You can expect shitty attitudes and not trusting anyone in apcoalypse web novels. It wouldn't be nice IRL but it wouldn't be that bad.
Forgetting that blind people tend to have better hearing, which is something that you might need in defending a base. there is also that you do not know what knowledge or skills she might have, or develop, that could be useful for your survival.
banishing someone isn’t merciful, it’s a harsh punishment but it’s more merciful than straight killing them in front of everyone. as for the lazy person being just as useless, I agree. I also stated that not contributing applies to everyone not only the blind and have an example of a worker who got injured and couldn’t contribute being useless. Plus don’t forget where I said the blind would need some valuable skill that offsets the handicap of being blind which the little girl didn’t have until she awakened a power. your problem is you aren’t looking at it from a survival situation point of view. Ok so it’s not a zombie apocalypse but just a crazy survival situation like the aftermath of a nuclear war or even stranded on a dangerous island, what benefits could a blind kid bring? also you think “equality is an illusion” is just some edgy saying? Bro you have no idea about the inequality wealth brings. Do you actually think wealthy people in positions of power actually play by the same rules as us regular people? Just a recent small example but do you not remember cops literally raiding people’s houses for having gatherings during COVID lockdowns while rich people were having parties on their yachts with no repercussions. also let’s not forget about “laws” that only really punish the poor. Basically anything with a fine like a parking ticket is something targeted at the poor because they are the only ones who can’t afford the penalty. A person getting minimum wage needs to follow parking laws because they can’t afford a $100 ticket. Them getting a $100 ticket means they basically worked for free that day but the only thing stopping a millionaire from ignoring parking laws is his moral compass since $100 is nothing to them. I stated that they would need some other ability to offset their blindness. I also said this counts for everyone in that they need some way to contribute and bring a net positive and used an example of a worker who got injured and could no longer work being useless is they had no other skills. So yes if the blind persons hearing is so amazing he’s a better scout that someone who can actually see then that’s fine.
Mate, I think you've forgotten that we're talking about an apocalypse, as well as rescuing a person. WHERE is the wealth disparity in any of these examples? We don't even know if the lazy kid has rich parents or if the blind girl secretly knows where the valuables are in the house. I called it edgy because you've already painted every scenario with that lens, jumping the gun without actually weighing the options. That's not being pragmatic, it's sticking to a mindset because it's convenient to make assumptions and call it a day. So you've managed to say all of that, and end up agreeing with me anyway. You've set a whole narrative about already knowing the blind person is useless without taking the time to check, but actually you're okay with rescuing the person so that you can check if they can contribute. Let me be clear: you've labelled me as something I'm not so that you can rant about naivete and needing to make hard decisions, and all you've managed to do is disagree with the people who were going to more or less agree trying to maximize the value that people can contribute. THAT is why I called you edgy. It's a lot of wasted breath and inefficient navel-gazing. Oh. lol.
Novel A From the information given, we know that the culprits are a group of children led by a 13 year old. This 13 year old has repeatedly bullied others in the past and hasn't changed his ways. The MC believes that the victim's death was the intended result. It doesn't matter to us whether or not that is the truth. We are not here to discuss the MC's intelligence or deductive reasoning, but the morality of the MC's punishment. I believe that banishing the ringleader was moral and justified. To the MC, this is an escalating repeat offender who has formed his own faction and just tried to kill someone. He has already shown that he is incapable of reform. If she leaves him alone, then he will become a large threat in their community because he has followers who are willing to be accomplices in murder, whether knowingly or not. As for the other children being banished, that's a bit harder to tell. Does the MC believe they intended to kill the victim as well? Even if they didn't, did they believe that the victim would drown after falling into the pond? Are they also repeat offenders? As for what I would have done, I'd have banished the ringleader as well. I would also banish the others if they knowingly took part in the attempted murder or if they did nothing to help after realizing the victim was drowning. If they didn't know it was an attempted murder or didn't know the victim was about to die, then I would choose different punishments for them dependent on whether or not they are repeat offenders. If they tried to help the victim after he fell into the pond, their punishments would be lighter. Novel B From the information given, the MC has superpowers. He has a small group of followers and enough food to feed them for a few months. He chose to abandon a blind 7 year old girl who doesn't realize the current apocalypse is happening. It doesn't matter that he later decided to save her after she developed a superpower because we are discussing the morality of his initial decision. I believe his decision is immoral but understandable. Honestly, leaving a little girl to die when you could easily save her should always be immoral. However, the MC's decision also makes sense. This is a girl with a severe handicap. Choosing to take her in also entails continually providing her with resources and safety in order to keep her alive. She will always be a burden dragging him down. The fact that she didn't realize what's happening also means she's no genius. She might not be mentally incompetent, but at best she is a regular seven year old girl. She has no knowledge, limited motor skills, and greatly impaired perception. If the MC intends to stay in one place for a long time and fortify his base, then it's somewhat easier to take her in. However, if the MC intends to stay on the move, the decision to take her along would be untenable. If he doesn't intend to support her for life, then it makes sense to not take her in at all rather than take her in and then abandon her later. The loss of faith from his followers might be significant if they found out he didn't try to save the girl, but it would certainly be worse if he abandoned her after they've gotten close to her. As for what I would have done, I would explain what's happening to the little girl. If I plan to stay in one place for a while, I would probably take her in. If I am on the move, I would probably give the girl some supplies and tell her she's on her own. It's a hard decision to make. Leave her so that she'll be mostly safe until supplies run out, after which there's a 99% chance she'll starve to death. Or take her along where she'll face death daily and endanger me as well. She'll almost certainly live longer if left on her own, but that leaves her almost no chance for long term survival. It's not easy taking care of a child, and I imagine it's a LOT harder when in the middle of an apocalypse. Since I have no idea of what the MC's superpowers are nor how useful they would be, they don't factor into my decision.
Morals in apocalypse situations? what's that, can you eat it?. but seriously, morals in apocalypse situations are a razor sharp double-edged sword. A certain level of pre-apoc morals is good to try and keep group cohesion as well as maintain some semblance of order. however, too much indulging in pre-apoc morals can be just as bad as no morals at all. Now, to the two situations at hand: A) the decision is sensible to exile the ringleader as they are obviously a serious source of trouble that could build up to group-destroying internal conflict. the 'lackeys' are a little harder to judge as context is lacking. If they were complicit then the punishment is appropriate. If they just happened to have the bad luck of being there, well... it's not moral is all i'll say (reminding that what's moral and what's right is not always the same). B) Well, this is definitely an example of the moral vs practical conundrum that can easily come up in apoc situations but is also lacking a little context (mainly about the protag's powers). Is it moral to abandon her? no. Is it practical to do it, given limited supplies and 0 benefit? yes. The girl then developing a power? creates the benefit to justify the expenditure of supplies. Apoc scenarios can very much be 'practicality to the extreme' situations and, as i mentioned above, what's right and practical can easily be seen as immoral according to pre-apoc morals just as what's moral can be a very bad decision practically. Also, to the strange and random wealthy and equality argument: that is extremely weird and veers straight out of the apoc situations that are the premise of the title.
Well it was in my original post that the blind would need some amazing ability to compensate so that was my point not yours. You basically stole my point, pretended it was yours, then used it to prove me wrong. in an apocalypse it would be the same except wealth is now things like food and water vs actual money. Weapons and shelter would count as well because if you had food, water, and safety you would be the ones who make the rules and “poor” people would need to follow them.
There's nothing wrong with any of this scenarios. Novel A: who wants someone like that to watch their back? That's pretty obvious. Being young doesn't mean shit, in fact that makes it so much worse. Novel B: he's right about it would be better for the blind girl to die. I bet any survivor would make a meat urinal out of her if she's found.
She was fine with the ringleader torturing kids into joining his band. And then decided to punish these broken kids together with the boss for not turning against him. Interesting. I would expect the new ringleader to gather a larger more loyal gang before acting, and to kill her in her sleep. Society sucks.
Novel b.. If I were him, I would make the decision for that girl and her desire, and if she wanted to live, I would do as much as I could to save her. And if she wants to die then. I'll feel like I need to convince her that the choice of dying isn't that easy, but I'll definitely feel difficult and stressed if I go through a situation like this in the hero's place!
Well, that depends on whether or not you are willing to be ethical or not. As a manager, you are ethically bound to work for the company. As an employee, you are contractually bound to work for the company. Prevention of theft, graft, and abuse of company resources are an explicit part of a manager's duty. In addition, if you were the owner of a company, would you hire a manager who would treat your company assets as social welfare expenditures for non-employees of the company? Are you a manager that decides who gets laid off not based upon company goals but based upon how much outsiders use the social welfare benefits that a company offers to its employees and extends as a courtesy (not a Constitutional right) to the family members? If you do decide on laying off other employees because you emotionally feel you need to keep the employee whose family member(s) use up the company health insurance, then you would have cross the line on the concepts mentioned above. Another factor outside of the above ethical, contractual, legal, and moral obligations of a manager for the company that he works for is the welfare of company employees being managed. Many companies have annual or quarterly bonuses for each department or section based upon how much profit is left over during an operating period. Companies with health insurance plans purchase those plans or are self insured (100% out of pocket by the company which is my corporate employer). Basically, the more the health plans are used, the more the company pays. The more the company pays, the less profit is left over for the profit sharing plan. Thus, some employees will feel disgruntled that their group's profitability bonus was cancelled or their annual bonus was halved due to the employee's family member eating up the money.
You know apocalyptic situations just describe a world without order, without laws that protects the people, the weak eats the strong literally, the only viable law is the jungle law, it is just another chaotic era, like some early chaotic ages, morality didn't disappear, just that the will of the strong defines what goes and doesn't in such era, so if you find yourself in some apocalyptic era just hope that you are either strong enough to decide what is what or that you end up with someone "good" for you meaning, someone that treats you well, otherwise, you got no right to complain about anything XD
That fact that you say in the same sentence, moral and apocalypse is in off to show how naive you are. Even when there is no apocalypse people will still be jerks and ''evil'' so don't imagine when there is no legitimate authority with the power to maintain them existing what will happen.
i agree with most of the comments tho.. just little addition that in the apocalypse world, the common sense of peaceful words can't be applied. Right and wrong can mix up and everything is right as long it have a better reason not just using common sense. You don't oblige to save anyone. Saving someone it's just your own choice. Apocalypse is all about surviving. well, it's understandable if we can't bring ourselves in a character's view. Apocalypse's word is needed good storytelling in terms of reasons "why" to justify the brutality of the survival instinct of humans.
I would like to know the names of these novels. For novel A: If I understand correctly, the FL can travel between an apocalypse world and a safe world. Since this is possible, the question remains of why the FL is staying in the apocalypse. I'll assume some sort of valuables are being obtained and then sold to the safe world. Presumably FL becomes leader of a team of survivors and is using them to obtain income in exchange for basic survival resources. Among the team are children being trained to later join the survivors in obtaining income. A group of juvenile troublemakers assaulted a trainee, presumably with the intent to kill. Said victim survived relatively unharmed. This was not the groups first offense. Presumably the group should have been educated and punished beforehand. I will assume this is at least the third offense of the group, if not more. Under these circumstances, it is obvious that more drastic measures must be applied. I would suggest prison for the ringleader, but a prison would be paradise in an apocalypse. Best solution I can think of given limited information: Separate everyone from the group for reeducation while sentencing the ringleader to exile or death, whichever does the least damage to morale. Considering it's a zombie apocalypse, if the other core members of the team deem the ringleader needs to die, using him as bait/distraction maybe the most effective and beneficial way. For novel B: If I understand, MC gets stronger do to peoples belief in him. MC also has enough stockpile of food to last for several months. MC finds neighbor's blind daughter after her entire family is already dead and she's left desperate and scared. Given these circumstances, if I was MC, I would save the girl, if only for her faith in me. She could also be used as a symbol of my "Kindness and Mercy" in the eyes of others. As such, she would not be a burden. Her awakening an ability might actually lower her value in that regard. I feel worth mentioning, my perspective of neighbor are the people who live directly one house away from me. Of these people, I only know one. I rarely say a sentence to them in a month. As such, my neighbor's are effectively strangers to me. I mention this because some people seem to find it offensive that the MC considers abandoning his "neighbor". I do not recall mention that the MC actually had any relationship to the girl or her family, besides living in close proximity.
How could he have explained to a seven year old girl that due to less resources she has to die. The dude probably felt like shit in a realistic situation. I would probably choose to save the girl because I would always think back to that situation and regret it and would always hold me back in some way or other. But then again people with disabilities definitely would be at a disadvantage in an apocalypse depending on the apocalypse. If they smarter than the average person then definitely worth it to save them because smart people are harder to find than you think. And the fact that they would be more used to being in a bad place than non disabled people.
Novel A: A punishment was necessary, but the MC's choice was probably too harsh. Children did something bad and put someone else's life at risk (may or may not have been with the intent to kill)... They absolutely need to be admonished and made understand that what they did is not okay and should not be repeated. I'm usually against punishing children in all honesty, but apocalypse scenarios do change perspective to some extent, so a punishment was absolutely necessary... MC probably went overboard with it though. There are better ways of handling this kind of situation than that. Basically, I don't think the action taken by the MC was immoral due to the circumstances, but they were wrong from the perspective of someone who has to lead a community and way too overboard. If one major offense from a child (that luckily, didn't even have a troublesome repercussion to it) is enough to exile someone, then how much pressure will this put on the rest of the people inside? All it takes is one thing being seen as too much from the MC's PoV and it's suddenly exile time. Go deal with the zombies yourself regardless of your possibilities of survival... That's basically a tyranny ruled by fear. It works, but it's not a good move if you want to maintain the society stable and don't want to risk a knife on your neck while you sleep. Novel B: Really hard to judge this one, since the MC had no obligation towards the girl at principle. In case A, the MC was already the leader and had the responsibility to care for the group... In case B, the MC had no obligation whatsoever, so the morals are a lot more murky. That said, if the MC was already planning on bringing people in, was stupidly powerful, and had the resources to last a few months, and cared for the girl... Then I think it's honestly absurd to leave a small child to die on her own.
It can be done! At an undisclosed Chinese food court somewhere in the Americas, a kid who was maybe 7-8 just took my order at the cash register!! They are smarter and more knowledgeable than we think!
That kids probably smarter than the average 7 year old. I wasn't even thinking about my actions when I was 7. But maybe being blind would give a vastly different childhood where she may have to adapt to fit in.