Zombie Apocalypse Question

[Theophorus]

So when the zombie apocalypse eventually happens, will it be permissable to simply kill a person who has been bitten to protect the group, or will we have to wait until the person actually turns into a zombie?

I am assuming that it is morally permissable to “kill” a zombie, since they are already dead and just operating through whatever the mechanism is that is controlling the corpse.

With a hat tip to St.Thomas Aquinas and MercatorNet, and with tongue placed firmly in cheek:

Article 1. Whether it is morally permissible to kill those who become zombies?

It would seem that it is morally permissible to kill those who become zombies

Objection 1. As the Ethicist(Kyle Munkittrick) says in his Bioethica Popularis there are three three principles involved in deciding whether zombies may be ethically shot, pitchforked, beheaded, incinerated, etc:
The dignity of the body,
The state of the infection,
The zombie’s potential for recovering consciousness.

Proceeding to the first he says that with regards to the dignity of the body, a zombie has none. De-animating a zombie restores its dignity. “Therefore, it is acceptable to lobotomize, ignite, and/or puree the zombie without violating your Kantian commitment to the dignity of the body.”

While when considering the state of the infection. The situations of people who have been recently infected, who are in transition to zombiehood, or who are fully-committed zombies are different. But the safest course of action is immediate euthanasia.

In the case of consciousness and the recovery of the previous perfection of the Human body. Even if zombiehood is reversible, the person would survive with significant neurological deficits which would compromise its dignity. The safest course of action is immediate euthanasia.

**On the contrary: **"There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.” (Proverbs 6:16-19)

I answer that, zombies are not be dead, but simply brain damaged, and therefore innocent as they are without reason. A zombie’s shambling gait is due to problems with its cerebellum. A zombie craves human flesh because its ventromedial hypothalamus is “messed up”. It is stupid because its frontal lobe has been damaged, perhaps irretrievably. its rage is due to a malfunctioning amygdala.

So, while they may be different from the rest of us, there is no reason why these differences should not be respected and why their constitutional rights should be ignored. They are still human, albeit severely impaired and very hungry.

Reply to Objection 1. Kantian ethical imperatives have no place in Scholastic Philosophy and this is a shabby utilitarian approach to decision-making which assumes (a) that the zombies are really dead and (b) that they are no longer humans. If either of these are false, the case for a utilitarian solution to the zombie apocalypse collapses. So, while they may be different from the rest of us, there is no reason why these differences should not be respected and why their constitutional rights should be ignored. They are still human, albeit severely impaired and very hungry.

See
mercatornet.com/articles/view/halloween_bioethics and
catholicdefense.blogspot.it/2012/04/how-summa-theologica-might-address.html
for more information

 

[on_the_hill]

No, you can’t terminate a person until that person completes the transition to zombie. At any moment before the transformation is complete there is always an opportunity for a miraculous healing.

For example, what if the person is bitten and you decide to dispatch him / her, and happen to lay your hands on him / her and at that very moment you are given healing powers by God? If you pull the trigger, you’re a sinner. If you don’t, you’re a saint.

 

[marymary1975]

Zombies don’t exist so there is no point in discussing this. The only real zombies who ever existed was in Haiti during the 60’s and 70’s and where by the way not dead, were people alive that were given a strange drug by Duvalier that caused them severe brain damage. Thanks to God, nobody ever figured out which drug combination Duvalier used therefore you will never have a Zombie apocalypse.

 

[Mumbles140]

But what about to protect the group? Let us say that you have ± 8 hours from the time a person is bitten before their heart stops beating and they become a zombie. There is no getting around this. The moment one becomes a zombie they WILL bite you and you WILL become a zombie yourself.

Are we supposed to just tie them down and hold a shotgun to their brainstem for 8 hours until they stop twitching and then immediately pull the trigger?

Why kill them at all? Why not detain them (so they cannot hurt themselves or others) and go about your merry way? You are literally talking about killing a living, breathing human being, regardless of what happens 8 hours from that point…

 

[LaSainte]

LaSainte,

There is no scientific proof whatsoever for the existence, or the possibility of the existence, of zombies, so as such we can conclude there WILL NOT be a zombie apocalypse.

Because of this, please clarify; do you truly intend this as a serious hypothetical question, or is it a joke, or do you truly believe there will be a Zombie Apocalypse?

Serious hypothetical, but there may be a zombie apocalypse in the future. The toxoplasmosis gondii parasite gets into the brain of rats and makes them stop being afraid of cats. They then get eaten by cats because they no longer see them as predators. The intestines of a car are where the parasites are able to reproduce, and they are excreted in their feces. That’s why pregnant ladies can’t clean litter boxes . Kind of zombie-like, except the rats aren’t actually undead.

In this scenario, we are assuming undead, so it would be ethical to kill an actual zombie, but the question is about the hours leading up to the actual “zombiefication”.

 

[Mumbles140]

Woah. It is!? Didn’t know haha. Just got interested in the question

(Zombie fan)

Yes. You are debating whether it is ‘merciful’ to kill someone who has an illness that will ultimately kill them. Now, talking about what happens after they are a zombie (and thus clinically dead) is a different point altogether…

 

[Bookcat]

So when the zombie apocalypse eventually happens, will it be permissable to simply kill a person who has been bitten to protect the group, or will we have to wait until the person actually turns into a zombie?

I am assuming that it is morally permissable to “kill” a zombie, since they are already dead and just operating through whatever the mechanism is that is controlling the corpse.

One would wait and see.

And use sufficient means of restraint while one waits to see if the zombification occurs or if the person is immune etc and thus does not die and become a zombie.

This is assuming Zombies are dead human beings.

(and of course for all this is fiction…in case some readers are wondering at the “serious” discussion underway here)

 

[LaSainte]

another option would be to leave them behind. or if you are hold up somewhere, make the bitten person leave. Morally speaking, we cannot condone euthanasia or suicide, cannot kill anyone unless it is in legitimate self-defense or yourself or someone else in grave danger.

Officially, since zombies, in the undead George Romero-esque version, are not real, there is no official position taken by the Catholic Church from what I understand, but we are to follow the CCC on homicide, murder and the taking of life.

I think leaving them behind could pose a danger to other unsuspecting people. I guess we we will just have to wait for the CC to clarify the rules when it eventually happens

 

[LaSainte]

With a hat tip to St.Thomas Aquinas and MercatorNet, and with tongue placed firmly in cheek:

Article 1. Whether it is permissible to kill those who become zombies?

Objection 1. As the Ethicist(Kyle Munkittrick) says in his Bioethica Popularis there are three three principles involved in deciding whether zombies may be ethically shot, pitchforked, beheaded, incinerated, etc:
The dignity of the body,
The state of the infection,
The zombie’s potential for recovering consciousness.

Proceeding to the first he says that with regards to the dignity of the body, a zombie has none. De-animating a zombie restores its dignity. “Therefore, it is acceptable to lobotomize, ignite, and/or puree the zombie without violating your Kantian commitment to the dignity of the body.”

While when considering the state of the infection. The situations of people who have been recently infected, who are in transition to zombiehood, or who are fully-committed zombies are different. But the safest course of action is immediate euthanasia.

In the case of consciousness and the recovery of the previous perfection of the Human body. Even if zombiehood is reversible, the person would survive with significant neurological deficits which would compromise its dignity. The safest course of action is immediate euthanasia.

**On the contrary: **"There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.” (Proverbs 6:16-19)

I answer that, zombies are not be dead, but simply brain damaged, and therefore innocent as they are without reason. A zombie’s shambling gait is due to problems with its cerebellum. A zombie craves human flesh because its ventromedial hypothalamus is “messed up”. It is stupid because its frontal lobe has been damaged, perhaps irretrievably. its rage is due to a malfunctioning amygdala.

So, while they may be different from the rest of us, there is no reason why these differences should not be respected and why their constitutional rights should be ignored. They are still human, albeit severely impaired and very hungry.

Reply to Objection 1. Kantian ethical imperatives have no place in Scholastic Philosophy and this is a shabby utilitarian approach to decision-making which assumes (a) that the zombies are really dead and (b) that they are no longer humans. If either of these are false, the case for a utilitarian solution to the zombie apocalypse collapses. So, while they may be different from the rest of us, there is no reason why these differences should not be respected and why their constitutional rights should be ignored. They are still human, albeit severely impaired and very hungry.

See
mercatornet.com/articles/view/halloween_bioethics and
catholicdefense.blogspot.it/2012/04/how-summa-theologica-might-address.html
for more information

Love it.

 

[Bookcat]

Love it.

Though very incorrect…for one can see it was a complete forgery. Not the thought of Thomas on the subject.

 

[LaSainte]

One would wait and see.

And use sufficient means of restraint while one waits to see if the zombification occurs or if the person is immune etc and thus does not die and become a zombie.

This is assuming Zombies are dead human beings.

(and of course for all this is fiction…in case some readers are wondering at the “serious” discussion underway here)

So tying them up and waiting seems the safest course of action morally and physically, it seems. Until we hear differently from the Church

Seriously if I get bitten I do not want to wait around to become a zombie

 

[Bookcat]

With a hat tip to St.Thomas Aquinas and MercatorNet, and with tongue placed firmly in cheek:

Article 1. Whether it is morally permissible to kill those who become zombies?

It would seem that it is morally permissible to kill those who become zombies

Objection 1. As the Ethicist(Kyle Munkittrick) says in his Bioethica Popularis there are three three principles involved in deciding whether zombies may be ethically shot, pitchforked, beheaded, incinerated, etc:
The dignity of the body,
The state of the infection,
The zombie’s potential for recovering consciousness.

Proceeding to the first he says that with regards to the dignity of the body, a zombie has none. De-animating a zombie restores its dignity. “Therefore, it is acceptable to lobotomize, ignite, and/or puree the zombie without violating your Kantian commitment to the dignity of the body.”

While when considering the state of the infection. The situations of people who have been recently infected, who are in transition to zombiehood, or who are fully-committed zombies are different. But the safest course of action is immediate euthanasia.

In the case of consciousness and the recovery of the previous perfection of the Human body. Even if zombiehood is reversible, the person would survive with significant neurological deficits which would compromise its dignity. The safest course of action is immediate euthanasia.

**On the contrary: **"There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.” (Proverbs 6:16-19)

I answer that, zombies are not be dead, but simply brain damaged, and therefore innocent as they are without reason. A zombie’s shambling gait is due to problems with its cerebellum. A zombie craves human flesh because its ventromedial hypothalamus is “messed up”. It is stupid because its frontal lobe has been damaged, perhaps irretrievably. its rage is due to a malfunctioning amygdala.

So, while they may be different from the rest of us, there is no reason why these differences should not be respected and why their constitutional rights should be ignored. They are still human, albeit severely impaired and very hungry.

Reply to Objection 1. Kantian ethical imperatives have no place in Scholastic Philosophy and this is a shabby utilitarian approach to decision-making which assumes (a) that the zombies are really dead and (b) that they are no longer humans. If either of these are false, the case for a utilitarian solution to the zombie apocalypse collapses. So, while they may be different from the rest of us, there is no reason why these differences should not be respected and why their constitutional rights should be ignored. They are still human, albeit severely impaired and very hungry.

Complete forgery. Not the thought of Thomas on the subject.

 

[Bookcat]

In this scenario, we are assuming undead, so it would be ethical to kill an actual zombie, but the question is about the hours leading up to the actual “zombiefication”.

No one cannot kill them. See above.

 

[LaSainte]

The un-dead souls have gone to their final destination, so shoot, whack, chainsaw, bludgeon, stab, grenade, flame thrower, impale, skewer, etc… away in good conscience.

Hooray!

 

[Bookcat]

So tying them up and waiting seems the safest course of action morally and physically, it seems. Until we hear differently from the Church

Seriously if I get bitten I do not want to wait around to become a zombie

This is very clear. The Church would not come up with a “different” answer.

One cannot kill a person *before such takes place. *

 

[LaSainte]

Gosh Lesainte… ure kidding right? dont u have better things to think about? Haha!

Well… but since u seem wanting to be serious about it. Nope. Not going to happen… No ZA mentioned in revelation.

Zechariah 14:12

And this shall be the plague with which the Lord will strike all the peoples that wage war against Jerusalem: their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths.

 

[LaSainte]

This is very clear. The Church would not come up with a “different” answer.

One cannot kill a person *before such takes place. *

Even if it means the whole human race gets wiped out because people are waiting around for people to actually TURN before killing them?

 

[LaSainte]

Zombies don’t exist so there is no point in discussing this. The only real zombies who ever existed was in Haiti during the 60’s and 70’s and where by the way not dead, were people alive that were given a strange drug by Duvalier that caused them severe brain damage. Thanks to God, nobody ever figured out which drug combination Duvalier used therefore you will never have a Zombie apocalypse.

Yes that was horrifying.

 

[LaSainte]

Why kill them at all? Why not detain them (so they cannot hurt themselves or others) and go about your merry way? You are literally talking about killing a living, breathing human being, regardless of what happens 8 hours from that point…

I would want somebody to kill ME if I had the choice.

 

[Bookcat]

Even if it means the whole human race gets wiped out because people are waiting around for people to actually TURN before killing them?

No worries will not happen.

The whole human race cannot be wiped out.

One dies * before* one becomes a zombie…

The person simply dies --like any other day.

So one would* wait* for that normal death. Then one deals with the hungry corpse walking around (or in our example --which is tied up or something)

And it is fiction anyhow…

And anyhow often one should avoid too much “thinking in what if’s” especially in such far fetched ones…