Why do people prefer to rescue Duck than Shawn in Season 1?
Morally it's the right thing to do to save Shawn before Duck tbh.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Morally it's the right thing to do to save Shawn before Duck tbh.
Comments
Probably in part the same reason the choice about saving Sarah has slanted in the other direction.
Duck is a kid. And you gotta be loyal to Kenny.
I saved Shawn because I thought he was in more danger than Duck. Unfortunately it didn't matter.
Also, care to explain why you think its the right thing to do?
Same.
Shawn dies anyway and you are never rewarded for saving him. Kenny thanks for saving duck; building your friendship
Because a lot have read the comics and know what happens to Shawn. I also fail to see why saving one over the other is necessarily more moral.
It can go either way, depending on reasoning.
The questions is, why would you save an adult over a kid? Shawn dies anyway, there was never a point saving him.
Duck dies anyway too, but lives longer. Plus Kenny likes you if you save him. That's the only reason i saves Duck
I'm not sure why it makes more sense morally to save Shawn instead of Duck but it is the correct choice. Duck was a stupid kid while Shawn was a healthy adult male and would be far more useful to a survivor group than Duck, who was almost pure liability.
Duck was just a little kid. You always save the kids first unless you wanna become Crawford.
Duck was a kid, and also, from a meta standpoint, Herschel kicks you out no matter what, might as well have Kenny on your side. That way, side with Lilly in Episode 2 so things are tense, but make it come out alright in Episode 4 and he comes with you, making the most satisfying character arc if you ask me.
me too. and kenny was already going for duck.
As far as I'm concerned as a negative rights deontologist, you are not ethically obligated to save either of them. You can choose to, but not doing anything is not unethical. The only unethical actions would be trying to intentionally kill or attack either of them at that point.
There is no ethically objective reason for choosing one over the other, as any reason for why one is worth saving more than another is ultimately a subjective value judgement that cannot be objectively defended. You cannot even say choosing nothing is worse than one of them, without eventually running into a circular argument reduced to a subjective value judgement.
The only person who has committed an unethical action is Duck, when he ran over Shaun's leg with the tractor; considering his age and maturity, it's
hard to say if he is capable of being held ethically accountable to the extent that a mature teenager or older could be.
It's because he's only a kid and plus, this is just my reason but Kenny is with Lee longer than anyone in the Motel group, so I thought I might as well side with him through out it so I can get his help along with everyone elses by the end of it.
I thought only Katjaa holds that against you?
i saved duck he is a kid its like a rescue code i go by i save a kid over a women and a women over a men.
Because hes a fucking kid, kids always first. Also because Shawn is stronger and smarter so he has more chance of survival than Duck.
Unpopular Opinion: Crawford wasn't wrong. They collapsed, yes, but not because of their no kid policies.
They kind of did collapse due to their no kid policy though. If they weren't so strict with giving Anna Correa an ultimatum about her unborn child then she wouldn't have gone on the shooting rampage that destroyed the place.
So... if they had a no drugs policy and someone shot them up because they weren't allowed to smoke crack, would that mean they collapsed because of their no drugs policy? No. They collapsed because a woman couldn't deal with the realities of her situation and lost her shit.
I see what you're trying to say but I disagree. A right to get high =/= a right to have a child no matter how you present it.
They were easily wrong -- mass murder of innocent, nonviolent people deemed too unfit based on arbitrary characteristics. If not that, forced expulsion. Their no kid and no immigrant policy would also doom their population to extinction eventually. They were also economically inefficient -- completely centralized production and distribution of resources. That is not sustainable in the long run.
The Malthusian theory of overpopulation due to population growth supposedly outpacing resource production, with the assumption that the population will consume a fixed, dwindling amount of resources which will lead to violence over those resources has been long debunked. The turn of the century put his theory to rest, which ignores technological improvements that come from the new people that has allowed resource production to become increasingly efficient and greater amounts of consumption than ever before. Empirically, and theoretically, the argument is absurd.
Crawford did just about everything wrong. Besides being ethically reprehensible, they were also non utilitarian, built on long debunked and broken economic theories, coupled with inevitable extinction.
I always save Duck. The only reason I choose it is because he's a child and Shawn is an adult. I see that as moral. Ageist? Absolutely. If this was in a real-life situation, I don't think I could live with myself knowing that I saved an adult at the expense of a child dying. Seems extremely unethical to me.
Looking back though, In a apocolypse their are no more moral rules. We have to think logically not with our hearts. Duck was a child, a pretty dumb one at that. In our world a child must be saved first, in the zombie world though, I think adults are much more important to keep around for survival sake. In a zombie nightmare we need adult men and women, adults with guns, adults with weapons, smart thinking, fast reflexes. Duck was baggage and died anyway.
It's sad to say but the logical thinking it to rescue Hershel's son. He was a better asset at the time.
But reasons 1 and 2 are the main reasons why a player would choose Duck. I chose Duck just because I automatically knew I wanted to swear allegiance to the all mighty boatly one.
That dumb, memetic analogy backfires on it's own logic once actually you think about it.
Nuff said.
"Saying a logic is flawed without explaining what was flawed about said logic is flawed logic" - Thomas Jefferson
Well, Tom, let me start it up for ya--Christmas Day.