Is Sacrificing Your Safety Ethical?

In Warm Bodies, the world is 8 years into a zombie apocalypse. R, a young guy who can't remember his past before becoming a zombie, falls in love with Julie who's part of a group of survivors that he attacked with a group of zombies. He brings her back to the airport where he "lives" to keep her safe and spending time with her starts a change in him that restores his humanity. When she runs away from him after learning he was the one who ate her ex boyfriend he learns from his friend that the other zombies are changing too. He decides he has to see her again and explain that all the zombies are becoming human again before the impending attack from the skeleton zombies happens. He risks his life to find her in the survivor base and does so again when he confronts her father, the leader of the survivors, in order to protect her and the changing zombies from the skeleton zombies.

Julie's father prepared to shoot R.

In this situation a utilitarian would agree with R's choice to endanger himself. As utilitarianism states, one should act to benefit the whole of conscious life and this "requires self-sacrifice, especially for those able to substantially impact" others ("Self-Interest" 1393). By telling Julie about the changing zombies and confronting her father he was able to defend the lives of all the zombies from the incoming survivor troops. This benefited the zombies but also the survivors because it gave them hope of a cure and in the end they work together and kill off all the skeleton zombies and reclaim the city. His sacrifice saves everyone in the city from the zombie apocalypse, human and corpse alike. This makes his decision justifiable to a utilitarian.

A Kantian would also agree with his decision because R made the choice that helped him reclaim his humanity. His decision also upheld his duty to help his zombie friends and to protect Julie from the skeletons. To empirically test his decision's permissibility a Kantian must look at Categorical Imperative which is tested with the Formula of Universal Law and the Formula of Humanity. These rules state that an action must be rational if it was willed by everyone and that humanity is treated as an end and not a means to an end ("Kantian Business Ethics" 7, 9). This follows the Formula of Universal Law because it is rational to expect that everyone in R's situation could make the choice to risk their lives to provide this information. It follows the Formula of Humanity because protecting his own humanity and that of the rest of the zombies are valuable results of his actions. A Kantian would strongly support R's actions because it upheld his duties and is found permissible by two of the formulas of Categorical Imperative.


Sources:
Salazar, Heather. “Self-Interest,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Series on Ethics and Morality, ed. by Robert Fastiggi. Gale Cengage Learning, 2013
Salazar, Heather. “Kantian Business Ethics,” in Business in Ethical Focus, ed. Fritz Allhoff and Anand J. Vaidya. Broadview Press, 2008
Picture Sources:
http://www.jaredmobarak.com/2013/02/01/warm-bodies/

Saving Humanity at the Expense of the Innocent

In the film 28 Days Later, there is a viral outbreak called “Rage” that spreads throughout England. It quickly infects any humans who are bitten and turns them into flesh eating zombies. The main character, Jim, ends up surviving the mass chaos of the initial outbreak because he was in a coma in the hospital. After a short period of time Jim meets up with other survivors. Two of these survivors are a woman named Selena and a girl named Hannah. Jim becomes somewhat of a leader to these two characters and he does his best to protect them. They hear on the radio that the military has set up a “safe haven” nearby, so the three characters travel to this place together. There the military has a barricaded fortress, plenty of weapons and ammunition, and enough food for everyone. The only problem is that there are only men who live at this place. Not too long after the trio arrives, it is clear to Jim that the soldiers want to use the two girls to help repopulate society. The women do not consent to this but the military men go against their will and attempt to do so anyways. 

Utilitarianism is the belief that one should act in order to benefit the whole conscious of life. Under this point of view, the whole conscious of life would be considered all of mankind. In 28 Days Later, the characters do not truly know the extent of the viral outbreak. For all they know, this military fortress could very well be the last stand for humans. It would then be considered a moral obligation for these men at the base to preserve the human race and ensure a future for mankind. Clearly the only way to repopulate would be for Hannah and Selena to give birth to children. But what if the women do not comply to doing so? The act of sexually taking advantage of someone is clearly an unethical decision. A Utilitarian may overlook this immediate negative consequence of rape in order to achieve a more positive set of consequences in the future. These positive consequences would include the women giving birth to children, those children growing up and having families of their own, and so on until the world is once again back to normal. In the eyes of a Utilitarian, a price paid by the minority of mankind is greatly outweighed by the benefits that the majority of mankind would be receiving. 

Hannah (left) and Selena (right) are forced to dress up for the "repopulation attempt"

Kantian belief is quite different from that of Utilitarianism. Kant was a philosopher whose work “emphasizes acting with respect toward all autonomous beings.” (Salazar, 3) Respecting an individual includes the acknowledgement of that person’s intrinsic value. The Formula of Humanity proposed by Kant states “to act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.” (Kant, MM 429) To better explain this quote, an end is something that is valuable all by itself. A means is something that is only valuable because it assists in reaching that end. The safety and preservation of mankind is an end because that is one of the most valuable objectives that exists in the post-apocalyptic world of 28 Days Later. The means to accomplish this end, though, would be to rape an innocent girl and woman to begin repopulation. Using the means of rape in order to reach the end (preservation of mankind) is highly unethical according to Kantian belief. The Formula of Humanity would not allow the use of Selena and Hannah without their consent. If Jim held this point of view, he would clearly see that the two girls are being treated unfairly and would not deem it permissible for them to be raped. 

Selena (left) thanks Jim (right) for stopping the military men

In my opinion, the best viewpoint on this topic would be the Kantian one. This belief states that people should “do what is right because it is right.” (Salazar, 1392) I’m glad that Jim saved the day and stopped the men from committing such an atrocity, because the raping of innocent individuals is an example of something that is clearly immoral no matter what the situation is. There can be a number of alternatives to this disgusting proposal. One option could be for the group to venture out and attempt to find other survivors who they may be able to work with to rebuild society. Another option could be to not force Selena and Hannah to have sex with the men. They could instead be welcoming hosts and merely suggest the option of the women helping with the repopulation effort. If the women did agree it would be entirely on their own accord and only when they agreed to do so. If the women did not agree, the group could try to outlast the virus in hopes that the zombies would eventually die or that another group of survivors somewhere would end the “Rage”.

References

Salazar, Heather. "Kantian Business Ethics," in Business in Ethical Focus, ed. Fritz Allhoff and Anand J. Vaidya. Broadview Press, 2008

Salazar, Heather. "Self-Interest," The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Series on Ethics and Morality, ed. by Robert Fastiggi. Gale Cengage Learning, 2013

Welcome Back! What was it like being a Zombie?

If you could bring a loved one back to life, would you? Is it the right thing to do? This is a question that has probably been on your mind at least once if you have experienced the death of someone close to you. Luckily, if there is a question, then there is a zombie movie that offers an answer.

In Boy Eats Girl, a high school boy Nathan wants to go out with his crush named Jess who does not meet up with Nathan for a first date because her overprotective father forbids her from doing so. Nathan, not knowing why Jess did not see him, assumes that he was rejected and goes home depressed to drink away his problems alone in his room. In a drunken daze, Nathan contemplates hanging himself. At this time, Nathan’s mother returns home from her job as an archeologist at the local monastery’s crypt. Conveniently, she discovered a book on voodoo magic earlier that day. She puts down the book and tells Nathan to turn down the loud music coming from his room. Nathan slips his head inside the noose and dangles his feet just at the edge of the chair, but then thinks better of killing himself and tries to get out of the noose. Nathan’s mother comes into his room and accidentally knocks him off of the chair and he accidentally hangs himself.

So, how was your day, Nathan?

            In a panic, she tries to reanimate him using heretical rituals she found in the crypt, despite a priest’s warnings that it would lead to unleashing evil. The ritual succeeds and Nathan wakes up the next day, but he seems abnormal to his mother: he is no longer his lively self and he is constantly thirsty and hungry, but otherwise he is the same. Suspecting something, Nathan’s mother reviews the ritual and finds that a page was missing from the book and she discovered that her ritual actually turned Nathan into a zombie instead of a true human. Nathan’s cravings for flesh become uncontrollable and he eventually bites part of a bully’s face off. This turns the bully into a zombie and by the next day almost the entire town has become a horde of ravenous zombies. After about 20 minutes of spirited zombie killing (including one incident with a woodchipper attached to a Bobcat)

It was pretty awesome

  Nathan’s mother discovers that a snake bite will cure the infected. After the snake cures Nathan, he finally gets to go on a date with Jess. The End.

            But was Nathan’s life worth the trouble that reanimation caused? Boy Eats Girl demonstrates how even people with the best intentions can take action leading to disastrous consequences, but her actions are justifiable if we consider her intentions only, since she didn't fully understand what could happen if the ritual went wrong. In this case, Nathan’s mother’s actions led to the deaths of dozens of people: no Utilitarian could justify the death of many for the sake of one tragically lost life. In contrast, Kant argues that in order to be good one must be acting morally out of a sense of duty (Salazar, 2) and we can consider  that all humans “have the right to life” according to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Blackwell, 137). So a Kantian might argue that as a society we are obligated to reanimate someone if we have the means to do so because we believe that life is a universal and self-evident right. Nathan’s mother knew there might be repercussions, but had no idea that she would cause a zombie outbreak. She had just lost her only son so it would be unreasonable to expect her to not reanimate Nathan since she had the means to. It is difficult to fault her motivations in the face of such a tragedy, despite the unforeseen consequences and the fact that she was not acting in a purely Kantian sense. She wanted her son back partly because he made her feel happy, not solely because it was her duty.

            Let us suppose that medical science progressed far enough to so that it were possible to bring the dead back to life and that they would be people and not zombies. A Kantian might say that we are obliged to do reanimate the dead since we have the means, but Utilitarians would claim that Earth has only so many resources to support humans at an acceptable living standard and it may be unreasonable to demand people who are on their “first” life to share resources with people who are living a “second” life when resources are scarce to begin with. One could argue that only certain people should be brought back, and that the law can judge who should be reanimated such as murder victims or people who died in natural disasters or wars. However it is unreasonable to expect society to allow only certain people to be reanimated, because most people would consider the law to be reaching too far in the case of reanimation, similar to how most people would not consider the government’s authoritative regulation of abortions to be permissible (Blackburn, 63-4). We do not have judges come into the clinic and tell a woman she cannot have an abortion: many people would have a serious problem with that. Like abortion, reanimation would have to be deemed ethical on an individual basis by those who are willing to reanimate the deceased. An accidental death or being a murder victim may be enough justification to some people, perhaps some people would want to reanimate the parents of orphans, and some would reanimate their friends to go out partying like old times. Reanimation itself is not bad, but the intentions behind reanimation are ultimately what determines if it is right or wrong regardless of whether one uses a Kantian or Utilitarian perspective. There are justifications for reanimation that are better than others, but denying people their autonomy by demanding they adhere to a law or one ethical code over another to make that decision is a greater fault that would go against Kantian and Utilitarian ethics at the same time.

References

Salazar, Heather.“Kantian Business Ethics,” in Business in Ethical Focus, ed. Fritz Allhoff and Anand J. Vaidya. Broadview Press, 2008.

Blackburn, Simon. Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. 2001. Print.

Light Up the Darkness

Lieutenant Robert Neville (and his dog Samantha) walking
through an abandoned New York City

In the 2007 movie I Am Legend, a cure to cancer has been found- the measles virus has been genetically mutated to stop the growth of cancerous tissue in the human body. Until the measles virus mutated for the worse, starting with patients showing rabies-like symptoms, and eventually transformed its subjects into highly aggressive and bloodthirsty zombies. The last known survivor of the plague, Lieutenant Robert Neville (Will Smith), along with his dog Samantha, is left to try to find a cure for the “KV infection” and search throughout New York City in an attempt to survive. Neville works out of a small lab in his basement to find a cure to the virus, as he works on lab rats and live infected humans, hoping to return them to their original (fully human) form. Robert Neville quoted Bob Marley, who said “The people who are trying to make this world worse aren't taking a day off, why should I? Light up the darkness.” While the quote was opposing racists in the time of Marley, Neville is in a similar situation, unable to take a day off from fighting the zombies and trying to find a cure to the disease that could save humanity.  Just as Robert loses all of his will to survive with the loss of his only companion, Sam, two survivors (Anna and her son Ethan) come to his aid in a sure-death situation and bring him back to his house. Just as he notices that his last vaccine injected into the zombie finally worked, the zombies invade his lab and begin breaking down the bulletproof glass door that Anna, Neville, and Ethan are cornered behind. After extracting blood from the zombie, Lieutenant Neville gives it to Anna and allows her and Ethan to escape the lab through a vent, as he stays to fight the zombies. He then pulls a grenade from a lab desk and blows up the zombies, along with himself. Because of Robert’s actions, Anna and Ethan were ensures a safe escape and allow them to eventually reach a small community, where they share the cure and tell the story of Neville’s selfless actions to save what is left of humanity.

Robert Neville and Anna in lab with infected zombie

                Utilitarians would say that Robert Neville made the correct decision in sacrificing his own life and killing himself with the grenade, while killing many zombies in the process. Utilitarians, in the words of Heather Salazar, believe that “one should benefit oneself only if these acts benefit the whole of conscious life, where measurements of benefits include both short and long term consequences” Salazar, p2). Since the measles virus mutated, Lieutenant Neville has been searching to find a cure to save himself and the rest of humanity (if anyone else is left), and is a perfect example of the quote. Utilitarians believe that one should not be self-interested often, and Neville showed that with his selfless actions throughout the movie, up until his truly selfless action of committing suicide to ensure that not only Anna and Ethan survived, but ensured that the cure would be spread and could save any other humans left on the earth. Neville’s sacrifice of his own life made a huge positive impact on all other humans, and even the zombies as his cure to the KV infection would return all of the zombies to their original [fully] human form. This is a great example of Utilitarianism, as they believe that, “the benefit of the whole requires self-sacrifice, especially for those able to substantially impact the benefits that others receive” (Salazar, p2). The sacrifice of one life would have saved the whole rest of humanity, and may have been the only way that humans avoided extinction altogether.

                Kantians would also agree with Lieutenant Neville’s decision to sacrifice himself for the greater good of humanity. Kantianism “holds people accountable to their inner value of humanity,” (Salazar, p1) and Neville clearly felt that the rest of humanity’s ensured survival was much more important than his own life. Kantians, in the words of Heather Salazar, are,” motivated from duty, seeking to do what is right simply because it is right, …not out of fear of punishment”(Salazar, p1). Robert Neville would not have been punished for leaving along with Anna and Ethan, and surviving the zombies for the time being, as it is likely no one would have put blame on him for zombies killing everyone, as it was probably the presumed outcome already.  But instead, he made sure that Anna and Ethan had a safe escape, and killed many infected zombies during his suicidal actions. His actions would be considered the right action because he defended the security of Anna, Ethan, and the cure by putting himself directly in harm’s way.

Infected human

                Though both theories agreed with the actions Lieutenant Robert Neville, I feel the utilitarian theory fits better. Kantianism focuses mainly on human to human interactions, and while Neville’s actions greatly benefited Anna and Ethan, as it greatly increased their chances of surviving the incident, and benefited the rest of humanity as the cure was spread, I feel that Utilitarianisms is a better theory to apply to this ethical situation. Utilitarianism talks about making personal sacrifices to benefit the greater good, and Neville was constantly sacrificing his time, safety, and eventually life, in an attempt to find(and help) other survivors and to find a cure to the infection.

I believe that although all three could have escaped the lab, those zombies would only continue to attack the Robert, Anna, and Ethan, whether they also entered the escape tunnel, or just continued hunting the three. Although Robert believed no survivors were left, as he repeated multiple times throughout the movie, I feel he made the right decision in giving those alive a much greater chance of surviving the apocalypse. It seemed that the more the movie progressed, the more Neville lost his hope in surviving and finding a cure, finding survivors, and the more he lost his mind. He already felt alone, talking to only his dog (the only living member of his family – his wife and son exploded in a helicopter in front of his eyes at the beginning of the apocalypse) and manikins inside stores. After losing his dog, he acted suicidal in taking on the zombies in his car, giving up on his hopes of survival and finding the vaccine. After Anna saved him, he still had little hope that anyone other than himself, Anna, and Ethan, were alive, insisting to Anna that they would not find any other survivors. In his final moments, Neville showed a renewed hope in humanity, as his purpose became clear. He had found the cure, and decided to join his wife, child, and his dog Samantha and sacrifice himself to allow his cure to save Anna, Ethan, and the community they travelled to.

References

Blackburn, Simon. Being Good: An Introduction to Ethics. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.

Salazar, Heather. “Self-Interest,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Series on Ethics and Morality, 

ed. by Robert  Fastiggi. Gale Cengage Learning, 2013

Wild Wild West: The Ethics of Re-Animation

The 1985 film Re-Animator provides its viewers with an interesting deviance from typical zombie-themed movies. Unlike many zombie movies, Re-Animator is not based around a zombie apocalypse in which members of the general population become infected with a virus that makes them behave like zombies. The “zombies” in this film are people that were revived from the dead. In fact according to ancient witchcraft a zombie is a formerly dead corpse that has been partially restored to life. Medical student Herbert West re-animates several dead corpses through the use of a glowing reagent. The re-animated corpses included a cat, a random corpse, two college professors, and the dean of the medical school he attends. West initially re-animates one of his professors that died suddenly, however he is caught by the dean. This causes him to transfer to another university in order to further his research. After West re-animates his dead cat Rufus, he decides to further his research in order to conquer death. In order to further his research, West and another classmate sneak into the university morgue in order to test the reagent. They are caught by Dean Halsey(the dean at West’s new school), however the dean is killed in the morgue by a re-animated corpse. West then decides to inject Dean Halsey with the reagent which causes him to return to life in a zombie-like state. After being threatened by a professor(professor Hill) West decapitates him with a shovel and re-animates his corpse as well. West is ultimately killed by professor Hill’s re-animated corpse. One could argue that from a utilitarian point of view, and a Kantian point of view, West’s research was ethical because it had the potential to benefit society as a whole. 

West’s research could be seen as ethical from a utilitarian point of view because his research was for the greater good. The greater good case means that if West was successful in his research he could have achieved immortality for all living organisms. This would be beneficial because in many cases suffering would be reduced. For example people would no longer mourn the death of their loved ones because they could simply be revived. Also people that are murdered would be able to continue their lives rather than being cut down unfairly. Even babies that died in infancy would be able to live. This would benefit society because what if several young people that were “taken before their time” had potential to do great things. Potential and success would no longer be victims to death. In fact West essentially sacrifices himself for his work because he knows the potential future benefits of his research. When Professor Hill’s re-animated corpse attacks him, instead of asking his classmate Dan to help him, he simply yells for Dan to save his work. Of course West’s research caused some suffering, however overall the possible benefits of his work certainly outweighed the downside of his work. As the old saying goes, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.  

West’s research could also be seen as ethical from a Kantian point of view in the sense that he is not doing it entirely for reward. West is doing his research because he knows that with this reagent he could end much of human suffering. Kantians may argue that West is doing the “right thing,” mostly because it is right. West realizes the danger of his research however he is rational to understand that it is imperative that he completes it. This is also shown in the scene in which West asks Dan to save his work. If West were doing this for the praise he would have asked Dan to save him because he would value his life more than his work. However since West realizes the importance of his work, and that continuing it is the right thing to do, he essentially sacrifices himself for his work. While alive West would be able to admire his work, and thus able to seek the rewards of his research. As a dead man West would not be able to admire his work, therefore through a Kantian lense it is clear that West was being ethical in his actions. 

In conclusion the movie Re-Animator demonstrates a protagonist with ethical actions. Whether one looks at West’s actions through a utilitarian lense, or a Kantian lense, his actions can be justified through ethics. West was working for the greater good, while equating rationality with goodness. 

References

Blackburn, Simon. Being Good: An Introduction to Ethics. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.Salazar, Heather. “Self-Interest,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Series on Ethics and Morality, ed. by Robert  Fastiggi. Gale Cengage Learning, 2013

Salazar, Heather.“Kantian Business Ethics,” in Business in Ethical Focus, ed. Fritz Allhoff and Anand J. Vaidya. Broadview Press, 2008

Playing Zombie Dress-Up

Take a moment to visualize a scenario where, in just a matter of days, the towns that scatter southwestern United States become forgotten. Thousands of vehicles are toppled and abandoned along the vast desert highways. Uninhabited by humans, this region is now home to zombies: flesh eating creatures that will stop at nothing to fill their stomachs. This is the world in which the critically acclaimed zombie apocalypse comedy, Zombieland (2009), took place. Four armed survivors scour this wasteland in search of human civilization. On their drive west, Tallahassee, Columbus, Wichita, and Little Rock (whom are named after their birthplace) take a stroll through Hollywood and find themselves inside the mansion of a mysterious "BM". As Columbus and Little Rock explore the movie theater, Tallahassee and Wichita awake something upstairs. It limps into the lounge, moaning, and creeps closer to Tallahassee. Wichita cracks a golf club across its legs, only to realize that it’s not a zombie. A closer look reveals that it is the house's owner Bill Murray (who stars as himself). After Tallahassee exclaims his admiration, they visit Columbus and Wichita in the theater. Bill "humorously" begins acting like a zombie and, in the end, gets himself shot by Columbus. Was impersonating a zombie truly beneficial for Bill to survive the zombie apocalypse?

Tallahassee (left) and Columbus (right) kicking butt

To understand why the television star decided to paint his face, wear a wig and act like a zombie, we must first become familiar with these types of zombies. Throughout the movie it becomes clear they can be outrun and are easy to fool. Anyone who’s seen Zombieland knows that Columbus’ #1 rule of Zombieland is cardio. Although they are alert, according to Columbus, it is easy to survive if the zombies simply cannot catch up. His trigger happy fingers (also his 25^th rule: shoot first) also gives him and other witty survivors the upper hand. Bill must’ve deduced that the zombies were brainless before the infestation spun out of control. In this case, his zombie impersonation was not beneficial to his survival, even though he had the right motivation in mind. It is easy to see where he was coming from though because odds are that a band of survivors isn’t going to wander into your house considering all the other safer places to hide. But then again, it’s easy to combat the zombies; courageous and trigger happy utilitarians could eventually cross your path before the apocalypse ends.

A real zombie apocalypse may produce very different zombies than the ones in Zombieland. Overall, it boils down to how the zombies detect scrumptious human beings. Do they see, sniff, or even have a sixth sense? Anything is possible when preparing for a world under attack and we have to assume the worst in order to guarantee our survival, right? Zombieland’s hungry inhabitants use their eyes to determine who is dead or undead, giving clever survivors like Bill the upper hand in the war against zombies. Other fictional zombie movies give insight to other ways of detection. For example, in the recent apocalypse horror World War Z, the zombies used their sense of smell to identify suitable hosts. Simply dressing up as a zombie won’t cut in this world, so more difficult measures had to be taken. If a disaster like this were to occur today, the safest way to survive is to stay hidden and not risk your life by trying to blend in. Until you know your enemy, assume anything. And even if you know they lack any form of intelligence, beware of the common utilitarian gang who will not hesitate to blow your head off.

This topic is also consistent with our non-apocalyptic life today. Immanuel Kant would agree that to be truly honest and true to yourself you must not impersonate other people you know or anyone but yourself for that matter. Even if you’re just trying to blend in to a new environment, you are not improving your well-being by pretending to be someone you’re not…unless, of course, if you’re surrounded by drooling, lifeless zombies who consider you one of their own.

References N/A

Should You Keep A Secret?

Andre and Luda, the happy couple.

All right, so let’s set the scene: There’s a zombie apocalypse that’s recently terrorized the city, and the only survivors we know of are hiding out at a mall. Two are married, Andre and Luda, and they are pregnant with their first child. In their last encounter with zombies, Luda got a minor bite on her arm but overall the two of them have managed to escape any major injuries. Sounds like they’re doing pretty well, right? WRONG! The survivors have discovered that the way zombies infect humans with their virus is through biting them. The time it takes you to turn into a zombie varies, but one thing is for sure: you will. That being said, is it ethically sound for Andre to keep his wife’s bite a secret? Especially since telling the survivors would mean certain death for his wife and unborn child…

Utilitarianism certainly says otherwise. Had Andre been acting in a utilitarian fashion, he would have put aside his own desires and told the other survivors of the risk to their safety. Utilitarian followers believe that “one should benefit oneself only if those acts benefit the whole of conscious life, where measurements of benefit include both short- and long- term consequences” (Salazar 1392). However, Andre chose to be selfish and endangered the entire group of survivors so that he would be able to keep his family together for as long as possible.

Luda once she has completely transformed into a zombie.

However, some might just agree with Andre’s decision to keep the group uninformed of Luda’s bite. Kantianism believes that, “in order to act morally…one must be motivated from duty, seeking to do what is right because it is right” (Salazar 1392). Since Andre views his sole duty to be protecting his wife and unborn child, does that make it morally okay for him to endanger the lives of others? I guess it depends who you listen to.

Now we all know that zombies don’t exist (hopefully), but this general principal can be seen in the real world. Lets say you have the flu, and your employer doesn’t give sick time. If you can’t get your shift covered, you might just go into work. But while you’re coughing and sneezing all over the break room, you’re putting all your co-workers at risk. All these poor people now could get sick because your wants were more important than the health of the group.

Making the right decision in this situation is hard, because well, there is no right decision. Everyone can agree that Andre should have told the group, but what if it was your wife? Your child? (husband, parent, pet fish, etc.) Then the decision starts to get pretty unclear. Factoring in the emotions toward the person, keeping the bite a secret seems like a pretty good idea…

Salazar, Heather. “Self-Interest,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Series on Ethics and Morality, ed. by Robert  Fastiggi. Gale Cengage Learning, 2013