THE WALKING DEAD: A Lesson In Morality
Andrew Lincoln plays Deputy Rick Grimes, our hero.
Season 1, episode 2 (Guts)
I learned something important about myself while watching this week’s episode of “The Walking Dead”: If I was in a zombie apocalypse, I would be the first one to lose my morality.
Evidence: When the group of humans stuck on top of the building needed a distraction in order to escape the zombie horde, I kept wanting them to throw the redneck racist off the roof and into the crowd. Problem solved.
Clearly, If I am in your group of humans during the apocalypse, you should either make me The Enforcer who does the group’s bidding or kill me immediately.
This is one of the (many, many) things I am liking about “The Walking Dead” — how a group functions under extreme life-threatening duress. What are the group dynamics? Who starts to value life more and who starts to value it less? (that last one would be me) How do you decide on a leader? These were some of the topics I had hoped in the beginning that “Lost” would explore. (Not that I’m complaining. Do you hear that, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse? I am not complaining.)
Group dynamics are sometimes radically altered by one bad apple — in this case the racist who just couldn’t let go of his hate. I thought the idea of bringing up racism in the apocalyptic world was intriguing. Of course, Deputy Grimes had the right response — there can be no more us versus them. But then Deputy Grimes is pretty much right about everything. He is quickly becoming the hot iconic hero. Correct that: the steaming manly hot iconic hero.
He is trying hard to keep his humanity in the face of the horrible things he must do to survive, as evidenced by him beginning to swing the axe to chop up the Walker but then stopping to remember that this thing in front of them was once human. (Best line: Uttered by deadpan Glenn about the soon to be minced-meat Walker, “He was an organ donor.”)
Deputy Grimes is doing a good job so far hanging onto his morality. But what will happen when he gets back to camp? How our hero will respond when he discovers his wife is not only alive, but cheating? And she and his deputy partner left him behind in the hospital to die? (I’m wondering if the cheating didn’t start before the apocalypse.)
Will Deputy Grimes mantra, “I don’t think it matters now,” hold firm?
—Xtine
P.S. If you’re interested in reading another blogger’s take on the show, head on over to cinemafantastica.
2 Brains and a TV's Blog 
Thanks for the heads up. I will keep my eye on you during the zombie uprising.
“Who starts to value life more and who starts to value it less? (that last one would be me)”
While humorous, I don’t think you are valuing life less. I too was all about tossing Mr. Hatred off the side, but there a few things to consider first. How much of a threat are they really in, and how much of a threat is the hill billy? (Or hill bully to be precise.) He was mostly spouting rage and stupidity, and he seemed eager to kill off a fellow survivor on a whim. Over time that hate would wear on morale, and make simple tasks rage-inducing frustration time sinks. He was also keen on the idea of killing someone he did not like, and he may very well if given another chance. He is also vindictive based upon his dialog with T-Dog and trying to get the key to free himself to one-up Rick, and possibly kill him. This is where the second thing to keep in mind comes up.
How much of a threat are they facing at that time. Based on the outcome, those zombies were bookin’. No doubt now would be the time to drop anchor (and Merle) and skedaddle. Then they could have leisurely walked away, giggling to safety.
In short, I don’t think you care about life less in that sort of situation. You care about *your* life more in that situation. You are not randomly killing off innocent people for no reason, you are thinking about the consequences and your current predicament. If a helpful jerk is about to get bit, you’d save him. If a dangerous party member is getting overwhelmed, you’d probably use that to your advantage. At the end of the day he’s still going to be a danger and a jerk. Better him a dead jerk, than you a dead nice guy.
You murderer.
Okay, you make some great points. And we are definitely sticking together in the zombie apocalypse. But don’t you think actively killing a member of our group — regardless of his own morals or violent deeds — crosses a line? We would be acting as judge and jury then use him for our convenience. I guess my question is would killing him be a slippery slope? Once we start to devalue life, how easy would it be to kill again maybe for less valid reasons?
Woo, got a zombie buddy before the undead invasion begins! Awesome ^_^
You make a very solid case about morality and the like, but (if I may) I think you are basing these questions in our current, pre-zombie aregeddon time. The same rules of ethics and the like that we apply to ourselves right now will not exactly apply in that time of constant parile. Not to mention (a biggie to boot) that not everyone *has* the same type of ethics, or at least the same level of standards when it comes to things. Based on what you said above we seem to be pretty matched on what we think is good vs bad, but sadly this does not gel well when others who do not have the same thoughts when they are added to the mix.
But, to get back to what you said specifically: Does killing even a clearly marked bad guy cross the line? Again, based on our current standards, yes it would. But add in a zombie outbreak and that changes things. To toss him overboard at the first possible chance would be pushing it, though. I agree that there is quite a gray area involved here, but in this specific situation I’d say it was a valid time to toss the dude. Well, not the *exact* situation they displayed on TV. They found a method of escaping before it got that bad, so in that case “No,” it would not have been the right time.
The right time would have been zombies quickly closing in, they are trapped and have absolutely no backup plans, and within a few seconds they will all be slaughtered. *That* would be the ideal time to shove him ahead of the rest of everyone. You don’t have to outrun the *bear* after all. (Just the guy next to you, in case you are unfamiliar with the joke, to avoid me looking completely loony.)
Everyone else is getting along quite well, Merle was the only violent and threating one of them all. Hard to predict the future, but if that group never reconnects up with Shane’s RV camp, then they would all probably get along. At the very least, they would all get along well enough to work together and not threaten to kill anyone during their travels. Killing anyone should never be taken lightly, as Rick says a gun is not a toy, and more directly that no one kills the living. I am curious as to what he had planned for Merle though. Keep him handcuffed and shuffling along the group? How do you properly handle someone so willing to kill off other members of your group?
…other than by feeding him to zombies, of course. 😀
(The system won’t let me directly reply to your reply for some reason)
So, what you are saying is that your morals are situational, not hard and fast. You would adapt and change what you consider right and wrong based on what life is throwing at you at the moment. Maybe some morals are needed only when we live in a law-and-order society and when that society fails, its every man for himself. Your original point was how in a survival situation, your needs must come first. I wonder if adaptable morals are necessary in order to survive such death and destruction?
I guess my only objection to throwing the redneck off the roof was that it would have served the group’s purpose and not be justice in and of itself. If they’d taken a vote and everyone agreed he was a bad person who deserved to die — and not just because they were about to be eaten — then killing him would be justice.
I guess if I ever find myself in such a situation, I’d throw the redneck off the roof if we were alone. If I were with a group, I’d advocate that we all agree to throw him off. What do you think?
As far as what would have been considered more morally accepted justice for the redneck: I think get him out of the city and then banish him from the group. But did you notice that no one in the truck really was that upset about the guy being left behind?
I think that is about right, but ‘situational’ kinda has a negative overtone about it. Just to clarify, it’s not something that changes per hour or per day like a bi-polar person off their meds. Merle was well beyond causing trouble in the episode. If all he did was raise a little ruckus, maybe try to pick a fight with T-Dog instead of full on gun toting, then that would be different. If they coasted through town they could easily have done as you brought up and unshackled him when it was safe and send him on his way with a packet of matches or something. (But, one could argue that, that was a death sentence as well based on what time of day it was. See! Gray areas abound!)
It is interesting that you bring up justice, though. I wasn’t even taking that into consideration to be honest. At least not in a “he tried to kill us, he *deserves* to be thrown over” sort of way. Avoiding death is top priority to everyone, even enemies as Merle has flagged himself as. But, if there is a situation where the group needs to draw straws and the loser takes one for the team, Merle is automatically the short straw, if you know what I mean?
When I hear anything about voting I am instantly reminded of The Mist and the religious freak. Yeah, I’m not too keen on letting others vote on *my* life for any reason. I guess in a way, the whole idea of killing off someone shouldn’t even be brought up because it is something that shouldn’t even arise until someone does something so heinous it requires it without a vote. In essence, only in self defense.
Woah. Why didn’t I just think of that early on? That could have sped this whole process up a *lot* faster! I’ll stick with: Merle constantly is the Short Straw till they drop him off unarmed and unharmed when they get out of town, and only kill in self defense. Final answer, Regis.
That kinda ends my comment…but I already typed out the below paragraph and all so I’m just gonna leave it there and call it a day lol
– – – – –
By drawing his gun on fellow survivors he just bumped his threat level up above zombies. He has better speed, vision, and range (thanks to guns) making him capable of killing anyone in sight whenever he feels like it. He is certainly gunning to T-dog and he had no problem punching anyone who got too close. He called that one guy a Taco salesman and then the older sister a carpet eater. After he is done with T-Dog he would probably kill the black woman do to her race, then (I’m guessing) the Mexican, possibly Glen because he is Asian, and then either have his way with the older sister or just kill her outright. But I think he’d keep her around to ‘use’ her awhile though. (Rick would be a threat to his leadership and would have to go as well.)
I have to admit that I probably agree with you: Merle should always be the short straw. And it’s not just because he’s racist. It’s because he’s violent toward other group members and that would be a law-breaking offense even in polite society. So now I really want you in my zombie apocalypse group. You can be our moral guide. But we’d have to get you a good title like the Ethics Shaman or something.
Oh, totally. Disagreements will always arise even in the best of situations. If Merle was merely spiteful and petty, then he would just be a jerk. As you said he was not only violent, but moments away from possibly killing someone, and after getting detained he remained unapologetic about it. Want to shoot something, shoot the zombies. Start aiming at people in anger and seriousness, and you get the Short Straw.
Ethics Shaman. That. Is *awesome*. Hmm. Got me an idear… Hold on a second.
[tick tock tick tock]
Okey dokey. “Ethics” is now a level 1 troll shaman waiting on Cataclysm in World of Warcraft. I might tinker with him a little later today, but I *needed* a name for a new shaman anyway. Thank you for the inspiration 😀
I am so glad you have a new shaman name! I would have just called him Fred. 🙂
It was ok, but I don’t think it could have possibly ever lived up to the hype it got before it premiered.
What specifically was kind of ho-hum for you? Did you find the dialogue lacking or were the zombies not creepy enough? In the second episode there were moments where I was like, “The zombies are kind of funny. They all walk with a limp.”
Hi, i believe that i saw you visited my blog so i came to return the
prefer?.I’m attempting to find issues to enhance my website!I guess its adequate to make
use of a few of your concepts!!