Sacrificing His Own Men for the Benefit of the Country

In the movie Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies, there is a disease that is starting to spread that no one knows how to cure during the time of Civil War. Being the president during this time of crisis, Lincoln leads a small group of soldiers himself to take care of the situation; to save his country. Having first hand experience with this sickness due to his mother being infected, he is confident that there is no cure and he must kill those who are infected. Lincoln and the small group of soldiers travel to the south to take care of the problem. When he is in the South, he encounters a problem with a group of confederacy including general Jackson. He soon inspires them and they all work together in order to kill all the zombies. While fighting off the zombies, some of his own men get bitten. As they were bit, Lincoln himself shoots them in the head without any hesitation before they turn in to zombies themselves. His action of shooting could be considered as either utilitarian or Kantian. 

Lincoln's act of shooting the soldiers in the head could be considered to be utilitarian. In "self-interest" by Salazar states that the theory of utilitarianism is, "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, 1393). Lincoln shot the infected soldiers for the good of not only the soldiers and Lincoln himself, but for the good of the country as a whole. If these soldiers fully became zombies, they could further infect others. The more zombies, the more getting bit by these mindless creatures, the even larger amount of zombies that forms. So by shooting the soldiers, he is able to reduce the risk of the country becoming infected. It would also be good for the soldiers that became infected because they would not have wanted to become mindless zombies themselves. If the soldiers could still have some common sense in their minds, they wouldn't want to become zombies infecting the citizens that they are supposed to protect. They also probably wouldn't want their families to see them as a zombie. If there was a cure for it, Lincoln would certainly not have killed these soldiers. They risked their own lives to fight with him and protect the country right beside him. The soldiers probably would have wanted to be killed rather than becoming zombies themselves. Lincoln had to think of the future and the country as a whole. He was forced to think in such way because of his title in the country; the President. As Lincoln did such act, the other soldiers understood what he was trying to do and prevent. The surviving soldiers did the same as they were about to get attacked by the zombies. They shot themselves to not only avoid the pain of being bit and their flesh being torn apart, but also to protect the country right along with Lincoln.

Shooting the soldiers could also be considered to be Kantian. Although the idea of Kantian does not usually agree with killing someone, but in this case, it was Lincoln's duty to kill the newly infected soldiers. The reason being is because killing the soldiers was the only thing that he could do in that situation. He traveled to the South having his country in jeopardy of becoming overrun by zombies. He was there to take care of the problem, not to create more of it. His sole duty was to kill the zombies that were created and eliminate the problem all together. As he shot the soldier who was infected, he did it without any thought. It was the "right" thing to do in that situation. As mentioned in the "self-interest" by Salazar, "... In order to act morally, from what Kant calls good will, one must be motivated from DUTY, seeking to do what is right because it is right, and not from self-interest or sympathy," (1392), one must do what's right and be motivated from his moral obligation. When killing someone without hesitation, they have no time to think about self-interest or sympathy. All he had time for was 'do it because it's the right thing to do.' As also stated in "Kantian Business Ethics" by Salazar, "we should allow people to use their rationality and we should use our own rationality, and we should never circumvent the use of rationality in order to get something that we desire, even something that we think of as rational and good," (Salazar, 9) doing something because it's their legal obligation and responsibility is considered as a part of formula for humanity. Everyone has the right to do what they do as the meaning of being rational is based on a reason or logic. Lincoln's logic was to save everyone. He saved the soldier by killing him and not letting the soldier to become cannibalistic. The moral thing to do when someone became infected was to kill them so they didn't have to suffer being something that is neither living nor nonliving. 

Both utilitarian or Kantian have their own reasons behind the views. They can both be right, or they can both be wrong. I think that depending on on how someone looks at it, their view can change. As someone who is viewing it from a third person, I think both of the views make sense. The viewer's own personal background and opinions would change what they believe. I personally believe stronger in utilitarian's view. The reason being is because although he did kill the soldiers because it was his duty, but he was there to save the country as a whole. By sacrificing the soldiers, the country benefited as a whole. He already had his set goal in mind when he started everything. He had his mind set to save the country by killing those who are newly infected more so than doing it because it was the right thing to do.



Salazar, Heather. "Self-Interest," The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Series on Ethics and Morality, ed. by Robert Fastiggi. Gale Cengage Learning, 2013. pg. 1392-1393

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