its only been some time when the world started going haywire, of course some people will stick to their norals and what they lived with , she has already taken the life of others but doesnt wanna do it anymore and that is a very valid choice.
one choice doesn't mean it will always be correct, correct is based on perspective and what other believes in or was raised with which is why some white supremacist thinks racism is right, its edged into their kind and raised with them drifting in their bloods.
morals will always stay because its been part of their lives for years, however its purely decisive if you're willing to push through it or not. her not wanting to kill is not dumb, it's just something she's not willing to.
Even so I don't get why were they pushing it when in this certain situation it was more wise to do and kill for survival, yes it will be more epic but if a kid was willing to I don't see why they started getting phylosopical. No unreasonable death is justified but I don't think this time around it was unnecessary.
If they start killing now they go the wrong path anf theyl lose themselfes as thy will become tarumatized in some way and if im not mistaken they needed the second option for something else as well i think or am i wrong?
Whether or not it's justified, it doesn't matter, because that doesn't change the fact they killed someone. Yes, it may be wise to do so, but moral wise it wasn't. From what you believe in since you grow up will not change overnight. You can't say to a Muslim who will die of hunger, to eat pork. They grow up known not to do so.
Well moral wise it is correct, from my prospective at least.
I think it's just the way some people want to live their life. When it's really down to the wire, you have people who would choose to kill others to survive, and those who can't live with themselves if they did it. However, when people can also choose again if they are able and willing to live with sacrificing others to save their own lives, or if they find it something that will haunt them forever and make life a misery for them.
Personally I don't see either choice as wrong. So it really is just a matter of character. Though, most stories have the main characters play the morally good guy, because they are more likable compared to those who throw people under the bus. Even for antiheroes you can usually see some kind of balance and morality struggle for the MC. So I think that's why the author went with this kind of characterization, because it appeals more to most people and also makes the survival hurdles that much harder and more entertaining (they are essentially choosing the hard way out).
But wouldn't it be boring? (ᴖ⌣ᴖ )
Just following what the scenario tells them to, wouldn't it be boring?
They might die. We know they won't but they don't know that and something can go wrong way more there than here. I am looking at that scene survival wise not story wise
And isn't that exactly what keeps you on edge and makes the plot interesting?
I didn't get the bullshit of omo we can't kill them ,the kid is the only person who can think normally in there. There are no morals anymore sweetie just go and get rid of them you dumb?