These two commentaries originated in a post I reblogged, but I couldn't trace its history to be able to find the whole conversation, so I'm recording it so I don't lose it!
brusselsprite
I love Michonne, but I do not get the free pass for killing that dude who she easily could have knocked unconscious, nor do I get the forgiveness for the backpack guy. According to my moral compass, I choose Carol’s basically-mercy-killings of two people who were drowning in their own blood over that shit any day.
ikkleosu
Let me also add this: I love Hershel, and I love that his instincts were to try and save people BUT his instincts (as were shown back in the barn on the farm days) are also to be in denial about the true horror of things. In the prison his actions - or lack thereof - caused the unnecessary deaths of at least 2 people.
Due to his reluctance to lock people in, and put them down before they turned led to the shooting and walker feeding deaths.
Those scenes were a direct parallel to Carol’s actions. She killed 2 people before they turned to prevent the spread of the infection, and their potential actions once they became walkers. Hershel wouldn’t put down people to prevent them becoming walkers, and 2 people were killed.
In the end, it shows the futility of the whole thing - act or don’t act, the results will be the same. This also meant that neither option was more right or wrong than the other.
Hershel didn’t manage to save anyone by his own methods. Only because the team returned with medication did Sasha, Glenn and the others live. Everyone else who got sick before them died, including Henry and Caleb who Hershel tried so hard to save.
There was no happy ending in this story, and both Carol and Hershel would have to live with double guessing themselves over if they had done something differently those people would have lived. Chance are, they wouldn’t have.