The Walking Dead; 3.08 "Made to Suffer" (open spoilers)

[Human Action]

Originally Posted by Furious_Marmot

So, it is permitted to kill someone only to defend yourself against that person. No human shields or premeptive "you ain't from around here" murders. That sounds pretty much like the way modern civilization already works.

Yes. Our laws are, for the most part, also based around the rights of the individual. In the absence of the rule of law, as on The Walking Dead, the incentives change from our modern civilization's, though, as there is no law enforcement apparatus. That's where morality becomes a crucial bulwark against human suffering.

Originally Posted by Furious_Marmot

But your philosophy seems to hold that it would be immoral to steal in self-defense against anything except aggression by the person you are stealing from.

In the general case, yes, but every circumstance is different. Thus, an exacting list of proscribed behavior is pretty well impossible to follow.

Originally Posted by Furious_Marmot

So, one should submit to being eaten by a grizzly bear instead of momentarily grabbing then returning a shotgun out of a stranger's cabin.

There is a distinction between momentary borrowing and stealing. I don't think that's out of line, though the owner should be compensated for the shotshell used.

Originally Posted by Furious_Marmot

Or one should freeze to death instead of taking a winter coat hung outside a cabin, even though one could return it the next morning when it warms up.

Again, borrow or steal? If you donned the coat but didn't run off with it, I don't think you're inflicting harm on the owner. That's the key: is harm done?

I'll ask you a variation on this: you borrow the coat, and lay on the cabin steps. The owner of the cabin and coat returns, also needing the coat to avoid freezing to death (let's say the cabin is damaged and unheated). If you share it, you'll both likely die. What would a moral person do?

Originally Posted by Furious_Marmot

Am I close?

Yes. The code that seemed to dominate last week's thread was was Utilitarianism. Both can be tested with hypotheticals, of course. Here's a famous one.

[Furious_Marmot]

Two more.

How high do you place the bar for determining what constitutes aggression?

Someone says they are going to kill you, but not right now, maybe in the morning?
Someone takes your vitally necessary food/water/medicine/shelter? Like the person wearing your coat, lying on the front porch of your broken cabin.
Someone recklessly endangers your life, like lighting a fire while you are both stuck in an elevator?

Also, does the threshold for self-defensive violence change in an emergency, like a zombie apocalypse, or is it always at the same level?

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Fubaya

Man shoots woman over Walking Dead argument: http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/c...ment-1.4289872


Alright, which one of you was it?

See post #2 in this thread.

Originally Posted by Furious_Marmot

Considering their differing levels of tolerance for violence, new boy has more to worry about.

No kidding - "I put a bullet in my own mother's brain, and I *liked* her!"

[Human Action]

Originally Posted by chinchalinchin

Maybe in fairy tales.In the context of the show, the Governor slaughtered an entire outfit of soldiers (dumb scene, I'll grant you, but ignore that for a second). Out come: More supplies. No negative outcome. You could make the case the Governor is a villain and will thus be dealt with accordingly by the plot, but that's just a plot contrivance and doesn't reflect the actual mechanics of a world in which the zombie apocalypse has happened; something I think the show at least tries to stay true to.

I think we might be talking past each other. I was speaking to the reality of a zombie apocalypse (which seems silly typing it, but stay with me here). The Walking Dead is not an accurate representation of the events that would follow. For one, there would be thousands of Woodburys all over the place, mostly run by regular, honest, people, not despotic lunatics. But, watching people farm and submit to a code of conduct isn't entertaining to watch, just as a realistic police procedural wouldn't be.

Being a work of fictional entertainment, TWD has to portray conflicts and theme. The real world isn't under these constraints. But yes, I agree that the show posits that doing the wrong thing will benefit you, and that it takes strength of character to do the right thing anyway.

Originally Posted by chinchalinchin

Before I go on, let's just buy wholesale into the idea of a zombie apocalypse. The military has been overrun, civilization collapsed, yadda yadda yadda.

Sure, I'm bought in, as long as we're talking about the same thing.

Originally Posted by chinchalinchin

A new external force, the zombie apocalypse, has changed the dynamics of society. It's like those simulations that model fox and rabbit populations with differential equations. They exhibit stable equilibrium as long as the rabbits reproduce enough, but if the foxes reproduction rate suddenly goes sky high (or the rabbits get, I dunno, AIDS or something), the equilibrium becomes unstable and the foxes eat all the rabbits. In this analogy, people who cooperate, expect the best of people and are unwilling to compromise their morality would be the 'rabbits' and the people who go on marauding missions to rape and pillage would be the 'foxes'. The relative infrequency of groups in the Zed Apocalypse doesn't allow the 'rabbits' to flourish since their life spans do not give them to opportunity reproduce and pass down their values to a new generation, while the foxes get way more opportunities to propagate their seed whether through rape (as was mentioned in 'Nebraska' in Season 2) or through being the alpha male (How many women do you think the Governor is/has porking/porked? To our knowledge, at least two. But being honest, he probably has the pick of the litter as far as mates go).

Furthermore, the 'rabbits' are not necessarily doomed to stay 'rabbits'. It's pure game theory. If the majority of people are 'foxes', the only way not to get eaten is to become one.

In the long run, the rabbits win. My evidence: human society. By your logic, how did the "rabbits" ever win? Because they clearly have.

Society exists because there are more people that are willing to agree to a social contract than not. Humans are social animals, and will always band together. Since the vast majority of people are non-violent and cooperative, the groups will become non-violent and cooperative, and enforce the same rules we always have: no killing, no rape, no stealing, and so on. The cornerstones of human law for thousands of years. Furthermore, the most valuable trait you could possess in such a world is being able to get along with others; to cooperate. Because agriculture is necessary to sustain life, and the fields will have to be enclosed from zombies, you will need a large labor force to survive. Just like with our society, the incentive will be to follow the rules, and the rules haven't changed much over time.

The obstacle to this would be tribalism setting in amongst these large, stable groups, and preventing inter-group peace and cooperation.

Originally Posted by chinchalinchin

I don't think dysgenics is the proper term for it since that implies the traits being selected are disadvantageous. In the given enviroment, they are totally advantageous, at least for survival.

If the cooperative people are more likely to die in the early days of the apocalypse, that is dysgenic, because that is the trait needed to survive long term.

[Human Action]

Originally Posted by Furious_Marmot

Two more.

How high do you place the bar for determining what constitutes aggression?

Someone says they are going to kill you, but not right now, maybe in the morning?

No harm inflicted, no harm immediate, just words. You'd be wise to take them seriously as a precaution, but wouldn't be morally justified in killing them on the spot. Do you think you would be? What percentage of death threats are acted on, after all? 0.001%?

Originally Posted by Furious_Marmot

Someone takes your vitally necessary food/water/medicine/shelter? Like the person wearing your coat, lying on the front porch of your broken cabin.

Reasonable proportion. If you stole my coat and as a result I am freezing to death, I can morally use reasonable force to retrieve it, which could include lethal force if you refuse and fight back. If you're running off with my insulin (or what have you), I can similarly use reasonable force proportional to the threat you pose. But, if you have some of your own insulin and won't share, that's just tough shit for me.

Originally Posted by Furious_Marmot

Someone recklessly endangers your life, like lighting a fire while you are both stuck in an elevator?

Reasonable proportion. Whatever the minimal amount of force is to remove the harm or immediate threat of harm. I'd say you could deck the guy and put out the fire, for instance. His right to a fire is superseded by my right to live.

Originally Posted by Furious_Marmot

Also, does the threshold for self-defensive violence change in an emergency, like a zombie apocalypse, or is it always at the same level?

Same level. Harm is harm, a threat is a threat. What the harm and threats were would change, but not the moral responses.

[Furious_Marmot]

Originally Posted by Human Action

No harm inflicted, no harm immediate, just words. You'd be wise to take them seriously as a precaution, but wouldn't be morally justified in killing them on the spot. Do you think you would be? What percentage of death threats are acted on, after all? 0.001%?

Sounds like the dread pirate Roberts is safe then.

[chinchalinchin]

@HumanAction: I think the real issue at the heart of this is how much of a game-changer zombies would actually be. By the show's logic, zombies were able to overrun the military and completely destabilize world civilization in the matter of a month (probably less, since Rick woke up from the coma an seemed to be fine); I think that necessarily changes what are considered advantageous and disadvantageous traits. Anything of that caliber would totally alter the laws of natural selection. The game isn't really about long term survival anymore, i.e. societal survival, it's about not getting disembowled, i.e. personal survival. Sure, you get groups who become efficient at zombie killing and working together, but at the end of the day, they've adapted to a world where ruthlessness is key. They're natural reaction to another group is going to be hostile. Furthermore, how is a small group going to fare against the zombie apocalypse when the entire modern world collapsed under its weight?

Society does promote personal survival far better than rugged individualism, but in an environment that breeds rugged individuals it's harder to establish society.

In the LONG LONG LONG term, society would probably re emerge, assuming humans were able to survive long enough for the zombies to all die or something, but I'm talking hundreds of years. In the short term, i.e. the foreseeable future, it's kabash on society. I think.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by chinchalinchin

In the LONG LONG LONG term, society would probably re emerge, assuming humans were able to survive long enough for the zombies to all die or something

I suppose it depends on the actual anatomy/biology of a zombie, which we don't have much clear information on, or, what information we have is contradicting.

For example --

-- to what extent can zombies overcome simple barriers, such as brick walls, cliff faces, or even high doorway threshholds? To what extent can a zombie buried in a grave dig itself out?

-- at what rate does zombie anatomy deteriorate? Does it deteriorate only when it goes without feeding on living humans or does it keep deteriorating? At some point, all zombies will have deteriorated to the extent that they can no longer walk, To what extent can zombies survive on non-human food sources? If zombie flesh deteriorates, then does that mean that microbes are involved like they would be in non-zombie decomposition? Are there animals that can prey on zombie flesh? In other words, what are the exact differences between a zombie and a regular human corpse?

Also, it depends on how fast human society is able to adopt practices that prevent zombification, such as destroying the brains of people who are near death.

[DigitalC]

Originally Posted by chinchalinchin

In the LONG LONG LONG term, society would probably re emerge, assuming humans were able to survive long enough for the zombies to all die or something, but I'm talking hundreds of years. In the short term, i.e. the foreseeable future, it's kabash on society. I think.

Meh, no more than a decade. As long as zombie bodies rot away the only new zombies would be people who die, and there aren't that many left to swell their numbers. The zombies are at critical mass from their alpha strike, IF they actually do waste away society should be back in short order as long as enough people manage to survive a few years.

[Human Action]

Originally Posted by chinchalinchin

By the show's logic, zombies were able to overrun the military and completely destabilize world civilization in the matter of a month...

Is that what happened? I thought an unknown agent (viral, bacterial, fungal...) caused a deadly fever, which "killed" the bulk of the population and animated them as walkers. The survivors are those who are immune to the fever agent, and only animate following death. Walkers aren't directly responsible for most human deaths, are they? A massive die-off from fever is the only thing that makes the fall of civilization plausible.

Originally Posted by chinchalinchin

I think that necessarily changes what are considered advantageous and disadvantageous traits. Anything of that caliber would totally alter the laws of natural selection. The game isn't really about long term survival anymore, i.e. societal survival, it's about not getting disembowled, i.e. personal survival.

Sure, but I think the two are linked.

Originally Posted by chinchalinchin

Sure, you get groups who become efficient at zombie killing and working together, but at the end of the day, they've adapted to a world where ruthlessness is key.

Agreed, even the best people would be more suspicious of strangers, etc. But ruthlessness doesn't mean rape-gangs. A desperate man might steal food, but he won't rape or senselessly kill others.

Originally Posted by chinchalinchin

They're natural reaction to another group is going to be hostile.

Right, tribalism is the enemy. I think most groups would be internally moral and humane, because most people are moral and humane, but there is a human urge to treat outsiders as non-human, which would likely rear its ugly head.

Originally Posted by chinchalinchin

Furthermore, how is a small group going to fare against the zombie apocalypse when the entire modern world collapsed under its weight?

Right, there would be selection pressure to form larger and larger groups, with new initiates being subsumed to the group identity of the larger group that absorbs them.

Originally Posted by chinchalinchin

Society does promote personal survival far better than rugged individualism, but in an environment that breeds rugged individuals it's harder to establish society.

Sure, things would be hostile and shitty. I just don't think the world would be dominated by marauding rape-gangs and their victims; human nature wouldn't change that much.

Originally Posted by chinchalinchin

In the LONG LONG LONG term, society would probably re emerge, assuming humans were able to survive long enough for the zombies to all die or something, but I'm talking hundreds of years. In the short term, i.e. the foreseeable future, it's kabash on society. I think.

Originally Posted by DigitalC

Meh, no more than a decade. As long as zombie bodies rot away the only new zombies would be people who die, and there aren't that many left to swell their numbers. The zombies are at critical mass from their alpha strike, IF they actually do waste away society should be back in short order as long as enough people manage to survive a few years.

I have to go with DigitalC here, about a decade. Even if the zombies don't rot away, they simply aren't dangerous enough to wipe out mankind; only other humans could do that, and I don't think they would. A dozen people with air horns, a stone building to stand on, and lances could de-zombify an area quickly. Zombies don't reproduce, can't plan, can't use tools, don't retreat when they're being massacres. When people die on the show, it's almost always because they are written to be stupid: bare skin (I can't get over this one), on foot, splitting up, and so forth.

Assuming resistance to the fever agent is heritable, the only real threat to humanity is other humans.

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I suppose it depends on the actual anatomy/biology of a zombie, which we don't have much clear information on, or, what information we have is contradicting.

Right, there's so much we don't know, it makes these discussions difficult. I had assumed the zombies didn't rot, since they aren't dead, but it was pointed out that the special effects people changed the makeup in season 2 to make them seem more decomposed.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by Human Action

Is that what happened? I thought an unknown agent (viral, bacterial, fungal...) caused a deadly fever, which "killed" the bulk of the population and animated them as walkers. The survivors are those who are immune to the fever agent, and only animate following death. Walkers aren't directly responsible for most human deaths, are they?...

They are, plus the "normal" deaths that occur (heart attack, old people, suicides, etc) and deaths from the ensuing societal collapse (murders, riots, etc). The contagion is airborn, but it doesn't directly kill anybody; it lays dormant until the host dies from something else. Bites do cause death, but it's unclear if the organism that causes death is the same one responsible for reanimation.

[Acsenray]

I only recall learning that everyone is infected. I don't recall anything about the contagion being airborne.

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I only recall learning that everyone is infected. I don't recall anything about the contagion being airborne.

If its not airborne, then how did everyone get infected so quickly across the board? I don't know of any other way for an infection to spread that far that fast.

[chinchalinchin]

Originally Posted by Human Action

Is that what happened? I thought an unknown agent (viral, bacterial, fungal...) caused a deadly fever, which "killed" the bulk of the population and animated them as walkers. The survivors are those who are immune to the fever agent, and only animate following death. Walkers aren't directly responsible for most human deaths, are they? A massive die-off from fever is the only thing that makes the fall of civilization plausible.

I think it's safe to assume everyone was infected by an airborne agent, however I don't think the canon of the show supports the idea this caused a deadly fever. I was under the impression it was the bite from the zombie that caused the fever. The walkers are what brought everything to a screeching halt. From the set pieces they made of the streets of Atlanta in Season 1 and the FEMA station in Season 2, it was pretty clear the military was overrun by zombies. You could clearly see military barricades littered with corpses and walkers in military garb shambling around. Plus they had that flashback in Season 2 of the air force firebombing Atlanta. According to the show, they evacuated everyone into heavily populated cities to 'better protect' them and the cities essentially devoured themselves from the inside out. I'm assuming they didn't initially know bites caused death and this caused the quarantines to become incubation centers and soon the people the military were protecting became the ones they were fighting. Hence the flashback where Shane is running through the hospital while the military shoots everyone in sight.

(Which, I think, is why Herschel's Farm, despite being attached with the name Camp Dinner Bell by the internet fandom, was probably one of the safest places to be. Zombies would be concentrated in urban areas for the first few weeks or months of the zombie apocalypse, slowly radiating out until they achieved a more or less constant density across the country.)

I'll admit it's a bit implausible. But I think that's what the show is hinting at. So, obviously, according to the show's logic, the zombies are pretty big threat, at least in huge numbers.

Agreed, even the best people would be more suspicious of strangers, etc. But ruthlessness doesn't mean rape-gangs. A desperate man might steal food, but he won't rape or senselessly kill others.

Right, tribalism is the enemy. I think most groups would be internally moral and humane, because most people are moral and humane, but there is a human urge to treat outsiders as non-human, which would likely rear its ugly head.

Right, there would be selection pressure to form larger and larger groups, with new initiates being subsumed to the group identity of the larger group that absorbs them.

But how do you think those initiates are going to be subsumed? The differing tribes of humans aren't just going to have a sit down and decide to work it out. It's going to come down to conquering and dominating the other tribe. And war on that scale, i.e. a smaller one, is much more intimate. You literally have to shove the knife into the guy's throat, club him in the head or pummel him to death. You don't go back to 'hey guys, let's all get along' after having killed a person in that manner. You don't have the benefit of medical treatment for post-traumatic stress, you don't have a support network of psychologists and specialist, you can't detach your job from your personal life. You have to become that murderer and the only way to do that is fundamentally change your morality.

I think the problem is we see morality different. I don't think humans are innately moral. I think morality is a function of society. It's great being high minded in an armchair with the air conditioning on, but your views would quickly change once the circumstances changed. The Mongols, when they went on their world conquest, did not even consider the people they dominated humans; they were sub-species. Hell, even as recent as, like, sixty years ago in America, blacks were considered sub-human. These people were no different than you or I; they were just reared in a different culture. People who bought slaves back in the 1800s didn't think they were doing something morally reprehensible; their brains had to alter their morality to coincide with their actions. Blacks are sub-human, hence slavery is justifiable.

I think in a zombie apocalypse the natural inclination would be to adapt, as you say, an us-or-them mentality and this simple adaptation would totally change what we consider today to be 'moral'. By necessity, you would have to consider any outsider alien; you couldn't extend any sympathy towards them because this affects how you go about dealing with them. Eventually, and I think it would happen rather quickly myself, this process would invert and you wouldn't even remember what sympathy is. You would just kill and ask questions, if at all, later. The only way for the human mind to deal with murder is if you are a psychopath or you switch off your empathy.

(This is one of the areas I think the show excels in, actually. How Rick dealt with the prisoners, how Glen ruminated on wishing they had killed all of the prisoners to begin with, even though, as Herschel points out, Oscar and Axel seem to be okay dudes. The fact Rick had to turn off his emotions for Lori to lead the group because he couldn't let basic things like 'love' get in the way of doing what needs to be done to protect the group. The entire concept of 'love' opened areas of his brain that he needed closed in order to adequately do his job; a symptom I think of the changing morality of the new order of human existence)

I think any reversion back to tribalism would take as long to overcome as it did in the first place.

I have to go with DigitalC here, about a decade. Even if the zombies don't rot away, they simply aren't dangerous enough to wipe out mankind; only other humans could do that, and I don't think they would. A dozen people with air horns, a stone building to stand on, and lances could de-zombify an area quickly. Zombies don't reproduce, can't plan, can't use tools, don't retreat when they're being massacres. When people die on the show, it's almost always because they are written to be stupid: bare skin (I can't get over this one), on foot, splitting up, and so forth.

I still contend, even if all of the zombies were wiped out in a matter of five years, human society would not return in its current capacity for a long time. You would have a smattering of tribes competing with each other for resources. It's not like everyone would look around and say, 'hey, the zombies are gone, let's get back to 401-ks and 9 to 5 jobs.' Society would be fundamentally altered. It would take a while to get back to what we once were.

[Human Action]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

They are, plus the "normal" deaths that occur (heart attack, old people, suicides, etc) and deaths from the ensuing societal collapse (murders, riots, etc). The contagion is airborn, but it doesn't directly kill anybody; it lays dormant until the host dies from something else. Bites do cause death, but it's unclear if the organism that causes death is the same one responsible for reanimation.

Originally Posted by chinchalinchin

think it's safe to assume everyone was infected by an airborne agent, however I don't think the canon of the show supports the idea this caused a deadly fever. I was under the impression it was the bite from the zombie that caused the fever. The walkers are what brought everything to a screeching halt. From the set pieces they made of the streets of Atlanta in Season 1 and the FEMA station in Season 2, it was pretty clear the military was overrun by zombies. You could clearly see military barricades littered with corpses and walkers in military garb shambling around. Plus they had that flashback in Season 2 of the air force firebombing Atlanta. According to the show, they evacuated everyone into heavily populated cities to 'better protect' them and the cities essentially devoured themselves from the inside out. I'm assuming they didn't initially know bites caused death and this caused the quarantines to become incubation centers and soon the people the military were protecting became the ones they were fighting. Hence the flashback where Shane is running through the hospital while the military shoots everyone in sight.

Even by the standards of a zombie show, this is wildly implausible. I guess I had been giving the show too much credit. If only death or zombie bites create new zombies, then there isn't a massive "alpha strike" population of zombies that dwarfs the human population. The whole thing would be taken care of in six months or less, at least in the U.S. A single infantry battalion could probably de-zombify a city the size of Atlanta in a weekend. An APC with a PA system and sharp poles would suffice. The herding instinct that supposedly makes the zombies dangerous actually just makes them much easier to destroy.

And what with all the buildings, vehicles, and lockable doors in the average city, sheltering against what zombies were around would be pretty trivial. These aren't 28 Days Later "zombies" that deliberately infect and turn humans in seconds. When TWD zombies do catch a victim, they devour them entirely. So only victims who were bitten but not overcome and devoured would turn, as well as a few natural deaths.

[Human Action]

For the purposes of this post, I'm assuming that 95+ % of the human population has become zombies in a short period of time. TWD does not provide a plausible scenario for this, but let's take it as a given.

To your other points, I'll first answer your direct question:

Originally Posted by chinchalinchin

But how do you think those initiates are going to be subsumed?

The only way individuals are ever made part of a group: either they conform to the group's strictures, or they are expelled. New individuals can change the group, but not so much as the group changes the individual.

To your main arguement:

I'm not sure how much we actually disagree. The post-zombie world I forsee would be similar to our own, with the key differences being those of scale. Large groups that are internally peaceful and moral, but warlike and immoral when dealing with other groups? That's our world now. But instead of India and Pakistan, it'd be The Free Southern Militia and The Unified Cornhuskers, or whatever groups would prevail.

I agree that morality is a function of society, in that society provides incentives to be moral or immoral. This is a large part of why societies exist: to constrain the behavior of others, in exchange for accepting the same constraints: a social contract.

What I do not forsee, at least beyond the immediate aftermath, is a world of tiny groups of 1-20, killing or raping one another on sight and never forming large, stable groups.

Originally Posted by chinchalinchin

I think any reversion back to tribalism would take as long to overcome as it did in the first place.

But we aren't starting from zero here. For one, we still have modern technology and infrastructure. For two, the people affected would be the same people alive right now. They wouldn't seek a return to the normalcy they remember, and do doubt cherish and mythologize?

Originally Posted by chinchlinchin

I still contend, even if all of the zombies were wiped out in a matter of five years, human society would not return in its current capacity for a long time. You would have a smattering of tribes competing with each other for resources. It's not like everyone would look around and say, 'hey, the zombies are gone, let's get back to 401-ks and 9 to 5 jobs.' Society would be fundamentally altered. It would take a while to get back to what we once were.

I give it 10 years max from the day the last zombie dies, till the day the new Senate takes office in whatever the new capital is.

[Bryan Ekers]

Personally, I think the aftermath shown in Shaun of the Dead is the most likely, with dark humour and popular culture eventually just incorporating the zombies as a new fact of, well.... life.

[SuperNelson]

I'm not going to make any judgements about Andrea and how many people are are appropriate for her to sleep with. However, I'm going to keep a real close eye on the next guy.