[Editor's Note: We haven't heard in a while from Robert from our God episode and are happy to have him digging into our back catalog and blogging on it:]
For those working through the PEL ethics episodes on Kant and Bentham (episodes 9 and 10), a common difficulty with the philosophy of ethics is that it can seem abstract and somewhat difficult to relate to the material in a practical sense. That’s why I like to think through my moral philosophical frameworks in terms of life in a post-apocalyptic zombie wasteland. And no show does Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham as zombie killers better than The Walking Dead (spoiler alert: this post contains Season 2 plot points).
If we could crudely oversimplify Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy into the maxim “the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the measure of right and wrong" perhaps Bentham’s philosophy might be manifested as The Walking Dead's police officer Shane Walsh. The hardened pragmatist of the band of survivors, he guides the group with his practical “all that matters is staying alive” philosophy.
Under this form of utilitarian logic an act cannot be judged as right or wrong unless one considers the outcome of that action. Think here of the classic ethical problem presented to first year philosophy students of the ‘ax murderer at your door looking for your friend’. A lie should be judged by its consequences.
In a season 2 episode Shane and a fellow survivor Otis are trying to desperately escape from an abandoned school with medical supplies for the rest of the group. As the zombies close in on Otis and Shane during their desperate escape Shane incapacitates Otis, essentially sacrificing Otis as zombie bait, in order to secure Shane's own escape and to bring the medical supplies to the rest of the survivors. It is a cold example of the brutal principle of “better that one man should die than that many should die”.
As Adam Smith's modern day apostle Russ Roberts loves to point out, the problem with this sort of decision making process is that it often has a self serving bias. It is no coincidence that often an action is both deemed “right’ under a utilitarian calculation and that the one who makes the decision also happens to benefit from it.
On the other hand, if Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of morals could be manifested as a walking talking zombie killer, it would be in The Walking Dead’s deputy sheriff Rick Grimes. Kant’s ethical philosophy, in contrast to utilitarianism, argues that actions are right and wrong in and of themselves, regardless of the circumstances surrounding them. His categorical imperative is an absolute duty that compels us to choose the right action, no matter how inconvenient the outcome. Rick is a man who does right for "right's sake".
When one of the young girls in the band of survivors gets separated and is lost in the woods, Rick leads the rest of the group in a search for her that lasts several days. When any reasonable person would call off the search Rick refuses because he doesn't believe that he should live in a world where people don't look for missing little girls. It is always right to search for a helpless child, whether you live in suburban America in the early 21st century or whether you live in a post-apocalypse zombie wasteland. If you do not look after helpless children you lose what makes you human.
Rick’s refusal to call off the search ultimately endangers the lives of the rest of the group and leads to even more deaths. Many die, so that one man can have a clear conscience. Or as Kant would put it, "Let justice be done, though the world perish". That's a problem with Kant's idealistic philosophy: consistency in principle leads to some insane outcomes. Kant tells us it is wrong to lie to an ax murderer who is beating down your door because it is always wrong to lie.
Both moral philosophies have sinister sides that play out in self serving utilitarian calculations that are rigged towards the powerful beneficiaries or in the actions of out of touch idealists, clinging to something that once made sense, but which now only hurts those around them. As for me, if I found ever found myself surrounded by the walking dead, I might prefer having Immanuel Kant leading my band of survivors.
Zombie references always good. And yet, if you were with the band of survivors completing your sixth hour of searching for the girl who got herself separated from the group (after you repeatedly warned against this!), and the hour getting late, you might prefer having J-Ben leading your band back home to safety! So, when the rubber hits the road, it’s all relative to frame of reference, yes?
Plus, I thought the real problem with Kant is that you always get to re-frame the rule (because you get to posit the future consequences of the “universal law”) in a way that suits your purposes. “You can’t ever tell a lie; unless it’s to a known axe murderer; who’s actually holding an axe at the time of inquiry; except on Sundays, etc.”
So ultimately, how the rule gets defined becomes arbitrary, and thus there’s no objective rule to speak of.
What I really love about the Walking Dead is how it reveals the flaw in both approaches. I think the bigger problem with Rick as Immanuel Kant is that he doesn’t reframe the rule. There is a perfect Kant moment, when a guy with a shotgun calls out “is there anybody in there?”. Only a lunatic would answer “Yes”. Rick of course answers… “Yes”.
It is a tough call, Kant or Bentham, but as Rick points out to Shane, at some point or another you as the non-decision maker are going to become expendable to the utilitarian. At least with Kant, he is predictable. His willingness to endanger the group can be spotted a mile off. Bentham on the other hand is doing all those utilitarian calculations inside his head and keeping quiet about it…
Hi Robert,
Sorry, I should have been more clear. My point is that neither the Benthamite nor the Kantian are thoroughly predictable with their outcomes, because Kant’s so-called universal rule will never truly be universally predictable. Different people will apply “universal applicability” with different premises and conclusions as to outcome.
Therefore, neither system is particularly predictable. Kant’s categorical imperative adopts a kind of Newtonian fiction that it works like math, and it doesn’t; it too has variables (to wit, predicting future outcomes if X were adopted as policy), and that’s where the uncertainty gets smuggled in.
Furthermore, as the non-decision maker, you’re equally expendable to the Kantian. (If you’re hiding in Kant’s closet from the zombies, for example, your interests are ill-served when the zombies come asking after you, given Kant’s take on lying.)
I’m going to analyze a bit different… I think the big picture is how in a new state of nature there’s a contrast in morality. But not really. Both Shane and Rick want/intend to save a child, both choosing dangerous ways to try and both foresee deaths. Only Shane actively murders Otis and Rick leads the way to death (passive/letting die). Shane’s the bad guy, direct murder. Rick is following Absolute Moral Rules (kantian), Shane’s actions aren’t for the good of the many. Shane chose Carl over Otis. And nobody’s brought up the morality of killing zombies? What if there is a cure? Can we equate them to having dementia? Does former conscious count as a self? What if they never attack? Just wondering what you think..
They do go into the morality of killing the zombies. Hersh is a strong opponent of killing them “in case” there is a cure, but I think the series deals pretty well with the “proof” that they are no longer living. There is a scene in which Shane convinces Hersh definitively that the zombies are truly dead, but credit to the Walking Dead for at least exploring the issue of whether or not it is ok to kill them.
Interesting point about Shane, I didn’t think of it that way. But I still think he justified it as “choosing the many rather than the one” as opposed to “Carl over Otis”.
In such a morally ambiguous world, I thought the decision to sacrifice Otis was Shane’s last moral choice. This is a boy he feels responsible for and he was going to do anything to ensure his survival. Now, what was interesting was his personal decay following the decision. To me, the question never was, was the choice moral, but did Shane have the moral strength to live with that choice?
Jason, I totally agree with you. I never felt terribly uncomfortable with Shane choosing to sacrifice Otis. Under the extreme circumstances, it is arguable that he had to do it in order to save the boy. What made an impression on me was the way in which Shane dealt with his decision. The lies, the dramatic head shaving, the savageness he exhibits afterwards all point to a man who has lost his moral compass.
Wikipedia: “Talking Dead is a live talk show hosted by Chris Hardwick that discusses episodes of the AMC television series The Walking Dead with guests including celebrity fans of the series, and cast and crew from the series.”
http://www.amctv.com/shows/talking-dead
After watching an old episode last night, I think there is a nihilism entry in there somewhere. What’s the point of going on living when death is a certainty etc. Walking Dead meets Woody Allen?
Depends on what “death” is…..
“… it is true that I do not respect [human life]
more than I respect my own life.
And if it is easy for me to kill,
that is because it is difficult for me to die.” – Albert Camus