Executing the St. Johns: The Only Moral Choice
It occurred to me during Episode 2, then again afterwards during the discussion, that the conventional moral position whereby killing the St. John's is considered the lesser, baser option, had it all backwards.
Here's a typical post on the issue:
Thing is, if you leave the St. John's alive, aren't they simply going to continue, as long as they're alive, trapping, mutilating, murdering, and eating innocent travelers? Don't you have the moral obligation to execute them, whether in anger or after due consideration?
What would their punishment have been in the pre-ZA world for their Dahmeresque crimes? Life imprisonment, at a minimum, and a death sentence in any state that allowed it. The only question remaining is, does the ZA provide a mitigating circumstance? In this case, I think, clearly not. There's still food out there. They do live on a farm. The soil is still fertile. They have corn, for example. They have at least one cow's worth of meat and the ability to dress and prepare that meat, in the neighborhood of five hundred pounds of it, which would last a small family at least several months
Life imprisonment wasn't an option, so executing the family was the only moral thing you could have done, given the circumstances. That it might have occured in front of Clem was unfortunate, but you didn't have the option during the game of taking Danny aside and killing him out of Clementine's view.
It wasn't an easy choice, but killing the St. John's was clearly right choice, the moral choice.
Here's a typical post on the issue:
Originally Posted by Viser
Yeah, definitely fighting the St. John brothers. That was very intense, I actually killed Danny out of anger, because of what he had done to us, but after knowing Clem witnessed it I instantly felt like I shouldn't have done that. Didn't kill Andy though, he being like "Get back here and finish this!!" was epic.
Thing is, if you leave the St. John's alive, aren't they simply going to continue, as long as they're alive, trapping, mutilating, murdering, and eating innocent travelers? Don't you have the moral obligation to execute them, whether in anger or after due consideration?
What would their punishment have been in the pre-ZA world for their Dahmeresque crimes? Life imprisonment, at a minimum, and a death sentence in any state that allowed it. The only question remaining is, does the ZA provide a mitigating circumstance? In this case, I think, clearly not. There's still food out there. They do live on a farm. The soil is still fertile. They have corn, for example. They have at least one cow's worth of meat and the ability to dress and prepare that meat, in the neighborhood of five hundred pounds of it, which would last a small family at least several months
Life imprisonment wasn't an option, so executing the family was the only moral thing you could have done, given the circumstances. That it might have occured in front of Clem was unfortunate, but you didn't have the option during the game of taking Danny aside and killing him out of Clementine's view.
It wasn't an easy choice, but killing the St. John's was clearly right choice, the moral choice.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If I was by myself they would have been dead and I wouldn't have had any regrets, but I wouldn't want a child of mine seeing the would as a bleak place.
One insane lonely desperate man is punishment enough to me.
Andy is more of a threat, but I think he's so heartbroken, he will probably just let the walkers have him.
Besides, I don't want their blood on my hands.
Andy is more of a threat, but I think he's so heartbroken, he will probably just let the walkers have him.
Besides, I don't want their blood on my hands.
No it is not. Leaving them both alive to then be eaten by the Walkers invading the Dairy as well as Mama St. John being a Walker herself now thanks to Mark chowing down on her so she will eat them too.
Now that is clearly the right moral choice.
I did kill both of them because they were a threat to my group and other groups as well. They had allowed ZA to turn them into things not much different than the walkers themselves, so they had to be killed.
Regarding Clem, my stance is that I can't shield her from all the wrongs the world is going to expose her to. If I want her to survive, then she needs to learn how to deal with all kinds of fucked up situations and decisions. I can't give her some universal truth but I can try to teach her what I perceive as right and good.
Granted I did not know about the Walkers till after but I still never killed both of the brothers.
Brenda was doomed from the start, an unfortunate victim of circumstance. She got what she deserved, but there was nothing that could have been done. Karma's a bitch.
Andy was the only one that you had much direct control over. And judging by the options when speaking to him, at least Lee is convinced that Andy's family is dead. With this news, Andy is completely broken, having lost everything. There's no greater punishment in existence. In fact, killing him would only serve to make things easier for him.
I will agree with you. In this situation, killing them is certainly the lesser of two evils. But to a child, where morals are often a case of black or white, right or wrong, you did the right thing by not giving in to your rage.
If I am honest I would have killed them both if Lee was alone with them but that would have been out of blood lust not necessity. More of us need to be honest about our reasons for killing the brothers. some people just jump for the opportunity to kill because it's a video game and they can, not because it's necessary for the story. The game does give us a choice to play how we want but if you select the view icons over object you will actually hear Lee's inner voice and his own opinions about various things such as how he wouldn't want Clementine to see anymore violence when you aim the cursor on her in the meat locker etc. I personally took this in mind when playing the game.
In the comics one of Rick's concerns is how detached and cold his son is becoming because of the horrors he's seen, how he is loosing his innocence, how their world is changing him to quickly and how their loosing their humanity.
Lee had only been in the apocalypse for 3 months during the dairy farm sequence. I felt a responsibility to be the best care taker possible for clementine, this is after all a story about redemption. How the rest of the group see's Lee is as important as how Rick's group saw him. I remember in the comic when rick was at the prison and started to loose control, the group lost faith in him as a leader and they made a committee so he would no longer make all the decisions. This was shortly after he nearly beat Thomas to death, in the end Thomas was left to the walkers where he suffered a slow death. Lets face it Thomas did more things to Rick's group than the st john did to Lee's. I punched Andy until Carly told me to stop then I left him to the walkers. Some how the sequence seemed more epic that way than a quick electrocution considering Lee left with the respect from his group. Clementine actually looks proud of him. At least I was able to justify looting the car at the end because the food wasn't taken by force. But I couldn't justify killing anyone in cold blood to Clementine which is partly why I didn't kill Larry.
You would have known from earlier that the bear traps are altered for catching humans so Danny was not getting out of the trap just as the teacher was not getting out with out his leg being amputated. Danny did not need to die at Lee's hand. When Lee left the barn he saw the first of the approaching walkers, Carly kills one of them.
After the rescue of Kenny's wife Lee would have known that zombie Mark would have turned Brenda into a zombie.
If Andy is beaten long enough he is in no physical condition to exact revenge against Lee's group nor is he emotionally or mentally stable after learning that his brother and mother won't be coming since he understands that to mean they are both dead. Both Andy and Danny were walker food. It does not have to be shown, this is the walking dead, it goes without saying. The same way Kirkman didn't need to show us Lilly being eaten by walkers during the Woodbury army assault on the prison in the comics. She was pinned down, without ammunition whilst a heard of walkers were approaching. Everyone left behind at the prison died although it was not shown. Realistically there was no other outcome.
With regards to shielding Clementine, killing a walker or a armed man is one thing, killing in cold blood is another. Yes she is going to see "some fucked up situation" but she doesn't need to see them coming from Lee, her main role model. through out the game you see comments like Lee has made Clementine feel safe etc, for instance if you choose to leave her home at night and the police man fires his gun she panics and asks if they are going to die. Lee's words of comfort and encouragement have an effect and are recorded. When you feed Clementine in the pharmacy Carly points out that you are a good care taker. All of this reflects how Clementine see's Lee, how she is left feeling and how the group see's Lee. If the gamer doesn't care about these things that is fine but Telltale went through great detail to encourage people to see these characters as real breathing people they want to protect, that is the whole point to this game and what will Separate this game from the generic zombie shooters out there and the atari first person walking dead shooter coming out.
he only detached the drive belt, not hard to repair.
in the end it just ran out of fuel or broke on its own, Lee didn't break it
You can't protect children any longer from the truth of what is happening (in the ZA) without compromising their ability to survive. Rick (in the tv show) should have had that conversation early on with Lori. Their son is around 12. Kids younger than that can safely handle guns. The idea that he shouldn't have one or be taught to shoot one is preposterous. It's almost silly that the wife of a sheriff wouldn't want their child to learn to (safely) handle a gun when he's surrounded by threats and nearly continual menace.
Dog it Dog baby
Also, it was immoral for Lee to disable the generator to see what was inside barn. He endangered everyone by doing that. Instead, he should have told the St Johns that secrets might get the group killed and demanded to see what was in the barn.
If the St Johns refused, I'm not sure what the right thing to do is. Do people have any right to privacy in TWD? Would Lee have been able to insist on opening the barn or would he have only been able to take people and leave, never knowing that he helped strengthen the defenses of cannibals?
He was caught in a modified rusty bear trap. He wasn't going anywhere. If the walkers didn't get him, the bandits or infection would. After smacking Andy around for a bit, it's fairly obvious this isn't ending well for them.
It's possible to justify any decision, regardless of what you choose, but that doesn't make it right.
The idea that he might go on to hurt others like Mark definitely played a part in me killing Danny, but then Clementine saw it and was affected. This did make me look at the situation with Andy differently, but it was also because of how that final moment was portrayed. Unlike with Danny, it's not a close-up with two options-kill or spare. It's a wide shot, with Lee in the middle. On one side is Andy, taunting him much like Danny. On the other side, is your group, watching. At that moment, it didn't feel like I was choosing between killing or not killing Andy, but between Andy and my group. The latter was just more important.
You know, I felt bad after realizing that Clementine saw me kill Danny, but I never told her that I shouldn't have done it. Life still has value, and mercy still has its place, but the St. John's actions put us completely within our rights to end them.
I'm not going to say that killing them was the wrong choice.
I didn't kill either of them. I didn't "spare" them out of altruism though.
Here was my thought proses, "Killing them right now would be too good for them. I'm going to make sure both are left for the walkers. They deserve to die in agony, to turn, and endure an eternity of undeath."
I got my wish.
I didn't kill them because of one thing : Danny himself incited me to embrace my thirst for revenge and kill him.
I don't remember his exact words but it was something like "you thought you were better than us ? No, we're all savages now, you've got to kill me, welcome to this world without hope or humanity"
It made me want to refuse to prove him right. That's why I spared him and later his brother (after punching his head for a little while at least)
It might be the result of a trope enrooted in our subconscious that the heroic and chevaleresque thing to do is to let the defeated enemy live to prove him and ourselves that we're better than him.
Did you shoot Jolene then? If you don't shoot her, he says you won't kill him, just like you didn't kill that woman in the camp, and he calls you a coward. If you do shoot her, he asks you to do it.
No, I didn't shoot Jolene.
Danny says what I explained in my previous comment right when you grab the fork. Then there's a short dialogue, and after that you have to decide what to do with the fork (game tells you "decide Danny's fate"). Only then, as you hesitate, does he say that you don't have what it takes to kill somebody (if you didn't kill Jolene).
Wether you killed Jolene or not, he goes "let the anger flow through you" first.
Actually, since I've watched a playthrough on youtube to refresh my memory, here are his exact words :
"Eeeerghh ! You see ? You understand now, don't you ? You can have me ! It's how the world works now ! Give part of yourself... so others can live !"
And on top of that Lilly shows up, saying "I should fucking kill you right now"
So now I remember my second reason for deciding not to kill Danny : to be also better than Lilly, because I could never stand the bitch.
(It's even funnier to spare Danny's life if you helped Kenny smashing Lilly's father's skull, she gets crazy that you could 'murder' her father and cannot kill the cannibal.)
To be fair, I'd call BS on that logic as well.
"I killed both, since they killed Mark, wanted to kill the rest of the group, and would continue to be a threat if Andy manages to escape from the Walkers. My Lee doesn't like loose ends."
What threat? Without Andy's brother,mother,his weapons and his dairy farm he would not have been a threat to anyone. If he came to the motor inn the last thing he would have wanted is truoble. He would want safe harbour from the multitude of walkers coming for his arse not to mention the armed bandits. He wouldn't have the luxury of time to ambush travellers to rig up to morphine to eat later. Andy was a dead man walking the moment his farm was over run.
I guess killing both of them is the right choice in this situation but not the morally right choice. Killing is always morally bad, no matter how hard you try to legitimate it. I got rid of them because I was pissed by their contempt to make human bbq of us, but I know I wouldn't have done it in real life, (maybe Andy since he attacked me but not Danny because he was trapped anyway).
Just throwing it out there, but being more desperate doesn't always make someone less dangerous. It can often be the opposite.
That's a whole other debate. There's the matter of self-defense.
Now if someone was actually living within walking distance of serial killers in a setting like this? I couldn't automatically classify the idea of finishing them off as immoral.