The second half of Season Three of The Walking Dead is about to begin. I have been blogging my way through The Walking Dead and Philosophy, an interesting book which uses the show to address some serious questions about life. The conclusions often leave much to be desired, but the book (and the show) provide a great opportunity to become part of the discussion.
Here is an excerpt from my final post based on the book:
The basic idea behind natural law is that unnatural actions will be self-destructive. Something is bad when it “isn’t functioning according to its general design plan, whereas an evil thing is, strictly speaking, something willful which chooses to act against what is natural or just.” Natural actions (that which participates in the good, as Aristotle would say) will be beneficial.
Elizabeth Rard (“Dead Ends”) notes the implications that follow from these contrasting ethical position: “Do these moral values exist objectively, or are they something invented by man? If they’re objective, the apocalypse… will not change the fact that doing X is wrong. If they’re invented… perhaps there really is no reason to be moral people at all.”
Tauriq Moosa (“Babes in Zombie Land”) forsees an apocaplypse in which our invented moral “X’s” will no longer necessarily be wrong: “We can’t assume that any action is by definition wrong. Our focus therefore is on an action that appears obviously good or beneficial: surviving. To be consistent, we must ask: if killing can be good and justified, perhaps surviving can be bad and unjustified?”
To explain his affirmative response to his own question, he examines the case of Maggie and Glenn’s desire to have a child. He writes: “It’s hard to conceive of anything worse for survivors to do than to make children suffer along with them…What reasons could there be for making another mouth to feed and another body to protect… [they] have a moral obligation not to have children.” Continue Reading…