- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 22:36:19 +0000
Violent animals get put down by the more violent animals in that kind of world. Like it or not the choices they're making in the show are about protecting the group and need to be made. The morally right choice is the 1 for the good of the group. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Threats do indeed get put down and Dale didn't have what it took to put any threats down. He wouldn't have been able to adapt as the show depicted the character.
Living like an animal? No. If Shane were living like an animal he would have followed through with Rick's murder, he would have raped Lori regardless of her actions and he wouldn't bat an eye at it.
The decisions are harsh and vicious but it's what needs to be done and if you can't make them, your entire crew is dead. That's the point of this show. The moral ambiguity of the world they live in. If you have read the book than you know that Rick has done much more brutal actions in the comics to keep his child safe. Some of which were needlessly painful and time consuming.
Like when they burned the cannibals to death 1 at a time instead of putting them down fast and at the same time. Wouldn't that have been the humane thing? And don't try making excuses for Rick because he was angry. The same could be said of Shane.
I'm spoiled for the comics and caught up with them so don't worry about spoiling me for anything.
That being said, I know that the comics gets heinously more brutal that the TV show currently is. Of course, that's because of the format. They just can't show all of the stuff that happens in the comics on the show because of ratings issues/budgets/censors/S&P practices, etc. I know Rick makes hard decisions and does horrific things, but he feels they're necessary. I won't debate whether they are or not (though they usually are because Rick has terrible luck in attracting the most horrific psychopaths ever).
As for morality, I agree that things have changed and that change is the main "theme" of the show. It's about how everyone changes according to the new world they have to live in. However, I disagree with you that the "best choice" for the group is always the most brutal/harshest one. Plus the whole "needs of the many" idea is also the same sort of "morality" they use to justify communism in China and North Korea and keep a great majority of the population on the edges of poverty. Once you start saying "we can sacrifice one person", it eventually leads to "we can sacrifice five people" or "we can sacrifice ten people". It's a slippery slope, because in this new world there is no one to stop you from doing whatever the hell you want.
There has to be some sort of law or order to keep people from dissolving into chaos. Because if everyone in the group was like Shane, everyone would have killed everyone else and they'd all be dead. Shane (since that's who this thread is about) has proven time and time again that Shane will do What's Best For Shane, no matter the consequences. And if you're trying to survive in a functional group, you simply cannot have someone with that mindset around. They're the dangerous ones.
So, killing zombies who want to eat you? Kill them all. That's no problem.
Rapist cannibal gangs? Better protect yourself.
Psychotic dictators who rape, decapitate and mutilate? Better take care of that.
But after all the "outside" threats are taken care of, how do you really expect to control your group? Through fear and torment like the Governor? Do you shoot the one person who argues against you, because they're "disturbing" the others?
And what happens when "the good of the group" comes into conflict with "your own survival"? That's the point that I'm trying to make. Shane will do What's Best for Shane, which means everyone else in the group is walker bait.