The walking dead and western morality

I find The Walking Dead to be a rather interesting show to contemplate. After this past week's episode I was a bit surprised at the reaction that people had to Shane and the episodes ending.

[Note: I'll do my best to keep this spoiler free but something might slip out, so read at your own discretion.]



I like Shane. I root for Shane. I agree with what one of the shows developers said:

"Shane was right in most of the decisions he made... and I think that Rick's humanity is always his flaw. But I think that he understands now that Shane was right."

My wife constantly asks me why I watch the show (she doesn't like the violence) but I find it to be something of an interesting intellectual exercise. One that we might see played out in future seasons in the character of Carl. Given the events of the past two episodes, the question that comes to the fore for me is:

What is their basis for morality?

Carl has already begun to question the ideals of his elders. Being disconnected from humanities past due to his youth he is a much more open slate, morally speaking.

I think that, in the context of the show, Shane's character demonstrates the moral arc of Western society. He broke free of humanities historic moral underpinnings in such a way as to achieve what many would consider a very lofty goal; survival for himself and those he loves. In fact he goes beyond even that, working for the protection and survival of those he openly opposes (Dale).

The world has changed and he adapted to meet the realities and challenges of what was staring him in the face. Others were unable, unwilling or simply just a bit slower at making that transition and as such Shane, was condemned and more because of it.

People seen the future in Shane and recoiled at what they say, at what he represented. It caused people to question their foundations, to rethink their morality to greater or lesser degrees.

Is Shane what they will need to become in order to survive into the future?

Is what Shane became something to be fought against at all cost because the cost of such a transition is what, for the individual, is the sense of their humanity? In that sense, is Dale the canary in the mine shaft?

I look at these things and think of society and how we are driving forward on a wave of progress. Shedding our historical and cultural moral underpinnings in religion, we are striking forward into uncharted territory. Some look to the future and see glory on the horizon. Others look to the future and lament the loss of what they seen as what made man human.

Dale argues that there is an essence to humanity, a spark within it, that is not only worth saving but that must be saved at all cost, for if it were lost or extinguished humanity would lose its meaning. It would become nothing better than the monsters that hunt them. He looks to the future that Shane represents and laments, what he see's as humanity's fall.

Shane argues that to survive is the essence of humanity. That, while hard choices will have to be made, what they are is pretty clear. He's taken the path of utilitarianism, the most good for the most people. If that means that one boy has to die so be it, if it keeps his group alive; if it keeps them safe. Survival is what is paramount and anything that gets in the way of that needs to go, even if its what Dale would argue is the spark of what makes us human and worthy of survival.

We can see (to the extent that the producers will show us) this moral tug of war occurring in the characters as they try to come to terms with a world that forces them to question their previous moral assumptions. We see it in Rick wrestling to make a decision concerning Russell or when trying prepare his son for and shield his son from the realities of the world.

Carl however has none of his elders moral anchor points. He is free from society's past by virtue of not having been shaped by it. He is the scion of a brave new world whose "humanity" will be shaped by a world vastly different than that of his parents. There are some residual connections to the moral world of his parents as can be seen in his relationship with Shane and his father Rick at the end of the last episode but will that be enough to swing him towards Dale or was that the actions of a Shane in the making?

This I think we can relate to our present society fairly well. The young of western society are Carl. Dale is the world of their grandparents, while Shane and Rick represent the varying degrees in which their parents broke from that world view and have begun to shape their world free of society's historical religious moral foundations.

Its in thinking through such things that I see Dale as a tragic hero of a bygone age that, like Achilles, had to die in order for a new age of man to begin and like Dale I look forward in lamentation.

Human babies aren't persons but dolphins should be?

I just don't understand what people are thinking some days.

I recently wrote about a group of ethicists who published an article arguing that babies, while human beings, should not be considered as persons but rather as potential persons. As such killing them after birth is not morally wrong.

Now comes another group of enlightened thinkers who argue that dolphins and whales should be given the title of persons and all the subsequent protections that go along with it.

Experts in philosophy, conservation and animal behaviour want support for a Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans. 

They believe dolphins and whales are sufficiently intelligent to justify the same ethical considerations as humans. 

Recognising their rights would mean an end to whaling and their captivity, or their use in entertainment. 

The move was made at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver, Canada, the world's biggest science conference. 

It is based on years of research that has shown dolphins and whales have large, complex brains and a human-like level of self-awareness. 

This has led the experts to conclude that although non-human, dolphins and whales are "people" in a philosophical sense, which has far-reaching implications.

So while human beings can be labeled as mere 'potential persons' the killing of whom should warrant no moral or legal condemnation, dolphins and whales should be labeled as persons the killing of which should warrant moral and legal condemnation.

What?!

I have nothing against dolphins or whales. I don't want to see them slaughtered or treated cruelly but they are not people. They don't warrant the same status or protections as humans because they are not humans. If we  as a society can get to the point of wanting to protect these animals, why can't we work to protect actual human beings?

Scientists: killing human babies is amoral

A year or so ago, I was having dinner with some friends and the conversation turned first political and then somewhat controversial when the subject of abortion was brought up. I don't know of anyone who doesn't have an opinion one way or the other. Its a very divisive issue and and emotional one at that.

So when I made the comment that I could foresee post-birth abortions being legal within 50 years, you could imagine the shock and outrage by some of those present. I didn't make the statement flippantly, nor was I trying to be sarcastic. I was serious, sadly serious.

What gave me the courage(?) to make such a statement / prediction was the argument that all too often was used in defence of abortion. That if a fetus that was eligible for abortion was removed from the mother's womb, it would not survive and as such aborting it was not murder. Of course, my counter this line of asinine thinking is that a month old baby would not survive if left on its own too. So should we be able to do away with babies that have been born as well?

This line of thinking can of course be continued to look at other people who are unable to care for themselves. If the test of what would constitute murder is whether the "victim" was able to survive on their own haven't we taken a major step backwards as a society? As human beings?

Of course being human is not enough, but rather being considered a person and you aren't a person if you can't survive on your own and as such ending your life is not murder. At least this is what this group of scientists think:

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued. 

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born. 

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”. 

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. 

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.” 

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

There is so much in this article that offends me. Obviously I am against abortion as I believe that even as a fetus, they are human beings and therefore persons worthy of life and protection. 

What I would like for people to really understand about this article is how it points rather plainly to the 'brave new world' that liberal humanism is shaping for society now that they have managed to dislodge God from much of society. 

If you say that a human baby, after being born, is simply a potential person and therefore unworthy of a "moral right to life" that is okay. That is forward thinking. That is the type of thinking that demonstrates the values of a modern "liberal society."

Think about that. 

If you are against the notion that babies are no more a person than a carrot or a rock is, then you are a fanatic who is "opposed to the very values of a liberal society."

Is this really the world you want to create?