Good, Evil, Strength, Weakness and the Walking Dead

[madanthonywayne]

I'm a big fan of the AMC show, the Walking Dead. Not only is it entertaining, but it brings to light many interesting philosophical issues.

WARNING: MANY SPOILERS BELOW!

From the first season, the show has been a study of the nature of good and evil.

We had as the protagonist the small town sheriff (Rick), basically Andy Griffith in the zombie apocalypse. Rick repeatedly finds himself in situations in which survival demands that he do things that would previously have been considered morally reprehensible.

Initially Rick is spared having to grapple with these issues in his own mind because he has with him the personification of good and evil each always ready to make a strong case for their prefered approach. Dale was the voice of reason, compassion, and humanity. Always arguing that they should do the right thing. Then we had Shane. Shane who always argued for expediency. To show compassion was to show weakness and thereby to endanger the group.

Now, since both Dale and Shane are dead, Rick is left to wrestle with these issues himself. In the last season, Rick went from pacifist farmer to literally ripping the throat out of a man with his teeth in defense of his son's life.

Most of last season involved this mysterious place called terminus that promised sanctuary to all that came. In this years season opener we found out that the people of sanctuary were, in fact, cannibals who had turned cannibalism into something as mundane as a day at the office. We were also given the back story of terminus.

Apparently, the place was originally meant as an actual sanctuary. Then it was taken over by a band of brigands who raped, pillaged, and murdered. Ultimately, the people of terminus retook terminus from the brigands but had "learned the lesson the world was teaching them". That is, that you were either the butcher or the cattle. And they took this quite literally.

And if you still hadn't gotten the point, Tyreese was told by one of the Terminus cannibals that he was a good man. A man who saves babies.......... and that's why he's going to die. Tyreese later answers this by beating the man to death.

But what kind of answer was that? The man Tyreese was beating to death apparently took solace in the fact that Tyreese had seen the error of his ways and was, via the act of beating him to death, coming to see things his way. Was he right?

Even the leader of the band of brigands that attacked Terminus and turned it into the horror show it was, took great delight in pointing out that the people he had attacked had become just like him. He had victimized them and they had responded by becoming even worse than their previous oppressors. For the brief moment before being eaten alive by zombies, he felt morally vindicated.

Clearly the central question of the episode (and the show) seems to be this: Does being good mean being weak? Well, does it?

 

[James R]

Does being good mean being weak? Well, does it?

Interesting question. Most of the time we all abide by a 'social contract'. We give up some of our freedom of action in the expectation that others in the society will do the same. Being 'good' could be seen as abiding by the social contract, which includes following laws and not harming other people.

In every society, however, there are freeloaders who will try to work the system to their own advantage. Criminals are an obvious example, but there are social freeloaders too, who exploit the 'goodness' of others for their own advantage. Society generally sanctions such people, legally and/or socially, so that refusing to abide by the social contract makes life very difficult for the 'rebel'.

The Walking Dead presents us with a breakdown of normal society. The survivors of the zombie apocalypse must forge a new social contract, as far as they are able. However, they are living in a world with no large-scale government. Instead, there are small groups (effectively tribes), and different groups can have very different agreed-upon conventions of acceptable conduct. Inter-tribal clashes are, as much as anything else, about whose conventions of behaviour will dominate in a situation where two or more tribes coexist.

The Walking Dead also asks us to consider, in a life-or-death situation, what kinds of actions are permissible to preserve one's own life. Is survival at any cost morally permissible?

It also shows us that power corrupts. In a lawless society, life can be nasty, brutish and short - even without the threat of zombies.

 

[iceaura]

It shows that fiction is a powerful tool in the hands of someone attempting to establish morality - maybe the only one. And it can be used, therefore, to corrupt.

It shows that even in fiction it is very difficult to set up situations that plausibly justify betrayal of community - that show, say, how a justification for beating to death an outside threat to one's life or child justifies trapping, killing, and eating the neighbors. There will be holes in the plot, mistakes made.

It shows that the common experience of tribal people - that larger and more inclusive community, expansion of the group one must not betray, peace among the tribes, reduces the burden of violence and improves the quality of life - is visible in human stories and plausible reasoning as well as discovered in history: it's a property of human nature, not a transient circumstance of geography or the like. When the strong make a good peace, they become even stronger in the long run. This is true even when the strong are not wonderful people bucking for sainthood - witness the rule of India by the British, Britain by the Romans, China by the Chinese.

It shows that people who are generally good are stronger, as a people, than those who must guard against their neighbors. Lack of trust weakens the family, the tribe, the city, all the way to the State if you want one of those.

The idea that the personally good are personally weak is an argument for becoming stronger by betraying one's neighbors. If it is true, you are in a deep hole of shrunken community - much weaker than you could be if your community were larger.

 

[kx000]

Clearly the central question of the episode (and the show) seems to be this: Does being good mean being weak? Well, does it?

You can be weak and still be good in this world. But goodliness is godliness.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Sometimes in order to be good you've got to be bad.

 

[The Marquis]

In a lawless society, life can be nasty, brutish and short - even without the threat of zombies.

It can be the same in a lawful society, James, and often is.

Law is as often punishment after the fact, as it is a preventative. It serves only to centralise the concept of punishment, of retribution, and to act as a warning of consequence for a man being a man.
We accept universal law only because we see it as being of benefit to ourselves, not through any altruistic fervour. Rhetoric notwithstanding.

TV shows such as "the Walking Dead" are appealing mostly because they show us as we are, in our natural state.
They show us the fragility of society, and how society frees us from the necessity of responsibility. Even those tasked with the responsibility of administering law are subject to it. Law is the ultimate expression of society over the individual.

Shows such as "The Walking Dead" are a temporary, fantastic freedom from obeisance.
They are, to draw a comparison, not dissimilar from the old Roman Colosseum, in terms of function.

 

[Liebling]

It can be the same in a lawful society, James, and often is.

Law is as often punishment after the fact, as it is a preventative. It serves only to centralise the concept of punishment, of retribution, and to act as a warning of consequence for a man being a man.
We accept universal law only because we see it as being of benefit to ourselves, not through any altruistic fervour. Rhetoric notwithstanding.

TV shows such as "the Walking Dead" are appealing mostly because they show us as we are, in our natural state.
They show us the fragility of society, and how society frees us from the necessity of responsibility. Even those tasked with the responsibility of administering law are subject to it. Law is the ultimate expression of society over the individual.

Shows such as "The Walking Dead" are a temporary, fantastic freedom from obeisance.
They are, to draw a comparison, not dissimilar from the old Roman Colosseum, in terms of function.

I don't think that law is punishment after the fact. I don't think it is preventative either, I think that laws are made solely for the purpose of allowing citizens to sleep at night with an imaginary force field over their house and family and has absolutely nothing to do with preventing human nature. I think the idea of laws is just a simple willful assertion of the perception of protection for people. They do very little to prevent people from doing what they want to do based on the individuals personal ideologies and morality.

Case in point, the states that removed the speed limits on their highways and the autobahns that don't have posted limits. The average speed limit is still somewhere around 65mph. Because humans feel comfortable and safe in their cars driving at that speed. There are people who go to the extremes with or without the laws, I myself got a ticket once for going 96 in a 55 regardless of laws. There will always be outlaws, and there will always be bands of people who live by their own rules and those people aren't wrong necessarily, they are just not living by the controls that other people put in place.

I think that 'Walking Dead' shows us what can happen when hive/mob minds go bad and infect a society (see Terminus and the Governor's little town) and also shows us how we struggle internally with situations that we face.

Laws are not made to prevent crime. They are made for the lawmakers to sleep at night. When they are based on really stupid things (like Fort Lauderdale arresting a 90 year old man for feeding the homeless becaue of a law against it) then there will always be people who ignore the law and do what they feel in their gut is the right thing to do according to their own moral compass, laws be damned.

We have too many laws, and not enough community leaders teaching us to do the right things. 'Walking Dead' serves as a reminder of how to pick and follow the right leaders in order to survive.

 

[kx000]

Nooo don't. Good and evil, good vs evil wicked. Just good. Must be learned... knowledge. Good and evil is what leads to global floods and walking dead.

 

[Liebling]

Nooo don't. Good and evil, good vs evil wicked. Just good. Must be learned... knowledge. Good and evil is what leads to global floods and walking dead.

There is no such thing as evil. There is perceived good and bad actions based on your own personal moral system.

And the only thing that will lead to global floods are the ignorant masses thinking that it's some sort of event that is out of their control because they refuse to inherit the earth by method of reason and science and choose to believe in fairytales that somehow magically protect them so they can go live in candyland after they drown from the flood caused by global warming. Sheeple are stupid. Don't be a sheeple. Question everything.

 

[kx000]

There is no such thing as evil. There is perceived good and bad actions based on your own personal moral system.

And the only thing that will lead to global floods are the ignorant masses thinking that it's some sort of event that is out of their control because they refuse to inherit the earth by method of reason and science and choose to believe in fairytales that somehow magically protect them so they can go live in candyland after they drown from the flood caused by global warming. Sheeple are stupid. Don't be a sheeple. Question everything.

And there are also universal moral intrinsics that make up perfection that are not only subjective.

 

[Liebling]

The human mind is subjective, there is no such thing as an objective universal morality. Once perceived by the human mind, it is subjective. Unless you strip out several parts of the human brain related to interpretation, memory and emotion, and then clear that mind of any/all existing societal constructs and culture, your utopian ideals are idealistic at best.

 

[Trooper]

I don't think that law is punishment after the fact. I don't think it is preventative either, I think that laws are made solely for the purpose of allowing citizens to sleep at night with an imaginary force field over their house and family and has absolutely nothing to do with preventing human nature. I think the idea of laws is just a simple willful assertion of the perception of protection for people.

Or quite possibly to protect the criminal from vengeance.

Nietzsche thought that punishment exalted the sensation of being allowed to despise and mistreat someone as “beneath him”, a warrant and title to cruelty, vengeance. Nietzsche thought that we took great pleasure in making others suffer and granted ourselves this pleasure to balance unpaid debts. He called it a “festival” and said it was "like the beginnings of everything great on earth, soaked in blood thoroughly and for a long time."

 

[kx000]

The human mind is subjective, there is no such thing as an objective universal morality. Once perceived by the human mind, it is subjective. Unless you strip out several parts of the human brain related to interpretation, memory and emotion, and then clear that mind of any/all existing societal constructs and culture, your utopian ideals are idealistic at best.

You can't just have subjective virtue or your eternally conflicted which is not a moral. Peace naturally implies everyone. We all want the same things even if it influenced by us its gonna be what it was always destined to be. Give compatablisim a shot, very passive.

 

[Liebling]

Or quite possibly to protect the criminal from the vengeance.

Nietzsche thought the punishment exalted the sensation of being allowed to despise and mistreat someone as “beneath him”, a warrant and title to cruelty, vengeance. Nietzsche thought that we took great pleasure in making others suffer and granted ourselves this pleasure to balance unpaid debts. He called it a “festival” and said it was "like the beginnings of everything great on earth, soaked in blood thoroughly and for a long time."

I think that there is some truth to Nietzsche's conclusions, but it's subjective. I think that the kinds of gregarious people who want to be in power and make all the laws have a greater preponderance for this type of behaviour. And then there are the other side of that coin in the kind of socialist/humanist that wants to fix and help the criminal become a functioning healthy part of the society by making them feel like a citizen of the community. Neither is 100% effective at preventing crime since the recidivism rates between the two types of ideology depending on the initial crime committed and the poverty level in which we drop off said criminal. Sex crimes seem to have a much higher rate of recidivism (I think it's around 78% on average) and simple crimes like petty thievery and simple assault/battery have much lower rates.

But as someone who aspired to be a police officer when I was younger and who chose and alternate path as a nurse/social worker in the end, I have seen both sides of things. There are far too many policemen who do fall in to Nietzsche's festival theories and far too many social workers who ascribe to things like Avraham Hoffman's Rehabilitation Philosophy which is sweet but misguided.

 

[Liebling]

You can't just have subjective virtue or your eternally conflicted which is not a moral. Peace naturally implies everyone. We all want the same things even if it influenced by us its gonna be what it was always destined to be. Give compatablisim a shot, very passive.

All humans are eternally conflicted. Any trauma, tragedy, loss, conflict will tell you that. Peace is only possible without another human being or material existence, ergo... not realistic.

You cannot be human and avoid all conflict/change. Life is change and how we react and think about that leaves us in constant flux. Even the most peaceful buddhists recognize this impermanance of human existence.

Not sure what this trail off has to do with the OP though.

 

[kx000]

All humans are eternally conflicted. Any trauma, tragedy, loss, conflict will tell you that. Peace is only possible without another human being or material existence, ergo... not realistic.

You cannot be human and avoid all conflict/change. Life is change and how we react and think about that leaves us in constant flux. Even the most peaceful buddhists recognize this impermanance of human existence.

Not sure what this trail off has to do with the OP though.

Buddha taught he could end suffering meaning all transgression including death. Any buddhist who says we are imperfect or impermeineant don't know our determination or tanascity they can't possibly posses the light happiness, knowledge, and virtue of enlightenment that The Buddha received. We are not eternally conflicted, just be passive and respect the Chinese finger trap and you will know salvation. You can't possibly have peace without everyone. That implies a state of peace-un peace. Where we are peaceful just not with you. Suggesting we are not peaceful.

 

[Liebling]

 

[iceaura]

Case in point, the states that removed the speed limits on their highways and the autobahns that don't have posted limits. The average speed limit is still somewhere around 65mph

There are no highways in the US without posted speed limits. The restoration of them was made necessary by the hazard of widely disparate traveling speeds among American drivers on unsuitable roads, which in turn is partly a consequence of the lack of public transportation in the US - Germany does not have tens of thousands of jalopy-driving, rookie young, elderly and infirm, and simply incompetent people driving on its inter-city roads - and partly a consequence of the poor design and maintenance of American cars and roads.

The "average speed" on the unlimited stretches of German autobahn is much higher than 65mph when the roads are clear (Germany is crowded, and its roads get crowded as well) - but that number itself is misleading: it's variance, not top end alone, that causes accidents. German roads and driving customs are set up to handle their variance, and even so Germany has a considerably higher accident rate than lots of Germans think it should (or than one would predict for American cars and drivers and roads of similar quality).

Meanwhile, the "speed of traffic" along my commute is around 70mph in the 65mph stretches, around 65 in the 60s, and around 60 in the 55s.

btw: If the US had adopted a commuting speed of 50 mph in 1960, we might be driving on $1.25 gas today. A greater benefit to the US economy and by extension the daily lives of most US citizens would be hard to imagine. We were blind into trouble, back then - kind of like zombies, only at the wheel.

 

[Liebling]

There are no highways in the US without posted speed limits. The restoration of them was made necessary by the hazard of widely disparate traveling speeds among American drivers on unsuitable roads, which in turn is partly a consequence of the lack of public transportation in the US - Germany does not have tens of thousands of jalopy-driving, rookie young, elderly and infirm, and simply incompetent people driving on its inter-city roads - and partly a consequence of the poor design and maintenance of American cars and roads.

You are right, Montana reinstated it's speed limit, but surprisingly the fatality rate went up when they did so. In the last five months of no posted speed limit, they had some of the lowest fatality rates in the nation: http://www.cnbc.com/id/49520151

My point was that people will self-regulate regardless of laws, we might just not like what they do or where they are headed personally.

I do think it's sad that people don't understand that the faster they go, the more fuel they burn. My car does best at 58 mph, but I routinely drive 65 because I like that speed in my car. It's like it has a sweet spot. My car at 65 mph gets 36 miles to the gallon, which is great. The next car I am going to buy though is an electric. I don't go very far from my home in general, really just in a 6 mile radius around my domicile and I take a train if I need to go farther but I'm in a metropolitan area and I recognize that not everyone has that convenience. My last car got 42 mpg... I miss that little car, but it shook violently at 62 mph so it had to go.

 

[iceaura]

You are right, Montana reinstated it's speed limit, but surprisingly the fatality rate went up when they did so.

Not really. Montana without speed limits was one of the few states in the US whose traffic deaths were rising year over year, although these deaths were not generally happening on the no-limit roads (only a few stretches of Montana road were ever limit free, and they were the safest ones). If you are comparing, as most of the repeaters of that statistic are, the deaths in the five months prior to the five months after, you might keep in mind that the five months prior were nice safe summer/fall months of generally good weather, whereas the five months after restoration were the most dangerous winter/spring driving months of the year in Montana, and most of the deaths before and after were on speed limited roads.

As a rule of thumb, the safest speed limit is whatever gets everyone driving about the same speed. In the US, that "everyone" includes your 80 year old grandmother, who has no convenient way to get to the hairdresser except driving her car.

As long as the topic is up - hidden in the American driving stats is the effect of the declining incomes of young people coupled with the rising costs of - especially - car insurance. When driving badly costs so much compared with income, less of it happens - one accident and consequence insurance hike has made walkers and riders out of a lot of inexperienced, irresponsible, or otherwise incompetent drivers in the US.