Sacrificing and Saving Lives in the Zombie Apocalypse

The television show, “The Walking Dead,” portrays a group of survivors and the everyday challenges they face while attempting to overcome the zombie apocalypse. In season 2, Shane sacrificed Otis to the zombies by shooting him in the leg in order to escape to bring medicine to a young boy, Carl, who would have died without it. During the escape, Otis had already injured his leg and greatly impaired his movement. Otis was also the one who accidentally shot Carl while aiming for a deer in the woods. A Utilitarian would agree with Shane’s action because it maximized happiness and minimized suffering within the group. A higher number of people would be saddened by Carl's death than with Otis's death. Plus, the loss of a child is more devastating than that of an adult. On the flip side, a Kantian would disagree with Shane’s action because it does not follow the formulas for universal law or humanity within Kant’s categorical imperative.

According to Heather Salazar’s article, “Self Interest,” the theory behind Utilitarianism is that one should commit a series of acts “only if those acts benefit the whole of conscious life, where measurements of benefit include both short and long term consequences.” In season 2 of “The Walking Dead,” Shane’s group found and started to live with Otis’s family. Otis’s family consisted of six people while Shane’s group was composed of ten people. According to a Utilitarian, killing Otis to save Carl’s life, who was a member of Shane’s group, would promote happiness in a higher number of people. Killing Otis also gives the most happiness because the loss of an adult is less shattering than the loss of a child. In this situation, the short term consequence would be Otis dying, but the long term consequence would be giving a young boy the opportunity to experience life, even if it’s during the zombie apocalypse. For these reasons, a Utilitarian would agree and support Shane’s decision in sacrificing Otis to the zombies to save Carl.

 

Shane and Otis during their escape with the medicine

            In contrast to a Utilitarian, a Kantian would disagree with Shane’s action. Kant’s theory, called the Categorical Imperative, defines the steps that need to be taken in order to determine an act is being done completely out of good will. This sort of act should be done because someone believes it is the right thing to do, not because it benefits him or her. The first step to understanding if an action is out of good will is to determine if it could be a universal law using the Formula of Universal Law. In other words, one must ask if it would make sense if everyone in the world performed the same action. In her article, “Kantian Business Ethics,” Heather Salazar writes, “Kant’s first formulation, the Formula of Universal Law, uses the rule of consistency to eliminate those maxims that are internally inconsistent, or impossible to will if everyone willed them.” Because it is inconsistent or irrational for everyone to start sacrificing people’s lives to save others like Shane did, Kant would argue against Shane’s action. Kant would further disagree with this action due to his Formula of Humanity. The premise for this formula is that one should respect the other’s sense of what is rational. Therefore, one cannot ignore someone’s sense of rationality to get something he or she wants, also known as deceit. In the case of “The Walking Dead,” Kant would apply this formula and argue that because Otis’s sense of rationality would most likely disagree with him dying, Shane shouldn’t have sacrificed him; Shane deceived Otis. When applying the steps to Kant’s Categorical Imperative, it is clear that a Kantian would disagree with Shane’s decision to shoot Otis.

             Analyzing the theories of Utilitarianism and Kantianism opened my eyes to the different possible views of this situation. While I think Kant’s argument against Shane’s decision is strong, I still agree with the Utilitarian view. In my opinion, there was a likely chance for Otis to die anyways due to his injured leg. Plus, if Otis hadn’t shot Carl, then neither Shane nor Otis would have been in that position. I also agree with the Utilitarian point of view regarding suffering. More people would have been negatively affected by the loss of Carl than Otis. This could have affected the group as a whole and greatly decreased their chance of survival. If Shane was living in everyday life, maybe he would have made a different decision. However, the zombie apocalypse hardens people and makes them make decisions they don’t want to have to make. In a situation that involves surviving the apocalypse, decisions have to be made that benefit the group. Given the circumstances, Utilitarianism is the correct theory to apply to this ethical situation.

 

References

Salazar, Heather.“Kantian Business Ethics,” in Business in Ethical Focus, ed. Fritz Allhoff and Anand J. Vaidya. Broadview Press, 2008. p. 6-7.

Salazar, Heather. “Self-Interest,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Series on Ethics and Morality, ed. by Robert  Fastiggi. Gale Cengage Learning, 2013. p.1393.