• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • (sub)Text
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Immanuel Kant in Zombieland

May 10, 2012 by Robert Scott 10 Comments

Kant2[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.

Kant ponders whether his zombie scratch is worth telling the others about.

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.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Misc. Philosophical Musings Tagged With: Ethics, Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, philosophy blog

Comments

  1. Daniel Horne says

    May 10, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    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.

    Reply
  2. Robert Scott says

    May 10, 2012 at 11:42 pm

    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…

    Reply
    • Daniel Horne says

      May 11, 2012 at 12:25 pm

      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.)

      Reply
  3. Joanne says

    May 11, 2012 at 9:51 am

    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..

    Reply
  4. Robert Scott says

    May 11, 2012 at 10:08 am

    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”.

    Reply
  5. jason roche says

    May 12, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    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?

    Reply
    • Amber says

      May 13, 2012 at 11:55 am

      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.

      Reply
  6. David Buchanan says

    May 12, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    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

    Reply
  7. Robert Scott says

    May 13, 2012 at 12:35 am

    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?

    Reply
    • Laura says

      May 13, 2012 at 7:24 pm

      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

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Robert Scott Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Evan on Episode 130: Aristotle’s “De Anima”: What Is Life?
  • Jelle on Ep. 296: Heidegger Questions Being (Part One)
  • Erick Mitsak on Episode 130: Aristotle’s “De Anima”: What Is Life?
  • Evan Hadkins on Ep. 296: Heidegger Questions Being (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Tony L on Science, Religion, and Secularism Part XXV: Charles Taylor—The Protestant Reformation and the Rise of the Disciplinary Society

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2022 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2022 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in