing is not heroic.
That is where people are getting lost. If you just assume that there was little to no chance of a cure then you completely avoid the moral issue. It's perfectly normal to kill a bunch of people to protect an innocent kid. In fact, that's the premise of quite a lot of heroic stories.
This is not the story of a hero. And to flatten the moral dimensions to "it wouldn't have worked anyway for xyz reason" is to avoid the meaning of the story.
You’re speaking of morality in terms of utilitarianism. There are many other ethical theories that would justify Joel’s actions. Such as existentialism and deontology. Utilitarianism may argue that killing Ellie for the greater good is morally just and I agree, but there is also reasons to argue that Joel’s actions were also morally just.
And no shit we’re talking about a fantasy world, I’m simply stating that if we’re debating the morality of Joel’s decision, the only way to do so would be to look at it from a real world perspective, whereas there’s a slim to none chance the firefly’s a rag tag militia has the means necessary to even produce the cure, the logistics necessary to replicate and distribute it. Your argument is invalid because you’re drawing real world conclusions and supporting it by saying “well this is fantasy, so the writers could’ve wrote that in”.
The morality of Joel's decision is within the constraints of the fantasy world, which includes both a mind controlling fungus and also a cure for that fungus that is created through sacrificing Ellie.
What I am pointing out is that regardless of the choice one make or even the moral framework one decides to use, they should not be creating a scenario where Joel is justified by claiming the cure isn't possible. It is only because the cure is within reach that there is an interesting moral dilemma here. As I commented elsewhere, death of the author is fine, but that is the intent here.
To rationalize it as being a hail mary that couldn't have worked is to sidestep the moral question.
His actions are justified in saving her life. The fireflies are justified in finding a cure.
No one is right, no one is wrong. "From a certain point of view."
>This whole entire story doesn't work if Joel's actions are justified lmao
The story of Part 2 wouldn't work as the creator indended if Joel's actions are justified here
FTFY.
I think the whole point is that you can’t rationalize Joel’s actions - they’re entirely from his heart. He’s been broken open and he’ll fight for this person, world be damned, even if a cure is certain. He’ll murder good people, lie to her, if that means she gets one more second to experience the magic that’s left in the world. He repeats that moment with Sarah in his arms when Ellie is in his arms. But this time he has the wherewithal to fight for her, and he acts on instinct. Is he wrong? Probably, in a larger sense. These aren’t bad people he’s mowing down. He’s not heroic, and it immediately costs him something, both within himself and in his relationship to Ellie - she literally turns away from him in that moment where he’s lying to her. What we’re ultimately seeing is the way a parent will sacrifice themselves for their child.
The moral grayness is the theme of the whole show.
Who was right..
Joel used to do horrible things to survive.
Is FEDRA doing the right thing?
Were the Fireflies justified in bombings?
Was Henry right to be a traitor to save his brother?
Its the apocalypse. There's no right or wrong.
I think the ending of the season highlights the overall theme of the show, that there aren’t just your stereotypical “good guys” everyone has done bad shit, Joel, the fireflies, there is no pure good in that world. So it makes sense that the ending, like the whole story, highlights that this world sucks and Joel selfishly chose to cling to the one good thing he had no matter the cost. Both choices suck, there’s no winners here. And to be fair how brilliant of a story to have us wracking our brain to make sense of it.
To all the people saying “as a parent, Joel did the right thing”, I would ask you to imagine that you and your children actually live in this world. I guess you’d be fine with dooming them and everyone else that you love to save this one random person. The whole point of the ending is that Joel absolutely does the wrong thing, but that you completely sympathize with why he does it. I agree with OP that minimizing the chances of a vaccine ruins an otherwise powerful conflicting ending.
Crappy stories have "right or wrong" scenarios.
Awesome stories, however, blur the line. They leave character morals and motives in question. It helps identify with the characters because our choices in real life often come with difficult compromise. Life is rarely as simple as "good or evil." I want my fictional characters faced with realistically challenging moral dilemmas.
Counterpoint: Ellie’s lasting memory of The Fireflies predates the surgery attempt. She wasn’t even aware they intended to carry out any surgery. That’s extremely unethical. What kind of heroes would do that to a child? Joel’s lie paints them in a better light. They come off more altruistic and organised than they are actually are, because he needs to give her that nurturing hope that there’s something left for them outside the hospital.
The fireflies were going to shoot Ellie on site. Marlene stopped them, she tells Ellie in Ep1 “I stopped them from shooting you didn’t I?” Which probably had more to do with her personal connection to Ellie than just not wanting to kill her and it also implied that usually they WOULD kill someone who was infected without question.
Before they found out she was immune. Ellie is the first person in the world who survived infection. She stated she's the one who killed Riley when Riley turned.
Killing a person before they turn is standard practice. Joel wanted to do it too. But both fireflies and Joel observed that ellie wasn't turning.
It's 2023 and we still don't have a way to cure a fungal outbreak. I highly doubt some guy who last practiced medicine back in 2003 is going to be the one to find one. The fact that he wants to go straight to cutting open and killing the only known immune person instead of,like, running tests is insane.
Jerry isn't a specialist. And the people who were couldn't do a damn thing to stop the pandemic. I think the issue isn't that Joel fucked over mankind, but that he *lied* to Ellie and therefore changed their relationship forever.
We do have antifungal medicines. They've been around since the 50s. The practicality of the cure is not a meaningful objection because it is also not practical that a fungus can take over a human, which is way more complicated than insects vulnerable to such fungus.
The cure requires Ellie's death. That is the plot contrivance, and that is the circumstance in which everyone must make their choice. To avoid that is to avoid the moral question here.
Jerry isn't named in the show.
Kathleen doomed the entire KC QZ because she was obsessed with chasing Henry rather than deal with the infected. That's the choice for Joel too.
I think I wanted joel to save ellie because I think joel would rather live in this world either her than without there’s no guarantee on the cure and all the infected are still there so the whole time i wanted joel to get ellie and save ellie i wish i could watch there relationship more and more but i cant
This post is flaired **Show Only**. Therefore, all comments that discuss *any* aspect of the games **must** be properly spoiler tagged. 1. All post titles must **NOT** include spoilers from the latest episode or The Last of Us Part I and II. Minor show spoilers are allowed in your title **ONE WEEK** after episode airing. 2. Any untagged discussion of the games (including subtle hints) in posts without the **Show/Game Spoilers**, **Fancast [Show/Game]**, **Funpost [Show/Game]**, or **Meme [Show/Game]** flair will result in a **ban**. To tag a spoiler comment, use the `>!spoiler!<` tag which displays as >!spoiler!<. 3. If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team. --- Refer to the [spoiler guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLastofUsHBOseries/wiki/spoiler-guide) for our spoiler policy and to learn how to flair and title your posts appropriately. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ThelastofusHBOseries) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This debate has been going on for a decade. "No one is in the right" is literally the point
So you paid attention.
It isn't a "debate" though. The show and the game pretty clearly show he is in the wrong. It is why he lies to Ellie. It is why he killed Marlene. He knows he is wrong. Now that doesn't mean doctors trying to kill Ellie without her consent are in the right. Or that Joel doesn't have valid reasons for wanting to save Ellie. But every single person and every new person born will have to live in this world because of Joel's actions. If we were writing a history book, he would be remembered as a monster. And what about Ellie? Granted we will never know for sure but her words in last nights episode show a person who would have very likely given her life for a cure. What happens if/when she learns what really happened? The survivors guilt she will experience. What about the choice that was taken from her? I get Joel is one of our protagonists and it is very easy to empathize with him. But just because some fans can't accept it, doesn't mean it is a debate. He is wrong.
When the people who made the show and gave said there isn't a right answer then yes there is a debate
And when you watch the show and Ellie says that she didn't come all this way for nothing, then you why are you taking a press quote over the text?
Not a press quote but what the people who made the show/game have said. When discussing the material, it's important to know what they were thinking when they made their decision. And in this case it's that there isn't a right answer but what matters is we know why Joel did what he did. And yes ellie said that which is why it's such a great ending, there's really no right answer. Allowing your daughter would be something nearly no father can do.
Ellie is not his daughter. It is not his choice to make for her. So his love is more important than Ellie's wishes and the world? The people made a game, and >!s a sequel to the game!< that shows he is wrong. So yes I understand there is no easy answer for him. That he would selfishly want to save his "surrogate daughter". But at what cost? If the debate is what would you do in that situation, I get it. But the debate is not about right and wrong. He is wrong. He is not Ellie's father. t isn't his choice to make for her. And he doomed the world. How is he right? Please explain how he is not?
Ellie may not be his blood-daughter but she's essentially his daughter at that point. He sees her as his daughter and she sees him as his father or a father figure, to say she is not his daughter really undermines their relationship and the significance of that moment. Disagree with the ending all you want but considering it's about how far you will go to save your loved ones there is no right choice. The only thing he was definitely wrong about was not giving her the choice, but neither him or Marlene would give her the choice because they feared she would do the opposite of what they want. It was a selfish moment done to saved a love one. I never said he was right, in fact if (which is a very very big if) her death results in a cure then yes he is wrong for saving her. But the ending is not as simple as that, people who agree with what he did have valid reasons as well. Heck I found a 9 year old thread explaining that the infrastructure is not there to synthesize a cure and distribute it world wide. I've seen people say that the fire flies would not be fair with distributing it. I will agree with what the show runner has said. People for a decade have been debating on whether Joel was right or wrong but all we can know is his motivations in that moment and that is what makes it such a complex story. I will say this again that to just say he is not her father really gives a disservice to their relationship and what they have gone through, at the end of the game he is for all intents and purposes her father. >!And speaking of part 2, it shows that because joel is her adopted father she goes through such trauma, because to her, her father was brutally murdered. I wouldnt say it shows what Joel did was wrong, if anything it shows Marlene was in the wrong for keeping ellie and Joel in the dark. in fact the doctor even wasn't going to go through with it at first until convinced otherwise. It does show what lengths revenge will take you to and it does show what consequences happened due to joels decision. It also shows that because of what joel did, Ellie got to have a wife and child, however her quest for revenge would harm that!<
>It was a selfish moment done to saved a love one. That sounds almost noble. Joel did what he did to save himself from more grief and trauma. Ellie as a person nor her wishes were ever a part of his decisions.
Which is a great part of this ending. That's sort of why I said it was selfish. He absolutely loved her but his reason for saving her was selfish due to the reasons you stated.
You seem to be missing my point, and maybe that is my fault for not articulating it better. You are arguing that in Joel's shoes people would choose to do the same thing. You are trying trying to rationalize why he would do what he did. I understand why he chose to do what he did. I am not arguing otherwise. A parent would give up almost anything to save their child. Yes that is a debate. In his shoes, would you or I choose to do what Joel did? But debating whether what he did is right or wrong is not a debate. Even if Ellie was his daughter, a) that wasn't his decision to make b) his actions will cost the lives of thousands, if not millions, of daughters. That is not debatable. And that is where I am agreeing with OP here. Yes, I understand why he did what he did. Yes, in his shoes I may do the same thing. But what he did was wrong, it was not heroic, and will have long lasting consequences. >!And speaking of 2, not only do we get the answer emphatically of what Ellie would have chosen for herself. We also see the damage that choosing revenge causes. Sure we can debate about the ethics of not telling Ellie. Of Marlene's actions. And on and on. But that is a different debate!<
There is a right answer. It's the one that saves the world. That is why it matters that Joel doesn't choose it, and why he lies. He knows it. But instead of just saying that, the easy way out is to just pretend that there wasn't a cure. I replayed the remaster again because of the show and it's clear there too. But you don't need the context of the games to see it in the story. It is entirely possible to say "if I were in such a position I'd do the same while knowing full well that what I would do is damn the whole world".
No game spoilers but the game creator has said when testing the game they polled people's opinions on the ending. For those who didn't have kids, it was split 50/50 whether what Joel did was right. For those who had kids, it was 100% across the board - they agreed with Joel. My point is, you can't sit here and say the is one right answer. There is one right answer in your view, but clearly good, kind-hearted people will disagree. If saving the world is the only metric that matters, sure. But the whole point is, that's not the only consideration anymore.
It’s weird. Like, objectively, I can see from an outside perspective that what he does is questionable. Now that it’s been made clear that this is an issue raised by the show lol. But I have a child. And I literally didn’t see the question in front of me until it was pointed out on the sub - because I would do the same thing. I wouldn’t willingly let my child die for anything. Not one thing. I’d fight to the death to prevent it. Like it’s not even a half second consideration. I get it. The whole world is fucked because of this. But is it any more so than it was before her immunity was discovered? Would it really change things? No. I’m not letting my child die for anything, much less a “maybe, probably.”
[удалено]
Right! Like I didn’t think anything of it at all, even just as a viewer mind you, because … obviously. Someone wants to kill your kid… you just kill them back. But apparently it’s a huge question mark lol oops.
>There is a right answer. It's the one that saves the world "Save the world", are you a super hero or a God OP? You shouldn't ask of Joel to act with the wisdom of a God and see him as the human he is. Also think of yourself as the human you are too while you're preaching the "holier than tho" that comes with the god complex you are showing. The fate of humanity shouldn't be tasked into one man's hands, no human should be asked to sacrifice its own child for the concept of humanity that is much bigger than himself and that he has no control over, rather than his immediate feeling of love for his child. Being human is understanding what Joel chose to do and indirectly chose to not hold him accountable for his decision out of human empathy (wether you have children yourself or not) above the concept that saving the world was something that he or anyone should have been tasked with. That is not your, nor mine nor Joel's responsibility to save humanity, especially in this world were humanity already lost 20 years ago (as the show portrayed countless times, other humans are often a bigger threat to survivors than the infected themselves) What you aren't liking isn't Joel's decision, it is that the decision was given to him to begin with, which is terribly unfair.
God complex? I'm saying that it is understandable why Joel did something that he should not have done. I don't think I have been unclear on this point. The story is meaningless without the cure being within reach and Joel deciding to destroy any chance of it. You can say the fate of humanity shouldn't be in one person's hands and that's true enough, but this is a fictional story. It's how the plot happens. This is where meaning comes from. It's also not his child. Ellie is not Sarah. Why does this person that is not his child take priority over all the other people that are not his children? Understanding why Joel kills the Fireflies does not then require coming up with justifications for why it was the right decision. It wasn't the right decision, nor did it respect Ellie's wishes. "It can't be for nothing". Joel makes it for nothing.
>I'm saying that it is understandable why Joel did something that he should not have done. I don't think I have been unclear on this point. Your problem isn't the decision he made, but the fact that the decision was given to him to begin with, that is terribly unfair for Joel, any human that would have been in Joel's place, and for humanity as a whole. Hence why the God complex, saying you would have made a decision differently for the greater good of humanity is assuming that humanity is your responsibility. It isn't because you are human and you should react like a human would, that's why most of us who get this don't blame Joel. It is a God's like creature responsibility and not just one man's.
Nobody is saying they would do different, the burden of that choice is too emotional. But from a utilitarian perspective there isn't a debate that even with a low chance of success, it's the correct choice to sacrifice Ellie. Even Ellie would likely agree if given the choice. Joel chose the understandable, but immoral option. We all do this daily. This is why we have a hard time accepting that he did anything wrong I think, it shines a light on our own selfish hearts. We totally would do the same thing as Joel, despite it being the wrong thing. And that haunts us.
It's not selfish though, just being human with emotion and animal like instinct to preserve our own offsprings, maybe it's just that the utilitarian concept doesn't bode well with human's nature, after all we're the ones who named the concept based on some criteria. Genetics of humans and evolution of the species as a whole couldn't care less about utilitarian.
I could get deep into the moral philosophy here, I have a degree in it, but suffice it to say there are very good reasons why we don't base our morals on what is 'genetic' or 'natural.' You bring up a good point though and a fault of basic and classic utilitarianism and that is to follow it to a T requires an almost Buddhist level of stoicism that is not a reasonable expectation for anybody. The answer most people come to is somewhere in between, we need to consider people's emotion when creating viable moral expectations, while also considering the harm it can do if we let it be the sole motive for our actions.
I think it is very situational. We are a civilized species and when it comes to more "mundane" things we are more rational, apply our common sense of fairness or rightfulness to the best of our abilities and aren't acting like an animal would or by a genetic function (i won't go into the consciousness and determinism theory rabbit hole here). Now take a situation of survival, threat of death, that's when even the most civilized human can and will revert to its most primal form, especially a mother/father that wants to protect its child, that's where the genetic evolution comes out. Many if not most parent would do what Joel did with little to no care for "the greater good of humanity" (which in itself is a debate, to me it looks like humanity already lost 20 years ago on outbreak day). I also took philosophy classes in high school, i was majoring in humanities and litterrature (I am originally from France and this used to be an option in HS). I remember going over Stoicism and the teacher saying that this is realistically against human nature as we are rational but also very emotional creatures and the coldness that the behavior teaches isn't a socially acceptable way. Only care about what you can control is nice when it comes to regulate emotions and think more rationally about what to do, but it stops when the stakes are unbereable (losing my child) and here that is something that i would have taken control of.
>It's also not his child. Ellie is not Sarah. Why does this person that is not his child take priority over all the other people that are not his children? > Oof, terrible take all around, haven't you watched the show? >The story is meaningless without the cure being within reach and Joel deciding to destroy any chance of it. >You can say the fate of humanity shouldn't be in one person's hands and that's true enough, but this is a fictional story. It's how the plot happens. This is where meaning comes from. Fictional often mirrors our own reality, blunt of you to think the outcome from a real life Joel would have been any different, even if it were you in his shoes, which you have a terrible time understanding and doing. Not all stories are meant for happy ending, more often than not in real life, endings are somewhere in between. As far as life on earth in general, endings aren't good, ask the dinosaurs, they roamed this earth much longer than humans have before they went extinct.
It’s great that this is your opinion. That’s the point of the story. It’s meant to be complex
I thought it was painfully obvious too, but people seem to miss the entire-ass show/game's point
It’s so off putting when people take the side of the fireflies and make them out to be the moral equivalent of the worlds saviors as if they can do no wrong.
In the very first episode of the show Tess almost gets killed because the Fireflies blow up a building. People just think because they aren't as bad as Fedra, that they're the de facto good guys. Sure they're "freedom fighters" but their methods rely primarily on bombing shit.
In the words of a true lawful good archetype (Captain America) "we don't trade lives". Even the beloved hero in shiny armor wouldn't kill one for the rest.
THIS, OMG, THIS! OP, to say that the Fireflies are the “good guys” in this scenario is terribly short-sighted. Do you really think that the Fireflies only ever harmed FEDRA? David himself says the Pittsburgh QZ fell as a combination of FEDRA and Fireflies. The Fireflies were essentially waging war against FEDRA (for the record, I don’t side with FEDRA, either) and there was for sure collateral damage of bystanders being harmed or even killed due to Firefly actions.
They are nothing but incompetent and dangerous idealists in presentation in the show and game. Joel maintains a low opinion of them for obvious reasons. This idea that they are suddenly “good guys” simply doesn’t exist. Look how they treated Joel in the hospital for other examples. They were prepared to kill him for the most minor infraction.
I don't know how they can be any clearer. The Fireflies are the good guys. They are the only ones even trying to find a cure. Anyone is free to argue about the death of the author, but the authorial intent is quite clear.
The good guys who didn’t give the girl a choice to choose for herself?
The fireflies want to find a cure by literally killing an innocent child without ever asking for her consent.
Legalistic arguments, which ignores that Ellie said "it cant have been for nothing". She was ready to die already with Riley. Also ignores that the Fireflies didn't just cap Joel, instead escorting him out. That would have been the rational thing to do.
But the Fireflies don’t know that she was ready to die with Riley. They don’t know that she says “it can’t all be for nothing”. As far as we know from the story (you have placed a lot of emphasis on the fact that we can only decide based on what we see in the story), the Fireflies have not asked Ellie if she is willing to be killed to extract the essence of her immunity. Ellie makes plans and says that “after” she will go anywhere with Joel. She is not expecting this encounter with the Fireflies to be fatal. That’s not a “legalistic argument”. That’s the Fireflies deceiving and killing a child for what they have decided is the greater good.
The legalistic argument doesn't justify Joel killing everyone including the people surrendering, nor does it justify killing Marlene after he's disabled her. It doesn't justify him lying to Ellie about what happened. The Fireflies are acting as the plot demands (as is anyone else), but the point is that Joel is choosing his suffering over the world. When Marlene tells him what's happening, Joel says "find someone else." The fireflies can't speak with Ellie before because doing so would rob the dramatic moment where Joel tells Ellie what happened. The speed of the surgery is to set up that moment to reveal Joel's character. That's the key thing here. Everything sets up that moment. And just as well, why didn't the fireflies deceive Joel? If they are so villainous they could have just shot him outside or after he woke up. He could have just never woken up. Yet they did wake him up, they did talk to him, and they escorted him out to live out the rest of his life.
Again, the point is that no one is wholly, clearly right or wrong here. Joel murders 10 or 15 people. I believe that to be emotionally understandable, but morally unjustified. He kills many people for the sake of one. “For the greater good” has been used to justify atrocities throughout history. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example. Persecution of particular groups viewed as a threat (which is illogical, you might say, but I’m sure a mountain of justifying evidence would be presented to you by the persecutors if you asked). “It’s just one girl vs the whole world”. It was just two cities vs the whole world. Joel’s justification for killing Marlene is that he believes she will hunt Ellie down if she lives. I think Marlene didn’t kill Joel because they believed he might be useful again in the future. In their eyes, he had just delivered to them the cure for the cordyceps disease. A feat they feared impossible. His “reward” is that he gets to live and perhaps be useful to them again in future. I think the stage is clearly being set for the breakdown of the relationship between Joel and Ellie as a result of his actions and lying to her. Had he not acted as he did, she would be dead, and likely he would be too, as he would probably finish what he started after the death of his first daughter. And there the story would end.
Joel KNEW they were just going to come after Ellie again. He might be old but he’s not senile.
But she didn’t know that she’d have to die to make a cure possible.
> They are the only ones even trying to find a cure. That we know of. > The Fireflies are the good guys. We are never shown evidence of this.
In episode 2 Joel dismisses the possibility of a cure because he's heard it before, and nothing materialized. Fedra may have tried to find a cure but they haven't produced anything. And there's no evidence they are trying. There is evidence the Fireflies are trying. We also do know the Fireflies are the closest things to good guys. If they weren't, they would have just executed Joel as soon as he protested. But they didn't.
They were absolutely going to kill Joel. They were told explicitly to dump him at the highway with his bag - not his gun.
No they weren't. What would be the point of walking him out just to shoot him outside? If their aim was to just kill Joel no matter what they would have done it when he was unconscious.
>Anyone is free to argue about the death of the author, but the authorial intent is quite clear. The intent is making a hard choice that there is no right or wrong answer. The people who made the show and the game have said that as well.
>Anyone is free to argue about the death of the author, but the authorial intent is quite clear. Well speaking of authorial intent, they also show a version of FEDRA in the flashback of a FEDRA leader that is kind and sympathetic to Ellie, and where they really do view themselves as necessary to keep people safe. The FEDRA Ellie grew up in would not have agreed with the KC FEDRA. And this was purposefully shown, by the creators in the show, to show FEDRA is not 100% bad. Meanwhile Fireflies are setting off bombs and killing innocent people. Even having teenagers like Riley create and set off bombs. This isn't a simple either/or.
The Boston FEDRA was doing the same things as the KC FEDRA. And I skimmed through episode 1 again, there's no bombings by the fireflies that kill innocent people. They are attacking "meaningless fedra targets", there's no instance shown or implied that the Fireflies hurt civilians. That's a possibility in the game but even there, it's not targeting civilians nor does it show them hurting anyone besides military.
We don’t actually know if anyone else was trying for a cure. In the first episode, the Atlanta QZ is referenced as a manufacturer of pharmaceuticals. Who’s to say they haven’t been trying for a cure? I think the majority of folks who are arguing against your take are simply pointing out that *immediately* performing a procedure that will not only be fatal to (thus far) the only known immune human, but will result in a finite amount of testing samples, is reckless.
Of course, it's reckless. So is hiding Ellie from FEDRA who would presumably have the expertise and facilities to get a cure. It's also reckless for Joel to be the only one helping her, rather than recruiting Tommy at the very least to help make the journey. Let alone not telling Henry what's happening so they can help too. But instead, there's a cross-country journey about Joel getting attached to Ellie. The immediacy of the surgery is a plot contrivance, sure, to create the moment where Joel decides what to tell Ellie. Ellie cannot know at that moment what is happening, because then Joel cannot lie to her. If Ellie volunteered and Joel attacked anyway, there is no drama about whether she accepts his version of events. He also wasn't doing it because of some notion that they were rushing or didn't get Ellie's consent. First thing he says when he realizes what is happening is "Find someone else." Joel wants to give Ellie a life even if she hates him for it. That is the core of the story.
>The cure was possible. Says who? Look, scientists were able to make a covid vaccine in record time because a) it was *a bunch* of scientists and b) they had plenty of resources. Do you really think some doctor in an abandoned hospital was going to make a cure for something we were told in episode 1 is almost impossible to cure?
Right?! I’m guessing ppl who keeps insisting about the vaccine or the cure don’t remember that Indonesia had THE person who studied cordyceps her entire life come to try to figure something out… and she said bomb the city. If all the scientists and experts on cordyceps and fungi couldn’t figure out a vaccine/cure prior to the world going to shit, I highly, HIGHLY doubt a couple of fireflies could magically create one with what… one doctor and 2 nurses on site?
The narrative was Ellie is the cure. Not a single plot point suggested the vaccine wouldn’t have worked. There’s zero debate within the story about it. But some people want to pretend to be skeptical to justify Joel’s actions
The whole story is culminating in what Joel chooses to do. Without a cure, there's no choice, and there's no story. All these reasons why the cure wouldn't be viable are nontextual inventions by fans and nothing in the story suggests it. I hope people resist the cop-out of saying that the cure was impossible, because it's just a way to dodge the moral question. I'd do the same in Joel's position, but we should be honest about the implications that his choice has, because that's what makes it meaningful.
This goes back to the logistical argument, which tries to avoid the moral dilemma by pretending the cure wasn't possible. The drama of the story is only possible if the cure is within reach. Again, this is a story that involves a fungus (that people eat, right now) that mutates to control human bodies without spreading via spores. That isn't realistic. Yet we as the audience accept that it isn't realistic to allow the story to play out.
It feels artificial and fake to say that "the cure must have been viable because otherwise the drama doesn't work." There's no logic to that argument, it's circular. It also doesn't make sense to say that realism doesn't matter because one unrealistic thing already happened as the show's premise. Within the context of the show we have to accept that the fungus mutated and can now infect humans because that is shown to be true. It isn't up for debate or speculation, it happened. This cure on the other hand, it didn't happen. The characters have a theory about it that may or may not work, and because of Joel's actions we will never be able to know for sure if it would have worked or not. This is a complex story without a simple answer. I sympathize with Joel and understand his decision. But it's still heartbreaking to watch him kill all those people to save Ellie, and it's heartbreaking to see him lie about it to her afterwards. Any analysis of this show that claims "this particular character or faction was 100% justified and good with no flaws or moral ambiguity whatsoever" is just too simplistic. FEDRA, the fireflies, Joel, Ellie, they all have good and bad aspects. They all make questionable or bad decisions at various times, and yet it's still possible to empathize with any of them and imagine how they justified those decisions to themselves. The complexity is what makes it so good, if there wasn't moral ambiguity then the story wouldn't be so powerful. That's what makes the drama work, not some notion that the cure was a 100% guaranteed sure thing. I mean even if the cure was a 50% coin chance flip of working, there are still dramatic stakes here. On some level Marlene is right, the world is so dangerous that Ellie could die tomorrow for practically no reason at all. What's the (potentially short) life of one person weighed against a 50% chance of potentially saving the entire human race? I can understand why people would defend Joel. I can also see why they would condemn him. If you can't see both arguments then I feel like you're oversimplifying the story in order to arrive at a clear answer, so you can resolve the psychological discomfort and cognitive dissonance. Because it's a hard thing to think that "Joel was wrong but I would have done the same thing," because then you have to live with the idea that maybe in a similar situation you'd do what Joel did. At this point I'm rambling to no one in particular. But I think a key point here is that the "logistical argument" doesn't nullify the drama of Joel's decision. Even if the cure wouldn't have worked, he still killed a lot of people to save one person, and everyone he killed thought they were doing the right thing to save humanity. That's a huge, emotionally difficult story regardless of whether or not the cure was viable.
The cure did happen. It's inside Ellie. I am not simplifying the story. Druckmann has said his writing philosophy is "simple story, complex characters". It's right there. I'm not the one with cognitive dissonance. What I am pointing out here is that creating rationalizations to justify Joel's actions defeats the drama of the story. It isn't a moral dilemma if one just pretends that the cure wasn't possible or that the Fireflies were being unethical in not getting Ellie's written consent or whatever. To remove the moral question is to invent an alternate world where Joel was in the right, which even he knows he isn't.
We don't know if the cure would have worked or not. You can't say "it happened" because no one actually used their theory to cure anyone, which means it remains a theory. The theory can't be tested now because of Joel's actions. Authorial intent doesn't matter. I don't care if Druckmann outright says "yes the cure definitely would have worked if Joel allowed them to carry out the procedure." It's not presented in context, in the script, as a definitive outcome. People with doubts about whether or not it would have worked are absolutely not oversimplifying this. The thing is, it doesn't even matter. Joel isn't 100% "in the right" even if the cure wasn't guaranteed. It's still a moral dilemma. Even if there was a chance it could work, would that still be worth it? What about all the people Joel killed to save her, who all thought they were doing the right thing? What about the ethical dilemma of killing a doctor during the apocalypse who could potentially save lives? In fact I would say that ambiguity about whether the cure would have worked or not makes the moral dilemma even more difficult. If we just accept that "yes the cure had a 100% chance of curing the entire human race" then there's almost no question at all, Joel was definitely wrong and a terrible person. There's no moral dilemma if the cure was guaranteed to work, it becomes a clear-cut decision. I think it's an oversimplification to say "Joel was right," but I think it's similarly an oversimplification to say "Joel was wrong." I think you're removing the moral question by definitively arriving at the "Joel was wrong" conclusion with no ambiguity, because of some magical thinking that the cure was definitely 100% guaranteed to work and that it was ethical for the Fireflies to kill Ellie to obtain it.
The drama of the story is only possible if the cure is within reach. No. If Ellie weren't immune and the trek was made for another reason, the drama would be the same. Joel's trauma is the same. Ellie's trauma is the same. The one thing that needs to happen in order to kickstart the story is the date at the mall. But if we center on Joel and Ellie, the true focus of the story, the cure was always in the background. The story, the way I interpret it, is about two lonely, angry people finding solace in one another. Learning to trust and to love (again in Joel's case), even amidst the apocalypse. Knowing that even when things are dire and unsalvageable, losing our humanity is often a choice. Joel chose to redeem himself in a selfish act, yes. But he also chose to save a 14 year-old girl who was going to be sacrificed for an uncertainty.
Some people just “don’t get it” when it comes to this show. It’s not about zombies or human authoritarianism, it’s about love and the bonds between us. Everything else is a bonus?
There is no "right" answer, just shades of gray. Both sides have points, justifications, and rationalizations. That was kind of the point.
It’s a moral decision. It’s not really about what is right or wrong. Maybe read a little bit about the trolley problem.
That's what a moral decision is though...
The trolley problem is about what YOU would pick. But it's always a moral compromise. YOUR child's life versus the life of EVERY child living or who will ever live. Those stakes are apocalyptically high, but in a story as remarkable as this, we are able to understand that choice.
https://preview.redd.it/shk0jasdrkna1.jpeg?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ddd1a4a210c73c33e83c1313bc59fc4c200ca1c6
It is as simple as this to me. She’s his daughter now and when he called her “baby girl” last week there was no world to him aside from protecting her.
Both sides have legitimate claims since Ellie was not informed of the full consequences. Even if she were, I’d view it as immoral to put that kind of a decision on a child. That doesn’t mean it’s moral for Joel to go kill a hospital full of people to save Ellie, it just means this isn’t a black and white issue. It’s one thing to argue you believe the firefly’s did the right thing. It’s another to say one side is absolutely right and the other has no moral ground it’s stand on. There is a reason that question of whether the ends justify the means is a recurring debate in a million different forms of media or in real life. If it was as simple as you make it out to be, one could justify any action as long as it was for “The Greater Good”.
“The greater good” has been used to justify a lot of seriously fucked up shit throughout human history.
You didn't add the scientific argument? the way they're doing it is the last choice if they didn't find any result on the Ellie's test. I remember a comment from a neurologist that they should do a test using cerebrospinal fluid not straight up open brain surgery it should be the last option but nope let's open her head up. And the doctors "Think" they're not even sure why Ellie's immune even in the game they're not sure. The only immune they got and they just want to kill her for the sake of studying why she is immune. Also did they even think that after getting the sample from Ellie's brain is the cordyceps will still be viable and not just die out because there's no host anymore to latch on to? Forget about logistical argument about delivering the cure because there won't be one if they failed their experiment on the only immune person they had.
The scientific argument is indistinguishable from the logistical one. Why suspend your disbelief for fungus zombies and not that the fungus zombies can be prevented or cured?
You are the worst. Yes we should all suspend logic and reason and common sense for your opinion to be right!
Logic and reason and common sense would say that it would be impossible for a zombie outbreak to occur. Especially with a fungus that doesn't spread by spores. But we accept that the impossible premise is valid enough to allow the story to happen. Why do you need Joel to be a hero?
Ellie deserves to live her life for herself and Joel was right to do what he did.
What a ridiculous opinion, clearly drugging a child without their knowledge or consent to harvest their brain without their knowledge or consent, is the right thing to do.
As a parent i ll tell you, there's nothing more dangerous in this world than a parent protecting their offspring. Look at some animals in the wild and how they'll attack anyone who has the badluck to stumble upon them and their little ones, even if they don't directly threaten it... the expression "mama/papa bear" didn't erupt out of nowhere. Don't underestimate humans abilities to revert to their most primal form if the situation calls for it. We're an intelligent and civilized animal, but still an animal. In my opinion the debate itself is kinda ironic since parental instinct and protection of the offspring is actually a survival evolution trait we have and here the individual aspect of it goes against the species and aggregate aspect of it. Almost as if it conflicts with itself and we haven't biologically evolved to fit the philosophical aspect of survival that this debate throws at us.
That's exactly correct. There is supposed to be something unsettling about Joel saving Ellie only to damn all the rest of the children in the world. There is an option to end suffering for others and he decides to prioritize his own suffering. It's selfish, but also completely understandable within its context.
For what it means, it's a flaw of our species, genetic evolution takes millions of years, and we haven't gotten to the point (if we ever make it past the next couple hundred years as a species, not looking too good so far) where we have evolved into a species that will prioritize the philosophical greater good than on our own immediate self maybe because we haven't seen an advantage to it since we are still very basic animal and so far the genetic pool of humans that have survived are the ones like Joel and in an animal kingdom context, the lioness will chose a Joel lion over a Doctor (the one from this episode) lion who brings a scalpel to a gun fight.
Kathleen was a heinous person, but Joel needs to answer her question. Is Ellie worth the whole world? Joel's answer is yes, that's an understandable answer for a father. But the answer has weight, it has consequences, ugly things must be done in order to make good on that answer.
Oh man, have you ever loved anyone in your life? I would gladly watch the rest of the world burn, but wouldn't sacrifice a loved one and I'm not even a parent. Especially since every single human they've encountered was a complete piece of shit, thinking only about their own survival, ready to kill anyone for their own good. Sacrifice for who? Humanity is already dead in their world
It's very weird to accuse someone of not having anyone they care about in their life because they see the actual moral question at play here. The point I am making is to avoid inventing rationalizations that pretend the cure wasn't possible. In the behind the scenes interviews, it's stated that the choice is between all of humanity and one person, and it's the easiest choice of Joel's life. He knows what he's picking here. Yet, for some reason, there is a desire to pretend that he was justified doing it for some other reason than the one that is obvious to him. The story is designed to build up to this being the choice. *Every* human they encountered was not a piece of shit. Bill, Frank, Henry, Sam, and the people of Jackson are not the only non psychopaths in the world, just the ones they met on this journey because they aimed straight for the Fireflies, not a sightseeing tour. I guess I had forgotten about this argument, the misanthropic one. The argument that the world isn't worth saving. Misanthropy is a fun character trait in fiction, but it is nonsensical and disgusting in real life.
1. It wasn't accusation, it was a question. Multiple people have answered they would've done the same for their child and yet in every comment you act as if letting her die was the right thing to do, and you just don't get why people disagree and act like noone in their right mind would do that for a person they love. Realisticly almost everyone would. 2. In the game every human they've encountered was a piece of shit. I don't remember exactly, but Bill wasn't the same as the series. Joel barely got the car out of him, and Bill only did it cause he owed Joel a favor. Brothers only help them out of the city cause they are in need of protection, otherwise they would probably kill Joel and Ellie for food. In the game they even leave Joel behind to save their asses. Maria didn't put the bullet in their heads at the gate only cause of Tommy. Nobody, I mean nobody in their world does anything out of goodness of their hearts. 3. They obviously live in a world where moral doesn't exist. When the series came out I was telling my friend that she needs to watch the series, that it wasn't about the zombies, but how the humans turn into the animals in the right circumstances, and how that was the scary part. Living in postapocalyptic world where you have to be more scared of another human being than a fucking clicker. I was completely shocked by every human encounter I've seen in the game. 5. Good for us we're not talking about the real life, but a video game/series.
1. I've said repeatedly that Joel's choice is understandable. What I am opposed to is people coming up with alternate scenarios to pretend the cure wasn't on the table. The moral question is love vs the world, this is as explicit as can be, yet the interpretation that some people are taking is that it is a guaranteed life for Ellie vs some miniscule chance of a cure. 2. I am not discussing the games, but even there, it's more obvious that the cure was on the table. They spell out it as clearly as they can. The choice is Ellie vs. the world. Morals exist regardless of the societal structure. They are the principles we hold in ourselves. Also, zombie media has been making the "humans are the real threat" point since Night of the Living Dead in 1968. That's not the interesting thing that Last of Us does. It's the moral question of saving one or saving the world.
Fuck, even Sarah died cause they live in a world where human life doesn't matter and it isn't worth a thing
Neither he nor the fireflies are right. The point is everyone is out there doing what they think is "right" regardless of the consequences. The fireflies don't know that the surgery would end up producing a vaccine, and they don't ask Ellie to undergo the surgery. They force her too while she's unconscious. Would she have anyways? Probably, but I like that they included that they didn't ask. On the flipside, Joel knows this is likely what Ellie would want, and says fuck it and kills all of them anyways to get her back. Like you said, there's no reason to rationalize his actions. He's grown attached, and won't lose another "daughter". It's for purely selfish reasons. If he didn't think it's what she would've wanted he wouldn't have lied right to her face afterwards.
>Neither he nor the fireflies are right. The point is everyone is out there doing what they think is "right" regardless of the consequences. Glad someone gets it. That's what makes it such a great ending. There isn't a right answer.
I love that this finale is a gigantic AITA thread.
joke worthless aromatic cagey jobless ten vast steep trees meeting *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Legally speaking, a person cannot consent to medical treatment without knowing the full picture. The risks, the benefits, the procedure explained in layman’s terms. Maybe Ellie would have said yes to the surgery, aka her death. Maybe she would’ve said no. They took away her autonomy to potentially save humanity. That’s where the grayness is. A doctor is taught that patient autonomy always comes first. Not getting consent from a patient is morally, ethically, and legally wrong. And technically, Ellie is a minor so her parent/guardian is the one that would give consent for her. Personally, I think anyone in the scientific community would hesitate to agree with the Fireflies decision. Why do such an invasive procedure that isn’t tested? You may have one shot at saving humanity; it’s better to gather as much data and take a conservative approach so that you can actually reach your end goal, not just throw it away immediately if it doesn’t work out.
Then we have the moral gray area of Joel — a person’s innate drive to selfishly protect their loved ones. He went on a killing rampage to save the one he loved even with the potential of a vaccine ending the apocalypse. Yes, the vaccine may be a shot in the dark but when you can possibly save humanity over one person, you’re also protecting your loved ones and millions of others. Joel knew deep down that Ellie likely would have said yes to the surgery, and that’s why he lies to her face at the end. The trust in their relationship is shattered in that moment. The biggest problem to me is that Ellie was never given a choice, in both scenarios. Her fate was decided by others.
>Then we have the moral gray area of Joel — a person’s innate drive to selfishly protect their loved ones That isn't a selfish drive... this is an evolutionary trait of many species. We protect our own offsprings. Try to get near a bear cub even accidentally and see what mama bear will do to you, even if you never intended to threaten.
Yes, definitely evolutionary, that’s why I said innate. To me, it is selfish, but the word often gets a negative connotation. It is selfish to value one life over others. Joel is valuing Ellie over the potential millions that could be saved from a vaccine. Yet he’s doing what he’s wired to do and what his grief over Sarah tells him is the right choice — protect Ellie at all costs, whether Ellie agrees with it or not.
Self preservation would be more accurate here. Selfish is negative because it implies that Joel or Ellie weren't entitled to their right to live and be together as father and daughter and that somehow by chosing to preserve Ellie's life, Joel somehow took smth away from someone for something he wasn't righfully entitled to. Joel didn't deprive humanity of anything bec it implies he owed Humanity to begin with
As a parent, I would do EXACTLY what Joel did. No moral dilemma. No question. I’m going to save my kid or die. And, I’m going to lie because the burden of saving the world isn’t for a 14 y/o to bear. I do agree it wasn’t a happy ending. Joel lied to her and Ellie knows (or at least suspects). That’s going to come between them which is really sad.
I am not saying you can't identify with Joel or choose what he did. Joel did not lie to relieve Ellie of the burden. Ellie doesn't believe him. If she did, she wouldn't have been demanding that he swear to her. What I am saying is that you should not be creating justifications that ignore the stakes. The choice was a child or all the children. And he picked a child.
I don't think anyone is ignoring the stakes though. that's why it's such a dilemma. in the *in-show universe*, there's no guarantee that what the fireflies wanted to do with Ellie was going to work. Joel chose a definite yes--I will save *this* child, over a possible yes--this *may* save humanity. he chose not to make that gamble. you're trying to frame it like joel chose to definitely save one child over definitely saving all the children, and that's just false. >I've seen the logistical arguments. 'How could the fireflies manufacture and distribute the cure?' This is a show that involves a fungus that takes over human bodies, over a long enough time turns them into bloaters that have superhuman strength and armor strong enough to withstand bullets, and this fungus also doesn't spread by spores. The selective suspension of disbelief is just to avoid having to deal with the moral quandary. in the in-show universe we have to take what we're given as "reality." it's not "selected suspended belief" to take the existence of the mutated cordyceps as reality and then question the viability of mass manufacture and transport of a cure that may or may not be possible. just because one fantastical element exists doesn't mean everything else is suddenly up for debate.
He is not making a gamble because of uncertainty in creating a cure. "Find someone else" is his words. Also yes, you are supposed to suspend disbelief about the logistical stuff. Society would not look like that after 20 years. Everyone would have starved already if not for someone setting up guarded farms and spreading out, instead of huddling up in the quarantine zones. We as an audience accept the premise because that's what the story needs.
[удалено]
It’s exactly a parent’s job to protect their child, both physically and emotionally. We lie to our kids to protect them and keep their innocence all the time.
What i meant is, that even if Ellie had agreed to it, the parent shouldn't be put in a place where they possibly sacrifice their kid for humanity. Humanity's fate isn't for Joel or Ellie to pay for.
But Marlene forced Joel’s hand and Joel was not going to let Ellie be murdered.
Marlene shouldn't even have wanting to put Joel or Ellie in this spot to begin with.
> I've seen the legalistic arguments about Ellie's consent. But yet, I don't think you understand them. You are implying what her consent is based on what she said but if you are right then there is no harm in actually telling her. That she was ready to die with Riley is irrelevant because she thought she was going to die. If she still wanted to die with Riley why didn't she just kill herself. You see this as the trolley problem and for you it's simple, one life is worth less than the rest of the lives. But that is your morality and your take on the situation. But from a story perspective it's Joel's perspective that is important. To me it's clear Joel doesn't give a shit about humanity and has already given up. He is, at the beginning of the story, just a monster that does what he is told. He didn't care that she might be the cure even when it was clear that it wasn't all BS. Even walking into SLC (I think it was SLC) he was basically saying to Ellie we can just not do this. He only goes along with her decision for one reason: She wants to save humanity and he wants to save her But as soon as the choice presented to him was you have to let her go to save humanity, it erased the only reason he had to save humanity. It isn't a moral choice for sure, he isn't a hero, but I don't think I am rationalizing his choice. I think it's the only choice he could make. But yeah, it's horrible: What would Joel do for someone he loves... Kill everyone.
Ellie didn't kill herself because Riley turned and Ellie didn't and she isn't suicidal. After all the things she's seen and done to get to the Fireflies, she wants it all to mean something. All those lives don't mean anything if she isn't the key to a cure. And frankly, even if Ellie consented Joel would still fight. This is why he lied. The reason that the plot doesn't include Ellie explicitly signing off is that it provides the opportunity for Joel to tell her a version of what happened. The circumstances are such that he could have told the truth or lied. I am not saying that I do not understand Joel, nor am I saying that the people who empathize with him are necessarily wrong for doing so. I am saying is that the audience that understands Joel *does not have to come up with rationalizations* as if he's the hero saving the day. He is explicitly not saving the day and he knows it.
Oh ok, then I agree. He is a monster but I think I would be the exact same monster.
Joel lies because he doesn’t want to tell Ellie he murdered everyone to save her from death. He doesn’t want to tell her he potentially stopped doctors from finding the cure. He lies because he doesn’t want to lose her. Joel knows that, given the choice, Ellie may very well have gone along with the doctor’s plan which at this point in their relationship he wouldn’t have been able to handle. However, never at any point in the game or show does it say that 100% a cure is possible. All we know is that Ellie is immune to the infection, not that she can be a cure for it. If they had succeeded with their plan, Ellie dies and no cure is made, Joel would have done the exact same thing he did (imo) anyway and kill them all for killing his daughter. There is no right or wrong interpretation, but I know that as a father myself if someone asked me what I would have done? The exact same.
I don't want to bring the games into this too much since I tagged for just show spoilers, but it is clear there too. Ellie's life in exchange for solving the fungus is the reason Joel's actions have any weight. The choice is between saving one life that Joel knows vs saving all the people he doesn't know. What choice a person would make in that situation is up to them. But it is indisputable that the choice is between a guaranteed cure and not having one. There is no drama otherwise.
There is no guaranteed cure.
Welcome to the last of us
Seriously why make a cure for the human race anyways, from what I've experienced in my 31 years of life, people are arsesholes. We are destroying the planet, we are over populating the planet and its a really shitty time to be alive. There's no way that I'd give up my daughter/son to protect the human race, not a fucking chance. I don't think the human race deserves a second chance.
Uh if Ellie didn’t know she was DYING dying then a big +1 to Joel And after the shit he’s seen of humanity of the last 20 years maybe he decided ya know what it isn’t worth salvaging to what it “once was” if that’s even possible
I wouldn’t make the argument that the fireflies are as bad as FEDRA but I don’t think I would trust the life of someone I love to *just* the information Joel was given in that room. Admittedly, at face value, it sounds like they’ve got it figured out but… do they? It’s just this one doctor and while they are undoubtedly in short supply, all doctors are not created equally. After all, someone’s gotta graduate at the bottom of the class. If I were Joel, I would try to find different people, maybe the right people, that could at least give another opinion or try find a way to make a cure without killing her. It would be worth a shot when you consider we are talking about killing the only immune person we know of in the entire country, if not the world. What’s if this guy blows the one shot at saving humanity because he’s wrong? He was even talking about their limited power supply before he started the surgery. How do we know they could even preserve what they were taking out her body? There were just too many questions. Anyway, Joel flat-out lied to Ellie about it and he kind of lost me by doing so, but the the point still remains that he didn’t have enough info to trust them with her life and death. Luckily, she’s still alive and while she’s still alive, imo, there is still hope.
>She is adamant when Joel was trying to talk her out of it before they meet the Fireflies. Unless she knew it was going to kill her, we still don't know if she'd want it. (I think she would, to be fair, but you need to frame her understanding accurately)
This is a ridiculous take and post. OP essentially said that all arguments that disagree with me are wrong because it’s a show and the writers could’ve have written in a legitimate reason that the cure could have worked, while also making “real world” type observations. Which one is it? Are we in a fantasy world where the firefly’s could have conjured up the science and logistics to support the cure? Or the real world where someone’s love for another takes precedence over some sketchy militias Ill founded belief in saving the world? If you’re looking at it through a “real world” lense then the odds of success for the murder of Ellie resulting in a cure are much less than 0.01%.
It's already a fantasy world where a fungus can control the bodies of humans. I don't think people are wrong solely if they identify with Joel. What is wrong is creating rationalizations to pretend that Joel is justified for some other reason than parental instinct. He isn't a hero, and what he's doing is not heroic. That is where people are getting lost. If you just assume that there was little to no chance of a cure then you completely avoid the moral issue. It's perfectly normal to kill a bunch of people to protect an innocent kid. In fact, that's the premise of quite a lot of heroic stories. This is not the story of a hero. And to flatten the moral dimensions to "it wouldn't have worked anyway for xyz reason" is to avoid the meaning of the story.
You’re speaking of morality in terms of utilitarianism. There are many other ethical theories that would justify Joel’s actions. Such as existentialism and deontology. Utilitarianism may argue that killing Ellie for the greater good is morally just and I agree, but there is also reasons to argue that Joel’s actions were also morally just. And no shit we’re talking about a fantasy world, I’m simply stating that if we’re debating the morality of Joel’s decision, the only way to do so would be to look at it from a real world perspective, whereas there’s a slim to none chance the firefly’s a rag tag militia has the means necessary to even produce the cure, the logistics necessary to replicate and distribute it. Your argument is invalid because you’re drawing real world conclusions and supporting it by saying “well this is fantasy, so the writers could’ve wrote that in”.
The morality of Joel's decision is within the constraints of the fantasy world, which includes both a mind controlling fungus and also a cure for that fungus that is created through sacrificing Ellie. What I am pointing out is that regardless of the choice one make or even the moral framework one decides to use, they should not be creating a scenario where Joel is justified by claiming the cure isn't possible. It is only because the cure is within reach that there is an interesting moral dilemma here. As I commented elsewhere, death of the author is fine, but that is the intent here. To rationalize it as being a hail mary that couldn't have worked is to sidestep the moral question.
Yea people aren't getting it at all lol. Kind of funny really lol. This whole entire story doesn't work if Joel's actions are justified lmao
His actions are justified in saving her life. The fireflies are justified in finding a cure. No one is right, no one is wrong. "From a certain point of view."
>This whole entire story doesn't work if Joel's actions are justified lmao The story of Part 2 wouldn't work as the creator indended if Joel's actions are justified here FTFY.
I think the whole point is that you can’t rationalize Joel’s actions - they’re entirely from his heart. He’s been broken open and he’ll fight for this person, world be damned, even if a cure is certain. He’ll murder good people, lie to her, if that means she gets one more second to experience the magic that’s left in the world. He repeats that moment with Sarah in his arms when Ellie is in his arms. But this time he has the wherewithal to fight for her, and he acts on instinct. Is he wrong? Probably, in a larger sense. These aren’t bad people he’s mowing down. He’s not heroic, and it immediately costs him something, both within himself and in his relationship to Ellie - she literally turns away from him in that moment where he’s lying to her. What we’re ultimately seeing is the way a parent will sacrifice themselves for their child.
[удалено]
Well giving a 14yo such a say, isn't right either. There's a reason why consent is given by an adult or guardian when you're a minor.
[удалено]
Yup, if only they had actually consulted the guardian
Joel was selfish but we'd all do the exact same thing in that situation.
The moral grayness is the theme of the whole show. Who was right.. Joel used to do horrible things to survive. Is FEDRA doing the right thing? Were the Fireflies justified in bombings? Was Henry right to be a traitor to save his brother? Its the apocalypse. There's no right or wrong.
I think the ending of the season highlights the overall theme of the show, that there aren’t just your stereotypical “good guys” everyone has done bad shit, Joel, the fireflies, there is no pure good in that world. So it makes sense that the ending, like the whole story, highlights that this world sucks and Joel selfishly chose to cling to the one good thing he had no matter the cost. Both choices suck, there’s no winners here. And to be fair how brilliant of a story to have us wracking our brain to make sense of it.
To all the people saying “as a parent, Joel did the right thing”, I would ask you to imagine that you and your children actually live in this world. I guess you’d be fine with dooming them and everyone else that you love to save this one random person. The whole point of the ending is that Joel absolutely does the wrong thing, but that you completely sympathize with why he does it. I agree with OP that minimizing the chances of a vaccine ruins an otherwise powerful conflicting ending.
Crappy stories have "right or wrong" scenarios. Awesome stories, however, blur the line. They leave character morals and motives in question. It helps identify with the characters because our choices in real life often come with difficult compromise. Life is rarely as simple as "good or evil." I want my fictional characters faced with realistically challenging moral dilemmas.
Counterpoint: Ellie’s lasting memory of The Fireflies predates the surgery attempt. She wasn’t even aware they intended to carry out any surgery. That’s extremely unethical. What kind of heroes would do that to a child? Joel’s lie paints them in a better light. They come off more altruistic and organised than they are actually are, because he needs to give her that nurturing hope that there’s something left for them outside the hospital.
The story is about people. Not the apocalypse. That’s what folks don’t get.
The fireflies were going to shoot Ellie on site. Marlene stopped them, she tells Ellie in Ep1 “I stopped them from shooting you didn’t I?” Which probably had more to do with her personal connection to Ellie than just not wanting to kill her and it also implied that usually they WOULD kill someone who was infected without question.
Before they found out she was immune. Ellie is the first person in the world who survived infection. She stated she's the one who killed Riley when Riley turned. Killing a person before they turn is standard practice. Joel wanted to do it too. But both fireflies and Joel observed that ellie wasn't turning.
It's 2023 and we still don't have a way to cure a fungal outbreak. I highly doubt some guy who last practiced medicine back in 2003 is going to be the one to find one. The fact that he wants to go straight to cutting open and killing the only known immune person instead of,like, running tests is insane. Jerry isn't a specialist. And the people who were couldn't do a damn thing to stop the pandemic. I think the issue isn't that Joel fucked over mankind, but that he *lied* to Ellie and therefore changed their relationship forever.
We do have antifungal medicines. They've been around since the 50s. The practicality of the cure is not a meaningful objection because it is also not practical that a fungus can take over a human, which is way more complicated than insects vulnerable to such fungus. The cure requires Ellie's death. That is the plot contrivance, and that is the circumstance in which everyone must make their choice. To avoid that is to avoid the moral question here. Jerry isn't named in the show. Kathleen doomed the entire KC QZ because she was obsessed with chasing Henry rather than deal with the infected. That's the choice for Joel too.
I think I wanted joel to save ellie because I think joel would rather live in this world either her than without there’s no guarantee on the cure and all the infected are still there so the whole time i wanted joel to get ellie and save ellie i wish i could watch there relationship more and more but i cant