Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Wild Wild West: The Ethics of Re-Animation


The 1985 film Re-Animator provides its viewers with an interesting deviance from typical zombie-themed movies. Unlike many zombie movies, Re-Animator is not based around a zombie apocalypse in which members of the general population become infected with a virus that makes them behave like zombies. The “zombies” in this film are people that were revived from the dead. In fact according to ancient witchcraft a zombie is a formerly dead corpse that has been partially restored to life. Medical student Herbert West re-animates several dead corpses through the use of a glowing reagent. The re-animated corpses included a cat, a random corpse, two college professors, and the dean of the medical school he attends. West initially re-animates one of his professors that died suddenly, however he is caught by the dean. This causes him to transfer to another university in order to further his research. After West re-animates his dead cat Rufus, he decides to further his research in order to conquer death. In order to further his research, West and another classmate sneak into the university morgue in order to test the reagent. They are caught by Dean Halsey(the dean at West’s new school), however the dean is killed in the morgue by a re-animated corpse. West then decides to inject Dean Halsey with the reagent which causes him to return to life in a zombie-like state. After being threatened by a professor(professor Hill) West decapitates him with a shovel and re-animates his corpse as well. West is ultimately killed by professor Hill’s re-animated corpse. One could argue that from a utilitarian point of view, and a Kantian point of view, West’s research was ethical because it had the potential to benefit society as a whole. 

West’s research could be seen as ethical from a utilitarian point of view because his research was for the greater good. The greater good case means that if West was successful in his research he could have achieved immortality for all living organisms. This would be beneficial because in many cases suffering would be reduced. For example people would no longer mourn the death of their loved ones because they could simply be revived. Also people that are murdered would be able to continue their lives rather than being cut down unfairly. Even babies that died in infancy would be able to live. This would benefit society because what if several young people that were “taken before their time” had potential to do great things. Potential and success would no longer be victims to death. In fact West essentially sacrifices himself for his work because he knows the potential future benefits of his research. When Professor Hill’s re-animated corpse attacks him, instead of asking his classmate Dan to help him, he simply yells for Dan to save his work. Of course West’s research caused some suffering, however overall the possible benefits of his work certainly outweighed the downside of his work. As the old saying goes, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.  

West’s research could also be seen as ethical from a Kantian point of view in the sense that he is not doing it entirely for reward. West is doing his research because he knows that with this reagent he could end much of human suffering. Kantians may argue that West is doing the “right thing,” mostly because it is right. West realizes the danger of his research however he is rational to understand that it is imperative that he completes it. This is also shown in the scene in which West asks Dan to save his work. If West were doing this for the praise he would have asked Dan to save him because he would value his life more than his work. However since West realizes the importance of his work, and that continuing it is the right thing to do, he essentially sacrifices himself for his work. While alive West would be able to admire his work, and thus able to seek the rewards of his research. As a dead man West would not be able to admire his work, therefore through a Kantian lense it is clear that West was being ethical in his actions. 

In conclusion the movie Re-Animator demonstrates a protagonist with ethical actions. Whether one looks at West’s actions through a utilitarian lense, or a Kantian lense, his actions can be justified through ethics. West was working for the greater good, while equating rationality with goodness. 








References

Blackburn, Simon. Being Good: An Introduction to Ethics. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.Salazar, Heather. “Self-Interest,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Series on Ethics and Morality, ed. by Robert  Fastiggi. Gale Cengage Learning, 2013

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





No comments:

Post a Comment