Killing versus being eaten: What would you decide?

Whether it's a T.V. show, comic book, novel, movie, anything in the entertainment field; when people think of zombie's they just think of mindless undead beings who's only goal is to "eat brains" which in turns converts that person to a zombie themselves.  With that in mind everyone in a zombie movie try their hardest to fend off the zombies and live. Well i pose the question what if an individual is unable to defend themselves, or has been wounded so severely (they are a hindrance to the group if they are with one, or just can’t go on living). Is it better for us as human beings to shoot that man or woman so they don't have to go through the intense agony and pain of being "eaten alive"? Isn't it our job as a fellow human being to ensure that the least amount of suffering will happen to those who are destined to die? 

In the Telltale Games' The Walking Dead, which is a popular video game based on the television series The Walking Dead. The game is an interactive thriller where the player gets to make choices and decisions; sometimes as simple as just choosing what path to travel, which in turn directly affects the progress of the game. The characters you encounter, and the relationships with these characters is also directly influenced which is why this game has a high replay value (because you can go back and make the slightest changes to alter the game completely). Now I digress, in the game there is an individual name Kenny. In the final chapter of the game him and his group are running across rooftops to avoid the massive zombie outbreak down below. At this time one of his group mates Ben misses a jump and falls about 4 stories to the ground below. Kenny and another man descend down the building to check on Ben and when the reach the bottom uncover Ben with a balcony rung ripped through his stomach. As Kenny attempted to yank him off the rung, walkers (the term used to describe zombies) heard Ben's cries and investigated the alley. Kenny then decides to stay with Ben at his last moments (although it should be noted Kenny’s entire family died directly due to the zombie outbreak and he has struggled just trying to live on day to day). As the rest of the group moves on the player watches as Kenny realizes he has one bullet left. Kenny now has the choice to spare Ben the agony of being eaten alive, or can take his own life being that he is surrounded by zombies. This takes this question to a whole new level based upon the idea that you now have to choose between yourself for another individual torture, but it is still a direct relation to the question. Ultimately Kenny does decide to shoot Ben and spare him because the group only hears his screams in the distance when there pressing onward.

What do you think? Is it ethical to kill another person in order to spare them pain and suffering of being eaten alive by a zombie? To take it even further could or would you spare them the pain of being eaten alive, if you yourself were going to have that same fate? Honestly, I personally think I could kill another person in order to spare them the pain of being eaten by a zombie, and in some circumstances spare an individual over my own life if we were both in a hopeless situation of being eaten (and there was only say one bullet in a gun). By in some circumstances I am referring to the fact that it would more than likely depend on the individual. If it was someone I cared deeply for a family member, a friend, even a fellow survivor who I had bonded with during this experience; I could give up my “freedom from agony” for them. It all comes down to the person you are and how you have been shaped throughout your life. The choice is very similar to those discussed in class previously. The question of whether assisted suicide (generally medical assisted suicide) is ethical. Should someone be allowed to die if they want to, and if they need help (like terminally ill patients) should doctors be allowed to let them kill their selves and help them by overdosing them on morphine for instance? Questions like these will never have “right answers”. Every single human being on this earth has their own opinions, ideas, morals, values, that are different from one person to the next. Each person has had experiences in life that will shape and mold them into what they are today, and are the reasons why they think the way they do.

To wrap this up Kantian’s would disagree with my idea completely that individuals should be killed in order to spare them from the agony of being eaten. Since there is no sense of duty, and is an emotional response based upon the fact that we as humans shouldn’t let others suffer for no reason, isn’t a valid response. Utilitarian’s could however find my belief valid. This idea that I am sparing and individuals life of future pain and agony of being eaten is one that is maximizing the good that could come out of a situation. If an individual is destined to die (and there is no other course of action other than killing him) then the best possible good that could come of this situation would be relieving him of said pain. Which is similar to another discussion we had in class regarding a man lying on the street dying; is it okay to just walk by the man and do nothing or would it be worse to just shoot him? If there was no chance of saving him would it not be worse to let the man suffer and die slowly, rather than just shooting him and ending his pain and suffering? Utilitarian’s would agree that the best choice of action would be to end his life and as such agree with my belief on this topic.

References

Blackburn, Simon. Being Good, A Short Introduction to Ethics. Oxford University Press, 2001.