CooperTV

The proper use of the Trolley problem was used in the game called Prey (2017). First it was introduced to the player in a psychological testing without any context to it (as it exists in our world on a random Wiki page). And in the end of the game player/the main character uncovers the entire point of this testing and has full context to apply it. Prey (2017) is also what we call "a non-linear" game, and with number of various choices, big (astronomically big) and small, that decide character's fate. TLoU writers wanted their game/show to be a narrative masterpiece with a complex message. And yet don't ever give their players/viewers (I uses it interchangeably because the TloU 1 = TloU s1) the freedom of choice or even freedom to think for themselves. And their "complex" message is not that interesting or complex when is presented in the flawed and reductive way they did in the game/show.

As much as you can use "trolley problem" as a shield from any criticism, either from the writing standpoint, or from the ethical standpoint, it's not going to be correct. From the writing standpoint the author created rushed and barely thought-out scenario where the fate of an immune person is decided by a third party to the actual government in more or less an hour of real time. And if loved ones object to the murder of said child, they're killed as well. Then the writers are bewildered why viewers refuse to connect emotionally to the apparent bad guys' POV. Even though the same writers created the same problem ten years ago in a different medium and it was at best ambiguous then, and they even did a little bit of study on the subject. From the ethical standpoint again, trolley problem is a thought experiment with no variables or outside information present. But the most important part of ethics as a tool that it its presenting sufficient information in its complexity for every individual solution. We, as viewers, see all the details Joel is unaware of because he has limited POV. But his decision, even if it could be done for variety of reasons, is still consistent with the viewers' own ethical standpoint, which is "don't experiment and kill children after kidnapping them and attacking their guardian".

I think the writers should have maybe create a universe where killing children for greater good is okay, and anyone going on a rampage to prevent that is a bad guy. I feel like they wanted it to be so, for the sake of "ambiguity" or "discourse". But the same writers consistently, from the episode one, showed us that killing children for whatever reason is horrific thing to do. Their bad guys of the week systematically either put no value in children's lives (Karen of KC QZ) or were outright child abusers (David the Cannibal). This is a massive writing issue that became even more obvious in the finale, where we, as viewers, are supposed to sympathize with known terrorists, child murderers and medical hacks over a father that wants to save his child from said terrorists. Rule of the thumb, supported by mankind everywhere: killing children is 100% off limits. Experimenting on said children that would result in their demise to create a medicine is a crime punished by at least prison time. Case closed.

There's a recent zombie apocalypse game called Days Gone where the main character is a biker from a biker gang, and everyone is getting around via bikes. Not that those bikers wear anything sensible either to protect themselves against the infected, though.

I mean, humans have been apex predators for hundreds of thousands of years and has been hunt megafauna for resources way longer than that. The writers did themselves a big disservice by removing the main source of danger of the infected from the game. The show's infected are easily disposable by common sense and fire, I think. ETA: Yet Ellie was eating white-bread sandwich in the episode 2, for reasons. In our reality vaccine from fungal infection doesn't exist. That's just not a thing. Anti-fungi chemicals reduce growth of fungus.

Marlene didn't tell anything, and from the looks of it, Ellie was sedated before they administered the major drug, as Ellie was confused about it when she came to. Yes, Marlene in the garage said that Ellie would chose to die but it's the same Marlene that removed said choice. In her dying breathe she basically said to Joel like, why would you try and save her, she'll be taken apart by clickers or raped by raiders anyway. I don't even going to comment on Joel's predicament, I want to point out that Marlene, this beacon of light and democracy (as if), that wanted to save all the humanity (no) said 14-year-old girl should die for "the cure" because she has nothing to live for apart from her being raped and abused.

Except a Trolley problem as any abstract experiment, is incomplete, and ethics questions are always specific and are based on individual details. Details like Marlene and her group are failed terrorists ignored by normal people, and they, according to the show, are unable to do anything properly without falling flat on their face. I deliberately ignore Joel's emotional response and actions here exactly because it's not about Joel in the end. It's about the Fireflies who are incompetent butchers with no common sense. No one would want those idiots to be the switch operators on anything ever, let alone let them decide the destiny of the US base human race. I think the fact that Marlene doubled down on her "Ellie would have agreed to committing suicide" in the end, when Marlene was the one who robbed her of choice and ordered to put her under without a warning just "to not scare her" is the answer enough by itself.

The question was if Tommy shared his life story and the fact his niece died in front of him while his brother held her, and after that the brother (Joel) was never the same. There was dialogue in the show where Joel says "You don't understand", and Marlene says "I'm the only one who can understand". So she thinks Joel is 1) cold-blooded killer who doesn't care, 2) she thinks he cares as much as she is (so, not much) or 3) she thinks he cares for Ellie as her father because he can bond with people in such a manner? And every option should have cause the unique response from smart!Marlene. Option 1: Joel goes on his merry way with the promised supplies/kills Marlene after they screw him over by not giving him a reward. Option 2: Joel is drugged alongside Ellie and is woken up after the surgery that kills Ellie/They kill straight away. Option 3: Marlene has a long discussion on the medical ethics and how they will wake Ellie up and ask her if she consider it possible to give her life at some point in not so distant future to potentially save the world. Again, none of these options can be true simultaneously. Yet what we got in the show is Marlene screwing over the known stone-cold smuggler, saying she understand how he feels but she'll kill a girl anyway and kill him if he refuses to go. Enter Marlene's forever Pikachu face.

Isn't Marlene dated Tommy at some point when he had his Fireflies phase? It's possible Tommy trash-talks Joel to all his girlfriends (as was evident from Maria's treatment of Joel), sure. But still, Marlene at least has to know Joel was a father and that his young daughter was murdered in front of him by authorities because they thought it was the right thing to do.

There's virtually no difference to those scenes, apart from the game version looking vastly more epic because of the action set-piece before that. The Fireflies attacked a person who was minding his own business. Why? Don't know. The working explanation to the Fireflies issue the show is that they're a( bad guys (true); b) complete dumbasses (also true).

No, it was "if he as much as twitches, shoot him". Marlene actually said the doctor thinks they could have a cure. Like Marle actually cares about humanity and not about the Fireflies's chance at overthrowing FEDRA and whoever using "the cure". So yeah, she's a monster, and her doctor is a Salt Lake City version of Dr. Shiro, known Japanese war crime perpetrator. This entire post is my thoughts exactly. If Marlene wasn't a complete moron, the situation somehow could have worked in any direction. Appeal to Joel, lie to him, kill him right away but 100% not tell him you will kill the girl and then escort him outside without supplies and the threat to shoot.

He assumed the role of her father, and that was classic white lie to give her the future life she deserved. It could bite him in the ass, it couldn't but he tried to spare her feelings, that's for sure. It's not the first lie he told her regarding her safety. In e4, when they're in the forest, she asks if they're safe and he answers they are, and then goes to do a third watch. Otherwise I've no idea, I didn't like how this scene was handled narratively both in the show and in the game. It was really clunky, rushed and unconvincing in the show, by far. We have to pick a lane here than don't make excuses for Marlene, in my opinion. So either Joel is a ruthless killing machine with no humanity left, and Marlene just threatened this person bodily harm, for reasons, even though he delivered on his promise ten times over and brought the precious cargo through the hostile environment unharmed and got death threats instead of reward for it. Or Joel is fatherly caring Joel with special skills who Marlene feels indebted to but still say to shoot him after saying they're gonna kill his child in the name of science. It cannot be both of those things. The first option is a Marlene is an idiot with no survival instincts. The second option is Marlene is a monster with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

I do think that was very easy for him, after the point of the Fireflies attacked them in the middle of the street, knocked them out, and immediately after declared, "Guess what, our doctor likes to experiment on people without their consent, and he thinks he will be able to cut Ellie open and grow a substance from her brain! And if you disagree, you're dead, how 'bout that?". I mean, I doubt a random person with conscience would agree to such a proposal, but at least Joel has the skills to prevent crimes against humanity from happening. Of course we cannot forget that it is deeply personal for Joel, that he loves Ellie as his daughter, that some bad people tried to take her away several times at this point, so his paternal reaction to known terrorists trying to kill her is also quite understandable. I still can't figure out why Marlene was so confrontational to Joel this episode, and why would she told him the truth about Ellie being prepared for death, yet promised he would be shot if he tried to take Ellie away. How those threats were supposed to go in her head?

I don't think there's a debate. The show hoped it's gonna be a controversy, but with lack of the infected since episode 5 Joel's decision was a no-brainer.

Marlene didn't have any ethical lines, that's the main issue. She was willing to sacrifice a child but was begging for her own life. For some reason, she refused to understand that some people would take an issue with her murdering children. As I said, she's a hypocrite.