Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse

During the zombie apocalypse, everyone needs to rummage through abandoned super markets and any other stores so they can obtain necessities for life. Since everyone needs to do this, there is definitely a chance of your group of survivors stumbling into another group of survivors doing the exact same thing you are- whether it is searching for food or other basic items needed to survive. Imagine having just finished plundering the building of all its supplies and then as you are walking out with your haul, another group of survivors walk in trying to do the same thing you just did. They too need those supplies so that their group can survive, but you only scrounged enough supplies to barely help your own group of survivors. They might beg you for the supplies or even threaten to take your supplies. All you know is that you might not be able to trust them, for they could have very bad intentions  All that matters to you is that your group of survivors gets fed and survives the zombie apocalypse. How do you get out of this situation? Can you really just say “sorry I can’t afford to give you any of these supplies” to the other group of people? What if they followed you to your shelter and raided everything you have and killed you in the process of raiding your goods? Would it be ethical to just kill a group of survivors that you do not deem trustworthy so that your group of survivors will have a better chance of surviving the zombie apocalypse? Should you hold your own survival and the survival of your group as the most ethical idea you can have during this apocalypse?
          Now I know what you all are thinking, "but what if they joined your group of fellow survivors to try and make it through the apocalypse?" That is a great question and definitely a possibility during times like these. The biggest problem is trust. How can you trust random strangers who could just turn on you and your friends? Bringing in strangers is a very risky thing to attempt when everyone else is out for themselves and they probably hold their lives at a higher value than yours. This is where the three question approach can help you really know the other groups intentions and if they can be trusted. Rick Grimes from the Walking Dead came up with these questions, which are "How many zombies have you killed? How many people have you killed? Why?" The way that anyone answers these questions can easily show you how trustworthy they are and if you can let them join your group of survivors. This seems to be the most ethical way of treating strangers you don't trust too. If they need help and want to join you, you can see exactly the type of person they are and how ethical their ideas of surviving are. Of course there is always the possibility of lying, but other than that this method could be very helpful in finding out who is a friend and who is a foe.

          But back to the real question, what if they don’t want to join your group of

Standoff between two groups of survivors

survivors? What if they just want some food and you don’t have enough to give them? Is it ethical to kill them to make sure you and your group of survivors live? Everybody can be titled to their own opinions on this subject matter, but I do believe that killing the other group of survivors if they seem untrustworthy would be completely ethical. You can look at this dilemma through a sort of egoistic approach. You want to live through the apocalypse and you know the only way to do this is to work together with your group of survivors. If a random group of survivors that aren't trustworthy show up then letting them live could easily be a dangerous mistake. Egoism states that people will be selfish and improve their self-interests. Their biggest self-interest is definitely their survival through the zombie apocalypse. The world is already extremely dangerous with all the zombies, so why would you also want to worry about a group of survivors possibly hurting or killing you too. When the apocalypse comes you need to watch your back and the backs of your friends. Survival of your group is the most important thing to focus on in the apocalypse and you wouldn't want anything to happen to them because you made some strangers angry. I know that this ethical idea would not be tolerated in normal society and people might not believe this idea could come true, but if troubled times like this ever came, dilemmas like this could easily arise. The people who will make it through those tough times will be the ones who live a life where the safety of their group is held at the highest position, no matter how ethical or unethical you must act to ensure it.
          Even though I might have convinced you that my thesis can come true in the zombie apocalypse, it has no impact on today's society. People will not be going around killing each other because one person bought the last pair of shoes you really wanted. That is why my thesis is extremely controversial and everyone is definitely entitled to their own opinions. If a zombie outbreak occurs, would ethics stay intact? If they would then my entire idea would be wrong, but I do believe people would do whatever it took to survive through the zombie apocalypse or die trying. What do you think?