Should you just kill yourself in the event of a zombie apocalypse?

By Justin Rutty

The argument for this is you’re just going to die anyways so just kill yourself and be less miserable? Some people say you are just going to be a zombie anyways and you’re just delaying the inevitable. There is also the argument that in this situation there is way too much suffering to be worth trying to survive. Even my friend said this while we were 

watching “The Walking Dead”. Lori was pregnant and was close to having her baby. As were sitting in his room he said “Who would want to bring a child into the world at that point” his argument was that the struggling and suffering that was happening in this world isn’t fair to bring a child into. He also said at that point, “What’s the point of life? You are just struggling to survive. “

My counter argument is you never know it might get a lot better. The best example of this is the movie “Shaun of the Dead.” Think about it.  In the final scene when they are surrounded by zombies in the Winchester, how easy would it have been to just all kill themselves?  Instead of them sitting there scared and afraid of being eaten by zombies to end their worries and just kill them selves. Probably. That depends on the individual. They contemplate that in the movie.  There are many people that can do that facing that situation.  Personally I would take my chances with the zombies but I’ll get to that later.  Yes it would be a lot easier but since they waited an extra few minutes they ended up living through the tragedy; saved by the military.

This decision even comes after great personal tragedy to them. They lose many people from their group including Shaun’s own mother and his best friend, Ed. So it’s not like he doesn’t suffer. In fact, it’s surprising he doesn’t kill himself.   This, however, all gets to the point it is not worth it to kill yourself.

So what should you do in such a miserable situation? Again, we look to the movie for a good answer.  At the end of the movie Ed, Shaun’s roommate, stays behind to close the door. He is not actively killing himself he is accepting his death; is not the same as actively committing suicide. What he decides to do is save his friends and take as many zombies with him before he dies, which is what I think is the right way to do it.  Yes you will die eventually but the point is think of all the good you can do by getting eliminating all those zombies.  You can save a lot more people. So between helping others before your death and the fact that you never know when life will get better it is in my opinion worth taking the chance and not killing yourself in the zombie apocalypse. 

Citations 

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


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

Blackburn, Simon. Being Good: An Introduction to Ethics. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. 

Photos

http://versusthescreen.com/?gamepress_reviews=review-in-retrospect-shaun-of-the-dead-2

28 Weeks Was Not Long Enough

          
      The film 28 Weeks Later is a direct sequel to the film 28 Days Later. This sequel begins 28 weeks after the first of an infectious virus called “Rage,” that devastated the population of Great Britain. After the population was completely wiped out by the virus, settlers guarded by military are sent in to begin repopulating the area. The settlers are required to stay in strictly regulated “safe zones” as to minimize any potential dangers to them. The ethical dilemma presented is the action of two children, Tammy and Andy. These children leave the designated safe zone in order to return to their home to retrieve something to remember their mother from. Upon traveling to their house, they find their mother, alive but she is an asymptotic carrier of the Rage virus. Some soldiers had seen the children leave and followed them out. Upon finding the children, they return them and their mother to the safe zone.  The return of the mother to the safe zone results in the deaths of most of the settlers, and also brings the virus onto the mainland. The decision of the children will be analyzed using Kantian and utilitarian viewpoints.

                The utilitarian theory follows the beliefs that the proper course of action in a situation is the option that maximizes happiness and reduces the pain and suffering of all. This is the primary foundation on how the morality of an action is judged. Actions are judged on the outcomes that they produce. In the situation presented in 28 Weeks Later, the actions of the children, Tammy and Andy, would be seen as very unethical. The action of the children leaving the safe zone to travel to their old house would only benefit them, offering little utility to the other settlers, even if nothing bad had happened. When the children were returned with their mother, the Rage virus was reintroduced the population of the safe zone. This resulted in the deaths of all the settlers living there, as well as the soldiers stationed to protect them. The actions of the children resulted only in pain, suffering, and death for those around them, and to some degree upon themselves. They had to witness the death of their mother, father, and those around them, as well as Andy being bit and becoming a carrier of the virus. Applying a utilitarian outlook on the situation, the actions of the children only resulted in pain and suffering, therefor being an unethical decision. The utilitarian action in the children’s situation would have been to stay in the safe zone in order to minimize risk for the majority of the population.

                Kantian philosophy is based on the ideas of Immanuel Kant. Kantian philosophy focuses on evaluating the motivations for an action. At the center of this philosophy, the concept of a categorical imperative exists. This states that individuals should “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that is should become a universal law.” (Kant) This basically states that one should only act in such a way, that everyone else had the right to do so. Applying this to the decision of Tammy and Andy, the situation is very unethical. The settlers of Great Britain were told to remain in the safe zones for their individual safety and the overall safety of the group. The children chose to ignore these warnings, and left the safe zone. This resulted in the reintroduction of the Rage virus in the population. A Kantian perspective would have prevented the children from leaving to begin with, as the action of leaving would be detrimental to the population if everyone had the right to do so. The safe zone was established to protect the population, and if everybody had the right to leave it, there would be no method of protecting the settlers.

                The action of the children was careless and foolish. Their decision could be seen as the naivety of the children, but this could have been stopped by both stronger parenting by their father, or better patrol by the guards. Both of the ethical perspectives used to analyze the situation would view the action as unethical. There are very little, if any, counterexamples to argue that the action was unethical. In my opinion, there was no good reason for the children to leave. It’s a sad situation for the children, as they were worried about losing the memory of their mother, but that doesn’t justify the risk of their own safety as well as the safety of every settler on the island. Eventually, the safe zones would have spread far enough to reach their house, and they could have possibly safely retrieved the items they so desired. Due to their lack of foresight though, their actions resulted in the deaths of all the settlers and soldiers there, and a great deal of mental trauma to themselves. The children had to deal with seeing hundreds of people killed and mutilated in front of them, and have to kill their own father. Andy was also bit by his father and infected, and now has to live knowing he carries the virus that killed millions, that should be nonexistent if not for his actions.

So, you're a zombie now, I'm going to blow your head off.

In the 2004 version of the “Dawn of the Dead”, there is a zombie outbreak which strands a small group of people in a mall somewhere in Wisconsin. These people become friends during the days they spend hiding in the mall. One of the characters, Steve, says to Ann:  “Hey, sweetheart. Let me tell you something. You, uh, you have my permission. I ever turn into one of those things? Do me a favor, blow my fucking head off.” In response she replies, “Oh, yeah, you can count on that.” Later in the movie, the zombies get into the mall and force the survivors to flee. They make their run in reinforced shuttle busses to a marina to set sail for an island. On their way, one of the busses flips over and everyone must hurry and seek refuge in the single bus. Meanwhile, Steve becomes infected and becomes a threat to the group and as a result, Ann shoots Steve in the head and takes the boat keys from him. In the end, the majority of the group make it to the boat and sail off. Their fate is never determined due the end of the movie shortly after the boat leaves the dock.

          The big question present here is whether or not Ann’s actions are morally right. Two philosophical views can be applied to this situation: Utilitarianism and Kantianism. Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy based on the formula that an action should be taken if and only if it creates the “greatest happiness of the greatest number” (Blackburn 86). By killing the undead Steve, Ann is protecting the rest of the group from getting attacked thus increasing their chances of survival. Steve also requested that if he ever became a zombie, that Ann shoot him in the head. In addition, if Ann did not shoot Steve, she would not have had the opportunity to take the keys to their escape boat from him. All these pieces of evidence justify Ann’s action from a utilitarian stand point. Each of the three pieces of evidence increases the well-being or happiness of the majority. With Steve “dead,” he could no longer pose a threat of infecting others, Steve would be happy because he never wanted to become a zombie and Ann acquires the boat keys which facilitate their escape. From the utilitarian stand point, it can be concluded that Ann made the best decision.

           Ann’s decision whether to shoot and kill the undead Steve can also be analyzed using a Kantian approach. Kantian ethics, “emphasizes acting with respect toward all autonomous beings” and that “we all have duties toward one another that depend on our relationships with one another” (Salazar 3). Ann’s action to kill Steve is definitely not respecting him in his current state. However the second part of the statement nullifies the first part because zombified Steve is not an “autonomous being” (Salazar 30). Steve’s actions are technically being controlled by the virus that has infected him and he has no control over his actions. Steve, as an autonomous being, was when he was alive and not infected. Therefore, Ann did not disrespect Steve by blowing his head off.  Furthermore, Ann told Steve earlier on that she would end his undead life if that was his fate and held true on her promise. It was her moral obligation and her duty to destroy Steve.

          Kant’s Formula of Universal Law and his Formula of Humanity under his Categorical Imperative also justify Ann’s actions. The Categorical Imperative is the “ ‘law of rationality that does not depend on [ones] desires, but depends only on pure rationality’ ” ( Kant, quoted in Salazar 6). When Ann’s actions are tested under the Formula of Universal Law, whether or not she should shoot Steve in the head so she can take his boat keys and reach her and the group’s goal of survival, it can be seen that she made the most rational decision. The Formula of Universal Law states that, one should “ ‘act only according to that maxim whereby [one] can at the same time will that it should become a universal law’ ” (Kant, quoted in Salazar) 7). Practically anyone in her situation would act in the same way therefore there are not any inconsistencies in her reasoning and she made the most rational judgment. Kant’s Formula of Humanity states that one should “ ‘act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means’ ” (Kant, quoted in Salazar 9). Kant believes in his Formula of Humanity that humanity is the main source of rationality in any individual and that their rationality is the only thing “that is valuable in-itself” (Salazar 9). Being so, when Steve told Ann to blow his head off if he ever became a zombie, he gave her a rational request. Once he was a zombie, whether or not he wanted his head to be blown off, he would not have any rational thought because he would no longer be human. Therefore, by Ann, who is human herself and has her own rationalizing power, fulfilling human Steve’s rational request, her actions should not be questioned and are justified.  

         I feel that both the utilitarian argument and the Kantian argument both explain the situation very well. It is true that if Ann did not kill Steve, the group including herself would have been doomed at the marina because they would not have had the keys to the escape boat. Her actions were definitely for the benefit of the majority. The Kantian argument also fits the situation well. Ann made a rational decision that can be universalized and was driven by her duty to uphold Steve’s request.

          In my own opinion, I feel that Ann had to do what she had to do. She wanted to increase her chances of survival and by killing Steve, she did just that.  If I were in her situation, I don’t care who became a zombie, I would blow their head off. I think of the situation from a Darwinist view point: Survival of the fittest. If I am more apt to survive a zombie apocalypse than someone else, and that someone else becomes a zombie, I am not going to let them get in my way or in the way of other survivors. In the end though, it doesn’t really matter. Even if I am the last survivor, I would be outnumbered by a factor of billions and would not survive too much longer. It’s a good thing that this ethical dilemma is only hypothetical and that zombies don’t really exist. Wait, what’s that nois

 

Citations

Blackburn, Simon. Being Good: An Introduction to Ethics. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.

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

Photo Credit

http://4.bp.blogspot.com

 

 

 

Break Your Morals or Die

     If an infectious disease was spreading around the country that could kill you what would you do? If it came down to it would you break moral obligations just to stay alive?  Imagine having to choose between breaking your morals or being left outside to be eaten by… zombies!!! Picture there is only one safe place in the country that can keep you free of zombies and keep you alive, but at this base immoral situations are taking place. Say there are military officials forcing women to "marry" a random healthy human being and reproduce with them in order to start a whole new society. Would you comply with this horrible matter or leave the military base and attempt to survive in a zombie apocalypse? I know to some people the answer to this question may come easy; do anything to stay alive, DUH! To me, that’s not the case. Even with a zombie apocalypse morals and ethics should not alter.

      In the movie, 28 Days Later, a disease that turns people into vicious monsters spreads across the United Kingdom. Jim, the main character, awakes from a coma in an abandoned hospital to find the rest of the UK also deserted. After wandering around aimlessly for a bit the zombies spot him!  And to make it even worse these zombies are hungry for HUMANS! Jim proceeds to run for his life before being grabbed into a secret hideout with other survivors. These other survivors inform Jim about everything that happened while he was comatose, mainly this horrible zombie apocalypse that caused a societal end. A few days later the crew of the four survivors find a military base; a blockade that is safe from all zombies. This military base is supporting the survivors left in the country with food, water, shelter and security. This sounds like a good deal, right? But they come to realize it’s too good to be true. Within the walls of this blockade the healthy humans are trying to start a whole new society free from the zombie apocalypse. This meant they were forcing sexual servitude on the female survivors.  The soldiers and male survivors thought this was okay!! These men tried to persuade the woman that this was for a good cause, that they meant no harm. The only thing the military officials wanted to do was start a new society so the women should just do whatever the men say. These woman did exactly what I would do…ESCAPE! So what if they are risking their lives, reproduction should only be done with the one you love, it should never be forced upon you. Love is a choice not a demand. If I were to comply with the soldiers and start a family with a random man I would be breaking my morals. 

            In a zombie apocalypse would you find yourself doing something that conflicts with your morals? If this were to happen to me my morals would remain unbroken. I would not do anything that went against my religion, beliefs or anything I did not believe was right. In times of a zombie apocalypse no matter how trying the situation may be, I would never break my morals and ethics. It is ethical to not break your morals even if it means risking your life. These beliefs could also relate to our real non zombie world. Whether we are talking peer pressure or even deciding an outfit for the day, my morals never alter. I do what I believe is right and morally ethical on a day to day basis. This is a key component in my life that dictates most of my actions. It is a bold move to stand out from the crowd and follow what you believe in, but for me whether we are in the real world or in a zombie apocalypse I will only do what follows my morals. 

   

            During the movie, the shelter offered is fulfilling all societal needs, but the ethical dilemma outweighs the need for that particular shelter. The dilemma that occurs on the military base is that female characters are disrespected and forced into unfortunate situations by the military personal. If you faced the ethical dilemma of procreating or left for dead would you succumb or fight for your life? If utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number of people maximizing happiness, does the justification of procreating for human kind outweigh the importance of your own life? According to Blackburn, “If safety includes freedom from a lot of evils, and if that freedom in turn makes up welfare or happiness, then we are close to Utilitarianism”(89). Escaping from the “evils” of the military personal would give me happiness and satisfaction. Knowing I am not being forced into something against my will would give me comfort and prosperity. These are a few ways the utilitarian’s would think. According to Utilitarianism, happiness equals goodness. Which also means happiness leads to a good life. Staying in the military base would not make me happy, it would make me depressed. Therefore leaving the base to gain my happiness back is the advice a Utilitarian would give.

     Ethics and morals should not change no matter what type of society we live in. If a zombie apocalypse occurred the ethics and moral code should not be dictated by the state of society, in this case a zombie apocalypse. Many people could argue that I should stay in the protected shelter safe form the zombies. However, the society within the gates was not a moral society and is not something I would let myself be apart of.

References:

Blackburn, Simon. Being Good: An Introduction to Ethics. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.

When the government goes utilitarian on us. How do you respond?

The government has locked you and close to thirty other people into a building. Somebody has a bloodthirsty killing disease that is incurable but who is it? If somebody begins showing signs is it ethical to kill them? Is it even ethical for you to be locked in this building in the first place to prevent the spread of this disease? What if the government did this?! In the act that the government becomes this utilitarian superpower what do you do when you find yourself trapped in a building with a contagious deadly disease.  Respond with a utilitarian action? Give in to this disease as it is inevitably going to find its way to you? Or simply kill yourself?

Quarantine, a movie produced in 2008 is a science fiction horror movie based on the outbreak of a rampantly spreading disease similar to rabies. This intense rabies disease now acquired by humans causes them to become 'bloodthirsty killers' attacking any human in the area. The disease has been traced back to a large apartment building where it is just beginning to spread.  With the majority of the residents in the

building along with a reporter and her camera man, the government decides to quarantine the building blocking off any exit with blockades of army troops. The entire population of the building are quarantined inside with the soon reality that some people have this man eating disease. With the main character being a reporter with her cameraman, you as the viewer see the scenes from a handheld camera view. A specifically relevant scene comes about half way through the movie when an older woman with the disease attacks a man that is helping the main character. The woman is killed as she attacks the man and it seems he is bitten. However, he tells the main character that he is fine and he was not bit. Later in the movie this man randomly attacks another character in the movie killing them and then both are shot down due to this event. Prior to this if you were present in the situation seeing the first man attacked but so called not bitten what would you do? I feel that if you are subject to a utilitarian situation, as in the government locking you in a building, it is your best priority to take utilitarian actions as well. This means lock up the bitten man or even kill him if you feel he is showing any symptoms. This view produces the least negative results as he can not kill anyone else. One death for the savior of more than one is a utilitarian view that should be engaged in this situation. Allowing him to survive and not killing him is the wrong decision eventually leading to another death.

Utilitarian views are represented by your actions having the least negative side effects. If the government or some higher power establishes a utilitarian system of quarantine, in this situation, the only way you will survive is with a mindset paralleling the initial action. If the government quarantines the thirty people within a building who may or may not have a disease, this disease will be subsequently isolated and destroyed. If present in this building, not carrying the disease, you must establish a utilitarian view in order to survive the quarantine hold out. In the movie the main character eventually is killed by a disease carrier when she is the last one alive. This point proves that her actions were not sufficient enough for survival, therefore making it clear that utilitarian actions in dire situations are necessary. It is necessary in this situation to kill anyone with the disease and stay close to anyone who you are positive does not have the disease.

In a real world this is not something that would be realistic. However, this crazy movie reminds me of an epidemic in my younger sister's grade involving head lice. It was sent out that students had head lice within the grade and to be cautious; checking your child etc. It stated to keep your child at home if head lice were present and to see the nurse. Every child spoken to by my sister stated I do not have head lice and seemed to remain in school. Although not a close relationship to this movie, with a physical quarantine present, one should still take a utilitarian view and avoid anyone who could have lice. It is necessary when in a 'dire' fairly important situation that your actions result in the least amount of negative effects. Staying away from people with lice, quarantining yourself, less people will get lice including yourself therefore resulting in less negative effects for yourself.

                A comparison of a lice epidemic and the movie Quarantine is a very broad stretch but brings about an ethical dilemma. If you are in a situation that is forced by a higher order utilitarian action, as in Quarantine, or in a tough situation as in a lice outbreak, the best actions are those following utilitarian views. 

Should We Have Let Her Go?

In the show The Walking Dead, nearly the entire population has been transformed into, you guessed it, zombies. We always joke around about how a zombie apocalypse is in our near future, but what if it actually happened? What if you saw nearly all of your loved ones turned into flesh-eating monsters, and you had to sacrifice everything to keep the few survivors safe? This is the reality for the main character of the show, Rick. By the third season of the show, the group that Rick is with has changed drastically, but this group of people trust each other.. that is until a woman named Michonne comes along and divides the group because of the decisions that they are forced to make. 

Michonne

The group had to choose between loyalty to another, larger, more powerful group, and loyalty to someone who had been loyal to them. This woman, Michonne, had betrayed "the Governor" of the larger group and he wanted his revenge on her. The smaller group had taken Michonne in after she got away from the Governor and had to choose between giving her back to the Governor and letting her get killed, or waiting for the Governor to come after them all and give his revenge on all of them. 

Utilitarianism is the thought that there are "billions of beings competing for resources,  [so] the benefit of the whole requires self-sacrifice" (Salazar 1393). Based on this statement, a utilitarianist would have given Michonne over to the Governor because that would've meant that they had more supplies and resources for the group with one less person in it. With the very limited food and supplies that the group had, a utilitarian would have understood that giving Michonne over to the other group would have benefited them. The group did not know Michonne well at all, so they weren't sure if they could even trust her. Utilitarianists also feel that "one should not be self-interested very often" (Salazar 1393). In this case, Michonne should have been willing to give herself over to the Governor because it would benefit the group and she would be being selfless.

The Governor

A Kantian would agree with the groups decision not to give Michonne over to the governor because of their belief that you should "[hold] people accountable to their inner value of humanity". By choosing not to let Michonne die, they were acting morally and not letting a tyrant (the Governor) force them to do something that they knew was an unethical thing to do. The categorical imperative "restricts what is rational for people to want" (Salazar 1392). This means that even though someone may want to do something, if it is not the ethical thing to do, they should not do it. So, even though giving Michonne to the Governor would have been the easier thing to do because it would mean they would be on the other groups' good side, Rick chose to not let her be killed because he knew deep down that it was just ethically wrong. 

I agree with Rick and the groups choice not to give Michonne over to the Governor. If they had, she would've ended up being killed and they would've had to live with that decision knowing that they could have prevented it by keeping her safe. Even though one choice may be a lot easier to do, choosing the ethical option will always benefit you in the long-run. Even though the resources that they had might have been very limited, that also did not stop them from making the right decision about Michonne in not giving her to the Governor. Sometimes, making the easy decision and making the "right" decision are very different and very difficult. Overall, choosing the ethical decision over the easy decision will positively impact you, even if the effects aren't immediate. 


References


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

To Kill or Not to Kill: Examining the Ethics of Killing a Baby in a Zombie Apocalypse

Imagine your life as a nurse returning home from a long shift to your husband at your quiet suburban home.  All is normal when you fall asleep, but you wake up to your spouse being attacked and bitten by the zombie form of your young neighbor.  You can do nothing to save your husband and he reanimates into a zombie as well, leaving you alone to face the zombie apocalypse that you soon realize has taken over your town.  After crashing your car in an effort to escape the takeover, you meet a few other survivors and together you break into a nearby mall, trading weapons with the guards in return for a place to seek refuge. In the midst of searching for these guards, though, one of the other survivors, pregnant Luda, fought through a minor brawl with a zombie, surviving with only a small bite wound.  Time passes and more survivors show up.  The mall provides much protection, but one of your acquaintances falls to the zombies when they find a way in.  When you hear shooting in the distance, you run to a store in the mall to discover a dead, zombified Luda, her husband mortally injured after mentally breaking down, and their newborn child wrapped in a blanket.  You open the bundle to reveal a baby who was born as a zombie.  What is your next move? Would it be an ethical decision?

In the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead, this is the dilemma that the main character, Ana, is faced with.  In the horror of the moment, she pulls out a gun and a single shot resonates through the corridors of the mall.  While killing a baby would most commonly be viewed as unethical, saving the other survivors from future attacks could redeem this action.  Many theories from different philosophers seem to support similar viewpoints on the ethics of Ana’s decision. 

            Based on the theory of utilitarianism, Ana made the correct decision in shooting the newborn.  Utilitarianism focuses on the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.  If the baby was allowed to live, she would be given the opportunity to attack humans and reanimate them as zombies, causing pain to those afflicted, their loved ones, and all of their future victims.  Also, both of the infant’s parents were killed, so growing up an orphan would cause pain to her and whoever would be deemed responsible for raising this zombie child.  In Being Good: An Introduction to Ethics, Blackburn writes, “Utilitarianism is consequentialist.  For consequentialism, an action that might be thought wrong, or undutiful, or unjust, or a trespass against one’s rights, might apparently be whitewashed or justified by its consequences, if it can be shown to be conducive to the general good” (Blackburn 87).  Although most, if not all, people would agree that killing an infant is wrong, the action can be justified by the fact that it is the best decision for the largest number of people in this situation.      

Luda's newborn in Dawn of the Dead

            As Salazar states in Kantian Business Ethics, “The Kantian approach to business ethics, like Kantian ethics in general, emphasizes acting with respect toward all autonomous beings. It claims that we all have duties toward one another that depend on our relationships with one another, the most basic and all-pervasive relationship between persons being that of a fellow member of humanity” (Salazar 3).  Autonomous beings respond and grow independently of the whole and have the ability to self-govern.  Zombies, however, do not have this ability.  Their desire and need for human flesh controls their every move and they slip into a trance-like state upon reanimation.  Disregarding zombies as autonomous beings, would leave only living humans to respect using the Kantian approach.  Ana’s best option would therefore be to kill the baby, giving it no chance to attack fellow members of her society. 

            Another group of philosophers use an approach to try to reconcile people to death, which would also support Ana’s decision in shooting the newborn.  By their views, life is full of disappointment, instability, and sadness.  Desires can never be fully achieved and everything is eventually forgotten.  Those that believe in this theory argue, Blackburn states, that “Death is a luxury.  Best of all not to have been born, but once born, better quickly dead” (Blackburn 76).  According to this theory, the zombie baby missed the ideal option to not have been born, but was given the next best fate.  Her death and leaving the miserable world around her was truly a gift from Ana, rather than something stolen. 

            Because newborns are rarely ever a threat to the world around them, there are not any direct links to this situation in the non-zombie world.  One possibility could be the birth of a child that would not allow the mother to live.  Some issues that share some characteristics and arguments could be infanticide and abortion, especially in a case where the child has some terrible disease detected before birth.  Still, there are many other arguments and resolutions that would need to be taken into consideration, so the issues could not be discussed in nearly the same way.

Blackburn, Simon. Being Good: An Introduction to Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print.

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