If you have at all interacted with the The Last of Us fan-base at all, you will almost definitely have seen the plentiful debates about the ending of the game; was Joel right to take Ellie, should he have left her to make the potential cure, or was he right to save her life? Of course, this provides central philosophical debate, and forms part of the central tension in all following material – yet I believe there is another debate that is overlooked yet equally significant. Yes, the game intentionally created this moral debate, but this is only one layer of the ending. Looking at the choices Joel makes throughout the game, and the two choices he makes at the end – there is potentially a more interesting story to be explored.

The details of the ‘cure’ debate are as follows. Joel prevented the fireflies from killing Ellie, which was essential in order to create the vaccine to prevent further infections. In an interview, Neil Druckmann confirms that their intention for the story-line was that: if Joel had let Ellie be killed, a functional vaccine would have been made. However if you consider Druckmann’s narrative intentions as part of canon, the science behind the fireflies’ vaccine was shaky at best. We, currently – as of 2026 – are not capable of making vaccines against fungal infections. So, the possibility of it being successful since the outbreak in 2013 is slim. Often brought up in debates on the topic is the method of distribution for the vaccine, and the likely abuse of power this would create within the already very disrupted society of the outbreak. The fireflies would likely be unwilling to work alongside FEDRA (the fascist government in the post-outbreak world), and FEDRA would likely want to eradicate the fireflies and take the vaccine for themselves, and use it as a form of control for the people. Essentially, whoever is holding the vaccine holds the utmost power, and this sort of power imbalance leads to violence, and war. Not to mention literally distributing the vaccine would have been near impossible anyway.

There are mixed opinions online about certain surgeon audio logs that have potentially been removed from the game since – though no one can be fully sure they even existed in the first place as little to no record of them exists on the internet (as far as I am aware).

Though, of course, acting under Neil Druckmann’s canon, the vaccine would have been successful, and saved humanity. If there was no longer a real risk of transferring infection, then the QZs would eventually no longer be necessary, creating a power struggle with FEDRA, which may have led to their demise – or an even more harsh regime. There’s no way to say.

I think this debate is important, and a crucial philosophical question posed by the game, but I also feel it is significant to understand why it didn’t mean that much to Joel, and why he didn’t hesitate before rescuing Ellie. Throughout the game, what motivates Joel is protecting (and honouring) who he considers to be his family. The opening of the game shows that, despite not being the closest father, he would do anything to protect his daughter. It is also shown when we hear of his backstory with Tommy. He does what he can in order to keep his brother safe, following him into different walks of life, and routinely checking up on him when they are separated. He finds family in Tess – and does what he can to protect her in the QZ (as she does what she can to protect him as well). This motivation potentially helps us to understand some of his frustration at Tommy when they reunite for the first time in Jackson. Tommy is creating his own family, and although Joel is proud of him, there is perhaps a slight notion that Joel feels betrayed that Tommy has found a new family and left his old one behind. If there is one thing to know about Joel Miller it is that he is loyal to the bone.

This is why he saves Ellie – what is a world worth saving without family? Something to live for, something to fight for, something to love? A world that murders children in the name of salvation is not a world to be saved, perhaps. But Joel only thinks of Ellie. He finds a purpose in being a protector for the people he cares about, which brings him out of his shell, seen best when him and Ellie talk in Salt Lake City. Joel never cared about saving the world, and this was made explicit from the start. It was Tess’ wish that he deliver Ellie to the fireflies, Tess’ wish that she could be the cure to the apocalypse, but Joel was never on board with this plan. He was too concerned about keeping them safe, especially Tess. It’s quite a simple realisation in the end – and a huge emphasis is placed throughout the game on the value of community, family and friendship. The Jackson community thriving in the face of the outbreak, Sam and Henry’s storyline, and all of Joel’s relationships throughout the story – they all lead to this now inevitable final answer. I don’t think there is a universe where Joel lets them kill Ellie.

The second debate, the one perhaps less spoken about, is on Joel’s decision to lie to Ellie about what happened at the hospital – which follows on from the initial moral question posed by his saving her. He is clearly motivated by protecting her, and protecting his family, but is that what he does? First he lies to her in the car. She asks what happened and he tells her that there are dozens more immune people, but that the fireflies have stopped looking for a cure. She says nothing and turns away, likely deep in thought, but this is a clear sign of the first sign of animosity between them. She suspects he is lying, even here. Then she asks again, clearly having not believed him the first time, but wanting so badly for it to be true, but he lies again, and this drives a wedge in their relationship.

All Joel wants is to protect Ellie, to keep her safe, but did lying to her do this or make it worse? It can definitely be argued that Joel was in the right here, that keeping her in the dark means that there’s no way of Ellie running away to try to find the fireflies again, to go back for looking for a cure. It is confirmed more explicitly in the second game, though the seeds are definitely planted in the first, that she believes her entire purpose in life is the cure, and that she would have been happy to die for the cure if it meant saving the world, if it meant that she amounted to something, that she made a difference.

However, I would also argue that not telling her the truth places them all in danger, and we see this come into fruition in the second game. Ellie has no idea that people might be coming after her, coming after Joel, because he insists on keeping her in the dark about it. Though Joel technically doesn’t know there are people after him, he still knows his actions and the consequences that would likely follow. Telling Ellie would have resulted in her being angry at him, wanting to leave, but not telling her did the exact same, and then she had to find out for herself what truly happened. Keeping her in the dark meant that she was inherently mistrustful of Joel, and their relationship was damaged anyway. His motivation backfired, his fear getting the better of him, and he let that impact Ellie.

To conclude this saga, I believe Joel was right to save Ellie, but wrong to lie to her. He has always been one to protect, but perhaps in this instance this rebounded, and he ended up creating more danger for them as a family. These debates ask much more interesting questions of Joel and his character and motivations when they are held in equal value, uncovering his flaws in a fascinating light. It focuses more on these characters a people rather than pawns in the greater plot of the game, and provides more interesting ‘What If?s’. The Last of Us has always been a game that excels in its meaning and philosophy, and it is both fun and important to really break down these moral tensions.