User Avatar Image

What's the more human thing to do in this series?

posted by Joshua1991 on - last edited - Viewed by 2.6K users

What do you think is the more human thing to do in this series? As a person with morals etc. have you

-Killed Larry with Kenny (Ep 2)
-Sacrificed Ben (Ep 4)

done any of this in the game?

104 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • If you want prove of Ben changing he went from a scared kid who saw his friend and teacher die and who was scared of bandits to standing up to kenny and admitting like a man it was his fault and he was sorry and vowed to help also willing to die to help the group

  • christa didn't trust lee's way of taking care of clem she didn't like him prying in to her business she didn't like being lied too.

    since lee helped save omid she's changed her mind about him and trusts lee enough to support him in his quest to save clem.

    thing is i do firmly believe ben can't change but the current point on people changing is ben is the only one who won't.

    @Mrcamel said: If you want prove of Ben changing he went from a scared kid who saw his friend and teacher die and who was scared of bandits to standing up to kenny and admitting like a man it was his fault and he was sorry and vowed to help also willing to die to help the group

    hmmm ben only fessed up cos he couldn't handle the guilt anymore for the second time lee warned him to keep his shit to him self, yet for the second time he didn't and he chose the worse time ever to air his dirty laundry.. so no thats more of a step back than forward. and to give up his life for everyone else ? is a cowards way out again imo.


    now to throw a spanner in the works on my second play through i saved him, for the sole purpose to see if my insight in to bens mind is correct.

    bring on the flames...

  • @Milosuperspesh said: i never said people can't change i just asked for clarification, so now putting words in my mouth eh ? bad form..

    Really? Putting words in your mouth?

    Let me refresh your memory...

    @Milosuperspesh said: simple fact a leopard doesn't change it's spots..

    So now you're saying he can change his spots?

    and i know people 'CAN' change but not everyone does.

    People can change if they choose to. Ben, by the end of Episode 4, chooses to. So basically you're saying that Ben can change. And you have zero facts to say he won't change. Just an opinion based on ... well your claim that people can't change but they can change but they can't.

    Ummm... not particularly solid ground you're standing on there.

    you see growth for other characters like christa and omid who new the group for less time and they learned and have settled in the simple fact is ben has not.

    if he has i must of missed so lets show some proof of the almighty ben ?

    It's not that you've missed it. It's that you've chosen to ignore it due to the attribution error that Ben = idiot. So you just wait for him to prove you right and point at that to say "see! Idiot!" But Ben's actions have changed over the course of the game and he has chosen to man up and change.

    Furthermore, your claim that while people can change some won't is not sufficient enough reason to let him die. Which is the point of this argument. You cannot know who will choose to change and who won't. But you cannot remotely predict another person's actions enough to be able to say you are morally justified in letting them die.

    Particularly when your argument is built on such shaky foundations as the above flip-flopping you've done.

    I would go so far as to say that the only reason you are able to even consider sacrificing Ben is because it's a computer game and not real life. I see a lot of this bravado type "survival of the fittest" erroneous arguing from gamers. The thing is, in most people it seems to be more of a "look how hard I am, I can make the *tough* choices."

    But choosing to let someone die because they are perceived as a liability is not making a tough choice. It's resorting to the easy way out to avoid the responsibility of choosing to let someone die when you could have saved them.

    Ben has changed a lot since you first met him and he has never done anything to morally justify letting him fall to his death.

  • argh
    I know where my wife, a former school teaher, was coming from when she said "I just can't reach them" :confused:

    So many keep using terms like moral, murder, right & wrong.
    In a species extinction event the rules change.
    You're still applying sociological perspective in a situation where it is no longer is a consideration.

    how about, this is a different universe.
    It only exists in 2 demensions.
    In this alternate universe there are only degrees of foward, back, left & right.
    You're talking about gravity in a universe where up & down do not exist. :eek:

  • @Malphaxis said: argh
    I know where my wife, a former school teaher, was coming from when she said "I just can't reach them" :confused:

    So many keep using terms like moral, murder, right & wrong.
    In a species extinction event the rules change.
    You're still applying sociological perspective in a situation where it is no longer is a consideration.

    how about, this is a different universe.
    It only exists in 2 demensions.
    In this alternate universe there are only degrees of foward, back, left & right.
    You're talking about gravity in a universe where up & down do not exist. :eek:

    Morality and Ethics exist to ensure the long term survival of our species. These things exist regardless of the situation, and as a matter of fact are *more* important in an extinction level event because there will always be strength in numbers. The way to ensure those numbers are willing to work together is either though tyranny - which always has a short life span - or ethical co-operation.

    We see it all the time during major disasters. The people who survive are the ones who work together to help each other.

    There is very little evidence to support the idea that morality is luxury. It is quite the opposite. It's what ensures our survival.

    As for the second part of your post - that's purely irrelevant. Ethics and morality exist whether there's gravity, no stars, one dimension or a million. It's a poor choice of example because it has no link to what is being argued here.

    Some rules are constant.

  • [quote]Some rules are constant. [/quote]

    Sweet Jesus, NO!!
    You can not fall down in a two dementional universe.

    [quote]Morality and Ethics exist..[/quote]
    NO!!
    What your sociological perspective interprets as these things is altered by the event.

    okay, Im done riding this merry-go-round. :(
    Carry on.

  • @Viser said: But I don't understand why you think Ben can't change. That doesn't make sense, people change all the time... especially after going through a lot, like Ben did.

    People do not change as long as they have no reason to. He fucks up over and over and over and you still clean up his mistakes and protect him. The first opportunity he actually has to go out like a hero and make a sacrifice for the good of the group and you people are telling me its wrong to give him a hero's send off? Him dying for the cause would be the ultimate slate cleaner. And it was. I felt he went out with dignity and bravado.

  • @Malphaxis said: Sweet Jesus, NO!!
    You can not fall down in a two dementional universe.

    But that has no relevance to an argument about ethics and morality. It's like trying to argue a concept like love versus hate by talking about the mechanics of a ball point pen.

    Your two dimensional universe argument has not relevance to humans surviving in a zombie apocalypse. For one, in a two dimensional universe the rules of that universe have always been constant. You can't argue it's like our world turning into a two dimensional universe - because a zombie apocalypse is nothing like that at all and trying to use that as an argument against moral behaviour is is... well... absurd.

    NO!!
    What your sociological perspective interpets as these things is altered by the event.

    Actually it's from an anthropological and psychological perspective. Combined with anecdotal evidence and study into ethics and human nature.

    Your argument is flawed at the core because you are seeing a zombie apocalypse as the equivalent of the universe changing and that this will somehow fundamentally change how humans behave. However anthropology has proven that from the dawn of time humans have had concepts of morality and the benefit of banding together to protect the weak and the elderly.

    Even before humanity was homo sapien sapiens - when they were still a mix of Homo Sapiens, Australopithecus and the like, they banded into communities which protected the weak and elderly and worked together to defend their communities against predators.

    The whole survival of the fittest, kill the liability? Humanity as a species has gone against that goal for about 200,000 years. That's before we even developed civilisation or the written word.

    So excuse me for remaining sceptical about this fantasy that suddenly a zombie outbreak is going to undo millennia of evolution and survival instinct because of some misguided notion that survival negates morality. Some people will believe that - but as a species? No. Most people will do the moral thing even in an extinction level situation.

    Edit: And if you look at the stats for this game, that is the case here too. About as to be expected.

  • @HelloCthulhu said: People do not change as long as they have no reason to. He fucks up over and over and over and you still clean up his mistakes and protect him. The first opportunity he actually has to go out like a hero and make a sacrifice for the good of the group and you people are telling me its wrong to give him a hero's send off? Him dying for the cause would be the ultimate slate cleaner. And it was. I felt he went out with dignity and bravado.

    Except he doesn't die for the good of the group. They had already got away by that point. His death was not a hero's send off. It was him being swallowed up by his guilt.

    Furthermore, he is more valuable alive and being able to continue to help people than just falling to his death.

    Romanticise it all you like - but Ben's falling to his death is not heroic. It's tragic.

  • That sounds more like you romanticizing the value of his loss... Let's be quite frank, shall we? He brings nothing to the table. Not survival skills. Not quality commentary. Not comic relief. Nothing. His loss is incidental at best. Sweet relief from his bungling efforts at worst. Saving him there just means he has yet another chance to get more people killed in an effort to prove himself useful...which he isn't.

Add Comment