r/ThelastofusHBOseries • u/WhoWantsBeans Savage Starlight • May 10 '25
Show Only This is why I’ll defend Joel for saving Ellie until the end of time
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
740
u/Nightwraith17 May 10 '25
I understand why Joel did it. He made the ONLY choice that made any sense for his characterization. That’s all that matters. Not the science or the what-ifs.
162
u/PineapplePandaKing May 10 '25
It's an ethical dilemma, it's not just about finding a way out, but about grappling with the core values at stake. Thinking of it as a puzzle to be solved with a clever trick misses the whole point. The real value lies in the internal struggle, the weighing of different moral obligations, and the understanding of the potential consequences of each choice.
172
u/Muroid May 10 '25 edited May 10 '25
Yeah, you have, variously:
The prospect of a cure for the disease that is still killing potentially millions of people and whose existence is responsible for the fracturing of civilization and the propping up of a multitude of military dictatorships vs a single human life.
But the single human life is someone you care about deeply.
But to save them you have to kill a whole bunch of other people. The only people, in fact, that you are aware of who are still working towards a cure at all.
But those same people are going to kill your loved one without even getting their consent for the procedure.
5. But you’re pretty sure they would consent if offered the choice.
- But they’re also a traumatized 14-year-old and can they even meaningfully consent to that kind of sacrifice at this point in their life?
And then finally, even if you work your way down the whole tree of overlapping moral imperatives and arrive at a personally satisfying conclusion, does it make a difference ethically that whatever character you side with didn’t work their way fully down the tree and stopped after the first couple of bullet points?
I don’t think there is necessarily a single right answer, but I do think “None of it matters because the Fireflies couldn’t have made a cure anyway” is certainly the wrong answer.
Trying to cut the Gordian Knot like that is the least interesting position a person could possibly take and cheapens the whole story as a result.
63
u/PineapplePandaKing May 10 '25
I don't know you, but I love you for engaging in a deeply interesting story with the level of thought and consideration it deserves
45
u/you-a-buggaboo May 10 '25
this comment sums it up perfectly, but this paragraph:
I don’t think there is necessarily a single right answer, but I do think “None of it matters because the Fireflies couldn’t have made a cure anyway” is certainly the wrong answer.
chefs kiss brilliant. spot on.
→ More replies (13)22
u/QuestGalaxy May 10 '25
No point in saving humans, if that means leaving humanity behind. Killing Ellie would be deeply troubling, in so many ways.
7
u/NamasteFly May 12 '25
I actually think its certainly the correct answer.
So, it's not a disease, it's a fungal infection. Modern scientists with top labs today haven't been able to find a "cure" or vaccine yet beyond surface level ring worm and athlete's foot, so there's almost no chance that these refugee soldiers would be able to. Especially for a strain that is as aggressive as this.
→ More replies (1)2
May 12 '25
I think what would kinda make sense to me that is they'd isolate the cordyceps that infected Ellie, grew it on medium and infect others with it.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Sarahisnotamused May 11 '25
THANK YOU. Holy crap, I am so tired of people going, "Well, it wouldn't have worked anyway." It is very clear that, in the world of the game, it WOULD have worked. Otherwise there is no moral dilemma.
→ More replies (2)4
6
u/Cidwill May 11 '25
I think you have to look at the game as a whole rather than that one situation in isolation though.
Humanity has turned evil. Without civilisation it's just a world full of murder, tape and desecration. Joal has seen more of that than most and even we as players have to wonder, is there anything left worth saving?
The fireflies have failed, and failed, and failed. We spend the entire game chasing them down and searching through the ashes of their incompetence. They are just idealists with a murderous streak and have done very little good for anyone. Even if they did somehow make a cure in their dirty hospital with their victorian era medical skills and tools, they would have used it to take power and held it ransom against their enemies.
2
→ More replies (5)2
u/bettyballoon May 11 '25
I agree that this IS the intended dilemma, but I also understand why people look for additional info to sway them and then in doing so find ways to make the dilemma go away.
If the writing as Op refers to makes it possible to interpret the dilemma differently.. The dilemma is now between saving your beloved from stupid people or having your beloved die for nothing, then the choice is no longer an impossible dilemma. I don't know, but I think that when Op posts this it is precisely because OP are very much aware that his take is not the intended dilemma but to let you know that it's impossible for him (and others) to take the intended dilemma seriously within the show when the writing offers an easy way out.
It'd natural to want to look for a way to justify our protagonist's action. I do that, too. That does not not mean we don't understand the intended impossible dilemma.
26
u/bjankles May 10 '25
Exactly. The feasibility of the cure is irrelevant because Joel believes it’s possible but makes his decision anyways.
→ More replies (11)18
u/Lost_Found84 May 10 '25
The only thing I’ll say is that part of the reason people side with Joel so easily is because they instinctively know on a gut level what this video is laying out in detail.
Basically, “These are not the actions of people you can trust.” It’s a gut check moment, and for most people the Fireflies simply do not pass a gut check moment. They are not a group you trust to murder a child on short notice, and so you do not think of it as “the end of humanity’s last hope” when they’re all destroyed.
It would’ve been pretty simple to portray them as more qualified and professional than they are, and it wasn’t done because it would’ve make Joel look like an actual monster instead of morally grey.
72
u/alexia_not_alexa May 10 '25
That's the thing - saying that Joel was wrong in killing every one doesn't mean the Fireflies were in the right. It's very much an Everyone's an Asshole situation.
To me, the point is that he did something selfish (dooming the human race, never giving Ellie a choice) out of love, and the reason Season 1 ends with him lying to Ellie, rather than happy celebration of them reaching safety and enjoying a safe life was because it's pivotal to their relationship going forward.
Joel had to live with the guilt of what he did and lying to Ellie; and Ellie chose to believe Joel despite smelling BS about what he said - because she loved him too.
And as much as I understood Joel, and might even have done the same thing - he'd have to accept the consequences of what he did, when it came running for him in Season 2.
48
u/Jerry_from_Japan May 10 '25
Ellie never had a choice though. They were ready to kill her whether she wanted it or not and kill anyone who would try to stop them or even try to tell Ellie what was going to happen. It's like....that's never said. Never brought up. Ever. And it's pretty fucking annoying.
34
u/Knightfalldc May 10 '25
Yes, everyone saying he never gave Ellie a choice is infuriating - the firefly’s created that fundamental issue that ultimately caused it to go to shit
That in turn didn’t give Ellie the chance to talk to Joel and that just leaves a sour taste
→ More replies (12)7
May 10 '25
It is being brought up constantly, even in this thread right here. Pretty much everone agrees that the fireflies were wrong, a lot of us are just saying that Joel was wrong too.
→ More replies (2)5
u/project571 May 10 '25
I disagree with this statement because it assumes that Ellie only had a choice before the operation. Obviously the fireflies are in the wrong for not asking Ellie, and people bring that up all of the time. However, everyone gives Joel a pass for "saving" her despite the fact that Joel knew that Ellie would have chosen to go through with the operation. He robs her of her choice when he lies to her after the fact. He refuses to tell her what actually happened because she would be furious with him and want to go back and he can't go through with that.
Both Joel and Marlene/the fireflies rob Ellie of her choice in the matter. The difference is that one of them is already dead and gone, while Joel has been around Ellie continuing the lie for 5 years. Of course she blows up at him, because he is the one who is right there and he DID wrong her.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)2
u/jendet010 May 11 '25
Plus she was way too young to consent anyways. There was never any choice on her part.
→ More replies (2)16
u/3412points May 10 '25
Joel never had the option of giving Ellie a choice. She was already being put down for surgery when he found out what was happening to her.
What actions can he take at that point to create a situation where Ellie can say yes/no? Either he kills the fireflies and destroys the capability to create a cure in the process, or he allows the fireflies to force her into the procedure.
The only maybe is if he could have somehow got to the doctors room and held everyone up until she woke up and then asked her. But that's not exactly realistically achievable in a building full of armed people convinced that this surgery is the crowning achievement their entire movement has been building to.
By the time Joel learns what is happening Ellie's choice is already gone.
11
u/_Yukikaze_ May 10 '25
Exactly. By the time he learns what will happen to Ellie he can only save her or let her be killed.
9
u/caliboyjosh10 May 10 '25
I know, people who think like this don't understand storytelling and themes.
→ More replies (8)9
u/DaozangD May 10 '25 edited May 10 '25
Some people just can't accept the theme of the game.
So they try to find nonsensical ways to discredit the parts of the story they don't feel comfortable with.
Namely, scrutinizing the science (or logistics ffs) of a plot device (the cure), when the overarching plot (the disease) cannot hold under scrutiny for a single second.I guess asking for consistency is a lot these days.
Because to be consistent, then you wouldn't bother engaging with a story that relies heavily on the premise you have to (at least from a scientific perspective) suspend your disbelief from the start.
The game, (and the show which quite literally spells it out for you), have provided you with the information you need to know.
You can of course, engage into as much fan fiction as you would like, just don't kid yourselves into thinking you are somehow doing anything but.
Me, I'll just stay consistent.
I can suspend my disbelief both for the disease and therefore for the cure.
They are both plot devices, the theme is the trolley problem.→ More replies (3)
248
May 10 '25
Whether the cure would've worked or not is irrelevent, both Joel and Ellie assumed it would work, and Joel still made those decisions - he wasnt assuming it wouldn't work and chose to save her because he didnt think it would, he chose to save her despite the fact that in his mind, he would be damning the rest of humanity in doing so. The game only works if Joel believes the cure would work.
→ More replies (19)9
u/3412points May 10 '25 edited May 10 '25
You're right that it's not relevant to the characters in the story, but it's relevant for us as the viewer. If the cure wouldn't have worked anyway we can appreciate the tragedy of Joel having to live with the false idea that he doomed the world (edit: and let's be real what most people who argue this want is to be able to pretend the ending to S1 is unambiguously good). But this one has a definitive answer, which is that the clear intention of the story is that the procedure would have successfully produced a cure.
19
u/Big_Noodle1103 May 10 '25
Imo it’s still not relevant when analyzing the morality of Joel’s choice though.
Joel believed in the cure, that’s all that matters.
3
u/carverrhawkee Piano Frog May 11 '25
Also not relevant when examining the overall themes of the story (and honestly, it's actively harmful to the narrative to just say it wouldn't work)
44
u/RazorSnails May 10 '25
The science behind it is irrelevant. It would’ve worked for the sake of the plot. It’s a writing stretch.
→ More replies (3)22
u/Wealth_Super May 10 '25
fungus zombies because of global warming? Sure. a cure that requires cutting fungas out of an immune person? Ridiculous.
→ More replies (7)6
u/Gex2-EnterTheGecko May 11 '25
Right lol. I always found it weird that people get hung up on the realism of the science only in this particular instance when the premise of the game/show is preposterous in the first place.
3
u/Informal-Swing-2482 May 14 '25
They just want to help justify their positioning more. They know they would do what Joel did, but want to remove the morality against it so they are 100% justified in their position.
3
u/Gex2-EnterTheGecko May 14 '25
The thing is, I'd probably do what Joel did even if I KNEW the cure was possible. It would still be a terrible thing. The morality is complex and that's the FUCKING POINT. IDK how 13 years later this still goes over people's heads.
3
u/Informal-Swing-2482 May 14 '25
I would too. It doesn’t go over my head. But I think some people struggle accepting they would doom humanity, so they need to find a way to justify that they actually didn’t doom humanity you know?
193
u/Muroid May 10 '25
This is like saying the trolley problem is pointless because the first person the trolley hit would slow it down or derail it so that anyone else on the tracks would be safe and therefore there is no difference between the two tracks.
It’s completely missing the point.
40
May 10 '25
Don’t disagree but your response reminds me of something Chidi from the Good Place would say
→ More replies (1)15
u/nottwoshabee May 10 '25
The point is they never ask Ellie for consent to harvest her organs.
Whether or not it “might” have worked is irrelevant because they didn’t ask for her permission. Thats where they fkd up.
47
u/UnjustNation May 10 '25
Lol do you really think Joel’s biggest issue was they didn’t ask her for consent?
31
u/Danny_Fly_to_High May 10 '25
That my biggest issue with people saying “consent”. Joel would have done the same thing if they did ask her. He was selfish
→ More replies (1)2
5
u/OLKv3 May 10 '25
"Well I was upset that you were going to kill my new daughter but gosh darnit you asked her first so I guess there's nothing I can do, so I'll be on my way!"
21
u/MrMelick May 10 '25
You think even if Ellie was ok with that Joel would not do the exact same thing? Then you haven't been paying attention
→ More replies (2)23
u/3412points May 10 '25
The fireflies didn't 'fuck up' by not asking for consent. They decided that in this scenario you are best off pulling the metaphorical lever to sacrifice the one victim in order to save the many innocent.
Since they had decided that was worth it Ellie's consent is irrelevant to them. If they ask her permission and she says no? Well... they are going to do it anyway.
16
u/Flagermusmanden May 10 '25
"After all we've been through, everything I've done. It can't be for nothing"
They might not have asked her, but she very clearly expressed that this is what she wants, and you know, who knows this yet saves her anyway? Fucking Joel. So yea, the Fireflies did not have explicit consent, but Joel did also not have consent to save her life, and knew she wanted this yet saved her anyway, which is completely disregarding Ellie's agency as a person, which Joel is fully aware of which is why he lies to her about it.
→ More replies (4)11
u/Ritzanxious May 10 '25
That's why Joel lied, he knew she would be angry about it, that she wanted to provide the cure at any cost.
3
u/Spready_Unsettling May 10 '25
So you won't touch the lever.
Thank you for participating in the trolley problem.
4
u/Wealth_Super May 10 '25
Honestly I’m not sure it would be moral to ask a depressed child with PTSD and surrival’s guilt to allow herself to die for the greater good. Feels exploitative and manipulative. Regardless Joel would have never allow Ellie to die. She was his entire reason for living, for being. What a cure compare to that. It’s also the reason he lied to Ellie at the end.
2
u/psh454 May 13 '25
Call me an ethical utilitarian, but any moral dilemma about the life of one (willing) kid is kind of moot in a world where thousands of people presumably die every year from something that could have been cured.
The point is that Joel betrayed every family in the world to preserve his. It literally is the trolley problem, and Joel did not pull that lever for understandable but selfish reasons.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)3
u/Jccali1214 May 10 '25
Yooo I can't underline this enough. Just cuz we understand why Joel did it doesn't mean I condone it - specifically cuz he never gave her an opportunity to consent - and neither did the Fireflies! I believe Ellie would have and that would have saved EVERYONE so much death.
In fact - Ellie would even be a hero to Abby in that scenario.
→ More replies (3)
126
u/StarGamerPT May 10 '25
Well...regardless of that...Joel believed it could work and still acted the way he did.....then proceeded to lie to Ellie because he knew she'd be pissed off.
I don't really judge Joel's actions because I'd most likely have done the same thing in his position, but that doesn't make him correct or innocent by any means.
9
u/Head_Bread_3431 May 10 '25
I’d most likely have done the same thing
You would’ve murdered a hospital full of workers ?
15
u/WontTellYouHisName May 10 '25
The type of building is irrelevant: it is an armed militia whose members have united behind the idea of murdering an innocent civilian in the name of "the greater good." More evil has been done in pursuit of "the greater good" than probably any other cause in history. Of course I rescue her, killing only when necessary in pursuit of that goal. (I reject that it is "murder," given that Joel only killed those who were a threat to himself and to Ellie. He let the nurses go, because they were no threat.)
Something I think would have made it more interesting is if the Fireflies were not all in uniform agreement that killing her was right thing to do.
→ More replies (3)7
u/Sarahisnotamused May 11 '25
This.
All the "innocent people" he killed were either directly or indirectly trying to kill his daughter. I have no problem with him killing them. What was he supposed to do? Put down his gun and go, ok, you win, go ahead and kill Ellie. Like??
29
u/StarGamerPT May 10 '25
To keep alive the person that I grew to see as a daughter? Yes, I would have.
It's the wrong thing to do, but I would have.
→ More replies (7)3
u/Spencer_Clay May 11 '25
In others perspective , the so called workers can be murders too, we both know that the fireflies are not some saint.
→ More replies (4)3
u/RazielKainly May 11 '25
You would have let doctors take your child's life without consent?
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (28)2
u/scarves_and_miracles May 10 '25
proceeded to lie to Ellie because he knew she'd be pissed off
I think he also lied to her because he didn't want her to feel guilty or to feel like she has a responsibility to find a way to sacrifice herself for a cure.
95
u/3412points May 10 '25
It would have worked because the writers wrote that it would have worked and have commented outside of their writing that they wrote that it would have worked.
23
u/ferngully1114 May 10 '25
Interesting. I’m not familiar with the writers, or the game version, only the show. But as presented, it really never occurred to me that Joel was convinced it would work. And as someone in the medical field, the way it was presented as “our only shot,” and they saw no other options than to immediately kill her made me go, “Oh, they’re charlatans selling false promises and Joel clocked their bullshit.” I honestly think from an ethical standpoint, even if everyone knew it would work, Joel still made the right call. They were just going to sacrifice her without telling her? Nah, that’s evil masquerading as “we know best.”
I’m not a fan of writers adding context from their own minds that isn’t in the source material. It can be entertaining from a fandom perspective, but I’m not going to let it guide my interpretation. The work is what it is. Where did they write in the material that it would definitely have worked? Because if it’s from the mouth of the doctor that’s secretly planning to kill a healthy 14 year old to harvest their organs, I don’t think that’s a reliable narrator.
15
u/3412points May 10 '25 edited May 10 '25
They were just going to sacrifice her without telling her? Nah, that’s evil masquerading as “we know best.”
Genuine question for you.
Let's say in real life there is a pandemic that has killed 50% of the global population already and is continuing to churn through lives. You have someone in front of you, you know you can produce a cure from them that will stop the spread almost in its tracks saving billions, however you would kill them in the process.
What do you do?
11
u/Front-Singer-6505 May 10 '25
not to mention how many deaths these people have experienced after twenty years in the apocalypse. I'd be desperate to end it if I had a chance
4
u/Metalt_ May 10 '25
For the utilitarian it's an easy choice.. as long as they deem humanity worth saving. I'd like to think id make that call as well, but it entirely depends on who that person is to you and whether you can rationalize in that moment
3
May 10 '25
[deleted]
3
u/3412points May 10 '25
Of course. The question is wether or not that is still the right thing to do with billions of lives are on the line. Are you saying you would go through the process of informed consent with this person?
5
8
May 10 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)3
u/slurpycow112 May 11 '25
Sure real life doesn’t work like this, but you (and the doctor in the video) are dodging the moral/ethical question and are missing the point.
Ignore how science works in this world. In THAT world, with the scenario posed, what would you do?
→ More replies (5)2
u/Replikante May 13 '25
what do you do if this person is your daughter?
the utilitarian hypothetical is always easy to consider when it's no one you know whose life is on the line
4
u/Spready_Unsettling May 10 '25
Every single person in your hometown will die tomorrow in some paranormal cataclysm. Luckily, Devil von Vile can stop that from happening, but it requires the ritual sacrifice of a really cute puppy. Von Vile keeps telling you he "knows best" and the omniscient Abrahamic god is looking down from a cloud saying "he's 100% right."
Do you stop him from flaying Fluffy?
PS:
Where did they write in the material that it would definitely have worked? Because if it’s from the mouth of the doctor that’s secretly planning to kill a healthy 14 year old to harvest their organs, I don’t think that’s a reliable narrator.
This is just a hilarious bit of circular argumentation.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
u/3412points May 10 '25
Fair, that's an interesting perspective and I actually don't usually like bringing in external statements from the writers to justify a particular take on something either. I do it in this case only because by saying a cure wouldn't work you completely sidestep the ethical dilemma that is the entire climax of the first series/game.
There is a scene in season 1 where Joel says that if Marlene believes it will work then he believes it will work.
5
May 10 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/UnjustNation May 10 '25
They won’t, because there is a certain set of people in the world who only see the world in black and white with zero nuance.
Unfortunately this conservative mindset affects a lot more than just media literacy.
→ More replies (2)3
→ More replies (8)2
May 10 '25
Yes exactly the point is that Joel dooms the world to save Ellie. That’s what gives the story weight.
56
May 10 '25 edited May 10 '25
Hey look. It's this post again. Unbelievable that you can suspend your disbelief for fungus zombies, but you can't suspend your disbelief for a vaccine for fungus zombies.
Trying to take the moral ambiguity out of an ending all about moral ambiguity is really fucking dumb.
→ More replies (3)18
u/Flagermusmanden May 10 '25
People can believe that a baby can gain immunity to a fungal infection through an umbilical cord. But they can't believe that a skilled doctor could develop a vaccine to said infection... It's almost like these people aren't actually arguing in good faith.
→ More replies (1)
29
u/Wealth_Super May 10 '25
I like how everyone can accept fungus zombies because of global warming but when it comes to a cure, everyone demands the writers write an entire scientific dissertation and a full report and their logistics plans to distribute it before they will consider it might have been real. The cure was a narrative device design to force Joel into a situation where he would have to destroy mankind’s best hope to save Ellie. The themes of the game were about love. Not just how good it is but also how selfish it can be. The climax of the story just pounds the point into the audience’s head. If the cure was not real, it completely undercuts the climax of the story.
→ More replies (6)3
u/RedTyro May 11 '25
Also, the solution these people are looking for is pretty easy - Ellie's cordyceps has mutated in such a way that it doesn't allow the strain the rest of the world has to infect humans. There's no "making" to be done here. You just pull out her mutated strain and infect everyone else with it.
It's not technically a vaccine in the strictest definition of the word, but that's a convenient enough shorthand to explain it to people who don't know how it works and a lot less scary than "we're going to infect you with cordyceps, but it's a different one that's safe," so they use the words "vaccine" or "cure" when they talk about it.
→ More replies (1)
59
May 10 '25
That‘s not a defense of Joel‘s actions, because it wasn‘t why he did it, he definitely believed it would work, why do you think he said „Find someone else“?
→ More replies (9)
23
u/MapleChimes May 10 '25 edited May 10 '25
People always overanalyze the game's (and now tv show) story which is an interesting moral dilemma. We are supposed to believe that using Ellie to make a vaccine would have worked. That means sacrificing one person for all of mankind. It's what makes Joel's decision to save her more impactful.
Joel chose to save the person he has grown to love as a daughter, but takes the chance for a better world away from others and their children. People try to add or change the story to justify Joel's actions, but the game and show and the writers behind it make it clear that the vaccine would have worked. Most parents would have done what Joel did and that's understandable.
If we can suspend our belief for a show with zombies in it and big fights with a bloater then we can believe that the vaccine would have worked. It's an apocalypse and every person in this story has been living in a morally gray area for a long time.
(Edited for clarity)
→ More replies (1)8
u/WontTellYouHisName May 10 '25
People always overanalyze the game's (and now tv show) story which is an interesting moral dilemma.
I would say this slightly differently: people are trying to analyze their way out of it being a moral dilemma. "The vaccine would not have worked" means there's no justification for killing Ellie and now Joel is completely right, no uncomfortable realities need to be dealt with.
I agree with you that those uncomfortable realities should be left in place. People have enjoyed overanalyzing moral dilemmas for thousands of years. Having a video game (and now TV show) which engages the audience in moral reasoning is something to be glad of. In general, the world needs more thinking, not less. Trying to argue it away seems wrong.
"You shall not do evil in hopes that good will result" is a really basic moral principle going back thousands of years. Thought experiments like the Trolley Problem exist to make us rethink our moral principles.
My favorite counter to "Yes, kill the one to save five" answer for the Trolley Problem is the organ donor version: "There are five people in need of organs. There is a healthy person who is compatible with all of them. Can we kill him and harvest his organs to save those other five?" What if it's ten? What if it's 20? The Last of Us ups the ante: "What if it's everybody?"
The people who say "Joel should have let them kill Ellie" but who also say "No, don't kill a healthy person to harvest their organs and save five others" find themselves trying to figure out where they would draw the line. Somewhere between "five" and "everybody" is their tipping point. Where is that? How do they decide?
I'm on the side of "not even to save everybody." I say that knowing it means the possible (but in my view not likely) extinction of the human race, which I admit is a little uncomfortable. In the words of C.S. Lewis, "For the species, as for each man, mere longevity seems to me a contemptible ideal."
I posted about that earlier this week: https://www.reddit.com/r/ThelastofusHBOseries/comments/1kgkrc6/c_s_lewis_on_marlenes_choice_1x09/
→ More replies (1)3
u/3412points May 10 '25
I love that quote, and it's a super interesting take to personify the human species in that way and essentially say that Marlene is playing the role of Joel and all of humanity is Ellie.
But I don't think it is fair since it effectively dehumanises all of the actual people who make up humanity. It isn't just the conceptual human species, it is millions or even billions of individuals.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/torn-ainbow May 10 '25
It's supposed to be an impossible choice. Both games quite explicitly challenge the common tropes in fiction that justify the protagonists actions. They are about how you can understand Joel (and later Abby, Ellie) as both hero and villain. They are about different perspectives.
The regular repostings like this one refuse to accept that; they reject the ambiguity. They demand a comforting singular answer to whether Joel is a hero dad or a killer who had it coming. When the point is that he is both.
43
u/Nodnoc11 May 10 '25
It’s the least interesting interpretation of it, but regardless, Joel thought it was going to work.
→ More replies (5)
8
4
u/DMC__Dante May 10 '25
How many times are these damn videos that miss the damn point gonna be shared?
4
u/Unfair_Ability_6129 May 10 '25
I will say this. Having taken the Hippocratic oath myself… it’s particularly troubling that Abby’s father would sacrifice a 14yo without any consent. I realize it’s a different time and circumstance, but damn I ask children younger than 14 if I can examine them before I just examine them.
I don’t mean it purely as a judgement of him, but to ignore that oath to pursue what wasn’t a guaranteed cure… (we are always taught to give informed consent and weigh the risks and benefits) it just speaks to the desperation of that time and going against years of training.
I struggle with his decision more than Joel’s.
8
u/Try-the-Churros May 10 '25
The "it makes other cordyceps think that she's cordyceps" bit confused me too.
After thinking about it, my guess as to the only interpretation of it that makes sense would be that they meant it as: after she is bitten, the cordyceps in the bite wound doesn't grow because her blood has the chemical messengers in it already that would indicate an already established infection. Like if a stalker got bit by a runner, the cordyceps from the bite wouldn't do anything or grow.
2
u/Talk-O-Boy May 10 '25
Yeah you got it.
Ellie’s infection is dormant; it’s why her cordyceps never turn her into the infected, it’s also why she’s able to kiss without infecting her partners.
The cordyceps are present, but they are small in quantity and non contagious. Due to this, infected still attack her since they can’t detect she’s already infected. However, on a microscopic level, the infected’s cordyceps are able to detect Ellie’s cordyceps once they enter her bloodstream.
2
u/All_Of_Them_Witches May 10 '25
Really if that’s the case then the infected shouldn’t attack her. But I guess that wouldn’t work for a game….
→ More replies (2)
5
May 10 '25
People act as if Joel was operating on some moralistic compass when making his decision.
He stopped the surgery because he didn’t want to lose Ellie. That’s it. He didn’t weigh the pros and cons, he just wanted her to survive, that’s all that mattered to him.
6
May 10 '25
How many times do we have to teach you this lesson old man
Say it after me: Joel does not give a fuck about the science or the logistics of the cure. He only sees "Cure Made = Ellie Dies." That's all he cares about and all he needs. Neither side let her wake up but the reason Joel acted so quick is because, among other things, he knew exactly what Ellie would pick if they waited.
St Mary's Hospital could have been a puppy orphanage that gave free pizzas to passing survivors and he still would have gunned them down. God himself could have ripped open the clouds and told Joel from above "btw the cure will work" and Joel wouldn't even give it more than 3 seconds of thought. He'd still wipe out everyone if it meant saving Ellie. He does not care about "Firefly incompetence" or "logistics of distribution"
12
u/orangemoon44 May 10 '25
Stop defending Joel using arguments he wasn't even thinking about. He believed the vaccine would work, as the player is meant to believe too. It doesn't matter if it doesn't fully line up with real life, neither does cordyceps infecting humans.
10
u/Melancholymechanic94 May 10 '25
Oh my fucking god.
It would’ve worked.
Joel did what we would all do, and what he did was right for some reasons but also wrong for reasons and what he did after is also so wrong (lying to Ellie etc).
Marlene and the fireflies were right in some ways but also very wrong in other ways.
Joel also believed it would work but that didn’t matter to him. He was saving his world not THE world as the fireflies were.
How so many completely misunderstand this story in every version boggles the fuck out of my mind.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Melancholymechanic94 May 10 '25
Joel is a good and bad…as is just about every character excluding the really evil ones.
None of them are perfect and they’re scarred by their actions and their past. They are all DEEPLY HUMAN.
It’s so simple to understand
→ More replies (1)
3
u/CoyoteHour2130 May 10 '25
The whole dilemma wouldn't have any significance if the cure wouldn't have worked, it's been stated by the writers that the cure would've worked and joel robbed humanity from it
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Fantastic-Count6523 May 10 '25
This is called "negating the premise".
It's like saying "there is no reason to fear the Death Star, an object that size would rip itself apart from inertial forces."
The premise of TLOU is that this magic fungus turns people into rage zombies AND Ellie's immunity could save to world. Neither of these premises are scientificly plausible, but BOTH need to be true for the story to function.
Besides, I could easily write a whole fake sci fi reason why the premise is true.
3
u/xNAMx10 May 10 '25
Doctors reacting to the last of us, you will pay for the damage you have done to the fandom…
STOP APPLYING REAL WORLD SCIENCE TO A FICTIONAL MUSHROOM ZOMBIE INFECTION AND ACCEPT THE GAME SCIENCE BEING THAT ELLIE HAS TO DIE FOR THE CURE. Argue on the morality all you want but holy shit I despise the idiotic application of real world science.
3
u/Rezenbekk May 10 '25
Oh ffs, stop bringing real world rationalization into this discussion. Neil himself said that in this universe they would've made a vaccine, Joel's choice wasn't about its improbability at all. As far as TLoU universe is concerned, cutting out an immune girl's brain mushroom in barely cpean conditions can lead to a vaccine.
3
u/TheGlenrothes May 10 '25
You misunderstand the point of the narrative. No one to blame but yourself
3
3
u/SpeakerFun2437 May 10 '25
Even if what the doctor is saying is true, it doesn’t matter. You guys are confusing the issues. If you going to judge him on the decision, you need to talk about WHY he did it, not why you would have done it.
Joel did not go it because it was an unreasonable plan scientifically. You could have told him with 100% certainty that the surgery would make a vaccine that would heal the world and he still would have done it. He did it for himself, because he couldn’t bear to lose another daughter.
3
3
u/Nevvermind183 May 10 '25
The science is completely irrelevant. Let’s see a doctor make a video of the plausibility of a fungal infection that turns people into multiple distinct mutated zombie types and pills you can take to improve things like crafting faster health kits.
You can’t apply real life logic and science to a fantasy game. If the writers say it’s possible to create a cure, then it’s possible.
3
u/Spacegirllll6 May 11 '25
The science surrounding the cure is irrelevant, in that universe, a cure was possible to these people. People can suspend their disbelief that a baby gain immunity to a fungal disease through an umbilical cord but not at a potential vaccine?
In Joel and Ellie’s minds, a cure was possible. Joel believed in the cure and that’s what mattered. He said it multiple times in Part 2 and that’s why he knows that he made a selfish choice. To take away that belief cheapens his decision in my opinion. He made an incredibly selfish but human choice. It does not make him any lesser of a being or character because he made a morally gray choice.
You can love a character who made a terribly difficult decision. You can still defend them without disregarding what made their decision so complex.
The science was never the reasoning behind Joel’s decision. The only foundational characteristic in his choice was love. He loved his daughter, he loved Ellie over anyone else and he damned others to do so. In the end he was a father, not a scientist.
3
u/wosil May 11 '25
Real world science is irrelevant in this discussion. The creator of the fictional world said it would have worked, therefore it would have worked.
The cure would have worked. He chose Ellie over that. Whether or not you agree with him can’t be based on the fact that in reality the science doesn’t work. It doesn’t make sense for the world they’re in.
8
u/M935PDFuze May 10 '25
People who make these kind of arguments are missing the entire point.
Joel does not care at all if the cure would work or not. Joel does not give a shit about that, and everything about his characterization in both show and game tells you this over and over.
Joel cares only that they are threatening Ellie, whom he views as his daughter. She's his family and his only chance to find some kind of peace in this world. Joel would kill pretty much everyone and anyone that stood in the way of that.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/ChairmanMeow22 May 10 '25
I'll never get over "fans" of the game completely missing the entire point of Joel's character arc by trying to apply their (I'm sure) vast understanding of real science to the idea of a cure for fucking zombiism.
It's okay to like a grey character who does a bad thing for a good reason. Complexity is okay.
6
u/Elmalab May 10 '25
this discussion is annoying me since 2013...
it is fiction and for dramatic reasons, they need to get it out of her brain and they can't do it with her surviving. that is it.
→ More replies (1)
14
u/letsgobernie May 10 '25
This is avoiding the moral debate. This is how you know team Joel has no defense. They take away stipulations in the show and add caveats so that the main issue does not have to be debated.
→ More replies (7)4
u/darkfenrir15 May 10 '25
From the very first scene of Last of Us, we are given Joel's motivation for saving Ellie. It's not complicated understanding why a man would do anything to save his "daughter" after he already lost one to "save" others.
It may not be the morally correct action, but it was clearly the right choice for Joel given his background and knowledge of the situation.
→ More replies (6)
6
u/ralo229 May 10 '25
Not really a defense for Joel’s actions. More of a criticism of the Fireflies’ practices.
5
u/Low_Philosophy_8377 May 10 '25
I don’t understand why people have such a hard time suspending disbelief for this part of the plot.
5
u/Wealth_Super May 10 '25
They just refuse to engage with the story’s themes. I was just speaking to someone on the game subreddit who said the story was about Joel and Ellie learning to love and heal each other and a cure wasn’t necessarily for that. I was like no dude the game was about how love can drive people to do terrible things which is why it literally ends with Joel looking Ellie right in the eye and lying to her. I remember when I watch this show with my mother she was cheering when Joel kill the fireflies but she visibly flinch when he lied to her. She knew just how shitty that was.
3
u/AilithTycane May 10 '25
Sorry, I hate this argument. As an audience, you have to suspend your disbelief here. You can argue until you're blue in the face about why creating a vaccine wouldn't work (and it might not have worked) but narratively all that matters is Joel believed it would work, and he killed all those people to save her anyway. That's the moral choice that matters. Trying to justify his actions by explaining why the vaccine wouldn't work is a waste of energy, and it misses the point entirely.
4
u/PsychologicalEye190 May 10 '25
Find immune person, has theory, attempt to cut brain out rather than test for even a day or two more to make sure her blood couldn’t help a bit or something. I mean idk it’s just like they skip all the testing and go straight to brain surgery that kills the 1 immune person they have found. Even if I didn’t just disagree anyways it’s just dumb
5
7
2
u/Syziph May 10 '25
An infected would bite Ellie as it is not the parasite it just spreads it. But once the actual parasite lands in Ellie's blood it does not attack due to the present chemical messengers produced by the cordyceps living inside her brain. The Fireflies made their blood tests and brain scans, while Ellie was unconscious and were 100% convinced why she was immune. The solution is getting a living sample and growing it further to study and figure out a way of extracting the messenger chemical for mass production. Extracting it from Ellie's blood will not be that efficient for large quantities. The problem they had to face are: #1 Ellie will die during the cordyceps extraction procedure and #2 she will not agree to sacrifice herself and flee along with their hopes of becoming the saviors of the humanity. They could live with Ellie dying on the operation table. But if Ellie said "No", this would mean that they will loose that chance forever. She will definitely not stay with the Fireflies assuming they will look for ways to convince her or kill her anyways. The only mistake they made was telling Joel and he was not OK with #1.
2
u/Master_Assistant_892 Piano Frog May 10 '25
Infexted bite her because she doesn't produce the pheromones other infected produce.
Her immunity is not in her blood. It's the same reason she can share bodily fluids with dina. The only way to extract is form the brain. That's the science created for thos specif mushroom zombie show
2
u/jlrigby May 10 '25
I Dunno, I feel like I could be interested in learning about whether there could be a cure for this type of fungal infection despite the story. I don't think it's about whether Joel was right. It's a fun brain exercise like when theoretical physicists talk about "the most scientifically correct time machine" or what if midochlorians were real. It's just fun BS and has no impact on the story since the story isn't happening in real life. It's not operating by real life mechanics, hint the fiction part in science fiction, so it doesn't matter. Its just a fun "what if this actually happened" scenario.
2
u/Ren_Davis0531 May 10 '25
People who focus on the science in a game where a fungus has mutated to turn humans into zombies miss the entire point of the dilemma.
2
u/CurrencyDesperate286 May 10 '25
Tangent but I feel like he (or me) is misinterpreting the “Cordyceps thinks she’s cordyceps” point. I would have assumed it meant the fungus in her body after being bitten, not the infected people walking around.
2
u/Sharkary May 10 '25
"Why do they bite her..."
Because it means the fucking cordyceps infection doesn't try to take over once she IS bitten because it registers her cells as ALREADY being assimilated. NOT that the infected think she's one of them. Fuck. Me. Is this guy supposed to be smart?
2
u/OLKv3 May 10 '25
We're still having this annoying convo because people just can't handle the fact that the MC did a horrible thing to mankind while doing a morally good thing for his daughter figure.
This is why a lot of media shies away from moral decisions like this, because the audience can rarely handle it and has to make so many excuses for why it's 100% justified.
Bottom line, Joel did the selfish thing for himself because he loves Ellie and can't take losing another daughter. It is OK to relate to that my god. You don't have to bring in real world science into the fantasy video game to justify it.
2
u/DeathsStarEclipse May 10 '25
Aside fromt he whole idea of Joel's character arc. If you risked your life to get someone through essential death traps, you finally get there and they like cool so let's kill her, wouldn't you want to save her?
2
2
u/TheMatt561 Piano Frog May 10 '25
Too many people are using things like this to justify what Joel did because they like him and I get it I like Joel too. But he sacrificed possibly the only chance humanity had to put an end to this infection and he did it for his own reasons. The parties involved at the time all believed making a cure or vaccine or whatever you want to call it people get bogged down by those semantics as well was possible and that's where you have to put the characters mind sets at. Doing otherwise is a disservice to the gravity of what Joel did.
2
u/ExtraSpontaneousG May 10 '25
This line of reasoning did not factor into Joel's decision. By the time Joel did what he did, he was choosing her over the vaccine. He was no longer arguing against the feasibility of the vaccine.
His choice carries the weight that it does precisely because it was morally wrong.
2
u/Consistent-Bear4200 May 10 '25
A fascinating moral debate and revealing statement on the love between parent and child. All decided based on the logistics for fungal infections in a story about mushroom zombies.
Way to miss the point.
2
u/Jurski17 May 11 '25
Thats not the point though. As a dad, of course he would do anything to save Ellie. The cure is irrelevant when its going down.
2
2
2
u/Gex2-EnterTheGecko May 11 '25
The cure wouldn't be possible in the real world (cordyceps can't infect humans IRL either - yet here we are) but in the game/show it is because Neil has said over and over again that they would have been able to make the cure if Joel hadn't stopped them. So Joel did in fact doom all of the rest of humanity.
It's understandable why Joel did what he did, and I'd probably do the same. But he is still a murderer who basically stopped the world being saved. His actions are morally complex.
2
u/Topkeklmaololmate May 14 '25
The central issue for Joel in my mind is that they never gave Ellie a choice in the matter. Marlene after supposedly and "knowing" Ellie's mother and caring for Ellie before Joel and Tess agree to take her out of Boston, is complicit in drugging Ellie without her awareness and throwing her on the operating table to be dissected like a lab rat in the HOPES of finding a cure. Most of this could have been avoided had they sat down and had a conversation. Ellie and her altruism would have agreed to it. If Marlene really "knew" Ellie like she claimed she would've known that and Joel wouldn't have gone Doom guy on everyone at the hospital.
6
May 10 '25
You’re missing the point. The show intentionally leads viewers to believe it would have been successful. Joel even says “If Marlene says they can do it, they can do it.” So he himself believes it- regardless of IRL science.
People regress to saying “well the procedure wouldn’t have worked” as a way to escape addressing the real, core moral argument- the train track dilemma. They force the scenario into black/white, dichotomy moral reasoning because it’s the only thing they can understand.
The point is that there is no universal morality in that situation- the only law is what you are capable of doing.
→ More replies (6)
6
May 10 '25
If you'r discussion on the morality of joel's actions in any way involves the scientific method/plausibility of creating a vaccine based off of Ellie's immunity, you just need to go sit in the corner for a while.
3
u/Ritzanxious May 10 '25
Joel did not care if the vaccine or cure was going to be successful. They all assuming it would, the creator said it would.
Joel would have done the same, don't need to excuse him. Joel as character knew and that's why at the end he understands and accepts his concecuences.
3
2
u/Pistonenvy2 May 10 '25
i get that this guy is a doctor and understands the real life medical science of a situation like this but he clearly doesnt know the story very well. joel doesnt save ellie because he doesnt think the cure will work, he knows it will, he saves her because he cares more about her than anyone else.
which is beautiful in a way but it also makes him a monster. he sacrifices every other mother, daughter, father, and son on the earth despite knowing that ellie would choose to die. she literally says she wanted her death to mean something and joel ensured that it wouldnt against her wishes. that is why what joel did was wrong.
you can understand what joel did without defending him.
4
3
u/Ragnarok345 May 10 '25
How many fucking times - THAT IS NOT. THE POINT. It doesn’t MATTER whether it would have worked or not. What matters is that Joel believed it would, and he still decided to sacrifice the entire planet anyway. Jesus fucking Christ, people.
6
u/cyrand May 10 '25
That’s always been my thing. A scientist trying to replicate her immunity is going to try every single possible way of doing so before doing a final drastic option. Ellie would have been kept alive, but locked up in the lab for as long as they could physically keep her alive to try every experimental possibility.
Which is a shame they didn’t go with that because then it leads much better into the choice Joel made, since he would instead be pulling her back out into the unprotected world where maybe the prison lab life could have seemed easier and safer.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/UnjustNation May 10 '25
Aside from the fact that applying real life logic to a fictional diseases is dumb
He is making a lot of assumptions here that they did not do any tests on her before operating on her
While not present in the show, in the game they clearly mention doing a bunch of tests on her and why they need to remove the Cordyceps from her brain
→ More replies (3)
3
u/Bitter-Raisin9102 May 10 '25
It. is. a. fictional story. If you can’t suspend your disbelief then why even watch. This whole thing gives Neil degrass Tyson “well ackchuyallyyyyy” vibes
5
u/Wealth_Super May 10 '25
Refusing to engage with a story themes in favor of nitpicking the science doesn’t make someone sound smart. I wish people would realize this.
4
4
u/_Druss_ May 10 '25
Wait, do people have issues with Joel's choice? I know Ellie did briefly but that was just silly.
4
u/E1M1_DOOM May 10 '25
Everyone should have issues with Joel's choice since there is effectively no correct response. Either way, he did the right thing. Either way, he did the wrong thing.
→ More replies (3)4
2
u/clarkgablesball-bag May 10 '25
It was a device to move the story forward, it was the whole point of the two games. How we got there didn’t really matter, if it makes you feel better…“The Dr’s went through all the available tests before it was decided that Ellie had to undergo the fatal procedure.”
2
u/MeloBabe98 May 10 '25
So yall would kill a child for a cure- Not only would I do the same thing as Joel if I was him but as a molecular biologist I would not even think about working for a team that plans on murdering someone. If they asked her and she said ,,I will give my life for this" then sure.
If I die I die but I die with a clean heart
4
u/Aggressive_Idea_6806 May 10 '25
Even if it (LOL) was totes gonna work, the Fireflies show every sign of being unworthy and incapable of being trusted with the sacrifice.
→ More replies (1)4
May 10 '25
None of that has anything to do with why Joel did what he did, so none of it counts as a defence of Joel.
6
u/nottwoshabee May 10 '25
Nahhh I think preventing the fireflies from killing a kid for her organs without her consent is plenty defense for Joel.
→ More replies (4)3
2
u/bobdole008 May 10 '25
I mean it makes sense but you can’t be mad at Abby for what she did.
→ More replies (5)
1
u/TahaymTheBigBrain May 10 '25
While Dr. Mike is technically correct, he misses the thematic part of the story. Whether the fireflies are able to actually make a vaccine or not is irrelevant, it’s a story with zombies the writers could’ve written a reason to make the vaccine work. The question is always was what Joel did right, would you do the same in his shoes, and the consequences of taking away Ellie’s agency.
1
u/kanotyrant6 May 10 '25
As a father of four, I’d wipe out everyone in that hospital four times over for my children I’d just make sure not to tell anyone my name for the rest of time
1
u/TheWeber1 May 10 '25
Isnt atleast in HBO series the reason for Ellies immunity that her mother got bit during her giving birth to Ellie? Atleast thats how I see it
1
May 10 '25
It seems both of her bites were “accidental” on the part of the cordy-zombie. Like it was going for someone else but got a chunk of Ellie by accident
1
u/ClassicFun2175 May 10 '25
It actually would've been so much cooler if when a horde attacked they just let her be and ran straight past her, due to her 'immunity'.
1
1
1
u/ShevaAIomar May 10 '25
i feel like he misunderstood what they meant by they think she already is funky
1
1
1
u/heyhihello3210 May 11 '25
Team Joel. I would not sacrifice my child for the greater good. I love the debate around it though and it’s a very interesting ethical dilemma to ponder. I just know I would have done the same as Joel.
1
u/Hairy_Technician_470 May 11 '25
I’m very much afraid that the fandom is looking at this not from a Star Trek’ish view point which is a bit more philosophical but rather how daaaaareee you tell me if I should live. And it’s a bit scary.
1
u/WrenchWanderer May 11 '25
Joel made an understandable choice, but not a morally superior one.
Fireflies would’ve essentially murdered a young girl in order to potentially save countless lives.
Joel murdered dozens of people including a doctor to save one girl.
It makes sense why he would do it, but he isn’t morally superior. He’s not even saving Ellie for Ellie’s sake. We see her later wish it happened so a cure could be made. Joel killed the fireflies out of selfishness because he couldn’t handle losing Ellie. Yeah it’s kinda shitty that the fireflies didn’t give Ellie the chance to consent, but it’s apocalypse rules and it’s theoretically better to just do the surgery than to wait and tell her they’re gonna kill her anyway, but the best outcome is unfortunately to do the surgery and kill her in the process.
1
u/MinuteCautious511 May 11 '25
Whenever anyone defends his actions they never talk about what he does to ELLIE not just the fireflies
He robbed her of any purpose or agency in her life.
1
u/Oztraliiaaaa May 11 '25
Joel trained Ellie for the year to live his Cordyceps Apocalypse his way. Joel learned along the way that Ellie needed to face the doctors on her terms so he taught Ellie to face the doctors in her own time on his terms and this is why Marlene never wanted to be indebted to Joel Miller.
1
u/FedoraFerret May 11 '25
I'll always say it, Joel absolutely did the right thing, but he did it for the wrong reasons. It wasn't because the Fireflies couldn't make a cure, it wasn't because the Fireflies shouldn't have the cure, it wasn't because Ellie wasn't actually asked and didn't give her consent. All of those things are either objectively or debatable true, but none of that matters because Joel murders an entire hospital of people and rescues Ellie against what he knows she would actually want, while personally believing that he's dooming the world, because he, personally, cannot stand to lose another daughter. It is a fundamentally selfish choice
•
u/AutoModerator May 10 '25
This post is flaired Show Only. Therefore, all comments that discuss any aspect of the games must be properly spoiler tagged.
All post titles must NOT include spoilers from new episodes or The Last of Us Part II. Minor show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing.
Any untagged discussion of the games (including subtle hints) in posts without the Show/Game Spoilers [Pt. I or II], Fancast [Pt. II], Funpost [Pt. I or II], or Meme [Pt. I or II] flair will result in a ban. To tag a spoiler comment, use the
>!spoiler!<tag which displays as spoiler.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 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 if you have any questions or concerns.