Our discussion of "Choose Your Zombie" in class on Tuesday reminded me of the recent videogame adaption of The Walking Dead. It's an adventure game, where you play as Lee Everett, a convict who was being escorted out of Atlanta when the zombie apocalypse struck, and who then, with his newfound freedom, must face the desolate reality of life post-zombie apocalypse.
Both "Choose Your Zombie" and The Walking Dead game involve myriad choices which test your morality and force you to choose whether to save yourself or whether to risk your life to help others. When my fellow Muir Survivors Defense Council members and I were playing through "Choose Your Zombie" and came to face one of these tests, we would discuss the pros and cons of each choice, making sure we thought each one through and came to a reasonable consensus before moving on. But when you play The Walking Dead game, every decision has a time limit, which will vary unpredictably from situation to situation. For instance, you're safe in your camp when zombies swarm out of nowhere and you're immediately forced to consider whether or not you have any limbs to spare. Or, in Episode One (there are five in total; they came out staggered over a period of six months, similar to a TV show), when you're on a farm with a group of survivors and zombies attack over your barricades, you have to choose whether to save Shawn, the adult son of the farm's owner, or Duck, the young son of another survivor in the camp.
When I faced this challenge, my morality held sway and I chose to save Duck. I did save him, but the zombies killed Shawn and then Hershel, his father (and owner of the farm) kicked me out. However, I had won Duck's father's trust, and so I was invited to travel with the family in their car. I wondered if Hershel would have let me stay if I had tried to save Shawn, but before I could really even consider other possibilities or paths, the game whisked me on to the next decision. I had no time to weigh options or to reason.
In the real zombie apocalypse, we wouldn't be able to put our fingers in the pages of the book in order to flip back if we messed up. We would have to make spur of the moment decisions on which our lives and the lives of others may depend. We would be forced to consider what the real goal of a defense council is: is it to save yourself? Is it to save as many humans as possible? Is it to kill as many zombies as possible? Is it simply to survive at any cost?
Some good questions at the end of this post that definitely make you think. Any time you see a zombie show/movie there's instances of whether to save a person and the moral consequences that accompany a decision like that. If I save this person am I putting myself at risk? If I don't save this person is my conscience going to eat at me from the inside out? (much like a zombie might.) To be honest, I think the laws or morality and conscious are not so much laws in a zombie infested world, but more like guidelines. If it's me, I'm not going too far out of my way to save someone. Now, if it's a person near a dear to me I'll do absolutely anything to save them. But if it's someone I don't know or don't need then I'm not gonna go out of my way. I'm looking out for me and those close to me. Sounds selfish but the rules are a bit different.
A zombie apocalypse calls into question our morality. We say now that we would save other people if we had the chance, however the whole world changes in the event of an undead revolution. The rules of the world change. Killing now becomes a necessity and not a crime. Loved ones are not loved ones anymore once they turn into a zombie. They are not who they once were. Even killing of strangers (who aren't zombies) may become needed to save yourself or for the safety of family. YOu need to look out for yourself and your loved ones first and foremost. It becomes a true life example of survival of the fittest. Kill or be killed.
I have recently started reading "The Walking Dead" comic, and I came to a scene that seems in direct response to these questions. After a few incidents in a prison, Rick delivers a speech about how all the survivors are living on borrowed time. The survivors instead of the zombies were the true walking dead. This speech was in response to questions regarding his moral decisions. Is killing a man alright if it leads to your survival? Rick responds that with the changing world, the definition of morality must change. In order to survive, one must reject the standards of the old world. In a way, to live by the old rules, to be "naive" in Rick's words, is what will lead to your death and the death of loved ones. Therefore, the good decision is to act immorally.
After seeing Warm Bodies, it was interesting to see another patriarch act in the same way. Like Rick's speech, Julie's father also delivers several, "the world has changed and we have to live in this new one" speeches. While "The Walking Dead" seems to embrace the rejection of "old" morality, Warm Bodies obviously advocates trying to return to the old world. Instead of acting inhumane or harsh, love is all that is needed to save the world.