Kick-ass ratings, as you would expect. Do more sci fi like this, Hollywood, you will be rewarded with excellent demos.
I dunno where they're going with the story, but unless there's something to Herschel's "insane" notions of being able to cure zombie-ism, there's no moral conflict here.
Shane is right. Herschel is a deluded old man, and is immoral for endangering living people in a nutty attempt to save the dead. Rick is a poor leader, trying to "negotiate" with Herschel by participating in and reinforcing the behavior (saving zombies) that he should be trying to talk the guy out of. Rick got an up close and personal look at exactly why Herschel needs to be stopped - zombie catching sooner or later is going to result in disaster, especially with Otis gone.
There's plenty of interpersonal conflict here - Shane may be right, but he's also being portrayed as being more and more unstable (interesting contrast), and his motives are selfish, so his being right is merely accidental - but no moral conflict.
All that would change even if there were a possibility that Herschel may be right about zombie-ism being curable. Even if that shoe drops next season or the season after, long after Herschel is presumably out of the story, it would transform the meaning of everything we've seen.
It's interesting how much of Rick's personality in the comics is getting transferred to Shane in the TV series.
Not having read the comics, I'm not sure exactly what this means, but I think it's a good thing to have a more rigorously "moral" and even gentle lead character to contrast with the amoral character who argues for practicality at the expense of all else. To have both characters rolled into one would make the conflict too internal - which you can get away with in novels and graphic novels, but is problematic on TV, where all conflict must be externalized.
I find Shane in particular a fascinating character, and the more out of control he gets, the better he is.
