The Walking Dead; 3.05 "Say the Word" (open spoilers)

Cafe Society
121

Again, these are first-world concerns. The soldiers were a clear threat. Your choices to deal with that threat are a) hide, b) try to assimilate them, or c) kill them. Killing them is or is tied for the lowest risk, and it also carries the highest reward by a country mile.

As for Rick only killing rapists, those two goombas from Joisey in the bar merely gave off a funny vibe so Rick shot them dead in cold blood. I say that also was a good decision.

There is no law, nor order, no society of any kind. That’s what I mean when I say it’s the stone age. The Governor has effectively founded the Roman empire compared to what’s outside his walls. The Romans weren’t very nice, either, but damn if they didn’t create a wondrous civilization that vastly improved the quality of life for its countless citizens despite having brutal dictators that wouldn’t give a second thought to murdering groups of outsiders in cold blood.

The more you guys argue he was wrong the more I think the Governor was absolutely correct in his choices. His authority is what holds the group together, what enables their existance. A threat to his authority is a threat to the very paradise they’ve created.

To me it’s clear as day he was doing exactly that.

122

Supposed to be bad? You have witnessed that he is a murderer. He is bad.

They weren’t within a short drive of town. The guardsman were far enough away that they did not witness the helicopter crash. Also, the Governor was so keen on learning the location of the guardsman from the pilot because finding them would have been very difficult otherwise. Also, they had not demonstrated that they were hostile people. The very existence of the guardsman does not count as a threat to the Governor’s community.

Again, rationalizations. No moral justifications for his actions.

I don’t care whether he’s looking out for the welfare of his town or just trying to preserve his power base. Murdering the guardsman was still wrong.

123

Right, it was a signal for fat boy to shoot Rick in the back. Which he tried. Rick was just quicker on the draw. You’re just pulling my leg now.

124

This is the kind of black and white moral thinking that the show has been deconstructing for three seasons.

In an apocalypse, survival trumps morality.

125

Again, the Governor’s town was in no danger from the guardsman. I don’t really see my thinking as black & white. But thank you for admitting that what the Governor did was wrong. It’s just okay in your book because survival trumps morality.

126

In the world of the show, survival, ruthlessness, and pragmatism do trump morality. That’s the point. It’s about what compromises you’re willing to make to hold onto your humanity and society.

How many people would still be alive if Rick had simply left Shane behind when they were dropping off Randall? Or left Randall behind to be devoured by walkers in the first place? Or if he’d simply shot the prisoners dead?

What has morality ever done for his group?

It was unquestionably wrong, morally-speaking, for the Governor and his cronies to murder the guardsmen. But, if the guardsmen were within driving distance of Woodbury (which they were), then they were a threat, however remote. If they had supplies and weapons that Woodbury needed (which they did), they were a target.

There was no real scenario in which, had they eventually found Woodbury, the Governor and his compatriots wouldn’t have been better off having killed them when they had the upper hand. He can’t even integrate one angry black woman with a sword into his community – how’s he supposed to deal with a (probably tight-knit) squad of heavily armed men?

What are the possible outcomes:

[ol]
[li]Do nothing, the Guardsmen never come into contact with Woodbury, and their weapons and equipment vanish from the region. - Wash[/li][li]Do nothing, the Guardsmen find Woodbury and somehow integrate into the population. The male-female imbalance of the settlement increases dramatically. There are a dozen more mouths to feed without any consumate increase in resources. - Wash[/li][li]Same as 2, but the Guardsmen form an uncivil minority within Woodbury and cause a conflict, resulting in them being killed. - Loss[/li][li]Same as 3, but the Guardsmen succeed, killing or at least deposing the Governor and his cronies. - Loss[/li][li]Do nothing, the Guardsmen eventually encounter someone else who kills them and takes their weapons, and then later threatens Woodbury. - Loss[/li][li]Do nothing, some other force shows up to Woodbury, which lacks any heavy weapons with which to repel them. - Loss[/li][li]Kill them, take their stuff. - Win, but morally repugnant.[/li][/ol]

That doesn’t make it right for the Governor to murder them, and I don’t defend the character’s actions, except to say that I understand them and am glad to see him portrayed as a believably human villain, who thinks that what he is doing is justified, if not necessarily righteous, as opposed to a simple thug, which would be boring.

127

Fantastic. We’re in agreement then.

I’m confused. If ruthlessness, surviving and pragmatism trump morality then how can you do anything but defend the Governor’s actions?

128

Bart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?
Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No.
Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Tony: And, what if your family don’t like bread? They like… cigarettes?
Bart: I guess that’s okay.
Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no!
Tony: Enjoy your gift.

129

This is a very nice summary of the show so far, in my opinion. I find what the Governor has done morally repugnant, but in the context of the show, I have to agree with Scupper.

One aspect of humanity’s survival that hasn’t been addressed by the show, though, is that if there aren’t many humans left, you probably shouldn’t be killing the ones you meet.

130

I think there’s a difference between saying I find them understandable and defending them. I would, however, say that morality may not be the character trait most important to leading a group during the Zombie Apocalypse.

131

Morality becomes skewed in that situation. You can still be an immoral asshole, but usually it’s because you were deliberately cruel (like rape and torture) or because you used massively overwhelming force for someone you had no reason to suspect would do you any harm. The borderline stuff like “army unit in our area, unknown intentions” becomes much more murky in this situation, but certainly you can still be a dick if you want to.

132

…So you are pro-Kill the baby then right?

133

Well, the baby arguably represents an investment in long-term survival.

134

A few years down the road when the problem is mostly cleared out is the time to start having babies, not in the nascent stages of rebuilding civilization, or even just clinging on.

135

I have been given to understand Lori’s was an unplanned pregnancy.

136

I suppose, but the nobody seems to have any real idea of how long it’ll take to “clear” the problem, if such is possible. I’ll grant that it was a mistake for Lori to voluntarily stay pregnant during the months when the group was on the run, but they have the baby now and a moderately stable base of operations, so…

137

Except that as long as you aren’t killing fertile females, you’re fine. The only thing you need other men for is to help man the walls.

138

I’d say no, even on a pragmatic level. No group can be a biological survivor of the ZA unless they have offspring. There is no indication that the overall situation is going to become more favorable to child-rearing (they have a doctor, they have shelter, they have supplies), so they might as well start now.

Are there tradeoffs and risks? Absolutely. Babies make noise, attracting walkers and bandits. Babies use resources and contribute nothing until at least age 5 - 7, etc.

Overall, though, keeping or ditching the baby isn’t a moral choice (ditching it is always bad, with no possible mitigation), and unless your only concern is immediate survival, it isn’t (much of) a pragmatic choice either (ditching it is always bad, unless keeping it would cost so much in resources that the adults that care for it wouldn’t survive, and hence neither would the baby, and if that’s the case, your group is probably doomed, biologically).

139

Well, if the baby had some obvious birth defect, I can picture ditching it, Sparta-style.

140

I’ve witnessed him kill a group of heavily armed people that (he thought) were a threat to him and by extension his group. Basically, I saw him do what soldiers have been doing for about 10,000 years. I don’t consider using a military force to protect your society particularly immoral. What he did would be reprehensible in today’s world, but in the zombie apocalypse world, I’m willing to give him some benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps we have differing opinions on what constitutes a “short drive,” but the Governor was able to drive to their location, take them out, collect their weapons and supplies, and drive the whole convoy back to Woodbury between breakfast and sunset. Perhaps they weren’t 5 minutes away, but they were definitely within an easy half-day’s drive. They got instructions from the pilot because they wanted to find the unit that day, not that month. But Woodbury is much larger than the unit, and can be located on a map. Towns are popular places for scavenging for supplies in this world, and the guardsmen would eventually need supplies. True, it wasn’t 100% certain that they would find the town that day or that week, but it’s fairly likely they would have found it eventually.

I’ve given you the reasons I think the very existence of the guardsmen did count as a threat to Woodbury, so have a few others above. Namely, they would probably eventually find the town, and a well-armed, tightly-knit military group could easily do more damage to their society than good.

Then every pre-emptive military action in history has been wrong too. And hey, maybe they have been. But I don’t think the Governor should have to wait for the unit to take over his town, override his plans, mismanage it until they’re overrun/starve, etc. to make a decision. Best to get rid of a potential problem BEFORE it causes the collapse of your society.