Zombie Cliche Lookout: Murder is Still Wrong
Even in the face of the zombie apocalypse, there are certain truths we cling to. I’m no psychologist, but I would imagine that this stems from our need to draw order out of chaos. The worse the situation, the stronger our need to find the universal tenets that still hold true. These can take many forms, from religious faith to the unshakable belief that the scientific community will be able to fix the issue, provided they have enough time.
If there is still a right and wrong, then a lot of things still make sense, even if most of the world has been turned upside down. It’s a small consolation, to be sure, but it’s something that people can hold onto and draw strength from in the worst of times.
About this Episode:
I’m posting this episode after my mini-vacation at the lake with my family. I’m sunburned and exhausted, so I hope you’ll forgive me if there are a few more typos in my write-up than usual.
Discussion Question: Justified Murder?
This question is a little weird, but I trust you guys not to take it too far. Basically, is there ever a way to morally justify murder? I’m not talking about self-defense or capital punishment or anything like that here. I’m only talking about killing when you don’t have to and are not being sanctioned by some larger body, such as the government or court system.
Personally, I don’t really believe there is. I think that people can justify actions in their minds, but not from an objective point of view. The obvious example here is someone who hurts your children. As a father, I’m sure I could justify just about any action taken against someone who hurt my kids, but objectively we know that is vigilantism. And for all the issues with our justice system, I really don’t think vigilantism is the answer.
Apologies for the lateness of this episode. I’d like to blame the scheduler, but this was totally my fault. I put this episode together after getting home, and was a little sleep deprived at the time. Because of that, I uploaded the wrong file, which caused the error. Unfortunately, I had to work away from home today, and couldn’t fix it until this evening.
I know that I’m answering slightly differently than the way you asked the question, but I’m stepping back some and say that you can ONLY kill anyone by first justifying doing so.
Having worked with batterers in Domestic Violence situs and sexual offenders, every single one had a “motive” (justification) for their actions;(when confronted) as to the Why question, they all responded in the fashion of “you don’t understand! The reason was . . ” and all manner of logic would emerge. Granted, from an observer it did not make sense, but from the offender’s inner world, their reasons were quite “logical.”
Wow, that’s some fantastic, and disturbing insight, Luis. Do you still work there?
Well, what if the murder had mental dysfunctions, or if he killed a man who was going to commit more murders such as 5? Or what if he did it to save his children?Such as the following:
You are downstairs in your basement with your children and some friends, there is a psychopath with a gun, one of your friends(who has mental in-capabilities) is becoming traumatic, and will soon scream. He is across the room, and the only way to save everyone, is to throw a knife at his throat, silencing and killing him. Remember, if you do not kill him, he will scream and everyone, including him, will die. Is killing him not justified in that way?
That’s the classic philosophical question right there: is it right to kill on to save many?
Regarding typos, there is only one: In the Discussion Question you wrote “to far” it should be “too far”. 😀 Sent from my mobile smart phone! 😉
Well that’s not too bad! Fixed.
Oh, and yes I plan to go back to Monday’s episode to correct the typos there.
I can’t see the text on the mouseover on my mobile though, would enjoy it if that could be made readable on a mobile if that’s possible! 😉
Unfortunately not. The mouseover thing uses the title tag to insert the text, and it only works on mouseover or if the image doesn’t load for whatever reason. There isn’t an equivalent touch command to trigger it, at least as far as I am aware.
This subject is a little weird for me. Because I like to sit here and think “yeah I’d probably do it to avenge people or save the weak.” But in all honesty? I find myself usually making the decision of letting bad guys live in video games. Where in truth I live and have no consequences either.
But no, in every game that allows me to let people live? Even the bad guys? I let them, and even try my hardest to find a way to let them live. If forced I’ll kill them but that’s about the extent. If you can save a persons life do it.. Even a bad person because they might THEY MIGHT just change or seek to change.
I tend to do the same thing, Calicade. But I have to wonder how much of that is conditioned from the medium. In video games, you are usually rewarded in some way for being merciful, so there’s a vested interest in letting the bad guy live.
Except.. Not in the Fallout games, instead actually.. Being an asshole tends to win you more in the series as if you kill some one.. Well you get their stuff for free.
Hah, I didn’t realize that. I’m usually a goody-two-shoes in Fallout too.
Justifying murder or death has more to do with your society than your reasons. Quickly Hippies would never condone killing anyone or paying for outdoor music festivals. Aztecs on the other hand needed alot of hearts to keep the Gods happy. Our society is much boarder with many different laws for states and countries which lead alot of people to feel morally superior to others.
The real problem here is Inez gave Murphy the wrong answer. By saying no she didn’t do it and even if he believes her, Murphy will always have it in his ind that she might have done it. The trust between them will now always be strained. If she had said yes I did and you now know why, he might not have liked her answer but he could accept it and they could move on both knowing where the other stands on this issue.
They are in the beginning of creating a new soclety with new rules. They really should start thinking of what those rules should be.
Excellent thoughts here, Rattraveller. I like what you said about giving him the wrong answer. We don’t know if Inez is being truthful, and neither does he, but it’s on him whether he accepts the answer. I imagine a lot of people wouldn’t.
I’m still after an answer as to whether Inez feels that her action of hitting Lou in the head with a sledgehammer is justifiable. It might be to her, but it is actually a form of murder if her actions had direct consequential damage that killed Lou. I don’t blame her for doing so but neither would I condone it if such a person would be in my group.
Technically, she hit him in the back, between the shoulder blades, but the point stands. That has definitely not been addressed. In her mind, it was surely justified by the fact that he had bodies outside, and both of her companions held at gunpoint. Her options were pretty limited, although you could certainly make the argument that she could have hit him in the knee or someplace else less lethal.
I must not have read the part about where you tell us where she actually hit him. But she hit him in a part of the back which would make him a totally useless zombie anyway, since it wouldn’t even be able to drag itself around anymore. 😀
The other, other, thing that bugs me is her “Lou didn’t make it” remark. This suggests that she implicitly felt a need to whack him in the head off-screen for whatever reason. Who knows, maybe she is sympathetic towards people who don’t want to become zombies after all? 😉