Yea ya got me there, your right , ya get what im trying to say tho, I thought about it after posting and realised my mistake but got caught up further down the discussion. This is mind bending stuff lol
look at it from the moral angle and im right
I'd like to point out that this is subjective, considering that our moral values are su… morebjective. Moral values changes over time and if za would happen, that would have radical impact on current moral values over the years.
Holy shit guys. You seriously gotta realise there is a difference from living in a ZA then a normal world like we are living in now. Calling zykelator a "sociopath" is really fucked up because a number of people would be sociopaths too in a zombie apocalypse. It's always the die-hard Kenny fans who insult people on this forum...
Im sure zykelator wouldnt walk past a baby in the street now if he walked outside his house, its a totaly different situation..
Yeah… more, people seem to forget that moral values change over time and za would have radical impact on them. People like me would survive and moral values would eventually change radically and people like you would most likely die.
Holy shit guys. You seriously gotta realise there is a difference from living in a ZA then a normal world like we are living in now. Calling… more zykelator a "sociopath" is really fucked up because a number of people would be sociopaths too in a zombie apocalypse. It's always the die-hard Kenny fans who insult people on this forum...
Also, they seem to forget Jane (and people like you or me) does stuff for survival.
Kenny was the real sociopath, smashing Carver's head slowly and painfully aint part of survival, beating a russian kid because you THOUGH he was lying aint survival, shouting at your survival mates and trying to make them do what you want withouth reasoning aint survival either.
On the other hand, killing ONE human that could get OTHER HUMANS killed IS part of survival. Leaving a group with a sociopath IS survival, killing a russian with a gun pointing at your friends IS survival...
Kenny would be already dead in a real life ZA since he started shouting at Lilly and her father.
Some people think, or atleast believe they wouldnt change the way they think because of za.
I dont mind being insulted, i just hope people wont get banned because of it.
Also, they seem to forget Jane (and people like you or me) does stuff for survival.
Kenny was the real sociopath, smashing Carver's head … moreslowly and painfully aint part of survival, beating a russian kid because you THOUGH he was lying aint survival, shouting at your survival mates and trying to make them do what you want withouth reasoning aint survival either.
On the other hand, killing ONE human that could get OTHER HUMANS killed IS part of survival. Leaving a group with a sociopath IS survival, killing a russian with a gun pointing at your friends IS survival...
Kenny would be already dead in a real life ZA since he started shouting at Lilly and her father.
Yeah, given one ended up with a knife at her chest and the other likely ended up with a gun pointed at him, I don't think either offers any kind of wonderful example of survival techniques.
I dont beleive kenny was/is a sociopath, he has issues dealing with his feelings and resorts to anger as his only method of release, but I know what your saying..
Jane gets a rough ride I think, not my cup of tea but that dont mean a lot lol, she does what she needs to do to survive.... and thet may somtimes seem selfish but its a ZA.. I think coming back to the group fro clem would habe been difficult for her..
Also, they seem to forget Jane (and people like you or me) does stuff for survival.
Kenny was the real sociopath, smashing Carver's head … moreslowly and painfully aint part of survival, beating a russian kid because you THOUGH he was lying aint survival, shouting at your survival mates and trying to make them do what you want withouth reasoning aint survival either.
On the other hand, killing ONE human that could get OTHER HUMANS killed IS part of survival. Leaving a group with a sociopath IS survival, killing a russian with a gun pointing at your friends IS survival...
Kenny would be already dead in a real life ZA since he started shouting at Lilly and her father.
My point was that you are more vulnerable to die when you set other people's lives as a priority, and that eventually gets everyone killed. Any mortal would have died in the situation he was when he tried to save Ben.
Yeah, given one ended up with a knife at her chest and the other likely ended up with a gun pointed at him, I don't think either offers any kind of wonderful example of survival techniques.
And yet they survived as long as each other and got themselves into a stupid situation where one of them would die so I'm really not sure an either/or comparison on survival works in this case. I see your general point but I'm not sure I agree with it - together you can build a Wellington. Alone and selfish, you've got nobody to watch your back and if there are people around and they know you'll off any of them to survive, you've still got nobody to watch your back.
My point was that you are more vulnerable to die when you set other people's lives as a priority, and that eventually gets everyone killed. Any mortal would have died in the situation he was when he tried to save Ben.
It would be cool if the ending in which Clem is alone, you end up in Wellington.
By the way, I'm with zykelator, I probably wouldn't kill AJ but also would not hesitate to leave him so I survive.
An example, being trapped around zombies, and the only way to escape is leaving AJ and climbing a wall. It would be useless if I died just to save AJ, he would die right after I get killed, it's better if it's only me who survives than none of us.
I dont beleive kenny was/is a sociopath, he has issues dealing with his feelings and resorts to anger as his only method of release, but I… more know what your saying..
Jane gets a rough ride I think, not my cup of tea but that dont mean a lot lol, she does what she needs to do to survive.... and thet may somtimes seem selfish but its a ZA.. I think coming back to the group fro clem would habe been difficult for her..
What you describe is a million miles away from what zykelator wrote though - "If the game ever gives me option to leave Aj behind, i will do it asap."
Your scenario is a do or die scenario where you have to make a call and few would fault you for it. Leaving the baby just because it's an option and you'd do it asap is not the same thing.
It would be cool if the ending in which Clem is alone, you end up in Wellington.
By the way, I'm with zykelator, I probably wouldn't kill… more AJ but also would not hesitate to leave him so I survive.
An example, being trapped around zombies, and the only way to escape is leaving AJ and climbing a wall. It would be useless if I died just to save AJ, he would die right after I get killed, it's better if it's only me who survives than none of us.
I'm not saying that "Fuck everybody" is right, you can always help anyone, because you are right, groups are important.
The problem is when your priorities are others and not yourself. You can't help other when you can't even help yourself. There are many impossible situations in the game where Clem/Kenny/Lee/etc would've died in real life, but didn't die because, well, it's just a videogame.
Another example is when you'd rather fuck an entire group of 100 guys where you are safe, than aborting your child (what happened in Crawford).
And yet they survived as long as each other and got themselves into a stupid situation where one of them would die so I'm really not sure an… more either/or comparison on survival works in this case. I see your general point but I'm not sure I agree with it - together you can build a Wellington. Alone and selfish, you've got nobody to watch your back and if there are people around and they know you'll off any of them to survive, you've still got nobody to watch your back.
It's why we form communities and it works.
Forgot to mention that if i found a big, so big I need both of my arms to carry it, bag of food and weapons, I'd leave AJ in a high place so I could come back for him if it's not too risky.
I would also kill him if he started crying when I'm near a big heard of zombies.
What you describe is a million miles away from what zykelator wrote though - "If the game ever gives me option to leave Aj behind, i will do… more it asap."
Your scenario is a do or die scenario where you have to make a call and few would fault you for it. Leaving the baby just because it's an option and you'd do it asap is not the same thing.
Some people get awfully touchy about forced abortions. And yet this kind of illustrates my point. She put her desires over that of the group and that's how it turned out. The group before that created rules that did not acknowledge human wants or needs and that backfired massively. Selfishness and not treating people like people creates cracks. Supporting others the leads to you being supported in turn. Crawford was not a supportive community.
A supportive community, looking out for others, provides strength and in a ZA situation would be the only way to achieve true safety. Selfishness is going to result in you being dead, either by having nobody to look out for you or being knifed in the back eventually. That shit catches up with you.
I'm not saying that "Fuck everybody" is right, you can always help anyone, because you are right, groups are important.
The problem is when… more your priorities are others and not yourself. You can't help other when you can't even help yourself. There are many impossible situations in the game where Clem/Kenny/Lee/etc would've died in real life, but didn't die because, well, it's just a videogame.
Another example is when you'd rather fuck an entire group of 100 guys where you are safe, than aborting your child (what happened in Crawford).
They killed/kicked off kids, elderly, anyone with medical condition and pretty much everyone who wasnt pulling their own weight or required … moreextra attention, so yes, they did accept these new moral values.
Crawford went to shit, because emotional and pregnant women started killing people inside and caused an outbreak. (if i understood your first sentence properly)
Carver's group was doing just fine until Clementine's group fucked things up. Crawford was doing just fine until irrational survivor fucked things up. Do you see the pattern here?
The problem is that not every human in the world is like that, if that was the case then that would be the better option (to have a "supportive" community). The problem is that with "supportive" communities, the people become attached with others. If they encounter a "non-supportive" community and this community kills (or hurts or kidnaps) someone from the supportive one, everybody's gonna be sentimental and unnecesarily risk theirself to try to "avenge" (or save) the fallen one.
-Kenny died because he was very attached to his family (at least in my game) and never went over it.
-Lee died because he was very attached to Clementine.
-Stranger died because he was very attached to his wife.
-The pregnant woman from Crawford died (and killed a whole community) because she was very attached to a baggage that would get her killed anyways.
-Vernon died because he was very attached to those old useless people.
-Katjaa died because she was very attached to Duck.
There are many examples (in the videogame, at least) of people who died because they were very attached to other people. One thing is caring and liking/loving someone, another things is to do dumb things for them, killing him/her, killing yourself, and killing tons of other people that didn't have anything to do with you.
Some people get awfully touchy about forced abortions. And yet this kind of illustrates my point. She put her desires over that of the group… more and that's how it turned out. The group before that created rules that did not acknowledge human wants or needs and that backfired massively. Selfishness and not treating people like people creates cracks. Supporting others the leads to you being supported in turn. Crawford was not a supportive community.
A supportive community, looking out for others, provides strength and in a ZA situation would be the only way to achieve true safety. Selfishness is going to result in you being dead, either by having nobody to look out for you or being knifed in the back eventually. That shit catches up with you.
The obvious flaw there is that almost EVERYONE dies in the game. Selfish people die too. In fact the only three who likely survived yours was Clem (attached to many people including AJ), Jane (came back for Clem) and AJ (dependent on everyone), right? The attached outlived everyone.
The problem is that not every human in the world is like that, if that was the case then that would be the better option (to have a "support… moreive" community). The problem is that with "supportive" communities, the people become attached with others. If they encounter a "non-supportive" community and this community kills (or hurts or kidnaps) someone from the supportive one, everybody's gonna be sentimental and unnecesarily risk theirself to try to "avenge" (or save) the fallen one.
-Kenny died because he was very attached to his family (at least in my game) and never went over it.
-Lee died because he was very attached to Clementine.
-Stranger died because he was very attached to his wife.
-The pregnant woman from Crawford died (and killed a whole community) because she was very attached to a baggage that would get her killed anyways.
-Vernon died because he was very attached to those old useless people.
-Katjaa died because s… [view original content]
Viva, you do realize that subjective moral values change over time?
So? In a thousand years when killing (directly or not) a baby is a moral choice then we can consider that ok. As it sits now, it isn't.
What is immoral now might not be in a za. It was the first days of za and Lee had no reason to not take care of Clementine. He was still thinking like most people back then and wanted to protect this little girl he found. It takes time for new moral values to be accepted as current ones and over the years in za, people would do things which by nowadays standards would be considered immoral.
Alright, the first few days makes sense. But what about when the situation started unfolding? When they got to the drug store and he realized she was going to be a burden shouldn't he have shot her or threw her to the zombies, or at least left her to fend for herself in the drug store? After all the depravity of the situation should have come to fruition when Larry noted that Duck was bit and they should throw him out. That would have been the smart thing to do. He may have been bit, and even if he wasn't he wouldn't be helpful to the group in any fashion larger than a dimwit's contribution for a few more years. Might as well have done the same to Clem, since she wouldn't have been a good candidate for help either. Even if you think that was too soon then what about the many months following that? When her acts indirectly started getting people killed? Should have packed up and left her on the side of the road. After all it would help the others' chances of survival.
For example, dropping ben,
Different ball park my friend.
shooting duck,
Again, a completely different ball park
making roasted Mark,
So you're saying this is a good choice? Because as far as I know this act was portrayed as a terrible act committed by terrible people. Not a "revised moral value."
leaving a girl to get eaten,
Your first valid example. This was supposed to viewed as an immoral choice (if you left her) but not on par, to any normal person, as leaving a defenseless, unbitten, barely birthed child to die or killing it yourself with no cause for it aside from selfinvested reasoning.
stealing someones property,
This is hardly viewed as an immoral act. Especially when compared to killing an infant. I have stolen, I am not an immoral person, and anyone who knows me would agree.
murdering someone because of mistake etc.
Specify?
Some hundred years ago "witches" were killed and this was considered normal. Anyone nowadays would think that was immoral.
We aren't talking hundreds of years here. For the vast, vast,vast, majority of all groups on earth infant murder has been immoral for (circa?) thousands of years. Thousands of years of an extremely constant moral code undone in 2 years? Doubtful. Just to shoot down a valid rebuttal about murder being immoral and still happening every day I'll rebuttal that with "exactly, it happens every day. Now show me a case of multiple infant murders in a day on a normal basis. Infant murder even far out ranks murder on the list of immoral acts."
Viva, you do realize that subjective moral values change over time? What is immoral now might not be in a za. It was the first days of za an… mored Lee had no reason to not take care of Clementine. He was still thinking like most people back then and wanted to protect this little girl he found. It takes time for new moral values to be accepted as current ones and over the years in za, people would do things which by nowadays standards would be considered immoral.
For example, dropping ben, shooting duck, making roasted Mark, leaving a girl to get eaten, stealing someones property, murdering someone because of mistake etc.
Some hundred years ago "witches" were killed and this was considered normal. Anyone nowadays would think that was immoral.
I doubt you will play as AJ. As Clem getting into wellington is probably the canon ending and the end of her journey.
You probably plays as Kenny hopeful.
Carver's group was doing just fine until Clementine's group fucked things up. Crawford was doing just fine until irrational survivor fucked things up. Do you see the pattern here?
What you describe is a million miles away from what zykelator wrote though - "If the game ever gives me option to leave Aj behind, i will do… more it asap."
Your scenario is a do or die scenario where you have to make a call and few would fault you for it. Leaving the baby just because it's an option and you'd do it asap is not the same thing.
What's irrational is to expect that everyone would have accepted those values. It demonstrates a gaping lack of understanding of human nature. This is the thing with the cold view - most humans just aren't like that. And by justifying the view that the wants of the self outweigh the needs of all others, you create a situation where anyone will do so including her when her want was to have that baby. So she acted according to those flawed principles.
Remember, all this talk is based on assumption that za happened and its been like +2 years or so.
So? In a thousand years when killing (directly or not) a baby is a moral choice then we can consider that ok. As it sits now, it isn't.
Leaving a baby behind in order to not risk everyone else isnt morally wrong imo.
Even if you think that was too soon then what about the many months following that? When her acts indirectly started getting people killed? Should have packed up and left her on the side of the road. After all it would help the others' chances of survival.
Lee obviously cared about Clementine and even i wouldnt just leave family or close friends behind, because emotions and stuff. Life can be boring without having people you care about with you and whats the point of living if you cant enjoy it with people you like? Having good friends prevent depression, thus increasing your survival chances, because suicide wont be an option.
Different ball park my friend.
Ben put others in danger with his stupid behaviour. I would have left him behind, not kill.
Again, a completely different ball park
Well it was pretty much mercy kill. Bad example i suppose.
So you're saying this is a good choice? Because as far as I know this act was portrayed as a terrible act committed by terrible people. Not a "revised moral value."
They killed others and ate them so they would survive. You've probably heard stories about people who have got stuck somewhere and they eventually had to eat their friends in order to survive.
This is hardly viewed as an immoral act. Especially when compared to killing an infant. I have stolen, I am not an immoral person, and anyone who knows me would agree.
You dont see stealing from someone as immoral act? Even good people can make bad things, that doesnt necessarily make them bad people.
Specify?
Ben, Reggie, Jane. Imo, murdering someone because of mistake is stupid and wrong.
We aren't talking hundreds of years here. For the vast, vast, vast, majority of all groups on earth infant murder has been immoral for (circa?) thousands of years. Thousands of years of an extremely constant moral code undone in 2 years? Doubtful. Just to shoot down a valid rebuttal about murder being immoral and still happening every day I'll rebuttal that with "exactly, it happens every day. Now show me a case of multiple infant murders in a day on a normal basis. Infant murder even far out ranks murder on the list of immoral acts."
Putting aside that, a baby in za would put everyone around it at risk. Lower mobility because you have to carry it, the need to loot spesific kind of places for the food, crying alerts close by walkers. Survival chances of adults is low and considering that you would have to take care of the baby for like +7 years until it can actually do anything useful is very unrealistic goal.
People who would take care of babies and do other "stupid" stuff would most likely die, so only people like me would manage to stay alive for long time (with some luck of course), thus the world would have different set of moral values.
Viva, you do realize that subjective moral values change over time?
So? In a thousand years when killing (directly or not) a baby is… more a moral choice then we can consider that ok. As it sits now, it isn't.
What is immoral now might not be in a za. It was the first days of za and Lee had no reason to not take care of Clementine. He was still thinking like most people back then and wanted to protect this little girl he found. It takes time for new moral values to be accepted as current ones and over the years in za, people would do things which by nowadays standards would be considered immoral.
Alright, the first few days makes sense. But what about when the situation started unfolding? When they got to the drug store and he realized she was going to be a burden shouldn't he have shot her or threw her to the zombies, or at least left her to fend for herself in the drug store? After all the depravity of the situation should h… [view original content]
Comments
A strain to Clementine not only AJ is but also to the writers
Yea ya got me there, your right , ya get what im trying to say tho, I thought about it after posting and realised my mistake but got caught up further down the discussion. This is mind bending stuff lol
Holy shit guys. You seriously gotta realise there is a difference from living in a ZA then a normal world like we are living in now. Calling zykelator a "sociopath" is really fucked up because a number of people would be sociopaths too in a zombie apocalypse. It's always the die-hard Kenny fans who insult people on this forum...
Some people think, or atleast believe they wouldnt change the way they think because of za.
I dont mind being insulted, i just hope people wont get banned because of it.
Also, they seem to forget Jane (and people like you or me) does stuff for survival.
Kenny was the real sociopath, smashing Carver's head slowly and painfully aint part of survival, beating a russian kid because you THOUGH he was lying aint survival, shouting at your survival mates and trying to make them do what you want withouth reasoning aint survival either.
On the other hand, killing ONE human that could get OTHER HUMANS killed IS part of survival. Leaving a group with a sociopath IS survival, killing a russian with a gun pointing at your friends IS survival...
Kenny would be already dead in a real life ZA since he started shouting at Lilly and her father.
Me to I love it, what makes people tick, what makes em act in any given situation, fascinating stuff
Uh, please don't go all Jane vs Kenny on this.
Sorry, needed to use it as an example.
Yeah, given one ended up with a knife at her chest and the other likely ended up with a gun pointed at him, I don't think either offers any kind of wonderful example of survival techniques.
I dont beleive kenny was/is a sociopath, he has issues dealing with his feelings and resorts to anger as his only method of release, but I know what your saying..
Jane gets a rough ride I think, not my cup of tea but that dont mean a lot lol, she does what she needs to do to survive.... and thet may somtimes seem selfish but its a ZA.. I think coming back to the group fro clem would habe been difficult for her..
My point was that you are more vulnerable to die when you set other people's lives as a priority, and that eventually gets everyone killed. Any mortal would have died in the situation he was when he tried to save Ben.
And yet they survived as long as each other and got themselves into a stupid situation where one of them would die so I'm really not sure an either/or comparison on survival works in this case. I see your general point but I'm not sure I agree with it - together you can build a Wellington. Alone and selfish, you've got nobody to watch your back and if there are people around and they know you'll off any of them to survive, you've still got nobody to watch your back.
It's why we form communities and it works.
It would be cool if the ending in which Clem is alone, you end up in Wellington.
By the way, I'm with zykelator, I probably wouldn't kill AJ but also would not hesitate to leave him so I survive.
An example, being trapped around zombies, and the only way to escape is leaving AJ and climbing a wall. It would be useless if I died just to save AJ, he would die right after I get killed, it's better if it's only me who survives than none of us.
What you describe is a million miles away from what zykelator wrote though - "If the game ever gives me option to leave Aj behind, i will do it asap."
Your scenario is a do or die scenario where you have to make a call and few would fault you for it. Leaving the baby just because it's an option and you'd do it asap is not the same thing.
You must think like Carver am I right?
Killing one in order to save many is... part of survival.
I don't really like how you call him "baggage".
Heh, I prefer to keep plot points out of thread titles in case anyone wanders in without having yet finished the game.
Well that is what he is, Like him dont like him the kids a liability. He's cute but one bawl and zombies will eat him and and clem.
I'm not saying that "Fuck everybody" is right, you can always help anyone, because you are right, groups are important.
The problem is when your priorities are others and not yourself. You can't help other when you can't even help yourself. There are many impossible situations in the game where Clem/Kenny/Lee/etc would've died in real life, but didn't die because, well, it's just a videogame.
Another example is when you'd rather fuck an entire group of 100 guys where you are safe, than aborting your child (what happened in Crawford).
Forgot to mention that if i found a big, so big I need both of my arms to carry it, bag of food and weapons, I'd leave AJ in a high place so I could come back for him if it's not too risky.
I would also kill him if he started crying when I'm near a big heard of zombies.
Sure.
Some people get awfully touchy about forced abortions. And yet this kind of illustrates my point. She put her desires over that of the group and that's how it turned out. The group before that created rules that did not acknowledge human wants or needs and that backfired massively. Selfishness and not treating people like people creates cracks. Supporting others the leads to you being supported in turn. Crawford was not a supportive community.
A supportive community, looking out for others, provides strength and in a ZA situation would be the only way to achieve true safety. Selfishness is going to result in you being dead, either by having nobody to look out for you or being knifed in the back eventually. That shit catches up with you.
Just leave it behind, I will not die because of a kid.
And loook how well that worked for them
It was those values that got them killed.
Yeah. Having fucked up morality gets you killed.
The problem is that not every human in the world is like that, if that was the case then that would be the better option (to have a "supportive" community). The problem is that with "supportive" communities, the people become attached with others. If they encounter a "non-supportive" community and this community kills (or hurts or kidnaps) someone from the supportive one, everybody's gonna be sentimental and unnecesarily risk theirself to try to "avenge" (or save) the fallen one.
-Kenny died because he was very attached to his family (at least in my game) and never went over it.
-Lee died because he was very attached to Clementine.
-Stranger died because he was very attached to his wife.
-The pregnant woman from Crawford died (and killed a whole community) because she was very attached to a baggage that would get her killed anyways.
-Vernon died because he was very attached to those old useless people.
-Katjaa died because she was very attached to Duck.
There are many examples (in the videogame, at least) of people who died because they were very attached to other people. One thing is caring and liking/loving someone, another things is to do dumb things for them, killing him/her, killing yourself, and killing tons of other people that didn't have anything to do with you.
The obvious flaw there is that almost EVERYONE dies in the game. Selfish people die too. In fact the only three who likely survived yours was Clem (attached to many people including AJ), Jane (came back for Clem) and AJ (dependent on everyone), right? The attached outlived everyone.
So? In a thousand years when killing (directly or not) a baby is a moral choice then we can consider that ok. As it sits now, it isn't.
Alright, the first few days makes sense. But what about when the situation started unfolding? When they got to the drug store and he realized she was going to be a burden shouldn't he have shot her or threw her to the zombies, or at least left her to fend for herself in the drug store? After all the depravity of the situation should have come to fruition when Larry noted that Duck was bit and they should throw him out. That would have been the smart thing to do. He may have been bit, and even if he wasn't he wouldn't be helpful to the group in any fashion larger than a dimwit's contribution for a few more years. Might as well have done the same to Clem, since she wouldn't have been a good candidate for help either. Even if you think that was too soon then what about the many months following that? When her acts indirectly started getting people killed? Should have packed up and left her on the side of the road. After all it would help the others' chances of survival.
Different ball park my friend.
Again, a completely different ball park
So you're saying this is a good choice? Because as far as I know this act was portrayed as a terrible act committed by terrible people. Not a "revised moral value."
Your first valid example. This was supposed to viewed as an immoral choice (if you left her) but not on par, to any normal person, as leaving a defenseless, unbitten, barely birthed child to die or killing it yourself with no cause for it aside from selfinvested reasoning.
This is hardly viewed as an immoral act. Especially when compared to killing an infant. I have stolen, I am not an immoral person, and anyone who knows me would agree.
Specify?
We aren't talking hundreds of years here. For the vast, vast, vast, majority of all groups on earth infant murder has been immoral for (circa?) thousands of years. Thousands of years of an extremely constant moral code undone in 2 years? Doubtful. Just to shoot down a valid rebuttal about murder being immoral and still happening every day I'll rebuttal that with "exactly, it happens every day. Now show me a case of multiple infant murders in a day on a normal basis. Infant murder even far out ranks murder on the list of immoral acts."
If wellington is safe then you could always leave aj there i bet they will have a choice involving that or something in season 3
Kenny fans are just ridiculous.
Didn't Carver completely intend on bringing an infant into his group?
Well the difference is that i wouldnt risk my life like that.
Not necessarily killing, but banishing/leaving them behind. No point to take their chance to try survive on their own.
No, it was one member who did NOT accept those values. Just one irrational person caused the fall of Crawford.
What's irrational is to expect that everyone would have accepted those values. It demonstrates a gaping lack of understanding of human nature. This is the thing with the cold view - most humans just aren't like that. And by justifying the view that the wants of the self outweigh the needs of all others, you create a situation where anyone will do so including her when her want was to have that baby. So she acted according to those flawed principles.
Remember, all this talk is based on assumption that za happened and its been like +2 years or so.
Leaving a baby behind in order to not risk everyone else isnt morally wrong imo.
Lee obviously cared about Clementine and even i wouldnt just leave family or close friends behind, because emotions and stuff. Life can be boring without having people you care about with you and whats the point of living if you cant enjoy it with people you like? Having good friends prevent depression, thus increasing your survival chances, because suicide wont be an option.
Ben put others in danger with his stupid behaviour. I would have left him behind, not kill.
Well it was pretty much mercy kill. Bad example i suppose.
They killed others and ate them so they would survive. You've probably heard stories about people who have got stuck somewhere and they eventually had to eat their friends in order to survive.
You dont see stealing from someone as immoral act? Even good people can make bad things, that doesnt necessarily make them bad people.
Ben, Reggie, Jane. Imo, murdering someone because of mistake is stupid and wrong.
stuff
You do know how stuff goes in India? Female babies being aborted or killed because they want boys?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_infanticide_in_India
Putting aside that, a baby in za would put everyone around it at risk. Lower mobility because you have to carry it, the need to loot spesific kind of places for the food, crying alerts close by walkers. Survival chances of adults is low and considering that you would have to take care of the baby for like +7 years until it can actually do anything useful is very unrealistic goal.
People who would take care of babies and do other "stupid" stuff would most likely die, so only people like me would manage to stay alive for long time (with some luck of course), thus the world would have different set of moral values.
As I said, it was those values that got them killed.
Irrational people gets you killed.
Well he thought the baby was his. That does bring up some emotions.
Having fucked up morality around normal people gets you killed :P