**Spoiler Alert** I’d like to briefly elaborate on a point made in this video, as to make it a bit easier to understand. At 05:00 I explain that negative utilitarianism, and utilitarianism in general, suffers from being based on a **naturalistic fallacy**. The conclusion of suffering-based ethics expresses what ought to be, based on what is. Hence it is a naturalistic fallacy. This, of course, also violates Hume’s Guillotine (Is-Ought Problem). Just because we want to avoid pain (“is” statement / descriptive statement) does not then mean we "ought" to avoid things that cause pain (prescriptive statement). A bit more is needed to justify said normative claim. And, unfortunately for the pro-mortalist, all avenues that one could potentially take to circumvent the Is-Ought Problem is not available to them. (I’ll eventually be making a video on this in like a few months or something). The reason for this is because all alternatives involve embracing human nature and intuitions, whereas pro-mortalism (and anti-natalism) outright reject them and consider them to be delusions. But yes, that is why pro-mortalism and utilitarianism are based on naturalistic fallacies. It’s not enough to render the positions defunct, but it is important to point out (and I’m saying this as a eudaemonistic utilitarian). Be that as it may, this logical flaw is more damning for the pro-mortalist than it would be for a typical utilitarian.
You are dead wrong about the position of Anti-natalism. Anti-natalism only addresses the question of whether or not someones life is worth starting, because You are gambling with someones life without knowing how much they will suffer or how much happiness they will experience. By having children you are essentially forcing someone to be a part of something without knowing whether or not they will be happy with it. And also guaranteeing they will perish. Anti-natalism does not at all touch on forcing death on others or encouraging people to kill themsleves. I also think it's funny how you are fine with saying that the doctor forcing the cast to die is wrong (I agree) because he doesn't have their consent, whilst conveniently glossing over the fact that continuing to live on and reproduce will lead to people being born (forced to exist) without their consent. You are being inconsistent by picking and choosing when consent matters.
I’ve found this whole topic really interesting and enlightening. You emphasised in the video that most neurotypical people want to keep living. Could you (if you haven’t already) discuss how/why this is different in neurodivergent people?
@@Bluetrekkie That is beyond my realm of expertise. I just know from studies that specific philosophical stances tend to (not always) be shared by neurodivergent people. Meaning their cognitive makeup makes them more inclined to hold certain beliefs when compared to more “normal” people.
I just feel like it was a missed opportunity not have him longer in the show, it would've been great to see him come with group, as he was very different to them and his presence alone would create many interesting opportunities, let's also bring up his medical skills, and ultimately, he could've been a Gabriel like character, he'd be shocked by the new world and would adapt to it, and the actor is great, it's such a shame to not take advantage of talent like that.
I tend to agree with that, but it would never have happened because it would require a complete rewrite of the comic book story. So far as that goes, you might as well just create all new characters and set the tale somewhere else in the TWDU. You could call it Fear the....oh, never mind.
@@mappingshaman5280 I'm pretty sure that Hershel would have been a tad better in getting his priorities straight and not risked himself further than he already had.
No, Rick has proven Jenner wrong so many times. We fight and we go on as long as we can. We fight, for every second. We take back the world piece by piece. No matter how long it takes. We tried to take back the world. For those that are counting on us.
How do you restart a society, where an accident, or a suicide can lead to a zombie outbreak? You can die in bed of old age , and wake up and start trying to eat your elderly loved one.
@@hastur_kinginyellow5310it’s simple, restart society with people that actually know how to defend themselves. If you train everyone in a city to be comfortable in danger, and able to murder zombies without being scared, this wouldn’t even be a problem
@@kidnamedsolid3547The prison arc shows how futile that is. People get soft that quickly, even when they are still actively seeing walkers in daily life. They freaked out over burning the bodies of the dead friends even for health reasons. Alexandria too.
@@MistyWarden rick grimes hasn’t pussied out in the show (not including the first couple seasons), so imagine a place where everyone is like rick in that sense. It’s hard to make but not impossible
Honestly was one of my favorite episodes, what bugged me was all of the military weapons and equipment they left there, and never came back to salvage any of it during any of the fights with other groups, some continuity would have been great, but wasted time on filler episodes came later clearly
Reason Jenner wanted to opt out life because he was partially grieving over the loss of his wife as well so his decision might have got convuluted with his emotion, if she was alive and his wife had a different view he woudnt think this way somehow, heck they might have been the hope to identify the virus and find a cure
The global population of humans is thought to have once gone as low as 6000, and it still rebounded. In the Walking Dead Universe, between the Commonwealth, Portland, and the Civic Republic, there's at least about 350-400k in the former borders of the United States alone, plus the numerous smaller communities that are now small but stable. Let's say around half a million living people in what was once the United States. So in the North American continent, maybe around 750k, and we'll say around the same for South America. A million in Europe, 2-3 million in Asia, another million between Africa and Australia. The dead can be steadily disposed of over time. There are systematic ways they can be rounded up and destroyed, it's just a matter of having manpower and resources to carry it out. Which for most settlements, there isn't, but these big players could. They'll learn how to monitor herds, funnel them away from major settlements, and eventually lead them to a disposal point. As you reestablish communication infrastructure, you can ensure that travel routes are safe before sending out trucks or trains. And you stand expanding beyond a few walled off cities. Establish farming towns, factory towns, gas refining towns. There's probably enough recyclable metals to not require much mining for awhile, but eventually that as well. Establish universities and trade schools while there are still living experts who can teach the newer generations. And for God's sake: get to making some babies! The people in this universe need to be going at it like RABBITS! In the immediate aftermath of the outbreak, I get it, but it's time for the people of this world to start thinking long term. The short term burden of having more mouths to feed will be vastly superseded by the benefit of having several times more potential farmers, laborers, doctors, sailors, truckers, soldiers, etc in twenty years. And it'll help give the survivors a renewed sense of purpose and unity, to feel it's not just about themselves anymore, but to successfully say we still brought up another generation that will have it better than we did. What a way to show we endured. If fifty years after "the world ended", you're watching your grandson graduate from college, did the world really end? I'd use that as the biggest test: if they can successfully keep society going for another generation, they have a very probable chance of ultimately outlasting the dead and reclaiming the world.
I feel like this video was a cut above most, just because the topic is more philosophical than most of the other “was (insert name) right?” videos. Some of the others are excellent, but sometimes the answers seemed obvious. Well. For me they were. Good shit dude.
Seen as how the only survivors of the CDC now are Rick, Daryl, and Carol it might’ve been better for them all to accept their demise and let the clock run out. Especially for Sophia, Dale, and Shane who all died just after the CDC. Those 3 didn’t even get a chance and suffered very violent and brutal deaths. I think unfortunately staying at the CDC was the best course of action because almost everyone there died anyways.
Do you remember the scene where Rick and Lori talked on the porch of Hershel’s house the night Carl got shot? They were talking about if Carl should live in this world or not, and Lori saying maybe if it was better if he died and didn’t make it. That she didn’t want him to have to grow up in this world where there’s “a knife at our throats every second” same goes for the scene where Rick and Lori talk about the baby. Even if this world is ducked up, you can’t just give up and not try anymore, they gave Judith a chance and Carl a chance. They both made it. (Not talking about Carl dying in later seasons) jaqui (t dogs wife or girlfriend) didn’t have hope like Jenner and decided to stay. The rest of the group did. They wanted to try and survive for as long as they could out there. A CHANCE. even if most of the characters that was at the cdc died, they survived as long as they could and they made an impact on who the rest of the characters became in later seasons. A chance is all that matters. (Call me a yapper if you want, but this is a valid point. It proves Jenner wrong, he had no hope because he had nobody else and the world was dead. The rest of the group looked at the possibilities of what could be out there, once again. They had hope and wanted a chance.)
@@brandonott6103 FI mean that's just your choice then and even then Lori and Carl still died so it's up for debate if it's worth it so you can give up and not try if you want too because that's free will and there are people like me who just think it would not be worth it.
@@TheRealCaptainGold Well and even then the very few people that did survive lost so many people so it's up for so worked out might be too strong but yeah I was just saying everyone should have a choice.
Sophia died alone Dale got ripped apart Shane died losing his mind Lori died giving birth T dog died being ripped apart Glen gets beaten to death by a batt Carl dies from a bite Andria dies from a bite Carol loses her daughter has to kill a girl she had seen as a daughter and watched her adopted sons head on a pike yes it was better for them to die there
With hindsight the characters probably would have preferred to die there, but it wouldn't have been fair to force them to do so. There COULD have been a better world and quality of living and the possibility was worth trying for them hence why they left.
Lori died giving birth to a little girl who lived on and gave hope to a lot of people Shane died losing his mind but before that saved Carl who would go on to bring others together and save Alexandria T-Dog died being ripped apart to save Carol who went on to protect others Andrea died from a bite but not before changing Michonne who would protect and serve the group, Alexandria and go on to give birth to RJ and bring Rick home Carl died but not before saving others, changing his father and saving Siddiq who would father Coco who would survive to see the new world Glenn as Maggie said, started everything, it wouldn't have happened without him Carol did lose children, but she also protected countless others and will go on to help bring Daryl back and maybe even the cure Everything gets a return
Weak argument, everyone dies, and many have horrible deaths, but living is the only thing we have. Glenn found love before dying. Andrea and Dale too. Sophia didn’t die in the books, neither Carl, both survived traumas and grew up to be a happy couple. Carol killed herself in the prison in the books. Not everyone has what it takes to endure life, I know this much, but death isn’t a reason to choose to die, if so, no one would accomplish anything, after all we all will die, and some (many) will have to endure suffering and pain…
He was right because in the long run all the survivors either died or lost very important people to them however he shouldn't of tried to force them at the beginning, nobody should try to force their beliefs onto others. However another mentality you could have is the project zomboid one, you know death is coming you know there's no hope for survival but you still play or live to see the "this is how it ended".
@@DustinDonald-cz9ot I mean but he was a world like that definitely makes your death come sooner and most likely more pain less so yeah weak argument in my opinion.
Jenner was trying to get the group to understand his mercy. In his mind compared to 99% of the world Rick’s group is lucky to have a quick painless death. I think he was always going to let them out if they truly refuted long enough by agreeing yeah it’s probably going to suck but let us try.
When you consider that his job was fighting disease it makes sense that he'd lose hope at one where everyone is already infected and will turn no matter the cause of death.
I'm subscribing. The knowledge of theology, psychology, combined with The walking Dead is perfect. There's no better teaching tool than the shows you watch for fun. And a good teacher 👍🏿
Been watching a lot of walking dead videos lately and seen this one in my recommended and was not prepared for the deep dive into the philosophy of the matter! Damn good video!
To be fair to Jenner...he warned them repeatedly before allowing them into the facility that if they enter, they're never going to be able to leave. Rick accepts and says they have nowhere else to go anyway. So to say he wanted to "force them" to die with him is a bit odd. Rick didn't bother asking any questions before agreeing. Isn't that Rick's fault? Did he seriously think that building would be an eternal refuge? I've always been of the opinion that deep down, he knew what it meant when he entered, but then didn't have the courage to see his family die too.
@TheRealCaptainGold That's not what i was talking about. I'm saying, from my vantage point and how I interpreted it even all the way back when it first aired, was that it was heavily implied that entering the facility meant death. So, yes, he locks them in the big central operations room with him. But whether they were in that room or not, they would die. I'm talking big picture. If someone tells you "if I let you in, you can NEVER LEAVE" what other meaning would that have than inevitable death? At that point you're only talking about how long until the end. With the world gone, whatever supplies were in that building were all you could ever rely on. So the end will come, sooner or later. He made the decision to enter anyway.
@@Gandalf1232 I think it’s clear the group didn’t think he was being literal. He only told them once “you got stuff to bring in, you do it now. Once this door closes, it stays closed” He didn’t warn them multiple times like you’ve claimed (faulty memory on your end perhaps). We’re talking about a desperate group that had nowhere to go. They aren’t gonna take the statement literally. And considering they don’t know jack s*** about the government, they probably thought it was a paradise. A delusional which was also likely fueled by said aforementioned desperation. Remember, some members of the group actually believed Fort Benning was a good idea lol Jenner locked them in the control room, which was unethical. He had control over that. He didn’t clarify to the group that staying meant incineration either. Saying the door doesn’t open doesn’t imply much. There could be another door. There could be a tunnel system. Get my drift? They would have died if he didn’t answer their questions or let them go. Once they were released, a grenade was able to secure an escape for them. But the doors he used to lock them in? The grenade would’ve never busted that down. At least, according to Jenner - because they’re apparently durable enough to tank a rocket launcher. Placing this on Rick, expecting the group to take Jenner’s singular warning as literal as possible, that’s kinda silly tbh. It’s something you can only do in hindsight and with a misrecollection of events.
@TheRealCaptainGold I could've sworn he mentions more than once, but perhaps you're right, I haven't seen it in a few years. It doesn't change my opinion about Jenner though. To me, your question (and the heart of the dilemma) is: was Jenner right to essentially abandon all hope and die as painlessly as humanly possible at that point? I know what you and many others would argue: it's easy to say yes in hindsight, because we now know that basically everyone there ends up dying, often horrifically. People tend to want to believe in the idea of hope. For me though, what Jenner represents is acceptance. For every nice moment all these people experience after this, they are buried under an avalanche of misery. Sometimes there is no way to win, and the best thing you can do is accept that with dignity. I stand by my opinion on Rick though. I didn't mean to imply that entire group felt as he did, or knew what I think Rick knew. Merely that he himself was ready to die. But his biggest guiding principle was to let people make their own choices, and he didn't want his decision to bind anyone else. Could be 💯 wrong, but that's how I felt when watching that episode
@@Gandalf1232 I think viewing Jenner, narratively speaking, as symbolism for acceptance, is a fine interpretation. I’m just speaking about the ethics and psychology of the characters at the time. The view of Rick you’re presenting doesn’t line up with his actions or dialogue in and before TS19. Even when he was drunk, he thanked Jenner for saving them; clearly admitting he was scared and basically didn’t want he and his family to die. Man really thought the CDC was the doomsday bunker lol
I think Jener just gave up entirely after loosing his wife. Who knew how much he loved her unconditionally. I like to think most people want to go right after loosing their significant other, and with finding no silver linings to a cure to save the world on top of that heavily influenced making his decision to stay alongside the self destruct sequence of the facility sound reasonable to him. It's just a sad reminder that no one is spared the bittersweet anomaly of the human condition. Specifically speaking, the power of connection from one another. when you take that connection away from someone they just will never be the same.
I mean they did found safe places like commonwealth and CRM, even a few more in Fear the walking dead which they destroyed themselves like Victors Tower or Padre’s Island
i read something like this on reddit. one of the comments read that he had too many answers and knew too much about the apocalypse and the effect the wildfire virus had on the human body that they killed him off to make the virus vague for everyone else. that way nobody knew exactly what started it. i thought about it for a bit and i guess in a way it would make sense.
so because how slow the walkers are after season 2 because they were at a light job chasing shane and otis... humanity would win that fight we would outlive the undead since rotting bodies would ALL be ate up by swarms of bugs and other animals a lone hardened fighter with a melee weapon and armor could take down a horde one at a time with a melee weapon it would take a long time but if u take on one at a time
First off is to remember that this is a show and not real life. Dr. Jenner was a character and he made a decision kind of based on the point that he had to do his act to keep the show moving along and the place which was "safe" needed to go boom boom. But suppose this wasn't fiction or theatre. Jenner like it or not was acting on emotion and not necessarily logic and reason. The loss of his wife, and the world he knew and the low self-esteem, he had made his "opting out" rationalized as the painless choice. No one choice is right for all, but people have self-choice as well as adaptability and the ingrained drive of self-preservation. Suffering existed before this great reset, but many would want to try to survive which is in our spirit. Every species eventually goes extinct but human determination may kick that can down the road of time. The Eurpoean plages made a more resilient human so maybe this will further strengthen humanity down the road.
While i do agree that life in the world of the Walking dead would be a nightmare, especially if you've already lost all your loved ones noone should force others to follow them in death without their consent. If others wished to emulate his actions they could ask to stay with him and die but forcing them to die with you is just plain murder without any excuse.
Whether he was right or not, it wasn't his choice to make. You can't deny others the agency of deciding for themselves, and in the act of doing so he is in fact manifesting the dark world he believes already exists. He's almost creating a paradox where the world isn't worth living because I am deciding to end your lives against your will, thus living in a world we shouldn't want to live in, because he has created those conditions in part himself.
Rick could've just taken over the facility and killed Jenner then the group has a super secure place no zombies could ever get in ever and the series ends there lol.
@@TheRealCaptainGold Jenner's option would've been the best option for them. Surviving on their own terms was the next best thing and when it came to survival Shane was right.
I think the walking dead encapsulates the indominitable human spirit very well. Even when we are suffering, we choose life. We suffer and get stronger and we push through more.
Depends how you look at it but If I try to see things from Jenner's pov I think what he was doing was easily understantable. At the time he meets Rick and the group he had way way More info about the situation on a global scale. He knew that pretty much entire civilized world had fallen and that all the efforts to create a cure were ceased. As far as he knew it wasn't even possible to create a cure because literally everyone was infected and as such as long as theres ppl theres gonna be walkers too. So he had lost all hope of anykind of comeback and lost all of his friends and colleagues including his wife. Blowing yourself up painlessly sure does seem like a good idea at that point. Only thing im not sure about is his speech about doing his duty. Anthrax and other nasty bugs spreading Into the world hardly seems like a biggie when theres zombie Apocalypse underway already.
Dinner was right for dinner but not for Rick and his group and he did the right thing by letting them leave but as far as Jenner himself goes yeah he made his choice and I'm sure he was at peace with it and for him it was the right thing to do.
I never understood why they never took any of the military gear left behind. The tanks, and other vehicles. Even if they cant take them at the moment they should have stashed them for the future.
I was thinking about that on my most recent rewatch. Lots of free gear going to waste. The Zomboid / generic survival game loot-bug inside me was screaming.
@@TheRealCaptainGold I always look at things in terms of either denying the enemy of resources. You take everything, and even the T shirts for rags. What you can't take you either hide, or destroy. The enemy being people in the WD world. I'm really struggling to get through season 9. There was a time I was a diehard fan too. Where I would buy the seasons as they came out on DVD. Then watch, and rewatch over and over again. I still have something like 6 episodes to go. Then 2 more seasons. I finished FTWD finally. Talk about highly unrealistic with the nuke. I liked the early seasons of TWD because it felt raw, real, and like we were following real people during an actual zombie apocalypse. You cam see how the show changes throughout the seasons as culture changes and becomes more PC. Or atleast how AMC thinks we want to see things.
“Neuro typical people” 😂 It’s 99.9% of the population. It reminds me of the joke about solipsism - to discredit solipsism one only need imagine a convention on these people - arguing over which one is actually real 😅
This reminds me of how the Forerunners of HALO viewed all existence. They called ALL Conscious Existence "Sweetness". And they viewed All "Sweetness" as important and worth going through. The pleasurable along with the painful.
The world used to be cruel like this. Current society has gotten used to the comforts of being civilized and living long lives. Dying from wild animals or other humans used to be daily life for our ancestors. I dont get why so many groups came across each other in the show. Seems like this would be more rare. I wouldve def gone far out into the mountains and grown my own food. You would still have to worry about wild predators but i doubt zombies would be able to get through this forests and its unlikely youd come across people. Making rhe odd run into town would happen but if you chose the location wisely i think you could easily find a town that is small enough that youd have supplies for a long time. Maybe youd come across people/walkers in the town, but the strat if covering yourself in zombie guts or dressing up as a zombie seems to be very effective and seemed underutilized by the group. Michonne walked with zombies and they had no idea. I'm not saying it would be easy to do but over time the zombies would die off bc himans would procreate and the children would be raised to have those skills to survive.
Radiation from nuclear reactors would be a problem, even if they managed to turn them off they would still need running water for years to cool down, no healtcare. Average life span woulf be cut in half for any survivors
No and no. Life is full of pain, even without zombies. The question is if life is worthy all the trouble, and to me, yes. Everyone is entitled to their opinion in this matter, and while is terrifying to imagine being eaten alive by zombies, the hardships that such event would cause aren’t that different from other historical events, and even our modern life has its own hardships and struggles.
He was absolutely wrong. Plus, Jenner would want to live if his wife was still alive. With her recently death 💀, he had given up on life. The positive with her death, if she was still alive live he probably would not let them in because he and his wife would need supplies to survive.
Yes! Mankind only has 14 years left till extinction! and only 385k or less humans are left on earth by the time the ones who live series ends...yeah jenner was wright!
I have death anxiety and understand this topic very well one could argue that all living beings die anyways, eventually, even in a fair and perfect happy world, and that theres no reason to be alive because of that. but thats not true. all life is a miracle no matter where or when, and it is beautiful. a beautiful bitch lol so no jenner was not right, and never will be.
Bro with your videos im at the point where jenner is right, negan is, whisperers are, crm is, rick is, governor too, shane especially. Wtf but everyone is kinda right and got their points
Because there is a cure he’s wrong but it’s a very risky journey to survive till someone discovers a cure. Of course the cure isn’t in the original show just the spin-offs.
my take on it is: he was right and wrong. its not his choice to make, everyone has to be able to choose if they want to 'opt out' or not. if it is an right decision in an apocalypse? i think that depends on the person and what that person wants in life. if someone thinks he can handle living in an apocalypse and thinks he can still draw joy out of things in life then they definently should live on try to survive. if someone thinks theres nothing for them anymore and really think its the best way to just end it in hope of peace, they should get the chance to 'opt out'. personally i think in the apocalypse, about 20% of humanity killed theirselves cuz they didnt wanna live in that world.
Me seeing this video has not made my decision on having kids or not any easier. Do I bring kids into this world…? Knowing it sucks? But if I dont then they won’t exist to buy cute things or drink ice coffee or have ice cream on a hot day… so do I grant them the possibility of all of the above or take that choice from em before they even exist
Whatever you feel is best. A lot of pleasure and suffering is subjective (which is why I primarily focus on well-being). Ask yourself why you think life sucks. Try to be very honest with yourself about whether most of your views are subjective or objective. I feel most people get hung up on that distinction. I, myself, haven’t had kids because I can’t currently afford to give them a better or equivalent childhood than I had. If I can meet that, then I’ll likely have kids or adopt. I’m sure having kids now wouldn’t be an issue for me. But I want the best for them. So, I’m personally waiting.
Money is the main reason. But then I think, will I EVER have ‘enough’ money? So I just get stuck there. That’s the sucky part. And debt that is just kind of expected of us to go into. (I live in the USA idk if this is a world wide thing) but I don’t want to raise a kid to think money is everything… but it really feels that way some times. I guess seeing how things are in a few years might help things feel uncertain in this current climate 😂
@@gabriellelytle8537 I'm also in the U.S. Money ain't everything, but it can buy a great deal of happiness (and make suffering easier to endure). Hell, most of my problems would go away with a small loan of a million dollars lol. At the end of the day, it's your choice. And whatever you choose to do with your body, you should never feel ashamed for it. Not having kids is a neutral position as far as I'm concerned. Unless the species needs to desperately repopulate, but that won't be an issue we ever have to deal with. Hopefully lol
@@gabriellelytle8537There is no right time or perfect world.Jump in now!Or it will be too late and you won't have anyone to take care of you when you're old.
I would have opted out but that group went on to save SO many others by the domino effect of their actions. No he was wrong. But i would have sat with Jaqi and him.
I know several people who endure chronic pain. Does anyone endure chronic pleasure in the same way? The most likely scenario is you feel nothing. The fact that humans may be addicted to living doesn't make this cost benefit analysis illogical. In fact, addictions are generally considered a bad thing that tend to interfere with logical analysis. So if the purpose of this video is to win over anti-natalists you have work to do.
It’s hard to convince someone to leave an ideology that is fundamentally irrational and built on dogma. Look at the rebuttal you gave lol who cares if chronic pain exists? Most people with it still prefer to be alive. I did enough. Anti-natalism is based on an unsubstantiated double-standard, a naturalistic fallacy that has no strong justification, a misunderstanding of the concepts of pain and pleasure, circular reasoning in some cases and (for some) the special-pleading fallacy of believing that there’s a difference between a life worth starting and a life worth living (meaning any anti-natalist should also be a pro-mortalist and hence dead - hence you shouldn’t even be in the comment section). It’s a view very few take seriously in academia. For good reason. And that’s just my quick dissection of it. I could publish a two hour video on how poorly constructed the position is and how it’s a lazy example of negative-utilitarianism. But there isn’t a need for it. The position is rarely debated extensively because most scholars don’t consider it worth the time lol and neither do I. The only positive contribution it has given us is the understanding that you can cause harm by bringing life into existence. But most philosophers would also say the opposite is true. (Which can lead to some potentially serious moral obligations).
I kinda hate it when a video claims to be discussing a tv show but then drops a ten minute explanation of a philosophical topic with almost no references to the tv show, then wraps the video up by being like, “Oh yeah, we were talking about a tv show. Guess I should say something about a character before I end this video.” It’s so weird how many videos do this lmao
Don’t think a lot of the logic here holds up, especially at 8:35. By this logic we didn’t do any good by not bringing someone into a reality where they do nothing but burn for 100 years. Yeah that’s an extreme unrealistic example but that’s exactly the point of the discussion we’re accessing whether or not it still applies to general life. My reasons for being an antinatalist isn’t about the odds of a terrible life it’s the fact it happens at all without there being a reason to come into existence. By the logic you used against antinatalism we can say creating life is pointless since they aren’t around to think about what they’re missing. You can say you see them as equal but it’s no different than a psychopath saying they see causing suffering as positive. It’s all subjective but if most people were thinking about it critically they’d be hard pressed to come up with a sensible argument against it by their own values. The reason most aren’t antinatalist is just because they aren’t smart enough to comprehend it To the argument about possibility I’d use another extreme hypothetical that also articulates the issue with weighing pleasure and pain as equal. You can have an infinite amount of beings experiencing very high eternal happiness at the cost of one experiencing very bad eternal suffering. I don’t see any sensible logic for believing that’s a good trade off, even attempting to defend it would require you to say you yourself would be fine being the one who takes the sacrifice As for is Jenner was right it just depends on your point of view. The life the group has is somewhat of a miracle Jenner didn’t envision any safe strongholds where decent farming was possible but the group has still experienced a lot of hardship and continue to experience it. Most of the characters in that room aren’t even alive, Rick himself was on the verge of suicide multiple times. Even his “happy ending” in reality is just a making the best of what you have dark future
*“Don’t think a lot of the logic here holds up, especially at **8:35**”* No offense, but it’s because you’re an anti-natalist that it doesn’t make sense to you. *“By this logic we didn’t do any good by not bringing someone into a reality where they do nothing but burn for 100 years.”* In the eyes of the anti-natalist, you commit a good action by not bringing a life into a terrible existence. In the eyes of a eudaemonistic utilitarian like myself, and in the eyes of many sane people, we don’t view that to be a good act but rather the omission of a bad act. This is, of course, assuming that said life in question is bound to be as bad as your example sets it. That said, not doing something bad is not the same as doing something good. This is a mere nitpick, but the details matter because anti-natalists delude themselves into thinking their moral self-righteousness is grander than it actually is. The second issue here is that you are attributing positive outcomes to a *non-existent* person. The objectively verifiable net-result of choosing to not create someone is **neutral** -> because the person in question does not exist. The hypothetical person is essentially deprived of all possible harms and benefits. It’s different when we actually choose to procreate and give birth to an actual person. Now we can argue that we either did harm or granted a benefit by taking part in human reproduction. The anti-natalist argues it’s always a net-harm, real life suggests otherwise. In fact, this fact is why you haven’t deleted yourself as an anti-natalist; it’s why anti-natalists make the piss-poor distinction between a life worth living and a life worth starting. Fact of the matter is, there is no difference. If non-existence is the proper destination, then existence is but a meaningless detour; the anti-natalist must course correct, adopt pro-mortalism and self-terminate. Yet here you are. Be that as it may, due to the nature of hypothetical people - we can only say we’ve brought harm or benefit to those who come into existence; we **cannot** claim the same for people we omit to create because they don’t fucking exist. This runs against our intuitions, but it is an undeniable fact of the universe. That said, it is a helpful exercise to consider “what if” we brought someone into existence - and whether said act would be good or bad. No doubt about it. *“My reasons for being an antinatalist isn’t about the odds of a terrible life it’s the fact it happens at all without there being a reason to come into existence.”* There technically isn’t an objective reason **not** to come into existence either. The anti-natalists have the same problem - but if they play the utilitarian game, which is what their ethics is based on, they lose. It’s a difficult pinch to be in, but that’s expected of a dog water ideology. *”You can say you see them as equal but it’s no different than a psychopath saying they see causing suffering as positive. “* Stupid rebuttal. Pain and pleasure are two sides of the same coin. To argue that one should be valued more requires a serious justification that goes beyond an appeal to strange intuitions that only anti-natalists and pro-mortalists hold lol Face it, the asymmetry is a garbage argument that is based on a special-pleading fallacy and that is not substantiated by the real world experiences of people. Furthermore, I can play the same stupid game by constructing the same argument. Observe: 1.) Presence of miserable life = *bad* 2.) Presence of amazing life = *good* 3.) Absence of miserable life = *good* 4.) Absence of amazing life= *not bad* And just like that, I can use the same reasoning behind Benatar’s silly asymmetry to justify pro-natalism. (Which I’m not btw; I think procreation should be determined on a case by case basis.). *” It’s all subjective but if most people were thinking about it critically they’d be hard pressed to come up with a sensible argument against it by their own values. The reason most aren’t antinatalist is just because they aren’t smart enough to comprehend it”* If it’s subjective, how can you then claim they are objectively wrong? And what makes you so certain that you’re the one who can comprehend it? Because from my vantage point (and that of people much smarter than I), the anti-natalists are a minority for clear reasons - both in everyday life and in academia. *”You can have an infinite amount of beings experiencing very high eternal happiness at the cost of one experiencing very bad eternal suffering. I don’t see any sensible logic for believing that’s a good trade off, even attempting to defend it would require you to say you yourself would be fine being the one who takes the sacrifice”* I don’t have to be fine with being the sacrifice. I very much could hate it. My emotions do not dictate what is right or wrong from an objective standpoint. That said, the math is pretty clear in your example. One person takes an L and infinite persons get the biggest W ever. You have to be stupid not to permit the sacrifice. A toddler could figure that out. But that’s what the anti-natalist movement is, in my view. It’s a philosophy that argues even the most benign pain makes life not worth starting - without justification - and they strut around like a drunk dodo, believing they made a coherent point. Then when a pro-natalist uses the same argument - that the smallest experience of joy justifies procreation (without justification), they lose their collective minds (which seem to share a single, hive-mind brain-cell). I’m not an anti-natalist or a pro-natalist or a pro-mortalist because extremely absolutist ideologies are often brain dead. These positions are a massive minority for a reason. They’ve been debated for ages my guy. That said, I have many more issues with anti-natalism, but I’ll be saving that shit for another video (as there is a moment in TWD that warrants the topic being brought up). My hostility to it is actually simple, aside from it being a fantastically imbecilic ideology. It’s also a shit utilitarian position that is counter-intuitive and counter-productive to actual utilitarianism. Anti-natalism doesn’t help anyone nor does it make us wiser. It’s an exercise in futility - the very damn opposite of utility. It’s such a shitty philosophy that it literally runs against the grain of its own foundational principles. That’s pretty fucking stupid.
Basically that most people with a “normal” brain that isn’t riddled with some mental illness or disability tend to want to live, by default. It’s just me alluding to studies that show certain philosophical stances tend to be held by people who aren’t representative of the prototypical human experience. In a sense, someone who is clinically depressed is more likely to be a pro-mortalist than someone who is “healthy” in that regard. Hence these people can’t really proclaim to know how most people feel or how they ought to feel, in absolutist terms, because they themselves are not representative of the typical human condition. Just because they may not want to continue existing doesn’t mean we ought to feel the same way as they do.
This is an interesting video, but pointless. Youre shoehorning a philosophical position onto someone that was mentally unstable and acting in an irrational way, insane manner. He didn’t arrive at the conclusion on blowing himself up through any kind of reasoning. He thought he was the last man on earth until the survivors showed up on his door step. He was stricken and grieving over the loss of absolutely everything that ever was and he was terrified of facing the future. Either he eventually had the walkers bust in and get him, or they’d get him while he tried to go out to scavenge food or water. There was no future. He was a lab worker, not someone who is equipped to face the world alone, naked and afraid. He had gone insane and decided to take himself out and not face the empty world, and the survivors just happened to show up. Dragging them along in his suicide pact was all he could do. Allowing them to live would be admitting that there’s a chance to survive and that he didn’t have to blow himself up, and he could not face that.
That’s a bizarre take. I think it’s abundantly clear that Jenner is sane and is entirely convinced of his decision. You don’t have to be insane to reach his position. And nothing indicates that he is insane (he let them leave for fuck’s sake lol).
Hope one day you do "Was Gareth Right?" Because the truth is that he just wanted to eat Rick and the rest and that's it. But Rick destroyed the whole community, killing innocent people who just did what they did in order to survive. I hate how Rick just can't accept other ways of living that aren't his own. And don't come to me saying that he destroyed Terminus to save future people from them, his group just wanted to scape and he risked their lives because Rick wanted revenge.
I'm gonna answer that for you right now, and say that no Gareth was not right in his actions. Despite what some characters in the Walking Dead will have you believe. food is not this super rare and hard to acquire source. The Governor was able to feed Woodberry. The Prison was able to feed itself. Alexandria was able to feed itself. The Kingdom, Hilltop, The Saviors (Even without their raids and taxes, they still had crops), The Whisperers, whatever that group Darrel's ex was in, The entirety of the Commonwealth. Gareth was wrong, because of all the communities we see his is the only one that resorted to cannibalism in a world where we see that that isn't a requirement, and even his logic is based less on 'we need to eat to survive' and more on 'We were victimized once, so now we're going to be the aggressors.' Rick is an asshole when it comes to accepting how other people live, and he passed that down to Judith too. The Commonwealth is the biggest offender for me on that, even though it wasn't Rick, it's still something he would have done. That said, Terminus by all factors was little better than a raiding band of cannibals who COULD HAVE found another way, but chose to instead kidnap, murder, and eat people who either stumbled upon them, or were lured to them by promises of safety.
@@atlasgraham154 First, in episode 1 of season 3 we saw how the group was struggling to get food. Second, Gareth could just kill those people because every stranger to them was a no-no. So eating them was a plus and free meat. And Gareth with his mentality of not accepting strangers was in the right, we saw in the series how a community falls because new people came and destroys Everything. Rick is the worst, he just keeps destroying communities because he cannot accept their ways of living.
Gareth would only be right in choosing cannibalism if he didn't trap people and kill them to eat them just like it is legal to do it if you have consent and it doesn't result in death
In the defense of Pro Mortal and Anti Natal philosophies, they are very handy in debate over bodily rights and autonomy. Especially when it comes to reproductive rights
@@TheRealCaptainGold They kinda are bc it brings up the ethical question of "is it moral to force someone to endure a life of agony" to the opposing side.
@@GraveyardMaiden On the extreme end of the spectrum, it can lead to an obligation to abort - even against the will of the mother (which would violate her bodily autonomy in a similar manner to which the pro-life position seeks to impose positive rights on the fetus at the expense of the mother). Better to argue that the fetus is not akin to a born person. Better to argue that the right to life isn’t the right to another person’s body (Judith J Thompson’s main argument). There’s just better arguments with less potential downsides.
You're not wrong if we're dealing with absolutes here. But the decision to abort or to have a contraceptive procedure on the basis that the life one would create will only have an existence of suffering isn't really morally wrong or flawed. Nor is the decision to provide medical termination to those who cannot recover from a terminal ailment. Now what makes Jenner wrong in his case of pro mortalism was that he tried to force it on them rather than having it be an open choice. @@TheRealCaptainGold
Nah he was black pilled, giving up is never an option! What a disservice to those that came before you and potential future generations that come from you and others you help safe and thrive with. There is definitely more to wanting to live that simply addiction or simply selfish reasons when we would gladly give our lives for our children or loved ones or even to safe a random kid we don’t even know. As Ragnar says “who said you should be happy?” Lol
I think Jenner was a coward who had the sole redeeming quality of relenting and allowing Rick's group a (admittedly slim) chance of surviving his Jim Jones decision. He had absolutely no moral basis to usurp their autonomy of choice. Murder is still murder regardless of intention or circumstance. Jenner was, in truth, the first real villain that the group faced, and they were extremely lucky that he had that one spark of humanity left in him. Of course, if he hadn't, it would have been a very short series.
It actually takes a lot of courage to opt-out, especially when you're not clinically depressed. The act is so antithetical to your genetic makeup, that your body would be screaming for you to abort the process of self-deletion. But yeah, you could say he was an antagonist. He was about ready to euthanize the entire group without consent.
They were extremely lucky that Dale pointed and asked about the "timer" in the first place. Otherwise..."BIG BOOM". They got even more lucky when Rick talked Jenner to allow them to escape.
@@TheRealCaptainGold i agree it takes a certain strength to overcome one's survival instincts, particularly under normal circumstances. Dunno as I'd necessarily call that courage, though. Courage on Jenner's part would have involved holding off on the activation of his doomsday procedure until Rick and his crew had the opportunity to make their own decisions on whether to join him or not. His usurpation of their free will was in no way courageous; it was a coward's way out of confrontation. He was afraid they might talk him out of it, just like Dale talked Andrea out of staying once they had the chance to leave.
Well, Jenner was only right for how things transpired for him, his choice. Taking their choices away is always wrong. It's an individual thing, for some it was a personal choice they agreed on. For others they wanted to continue. The only wrong was taking choice away. Beale was a crazy man and very wrong on all counts for that very reason. Jenner was depressed, Beale was power hungry.
Кино
**Spoiler Alert**
I’d like to briefly elaborate on a point made in this video, as to make it a bit easier to understand. At 05:00 I explain that negative utilitarianism, and utilitarianism in general, suffers from being based on a **naturalistic fallacy**. The conclusion of suffering-based ethics expresses what ought to be, based on what is. Hence it is a naturalistic fallacy. This, of course, also violates Hume’s Guillotine (Is-Ought Problem). Just because we want to avoid pain (“is” statement / descriptive statement) does not then mean we "ought" to avoid things that cause pain (prescriptive statement). A bit more is needed to justify said normative claim. And, unfortunately for the pro-mortalist, all avenues that one could potentially take to circumvent the Is-Ought Problem is not available to them. (I’ll eventually be making a video on this in like a few months or something). The reason for this is because all alternatives involve embracing human nature and intuitions, whereas pro-mortalism (and anti-natalism) outright reject them and consider them to be delusions.
But yes, that is why pro-mortalism and utilitarianism are based on naturalistic fallacies. It’s not enough to render the positions defunct, but it is important to point out (and I’m saying this as a eudaemonistic utilitarian). Be that as it may, this logical flaw is more damning for the pro-mortalist than it would be for a typical utilitarian.
You are dead wrong about the position of Anti-natalism. Anti-natalism only addresses the question of whether or not someones life is worth starting, because
You are gambling with someones life without knowing how much they will suffer or how much happiness they will experience. By having children you are essentially forcing someone to be a part of something without knowing whether or not they will be happy with it. And also guaranteeing they will perish.
Anti-natalism does not at all touch on forcing death on others or encouraging people to kill themsleves.
I also think it's funny how you are fine with saying that the doctor forcing the cast to die is wrong (I agree) because he doesn't have their consent, whilst conveniently glossing over the fact that continuing to live on and reproduce will lead to people being born (forced to exist) without their consent.
You are being inconsistent by picking and choosing when consent matters.
I’ve found this whole topic really interesting and enlightening. You emphasised in the video that most neurotypical people want to keep living. Could you (if you haven’t already) discuss how/why this is different in neurodivergent people?
@@Bluetrekkie
That is beyond my realm of expertise. I just know from studies that specific philosophical stances tend to (not always) be shared by neurodivergent people. Meaning their cognitive makeup makes them more inclined to hold certain beliefs when compared to more “normal” people.
I just feel like it was a missed opportunity not have him longer in the show, it would've been great to see him come with group, as he was very different to them and his presence alone would create many interesting opportunities, let's also bring up his medical skills, and ultimately, he could've been a Gabriel like character, he'd be shocked by the new world and would adapt to it, and the actor is great, it's such a shame to not take advantage of talent like that.
I tend to agree with that, but it would never have happened because it would require a complete rewrite of the comic book story. So far as that goes, you might as well just create all new characters and set the tale somewhere else in the TWDU. You could call it Fear the....oh, never mind.
He told Rick that everyone was infected, so he had taken his choice. I don't blame him for joining his wife.
Imagine jenner talking to hershel about the science behind walkers, or lizzie
@@mappingshaman5280 I'm pretty sure that Hershel would have been a tad better in getting his priorities straight and not risked himself further than he already had.
@@mappingshaman5280 lizzie was interesting
No, Rick has proven Jenner wrong so many times. We fight and we go on as long as we can. We fight, for every second. We take back the world piece by piece. No matter how long it takes. We tried to take back the world. For those that are counting on us.
Well if the CRM models are to be believed, Jenner was right due to the end of "non necrotic life" on the planet
How do you restart a society, where an accident, or a suicide can lead to a zombie outbreak? You can die in bed of old age , and wake up and start trying to eat your elderly loved one.
@@hastur_kinginyellow5310it’s simple, restart society with people that actually know how to defend themselves. If you train everyone in a city to be comfortable in danger, and able to murder zombies without being scared, this wouldn’t even be a problem
@@kidnamedsolid3547The prison arc shows how futile that is. People get soft that quickly, even when they are still actively seeing walkers in daily life. They freaked out over burning the bodies of the dead friends even for health reasons. Alexandria too.
@@MistyWarden rick grimes hasn’t pussied out in the show (not including the first couple seasons), so imagine a place where everyone is like rick in that sense. It’s hard to make but not impossible
Honestly was one of my favorite episodes, what bugged me was all of the military weapons and equipment they left there, and never came back to salvage any of it during any of the fights with other groups, some continuity would have been great, but wasted time on filler episodes came later clearly
You cant hide that dying light soundtrack in the background from me.
🤫
Yes I can
respect for that
He does have it playing. Very nice
"good night and good lucka"
Reason Jenner wanted to opt out life because he was partially grieving over the loss of his wife as well so his decision might have got convuluted with his emotion, if she was alive and his wife had a different view he woudnt think this way somehow, heck they might have been the hope to identify the virus and find a cure
The global population of humans is thought to have once gone as low as 6000, and it still rebounded.
In the Walking Dead Universe, between the Commonwealth, Portland, and the Civic Republic, there's at least about 350-400k in the former borders of the United States alone, plus the numerous smaller communities that are now small but stable. Let's say around half a million living people in what was once the United States.
So in the North American continent, maybe around 750k, and we'll say around the same for South America. A million in Europe, 2-3 million in Asia, another million between Africa and Australia.
The dead can be steadily disposed of over time. There are systematic ways they can be rounded up and destroyed, it's just a matter of having manpower and resources to carry it out.
Which for most settlements, there isn't, but these big players could. They'll learn how to monitor herds, funnel them away from major settlements, and eventually lead them to a disposal point.
As you reestablish communication infrastructure, you can ensure that travel routes are safe before sending out trucks or trains.
And you stand expanding beyond a few walled off cities. Establish farming towns, factory towns, gas refining towns. There's probably enough recyclable metals to not require much mining for awhile, but eventually that as well.
Establish universities and trade schools while there are still living experts who can teach the newer generations.
And for God's sake: get to making some babies! The people in this universe need to be going at it like RABBITS!
In the immediate aftermath of the outbreak, I get it, but it's time for the people of this world to start thinking long term.
The short term burden of having more mouths to feed will be vastly superseded by the benefit of having several times more potential farmers, laborers, doctors, sailors, truckers, soldiers, etc in twenty years.
And it'll help give the survivors a renewed sense of purpose and unity, to feel it's not just about themselves anymore, but to successfully say we still brought up another generation that will have it better than we did.
What a way to show we endured. If fifty years after "the world ended", you're watching your grandson graduate from college, did the world really end?
I'd use that as the biggest test: if they can successfully keep society going for another generation, they have a very probable chance of ultimately outlasting the dead and reclaiming the world.
I feel like this video was a cut above most, just because the topic is more philosophical than most of the other “was (insert name) right?” videos. Some of the others are excellent, but sometimes the answers seemed obvious. Well. For me they were. Good shit dude.
Seen as how the only survivors of the CDC now are Rick, Daryl, and Carol it might’ve been better for them all to accept their demise and let the clock run out. Especially for Sophia, Dale, and Shane who all died just after the CDC. Those 3 didn’t even get a chance and suffered very violent and brutal deaths. I think unfortunately staying at the CDC was the best course of action because almost everyone there died anyways.
Do you remember the scene where Rick and Lori talked on the porch of Hershel’s house the night Carl got shot? They were talking about if Carl should live in this world or not, and Lori saying maybe if it was better if he died and didn’t make it. That she didn’t want him to have to grow up in this world where there’s “a knife at our throats every second” same goes for the scene where Rick and Lori talk about the baby. Even if this world is ducked up, you can’t just give up and not try anymore, they gave Judith a chance and Carl a chance. They both made it. (Not talking about Carl dying in later seasons) jaqui (t dogs wife or girlfriend) didn’t have hope like Jenner and decided to stay. The rest of the group did. They wanted to try and survive for as long as they could out there. A CHANCE. even if most of the characters that was at the cdc died, they survived as long as they could and they made an impact on who the rest of the characters became in later seasons. A chance is all that matters.
(Call me a yapper if you want, but this is a valid point. It proves Jenner wrong, he had no hope because he had nobody else and the world was dead. The rest of the group looked at the possibilities of what could be out there, once again. They had hope and wanted a chance.)
@@brandonott6103 FI mean that's just your choice then and even then Lori and Carl still died so it's up for debate if it's worth it so you can give up and not try if you want too because that's free will and there are people like me who just think it would not be worth it.
@@skylerboyce2597 And that's your choice. It shouldn't be forced on others. Clearly it worked out for some. And not for others.
@@brandonott6103 idk man lori kinda predicted the deaths, same with shane
@@TheRealCaptainGold Well and even then the very few people that did survive lost so many people so it's up for so worked out might be too strong but yeah I was just saying everyone should have a choice.
Sophia died alone
Dale got ripped apart
Shane died losing his mind
Lori died giving birth
T dog died being ripped apart
Glen gets beaten to death by a batt
Carl dies from a bite
Andria dies from a bite
Carol loses her daughter has to kill a girl she had seen as a daughter and watched her adopted sons head on a pike yes it was better for them to die there
At the end of the day, everybody suffered.
So? People die everyday
With hindsight the characters probably would have preferred to die there, but it wouldn't have been fair to force them to do so. There COULD have been a better world and quality of living and the possibility was worth trying for them hence why they left.
Lori died giving birth to a little girl who lived on and gave hope to a lot of people
Shane died losing his mind but before that saved Carl who would go on to bring others together and save Alexandria
T-Dog died being ripped apart to save Carol who went on to protect others
Andrea died from a bite but not before changing Michonne who would protect and serve the group, Alexandria and go on to give birth to RJ and bring Rick home
Carl died but not before saving others, changing his father and saving Siddiq who would father Coco who would survive to see the new world
Glenn as Maggie said, started everything, it wouldn't have happened without him
Carol did lose children, but she also protected countless others and will go on to help bring Daryl back and maybe even the cure
Everything gets a return
Weak argument, everyone dies, and many have horrible deaths, but living is the only thing we have.
Glenn found love before dying.
Andrea and Dale too.
Sophia didn’t die in the books, neither Carl, both survived traumas and grew up to be a happy couple.
Carol killed herself in the prison in the books.
Not everyone has what it takes to endure life, I know this much, but death isn’t a reason to choose to die, if so, no one would accomplish anything, after all we all will die, and some (many) will have to endure suffering and pain…
He was right because in the long run all the survivors either died or lost very important people to them however he shouldn't of tried to force them at the beginning, nobody should try to force their beliefs onto others. However another mentality you could have is the project zomboid one, you know death is coming you know there's no hope for survival but you still play or live to see the "this is how it ended".
No cause death is an absolute nothing that lives doesn't die and very few of us will ever have a choice on how we die only how we live.
@@DustinDonald-cz9ot I mean but he was a world like that definitely makes your death come sooner and most likely more pain less so yeah weak argument in my opinion.
I meant "more painful" not painless spelling error.
Shane was someone who wanted to live and changed his mind late
@DustinDonald-cz9ot Invest in commas, my friend.
Jenner was trying to get the group to understand his mercy. In his mind compared to 99% of the world Rick’s group is lucky to have a quick painless death.
I think he was always going to let them out if they truly refuted long enough by agreeing yeah it’s probably going to suck but let us try.
This is one of my favorite videos of yours. I loved how deeply philosophical it was
The only issue is the CDC is in Atlanta, and later on we see Atlanta get napalmed and confirmed it was taken out in operation cobalt.
This was an amazing argument that reminded me of old school RUclips “philosophy of…” videos. You have a new subscriber. Thank you. 🙏
I knew what your take would be but this went so much deeper than I thought it was going to.
When you consider that his job was fighting disease it makes sense that he'd lose hope at one where everyone is already infected and will turn no matter the cause of death.
It simply wasn’t his decision to make, despite their outcomes; he’s not a fortune teller.
I would've stayed because like Morgan said either you get ripped by teeth or bullets
Life is pain.....and then it stops!
Subjective I suppose, one can live in this dying world and see the worst in people, or give up, shane chose to live snd eventually regretted it
"The day will cone when you won't be."
I'm subscribing. The knowledge of theology, psychology, combined with The walking Dead is perfect.
There's no better teaching tool than the shows you watch for fun. And a good teacher 👍🏿
Been watching a lot of walking dead videos lately and seen this one in my recommended and was not prepared for the deep dive into the philosophy of the matter! Damn good video!
To be fair to Jenner...he warned them repeatedly before allowing them into the facility that if they enter, they're never going to be able to leave. Rick accepts and says they have nowhere else to go anyway. So to say he wanted to "force them" to die with him is a bit odd. Rick didn't bother asking any questions before agreeing. Isn't that Rick's fault? Did he seriously think that building would be an eternal refuge? I've always been of the opinion that deep down, he knew what it meant when he entered, but then didn't have the courage to see his family die too.
He locked them in the control room with him. That was something he actively did. I literally show it in this video lol
@TheRealCaptainGold That's not what i was talking about. I'm saying, from my vantage point and how I interpreted it even all the way back when it first aired, was that it was heavily implied that entering the facility meant death. So, yes, he locks them in the big central operations room with him. But whether they were in that room or not, they would die. I'm talking big picture. If someone tells you "if I let you in, you can NEVER LEAVE" what other meaning would that have than inevitable death? At that point you're only talking about how long until the end. With the world gone, whatever supplies were in that building were all you could ever rely on. So the end will come, sooner or later. He made the decision to enter anyway.
@@Gandalf1232
I think it’s clear the group didn’t think he was being literal. He only told them once “you got stuff to bring in, you do it now. Once this door closes, it stays closed” He didn’t warn them multiple times like you’ve claimed (faulty memory on your end perhaps). We’re talking about a desperate group that had nowhere to go. They aren’t gonna take the statement literally. And considering they don’t know jack s*** about the government, they probably thought it was a paradise. A delusional which was also likely fueled by said aforementioned desperation. Remember, some members of the group actually believed Fort Benning was a good idea lol
Jenner locked them in the control room, which was unethical. He had control over that. He didn’t clarify to the group that staying meant incineration either. Saying the door doesn’t open doesn’t imply much. There could be another door. There could be a tunnel system. Get my drift?
They would have died if he didn’t answer their questions or let them go. Once they were released, a grenade was able to secure an escape for them. But the doors he used to lock them in? The grenade would’ve never busted that down. At least, according to Jenner - because they’re apparently durable enough to tank a rocket launcher.
Placing this on Rick, expecting the group to take Jenner’s singular warning as literal as possible, that’s kinda silly tbh. It’s something you can only do in hindsight and with a misrecollection of events.
@TheRealCaptainGold I could've sworn he mentions more than once, but perhaps you're right, I haven't seen it in a few years. It doesn't change my opinion about Jenner though.
To me, your question (and the heart of the dilemma) is: was Jenner right to essentially abandon all hope and die as painlessly as humanly possible at that point?
I know what you and many others would argue: it's easy to say yes in hindsight, because we now know that basically everyone there ends up dying, often horrifically. People tend to want to believe in the idea of hope.
For me though, what Jenner represents is acceptance. For every nice moment all these people experience after this, they are buried under an avalanche of misery. Sometimes there is no way to win, and the best thing you can do is accept that with dignity.
I stand by my opinion on Rick though. I didn't mean to imply that entire group felt as he did, or knew what I think Rick knew. Merely that he himself was ready to die. But his biggest guiding principle was to let people make their own choices, and he didn't want his decision to bind anyone else. Could be 💯 wrong, but that's how I felt when watching that episode
@@Gandalf1232
I think viewing Jenner, narratively speaking, as symbolism for acceptance, is a fine interpretation.
I’m just speaking about the ethics and psychology of the characters at the time. The view of Rick you’re presenting doesn’t line up with his actions or dialogue in and before TS19. Even when he was drunk, he thanked Jenner for saving them; clearly admitting he was scared and basically didn’t want he and his family to die. Man really thought the CDC was the doomsday bunker lol
Yay, I love when you post
Carol: My daughter doesn't deserve this death😭😭.
Sophia: Gets lost, bitten and dies alone a week later...
I think Jener just gave up entirely after loosing his wife. Who knew how much he loved her unconditionally. I like to think most people want to go right after loosing their significant other, and with finding no silver linings to a cure to save the world on top of that heavily influenced making his decision to stay alongside the self destruct sequence of the facility sound reasonable to him. It's just a sad reminder that no one is spared the bittersweet anomaly of the human condition. Specifically speaking, the power of connection from one another. when you take that connection away from someone they just will never be the same.
I mean they did found safe places like commonwealth and CRM, even a few more in Fear the walking dead which they destroyed themselves like Victors Tower or Padre’s Island
i read something like this on reddit. one of the comments read that he had too many answers and knew too much about the apocalypse and the effect the wildfire virus had on the human body that they killed him off to make the virus vague for everyone else. that way nobody knew exactly what started it. i thought about it for a bit and i guess in a way it would make sense.
They could have made him reluctant to tell anyone but shares bit by bit
Honestly I would of died with Jenner a life in apocalypse isn’t worth living tbh
Yeah if a zombie apocalypse happened I would just off myself it would not be worth it.
Only works if you belive in heaven tho
Yeah me too.
@@IIIISaiAnd I do.
I'd try things out but no way I'm getting eaten alive
3:33
Okay, Hank Williams (Sr.).
(Also speaking of music, nice choice with the Dying Light soundtrack).
so because how slow the walkers are after season 2 because they were at a light job chasing shane and otis... humanity would win that fight we would outlive the undead since rotting bodies would ALL be ate up by swarms of bugs and other animals a lone hardened fighter with a melee weapon and armor could take down a horde one at a time with a melee weapon it would take a long time but if u take on one at a time
A horde? Yeah with plot armor
First off is to remember that this is a show and not real life. Dr. Jenner was a character and he made a decision kind of based on the point that he had to do his act to keep the show moving along and the place which was "safe" needed to go boom boom.
But suppose this wasn't fiction or theatre. Jenner like it or not was acting on emotion and not necessarily logic and reason. The loss of his wife, and the world he knew and the low self-esteem, he had made his "opting out" rationalized as the painless choice.
No one choice is right for all, but people have self-choice as well as adaptability and the ingrained drive of self-preservation. Suffering existed before this great reset, but many would want to try to survive which is in our spirit.
Every species eventually goes extinct but human determination may kick that can down the road of time. The Eurpoean plages made a more resilient human so maybe this will further strengthen humanity down the road.
While i do agree that life in the world of the Walking dead would be a nightmare, especially if you've already lost all your loved ones noone should force others to follow them in death without their consent. If others wished to emulate his actions they could ask to stay with him and die but forcing them to die with you is just plain murder without any excuse.
The only thing worth living for in any age during any crisis is life itself.
Whether he was right or not, it wasn't his choice to make. You can't deny others the agency of deciding for themselves, and in the act of doing so he is in fact manifesting the dark world he believes already exists. He's almost creating a paradox where the world isn't worth living because I am deciding to end your lives against your will, thus living in a world we shouldn't want to live in, because he has created those conditions in part himself.
Why do the good characters die
Rick could've just taken over the facility and killed Jenner then the group has a super secure place no zombies could ever get in ever and the series ends there lol.
Jenner was right and while we're at it, Shane was too.
Shane and Jenner can't both be right lol one wanted to fight to live, the other didn't want that fight.
@@TheRealCaptainGold Jenner's option would've been the best option for them. Surviving on their own terms was the next best thing and when it came to survival Shane was right.
Shane took jenners route too, his last arc was lonliness, but he wanted to leave knowing rick was strong
@@micahbell5572 If they all died right there with Jenner how will AMC milk the show for the next 10+ years? Lol
Depends on what you mean by “right”. Fully or individual argument-wise
I think the walking dead encapsulates the indominitable human spirit very well. Even when we are suffering, we choose life. We suffer and get stronger and we push through more.
Depends how you look at it but If I try to see things from Jenner's pov I think what he was doing was easily understantable. At the time he meets Rick and the group he had way way More info about the situation on a global scale. He knew that pretty much entire civilized world had fallen and that all the efforts to create a cure were ceased. As far as he knew it wasn't even possible to create a cure because literally everyone was infected and as such as long as theres ppl theres gonna be walkers too.
So he had lost all hope of anykind of comeback and lost all of his friends and colleagues including his wife. Blowing yourself up painlessly sure does seem like a good idea at that point. Only thing im not sure about is his speech about doing his duty. Anthrax and other nasty bugs spreading Into the world hardly seems like a biggie when theres zombie Apocalypse underway already.
The days came when they weren't grateful
Dinner was right for dinner but not for Rick and his group and he did the right thing by letting them leave but as far as Jenner himself goes yeah he made his choice and I'm sure he was at peace with it and for him it was the right thing to do.
Please make more walking Dead what ifs
What if Eugene came to the building and let in? Would he had came up with a way to cure it by the info given? Hmm
Yes bro thanks for the new video I love your content ❤
then there's people out there that like both pain & pleasure. Same people that work at the Ball Crushing Factory, that's their pleasurable pain
I never understood why they never took any of the military gear left behind. The tanks, and other vehicles. Even if they cant take them at the moment they should have stashed them for the future.
I was thinking about that on my most recent rewatch. Lots of free gear going to waste. The Zomboid / generic survival game loot-bug inside me was screaming.
@@TheRealCaptainGold I always look at things in terms of either denying the enemy of resources. You take everything, and even the T shirts for rags. What you can't take you either hide, or destroy. The enemy being people in the WD world. I'm really struggling to get through season 9. There was a time I was a diehard fan too. Where I would buy the seasons as they came out on DVD. Then watch, and rewatch over and over again. I still have something like 6 episodes to go. Then 2 more seasons. I finished FTWD finally. Talk about highly unrealistic with the nuke. I liked the early seasons of TWD because it felt raw, real, and like we were following real people during an actual zombie apocalypse. You cam see how the show changes throughout the seasons as culture changes and becomes more PC. Or atleast how AMC thinks we want to see things.
Bro debunked suicide with facts and logic while telling redditors to off themselves. Amazing video.
“Neuro typical people” 😂
It’s 99.9% of the population.
It reminds me of the joke about solipsism - to discredit solipsism one only need imagine a convention on these people - arguing over which one is actually real 😅
This reminds me of how the Forerunners of HALO viewed all existence. They called ALL Conscious Existence "Sweetness". And they viewed All "Sweetness" as important and worth going through. The pleasurable along with the painful.
You're right. Lead the way.
The world used to be cruel like this. Current society has gotten used to the comforts of being civilized and living long lives. Dying from wild animals or other humans used to be daily life for our ancestors. I dont get why so many groups came across each other in the show. Seems like this would be more rare. I wouldve def gone far out into the mountains and grown my own food. You would still have to worry about wild predators but i doubt zombies would be able to get through this forests and its unlikely youd come across people. Making rhe odd run into town would happen but if you chose the location wisely i think you could easily find a town that is small enough that youd have supplies for a long time. Maybe youd come across people/walkers in the town, but the strat if covering yourself in zombie guts or dressing up as a zombie seems to be very effective and seemed underutilized by the group. Michonne walked with zombies and they had no idea. I'm not saying it would be easy to do but over time the zombies would die off bc himans would procreate and the children would be raised to have those skills to survive.
If you had water,grew your own food and had a solar generator you'd be ok until you needed a doctor .
Radiation from nuclear reactors would be a problem, even if they managed to turn them off they would still need running water for years to cool down, no healtcare. Average life span woulf be cut in half for any survivors
No and no.
Life is full of pain, even without zombies. The question is if life is worthy all the trouble, and to me, yes. Everyone is entitled to their opinion in this matter, and while is terrifying to imagine being eaten alive by zombies, the hardships that such event would cause aren’t that different from other historical events, and even our modern life has its own hardships and struggles.
The pain sand suffering is not the problem to much of it is it turn us most of us in to ultimate monsters
He’s was right
That Dying Light theme is so good with this video
He was absolutely wrong. Plus, Jenner would want to live if his wife was still alive. With her recently death 💀, he had given up on life. The positive with her death, if she was still alive live he probably would not let them in because he and his wife would need supplies to survive.
Yes! Mankind only has 14 years left till extinction! and only 385k or less humans are left on earth by the time the ones who live series ends...yeah jenner was wright!
Honestly I think he knew he wouldn't be able to survive since he had lost his will to go on. But he was wrong about the others
it felt cold tbh but
I have death anxiety and understand this topic very well
one could argue that all living beings die anyways, eventually, even in a fair and perfect happy world, and that theres no reason to be alive because of that. but thats not true. all life is a miracle no matter where or when, and it is beautiful. a beautiful bitch lol
so no jenner was not right, and never will be.
Rick was grateful what about everyone else that was there oops they dead
Bro with your videos im at the point where jenner is right, negan is, whisperers are, crm is, rick is, governor too, shane especially. Wtf but everyone is kinda right and got their points
Chocolate pudding
What's the argument for why people's will ought to be protected?
Because there is a cure he’s wrong but it’s a very risky journey to survive till someone discovers a cure.
Of course the cure isn’t in the original show just the spin-offs.
Beale next time plsss
my take on it is: he was right and wrong. its not his choice to make, everyone has to be able to choose if they want to 'opt out' or not. if it is an right decision in an apocalypse? i think that depends on the person and what that person wants in life. if someone thinks he can handle living in an apocalypse and thinks he can still draw joy out of things in life then they definently should live on try to survive. if someone thinks theres nothing for them anymore and really think its the best way to just end it in hope of peace, they should get the chance to 'opt out'. personally i think in the apocalypse, about 20% of humanity killed theirselves cuz they didnt wanna live in that world.
Except there won't be any joy.Plus that's not really living is it?
To ill himself, cuz there was no hope? There is always hope, so no.
Me seeing this video has not made my decision on having kids or not any easier. Do I bring kids into this world…? Knowing it sucks? But if I dont then they won’t exist to buy cute things or drink ice coffee or have ice cream on a hot day… so do I grant them the possibility of all of the above or take that choice from em before they even exist
Whatever you feel is best. A lot of pleasure and suffering is subjective (which is why I primarily focus on well-being). Ask yourself why you think life sucks. Try to be very honest with yourself about whether most of your views are subjective or objective. I feel most people get hung up on that distinction.
I, myself, haven’t had kids because I can’t currently afford to give them a better or equivalent childhood than I had. If I can meet that, then I’ll likely have kids or adopt. I’m sure having kids now wouldn’t be an issue for me. But I want the best for them. So, I’m personally waiting.
Money is the main reason. But then I think, will I EVER have ‘enough’ money? So I just get stuck there. That’s the sucky part. And debt that is just kind of expected of us to go into. (I live in the USA idk if this is a world wide thing) but I don’t want to raise a kid to think money is everything… but it really feels that way some times. I guess seeing how things are in a few years might help things feel uncertain in this current climate 😂
@@gabriellelytle8537 I'm also in the U.S. Money ain't everything, but it can buy a great deal of happiness (and make suffering easier to endure). Hell, most of my problems would go away with a small loan of a million dollars lol. At the end of the day, it's your choice. And whatever you choose to do with your body, you should never feel ashamed for it. Not having kids is a neutral position as far as I'm concerned. Unless the species needs to desperately repopulate, but that won't be an issue we ever have to deal with. Hopefully lol
I didn’t realize I needed this validation 😂
@@gabriellelytle8537There is no right time or perfect world.Jump in now!Or it will be too late and you won't have anyone to take care of you when you're old.
I would have opted out but that group went on to save SO many others by the domino effect of their actions. No he was wrong. But i would have sat with Jaqi and him.
I'd be with you if the walkers were runners lol
Do you think Glen would, of rather, got beat in the head with a bat or just stay at the cdc?
I know several people who endure chronic pain. Does anyone endure chronic pleasure in the same way? The most likely scenario is you feel nothing. The fact that humans may be addicted to living doesn't make this cost benefit analysis illogical. In fact, addictions are generally considered a bad thing that tend to interfere with logical analysis. So if the purpose of this video is to win over anti-natalists you have work to do.
It’s hard to convince someone to leave an ideology that is fundamentally irrational and built on dogma. Look at the rebuttal you gave lol who cares if chronic pain exists? Most people with it still prefer to be alive.
I did enough. Anti-natalism is based on an unsubstantiated double-standard, a naturalistic fallacy that has no strong justification, a misunderstanding of the concepts of pain and pleasure, circular reasoning in some cases and (for some) the special-pleading fallacy of believing that there’s a difference between a life worth starting and a life worth living (meaning any anti-natalist should also be a pro-mortalist and hence dead - hence you shouldn’t even be in the comment section). It’s a view very few take seriously in academia. For good reason. And that’s just my quick dissection of it. I could publish a two hour video on how poorly constructed the position is and how it’s a lazy example of negative-utilitarianism. But there isn’t a need for it. The position is rarely debated extensively because most scholars don’t consider it worth the time lol and neither do I. The only positive contribution it has given us is the understanding that you can cause harm by bringing life into existence. But most philosophers would also say the opposite is true. (Which can lead to some potentially serious moral obligations).
I kinda hate it when a video claims to be discussing a tv show but then drops a ten minute explanation of a philosophical topic with almost no references to the tv show, then wraps the video up by being like, “Oh yeah, we were talking about a tv show. Guess I should say something about a character before I end this video.”
It’s so weird how many videos do this lmao
Don’t think a lot of the logic here holds up, especially at 8:35. By this logic we didn’t do any good by not bringing someone into a reality where they do nothing but burn for 100 years. Yeah that’s an extreme unrealistic example but that’s exactly the point of the discussion we’re accessing whether or not it still applies to general life. My reasons for being an antinatalist isn’t about the odds of a terrible life it’s the fact it happens at all without there being a reason to come into existence. By the logic you used against antinatalism we can say creating life is pointless since they aren’t around to think about what they’re missing. You can say you see them as equal but it’s no different than a psychopath saying they see causing suffering as positive. It’s all subjective but if most people were thinking about it critically they’d be hard pressed to come up with a sensible argument against it by their own values. The reason most aren’t antinatalist is just because they aren’t smart enough to comprehend it
To the argument about possibility I’d use another extreme hypothetical that also articulates the issue with weighing pleasure and pain as equal. You can have an infinite amount of beings experiencing very high eternal happiness at the cost of one experiencing very bad eternal suffering. I don’t see any sensible logic for believing that’s a good trade off, even attempting to defend it would require you to say you yourself would be fine being the one who takes the sacrifice
As for is Jenner was right it just depends on your point of view. The life the group has is somewhat of a miracle Jenner didn’t envision any safe strongholds where decent farming was possible but the group has still experienced a lot of hardship and continue to experience it. Most of the characters in that room aren’t even alive, Rick himself was on the verge of suicide multiple times. Even his “happy ending” in reality is just a making the best of what you have dark future
*“Don’t think a lot of the logic here holds up, especially at **8:35**”*
No offense, but it’s because you’re an anti-natalist that it doesn’t make sense to you.
*“By this logic we didn’t do any good by not bringing someone into a reality where they do nothing but burn for 100 years.”*
In the eyes of the anti-natalist, you commit a good action by not bringing a life into a terrible existence. In the eyes of a eudaemonistic utilitarian like myself, and in the eyes of many sane people, we don’t view that to be a good act but rather the omission of a bad act. This is, of course, assuming that said life in question is bound to be as bad as your example sets it. That said, not doing something bad is not the same as doing something good. This is a mere nitpick, but the details matter because anti-natalists delude themselves into thinking their moral self-righteousness is grander than it actually is.
The second issue here is that you are attributing positive outcomes to a *non-existent* person. The objectively verifiable net-result of choosing to not create someone is **neutral** -> because the person in question does not exist. The hypothetical person is essentially deprived of all possible harms and benefits. It’s different when we actually choose to procreate and give birth to an actual person. Now we can argue that we either did harm or granted a benefit by taking part in human reproduction. The anti-natalist argues it’s always a net-harm, real life suggests otherwise.
In fact, this fact is why you haven’t deleted yourself as an anti-natalist; it’s why anti-natalists make the piss-poor distinction between a life worth living and a life worth starting. Fact of the matter is, there is no difference. If non-existence is the proper destination, then existence is but a meaningless detour; the anti-natalist must course correct, adopt pro-mortalism and self-terminate. Yet here you are. Be that as it may, due to the nature of hypothetical people - we can only say we’ve brought harm or benefit to those who come into existence; we **cannot** claim the same for people we omit to create because they don’t fucking exist. This runs against our intuitions, but it is an undeniable fact of the universe. That said, it is a helpful exercise to consider “what if” we brought someone into existence - and whether said act would be good or bad. No doubt about it.
*“My reasons for being an antinatalist isn’t about the odds of a terrible life it’s the fact it happens at all without there being a reason to come into existence.”*
There technically isn’t an objective reason **not** to come into existence either. The anti-natalists have the same problem - but if they play the utilitarian game, which is what their ethics is based on, they lose. It’s a difficult pinch to be in, but that’s expected of a dog water ideology.
*”You can say you see them as equal but it’s no different than a psychopath saying they see causing suffering as positive. “*
Stupid rebuttal. Pain and pleasure are two sides of the same coin. To argue that one should be valued more requires a serious justification that goes beyond an appeal to strange intuitions that only anti-natalists and pro-mortalists hold lol Face it, the asymmetry is a garbage argument that is based on a special-pleading fallacy and that is not substantiated by the real world experiences of people. Furthermore, I can play the same stupid game by constructing the same argument. Observe:
1.) Presence of miserable life = *bad*
2.) Presence of amazing life = *good*
3.) Absence of miserable life = *good*
4.) Absence of amazing life= *not bad*
And just like that, I can use the same reasoning behind Benatar’s silly asymmetry to justify pro-natalism. (Which I’m not btw; I think procreation should be determined on a case by case basis.).
*” It’s all subjective but if most people were thinking about it critically they’d be hard pressed to come up with a sensible argument against it by their own values. The reason most aren’t antinatalist is just because they aren’t smart enough to comprehend it”*
If it’s subjective, how can you then claim they are objectively wrong? And what makes you so certain that you’re the one who can comprehend it? Because from my vantage point (and that of people much smarter than I), the anti-natalists are a minority for clear reasons - both in everyday life and in academia.
*”You can have an infinite amount of beings experiencing very high eternal happiness at the cost of one experiencing very bad eternal suffering. I don’t see any sensible logic for believing that’s a good trade off, even attempting to defend it would require you to say you yourself would be fine being the one who takes the sacrifice”*
I don’t have to be fine with being the sacrifice. I very much could hate it. My emotions do not dictate what is right or wrong from an objective standpoint. That said, the math is pretty clear in your example. One person takes an L and infinite persons get the biggest W ever. You have to be stupid not to permit the sacrifice. A toddler could figure that out. But that’s what the anti-natalist movement is, in my view. It’s a philosophy that argues even the most benign pain makes life not worth starting - without justification - and they strut around like a drunk dodo, believing they made a coherent point. Then when a pro-natalist uses the same argument - that the smallest experience of joy justifies procreation (without justification), they lose their collective minds (which seem to share a single, hive-mind brain-cell).
I’m not an anti-natalist or a pro-natalist or a pro-mortalist because extremely absolutist ideologies are often brain dead. These positions are a massive minority for a reason. They’ve been debated for ages my guy. That said, I have many more issues with anti-natalism, but I’ll be saving that shit for another video (as there is a moment in TWD that warrants the topic being brought up). My hostility to it is actually simple, aside from it being a fantastically imbecilic ideology. It’s also a shit utilitarian position that is counter-intuitive and counter-productive to actual utilitarianism. Anti-natalism doesn’t help anyone nor does it make us wiser. It’s an exercise in futility - the very damn opposite of utility. It’s such a shitty philosophy that it literally runs against the grain of its own foundational principles. That’s pretty fucking stupid.
kinda
Wait, wtf do you mean by "most neurotypical people prefer to keep living"? As opposed to neurodivergents who the majority of prefer to die?
Basically that most people with a “normal” brain that isn’t riddled with some mental illness or disability tend to want to live, by default. It’s just me alluding to studies that show certain philosophical stances tend to be held by people who aren’t representative of the prototypical human experience. In a sense, someone who is clinically depressed is more likely to be a pro-mortalist than someone who is “healthy” in that regard. Hence these people can’t really proclaim to know how most people feel or how they ought to feel, in absolutist terms, because they themselves are not representative of the typical human condition. Just because they may not want to continue existing doesn’t mean we ought to feel the same way as they do.
Of course that dude lost all hope in humanity, after his neighbors of 6 years, whom he loved and trusted, turned out to be Russian spies. Sad.
Jenner should have stayed alive..he was a great loss like his wife...never mind 😕 its over
The pro death people shouldn't even be alive to tell their theory. Talk about no balls 😅😊😊😂
Was Joe Rogan Right? make it happen...
Was he right to quit watching TWD after seeing Glenn killed by Negan?
Lol this nerd is yappin
I stopped watching after the 4th season. The Boring Dead.
This is an interesting video, but pointless. Youre shoehorning a philosophical position onto someone that was mentally unstable and acting in an irrational way, insane manner. He didn’t arrive at the conclusion on blowing himself up through any kind of reasoning.
He thought he was the last man on earth until the survivors showed up on his door step. He was stricken and grieving over the loss of absolutely everything that ever was and he was terrified of facing the future. Either he eventually had the walkers bust in and get him, or they’d get him while he tried to go out to scavenge food or water. There was no future. He was a lab worker, not someone who is equipped to face the world alone, naked and afraid.
He had gone insane and decided to take himself out and not face the empty world, and the survivors just happened to show up. Dragging them along in his suicide pact was all he could do. Allowing them to live would be admitting that there’s a chance to survive and that he didn’t have to blow himself up, and he could not face that.
That’s a bizarre take. I think it’s abundantly clear that Jenner is sane and is entirely convinced of his decision. You don’t have to be insane to reach his position. And nothing indicates that he is insane (he let them leave for fuck’s sake lol).
Hope one day you do "Was Gareth Right?" Because the truth is that he just wanted to eat Rick and the rest and that's it. But Rick destroyed the whole community, killing innocent people who just did what they did in order to survive. I hate how Rick just can't accept other ways of living that aren't his own. And don't come to me saying that he destroyed Terminus to save future people from them, his group just wanted to scape and he risked their lives because Rick wanted revenge.
I’d love to see if Cap can justify cannibalism lol
@@XThink-hl6gv I mean, If you are going to kill those people might as well eat them so not to waste anything.
I'm gonna answer that for you right now, and say that no Gareth was not right in his actions. Despite what some characters in the Walking Dead will have you believe. food is not this super rare and hard to acquire source. The Governor was able to feed Woodberry. The Prison was able to feed itself. Alexandria was able to feed itself. The Kingdom, Hilltop, The Saviors (Even without their raids and taxes, they still had crops), The Whisperers, whatever that group Darrel's ex was in, The entirety of the Commonwealth.
Gareth was wrong, because of all the communities we see his is the only one that resorted to cannibalism in a world where we see that that isn't a requirement, and even his logic is based less on 'we need to eat to survive' and more on 'We were victimized once, so now we're going to be the aggressors.'
Rick is an asshole when it comes to accepting how other people live, and he passed that down to Judith too. The Commonwealth is the biggest offender for me on that, even though it wasn't Rick, it's still something he would have done. That said, Terminus by all factors was little better than a raiding band of cannibals who COULD HAVE found another way, but chose to instead kidnap, murder, and eat people who either stumbled upon them, or were lured to them by promises of safety.
@@atlasgraham154 First, in episode 1 of season 3 we saw how the group was struggling to get food. Second, Gareth could just kill those people because every stranger to them was a no-no. So eating them was a plus and free meat. And Gareth with his mentality of not accepting strangers was in the right, we saw in the series how a community falls because new people came and destroys Everything. Rick is the worst, he just keeps destroying communities because he cannot accept their ways of living.
Gareth would only be right in choosing cannibalism if he didn't trap people and kill them to eat them just like it is legal to do it if you have consent and it doesn't result in death
bro your the therapist i never knew i needed
Are you implying you aren’t religious?
I’m definitely not religious. Certified atheist.
@@TheRealCaptainGold oh. Well I’m a Catholic and I believe in God but who knows if he’s actually real or not.
@picklickwick if you don't know you're a lapsed Catholic at best
@@TheRealCaptainGoldThat explains this stupid video.
What a bunch of overanylization.
Yes he was right
No views, you fell off bro. Lol jk
In the defense of Pro Mortal and Anti Natal philosophies, they are very handy in debate over bodily rights and autonomy. Especially when it comes to reproductive rights
I find them to be rather unnecessary.
@@TheRealCaptainGold They kinda are bc it brings up the ethical question of "is it moral to force someone to endure a life of agony" to the opposing side.
@@GraveyardMaiden
On the extreme end of the spectrum, it can lead to an obligation to abort - even against the will of the mother (which would violate her bodily autonomy in a similar manner to which the pro-life position seeks to impose positive rights on the fetus at the expense of the mother).
Better to argue that the fetus is not akin to a born person. Better to argue that the right to life isn’t the right to another person’s body (Judith J Thompson’s main argument). There’s just better arguments with less potential downsides.
You're not wrong if we're dealing with absolutes here. But the decision to abort or to have a contraceptive procedure on the basis that the life one would create will only have an existence of suffering isn't really morally wrong or flawed. Nor is the decision to provide medical termination to those who cannot recover from a terminal ailment. Now what makes Jenner wrong in his case of pro mortalism was that he tried to force it on them rather than having it be an open choice. @@TheRealCaptainGold
Nah he was black pilled, giving up is never an option! What a disservice to those that came before you and potential future generations that come from you and others you help safe and thrive with.
There is definitely more to wanting to live that simply addiction or simply selfish reasons when we would gladly give our lives for our children or loved ones or even to safe a random kid we don’t even know.
As Ragnar says “who said you should be happy?” Lol
I would have tried to hang on as long as I could
For what?The world would be gone.
@@PennyGrey-pl7no because I'm not a pansy I would rather take my chances and see what I can make out of it
Dude was a coward.
I think Jenner was a coward who had the sole redeeming quality of relenting and allowing Rick's group a (admittedly slim) chance of surviving his Jim Jones decision. He had absolutely no moral basis to usurp their autonomy of choice. Murder is still murder regardless of intention or circumstance. Jenner was, in truth, the first real villain that the group faced, and they were extremely lucky that he had that one spark of humanity left in him.
Of course, if he hadn't, it would have been a very short series.
It actually takes a lot of courage to opt-out, especially when you're not clinically depressed. The act is so antithetical to your genetic makeup, that your body would be screaming for you to abort the process of self-deletion. But yeah, you could say he was an antagonist. He was about ready to euthanize the entire group without consent.
They were extremely lucky that Dale pointed and asked about the "timer" in the first place. Otherwise..."BIG BOOM". They got even more lucky when Rick talked Jenner to allow them to escape.
@@TheRealCaptainGold
i agree it takes a certain strength to overcome one's survival instincts, particularly under normal circumstances. Dunno as I'd necessarily call that courage, though. Courage on Jenner's part would have involved holding off on the activation of his doomsday procedure until Rick and his crew had the opportunity to make their own decisions on whether to join him or not. His usurpation of their free will was in no way courageous; it was a coward's way out of confrontation. He was afraid they might talk him out of it, just like Dale talked Andrea out of staying once they had the chance to leave.
That's stupid.Letting yourself be eaten by zombies is cowardly.Dying on your terms is not.
@@TheRealCaptainGoldFor their own good
No.
With growth comes decay, then TRANSFORMATION.
-Walter White
Ok he made meth so no.Lol!
@@PennyGrey-pl7no that doesn't deny that what he said was true
Every human that has ever lived has died and every current living human will die. Wouldn't you still want your chance to live and experience life?
Killing zombies is experiencing life???Lol!Ok
Well, Jenner was only right for how things transpired for him, his choice. Taking their choices away is always wrong. It's an individual thing, for some it was a personal choice they agreed on. For others they wanted to continue. The only wrong was taking choice away.
Beale was a crazy man and very wrong on all counts for that very reason.
Jenner was depressed, Beale was power hungry.
Forcing them to die would be wrong. But choosing to die, morally gray....
But there's always hope of a better world...mankind always finds a way