28 Weeks Was Not Long Enough

          
      The film 28 Weeks Later is a direct sequel to the film 28 Days Later. This sequel begins 28 weeks after the first of an infectious virus called “Rage,” that devastated the population of Great Britain. After the population was completely wiped out by the virus, settlers guarded by military are sent in to begin repopulating the area. The settlers are required to stay in strictly regulated “safe zones” as to minimize any potential dangers to them. The ethical dilemma presented is the action of two children, Tammy and Andy. These children leave the designated safe zone in order to return to their home to retrieve something to remember their mother from. Upon traveling to their house, they find their mother, alive but she is an asymptotic carrier of the Rage virus. Some soldiers had seen the children leave and followed them out. Upon finding the children, they return them and their mother to the safe zone.  The return of the mother to the safe zone results in the deaths of most of the settlers, and also brings the virus onto the mainland. The decision of the children will be analyzed using Kantian and utilitarian viewpoints.

                The utilitarian theory follows the beliefs that the proper course of action in a situation is the option that maximizes happiness and reduces the pain and suffering of all. This is the primary foundation on how the morality of an action is judged. Actions are judged on the outcomes that they produce. In the situation presented in 28 Weeks Later, the actions of the children, Tammy and Andy, would be seen as very unethical. The action of the children leaving the safe zone to travel to their old house would only benefit them, offering little utility to the other settlers, even if nothing bad had happened. When the children were returned with their mother, the Rage virus was reintroduced the population of the safe zone. This resulted in the deaths of all the settlers living there, as well as the soldiers stationed to protect them. The actions of the children resulted only in pain, suffering, and death for those around them, and to some degree upon themselves. They had to witness the death of their mother, father, and those around them, as well as Andy being bit and becoming a carrier of the virus. Applying a utilitarian outlook on the situation, the actions of the children only resulted in pain and suffering, therefor being an unethical decision. The utilitarian action in the children’s situation would have been to stay in the safe zone in order to minimize risk for the majority of the population.

                Kantian philosophy is based on the ideas of Immanuel Kant. Kantian philosophy focuses on evaluating the motivations for an action. At the center of this philosophy, the concept of a categorical imperative exists. This states that individuals should “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that is should become a universal law.” (Kant) This basically states that one should only act in such a way, that everyone else had the right to do so. Applying this to the decision of Tammy and Andy, the situation is very unethical. The settlers of Great Britain were told to remain in the safe zones for their individual safety and the overall safety of the group. The children chose to ignore these warnings, and left the safe zone. This resulted in the reintroduction of the Rage virus in the population. A Kantian perspective would have prevented the children from leaving to begin with, as the action of leaving would be detrimental to the population if everyone had the right to do so. The safe zone was established to protect the population, and if everybody had the right to leave it, there would be no method of protecting the settlers.

                The action of the children was careless and foolish. Their decision could be seen as the naivety of the children, but this could have been stopped by both stronger parenting by their father, or better patrol by the guards. Both of the ethical perspectives used to analyze the situation would view the action as unethical. There are very little, if any, counterexamples to argue that the action was unethical. In my opinion, there was no good reason for the children to leave. It’s a sad situation for the children, as they were worried about losing the memory of their mother, but that doesn’t justify the risk of their own safety as well as the safety of every settler on the island. Eventually, the safe zones would have spread far enough to reach their house, and they could have possibly safely retrieved the items they so desired. Due to their lack of foresight though, their actions resulted in the deaths of all the settlers and soldiers there, and a great deal of mental trauma to themselves. The children had to deal with seeing hundreds of people killed and mutilated in front of them, and have to kill their own father. Andy was also bit by his father and infected, and now has to live knowing he carries the virus that killed millions, that should be nonexistent if not for his actions.