Sacrificing One to Save Many

In “The Walking Dead”, a group of survivors band together in a post-apocalyptic society. Their group is lead by an ex sheriff named Rick. In season three while on an expedition to get supplies for the group they pass a hitchhiker who is begging for help, as he is alone and defenseless against zombies. The moral decision Rick faces is whether or not to pick up the hitchhiker, as picking him up would mean putting the group in possible danger and sharing their already low supplies. However, not picking him up would mean saving his life. Rick decides to keep driving. Later in the episode they pass the hitchhiker again to find that zombies have killed him and they stop to pick up his backpack. Ricks decision to not help the hitchhiker would be defended by a Utilitarian point of view as it states that you must maximize happiness for the whole conscious life and picking up the hitchhiker would mean endangering more lives than just the hitchhiker’s. On the other hand the Kantian point of view would disagree with his decision to not pick up a hitchhiker as this point of view states that a person has a duty to the right, selfless thing simply because it is right.

Utilitarianism is the view that every measure should be taken to benefit the conscious life as a whole (Salazar 1393). The Utilitarian must look at both the short term and long term consequences and benefits to decide what actions minimize pain and maximize happiness for the whole conscious life. In this view Rick’s decision to not pick up the hitchhiker was the right decision as it benefitted more people than it hurt. Picking up the hitchhiker would mean long term consequences of possibly putting the entire group in danger if the man was sick, or possibly even dangerous. Picking up the hitchhiker would have also meant sharing their limited amount of food and supplies, which would again mean jeopardizing the group. Leaving the man on the other hand would cause only one person to suffer which according to the Utilitarian point of view is preferable, as you must consider the conscious life as a whole and not one individual.

Contrastingly Kant would argue against Rick’s decision. The backbone of the Kantian view is the Categorical Imperative which states that a person should do good things “having a motivation that comes from what Kant calls the ‘good will’, which means that your motivation is from duty and is not simply self-seeking” (Salazar 2).  One version of the categorical imperative is the Formula for Humanity, which states you must respect your own and other’s rational by  “never treating it as mere means and always treating it as an end in itself.”(Salazar 9) Because of these ideals Kantians would disagree with Rick’s decision to leave the hitchhiker. His decision contradicts the categorical imperative because he makes a decision for a self-serving reason; in this case to not have to share his supplies. He decides to not pick up the man as a means to better his own life, which goes against the Formula for Humanity, which Kant discussed.

In my personal opinion I think Rick made the right decision. While I understand the Kant view that the act is self-serving, I feel Utilitarian’s has a more practical view of the situation. In a post apocalyptic society picking up a stranger, while an act of kindness, can jeopardize the lives of many. In Rick’s group there were many people including children who could have suffered from having to share their supplies and possibly even had died if the hitchhiker brought in sickness or was dangerous  this is why I feel it was necessary for Rick to make the decision he did.  

References:

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

Salazar, Heather.“Kantian Business Ethics,” in Business in Ethical Focus, ed. Fritz Allhoff and Anand J. Vaidya. Broadview Press, 2008 p.1-10