Psychology of the Apocalypse

[Wyldwraith]

All right,
Since this sort of content seems to be like rat-poison for threads in other threads, I thought I'd start one specifically about it. It, namely, the dark side of survival when civilization goes poof, and what we think about various aspects of it.

For example: The contradiction we argue about in more specific terms over in TWD thread(s). Example: There is a guy/gal you've somehow ended up grouping/partnering with in the wake of the apocalypse. You quickly become aware because of their conduct & decision-making as it regards non-group members/non-allies that this personal is...well, EVIL.

Ie: Someone who, for reasons difficult for anyone to explain, can act like a decent human being to a small group they've for some reason come to give a damn about, but who treats everyone else simply like a disposable resource. At BEST.

Now, not even touching the moral ramifications. My question is simply this: You're positive this person will continue to treat you and the rest of your group well (at least so long as you don't interfere with how they treat anyone else outside said group), but in doing so you're basically guaranteed to become a tacit accomplice of whatever f'd-up things they do.

Assuming such a person is, say, a Daryl-level asset, would you put up with this extreme juxtaposition of questionable morality, or seek greener pastures with the more moral? If so, why or why not?

And please, no: "Anyone like that is going to turn on any group they're a part of sooner or later" type answers. We've all considered things like that. I'm talking about the more complicated issue of do you put up with a psycho that has been tangibly saving your ass on numerous occasions over the last few months, or ditch them whenever possible just because you can't stomach how they treat others?

[Thorn]

No.

I would not tolerate them in my group, and while I understand you said you would rather people not mention the fact they could turn on you, or sacrifice yours if they stand in the way of their own sense of "need or right and wrong" I could not remove that from the equation because to me it is fundamental to the process of evaluating a resource.

I also think timing and such plays a major part in it, f we are in a siege situation, and we mutually need one another those sort of things take a back seat to your immediate survival, maybe that is hypocritical but mutual need would override deeper seated issues.

I would no sooner cast them out in a situation where they were vulnerable than I would risk my group by subtracting a needed resource at that time. I might come to regret casting them out even during times of calm, but it would be easier to hang on to moral thoughts of right and wrong then.

Bottom line to me is you have to survive, but we all need to make sure we are approaching things in a way that we can "live with" surviving is not enough. Sadly in a zombie Apoc situation, you also at times need to accept the lesser of two evils, having a Shane with you is better than having a rapist in your midst, or a coward in your lot who can not function in times of need.

It is an interesting and complex question and one that requires a lot of thought, and it is so easy to sit here and say "cast Shane out" but he is a strong alpha type who fights hard for his group there is value there, and he could be a wicked enemy...

[AcesandEights]

Depends on what you mean by 'evil'. Frankly, I suspect I'd tolerate a lot of "questionable" acts if the world went down the tubes and the only way of feeding myself was by scavenging and defending what I'd scavenged from those who want to take it away.

It's all circumstantial guesswork, because I don't think anyone knows how they'd act if the world went tits up.

[JDFP]

So, if I was teamed with Jack Bauer during the Apocalypse would I try to find a way to get rid of him? No. He'd be a major asset. As much as I hate to say it, you sometimes have to put your moral compass on hold (to an extent, me thinks) when the greater good of the existence of something like the entire human species (or at least America - and that's what matters :p:D) is dependent upon certain actions.

By extent I mean this - there's a difference between being in an apocalyptic situation and raping someone for the sheer pleasure of it versus being in an apocalyptic situation and, say, having to resort to enhanced interrogation methods to ensure the survival of your group. Is it right to do the latter? Usually no - but dangerous times call for certain measures that we as a society (or my group I'm in) would never resort to under normal circumstances that may have to be done in order for our group to survive. It's the whole good of humanity outweighs the good of the one argument. There's a distinction between being evil (inherently, implicit) and doing questionable things (explicit) out of necessity for survival. Murder is not the same as self-defense or killing during war as a soldier. Enhanced interrogation for the survival of a group from terrorism (for example) is not the same from torture for the sake of the sheer enjoyment of it.

Is it a slippery slope (i.e. if you put one liberty on hold the rest fall like dominos?)? It certainly can be and I can understand that perspective. However, I'm not justifying wanton abuse for the sake of it - only for the necessity of survival. But to quote from Stephen in "Dawn": "We have to survive this, someone has to survive this." Sometimes some civil liberties must be placed on hold for the survival of society in ONLY extremely dangerous situations. This world needs people like Jack Bauer (and non-fictional groups like Delta Force and the SEALs doing things we don't want to know about in the world) doing for society to be able to enjoy the rights/privileges we have as a society now.

Here's the real issue: At what point do we go too far? How do we know that very concrete line - where do we stop being humanity in attempting to survive and become something "Other" just for the sake of survival? It's the age old question: Is it worth losing ourselves and our very humanity just to continue onward? And where is this line? I think these are very valid and important questions to consider.

Excellent topic, Wyld.

j.p.

[kidgloves]

Great topic as always Wyld.

Im going to be as honest as i can here.
First and foremost, Im not a leader, Im a follower. Im notoriously indecisive but extremely effective following instructions which probably comes from being an Army brat. I could see myself slipping into a downward spiral in a situation like TWD portrays as morals become eroded just to survive. Im aware that I have a "dark" side but it is buried very very deeply. Maybe most people are like this and it is part of our human nature but I don't think I would be into a genre like this if I didn't have this side to my character.
Shane is right. Its just that at this point of the apocalypse its a very difficult thing to admit that his decisions are correct.

[Publius]

Earth Abides (a postapocalyptic novel involving an Earth mostly depopulated by a virus) by George R. Stewart addresses this issue, after a fashion. The main character's group of survivors is joined by a man who turns out to be a social cancer -- among other things, he boasts to the menfolk of carrying STDs due to an active social life but seems bent on seducing a mentally challenged teenage girl in the group. They decide that their group can't let him live with them any longer, but are also afraid of him coming back for revenge if they kick him out. They end up voting to execute him. The difference from your scenario is that Earth Abides lacks an active threat (e.g. zombies) and the character's behavior is directed against the group rather than outsiders.

[Wyldwraith]

@JDFP:
Excellent point yourself, and one that goes to the heart of the issue. In my mind at least, there is a major distinction between "Evil for Evil's Sake" (Ie: Torturing someone solely for the sadistic pleasure derived by the psychopath/sociopath in question) and "Evil for Necessity's Sake" (Ie: The group my prisoner belongs to has kidnapped 1 or more attractive women from our group, and have planned a rendezvous where the slavers will gather together before they move on to sell said women from our group. I am aware of the fact the slavers have planned to gather somewhere after the raid in which they kidnapped the women, but do NOT know where said gathering will occur. All attempts at civilized persuasion have failed to provide the needed information from the prisoner, so I am left with no other practical option but to torture the answer out of the prisoner, and torture him to an extent that convinces him DEFINITIVELY that attempting to deceive me and my compatriots WILL, in point of fact, result in even WORSE consequences than those the prisoner has so far experienced.)

Would I enjoy torturing a helpless man...even an Evil one? No. I'm neither a sadist or a bully. Would I consider it wrong to torture THAT MAN under THOSE circumstances? No. Moral dilemmas are for people without friends/loved ones/valued allies in mortal danger. Would I be ABLE to bring myself to systematically break a man, who's no doubt weeping, begging for mercy...perhaps even crying out for his mother? Under the circumstances I described, and/or any other circumstances that involved saving/protecting those I care for?

I cannot say in the comfort of my own home in a nation with (mostly) working laws with certainty that I could do as I've described...but in my heart I BELIEVE I could do literally anything required to an enemy to save and/or protect those I love and care for.

Would I consider what I did to gain the information required to mount a rescue attempt to recover the hypothetical female group members to be evil? I honestly don't know if my conscience would trouble me if I judged the individual threatening those I care for to be dangerous enough to pose a grave and imminent threat and did whatever seemed necessary at the time to alleviate/remove said threat to my friends and loved ones. Again, I believe I would do whatever was necessary, but cannot know how doing so would affect me...or even if I truly could do anything necessary until faced with the situation.

What I DO believe is that in the absence of a society of laws, or consistent system of justice & law enforcement, I would define Evil as those things I believe to be wrong being done for their own sake...and define Necessity as whatever needed to be done to safeguard those I care for...whether or not "whatever is needed" is something I would consider "wrong" and/or "evil" if done for it/their own sake(s).

As someone already said, it's (IMHO) a compelling aspect of envisioning Life After An Apocalypse. A very interesting debate so far, and one that I hope continues.

[Thorn]

Ultimately so much of it comes down to the individual, who you are, what you are willing to become, and how far you are willing to go. It is all wild speculation, while fun no one as has been said countless times really knows who and what they are capable of and there are triggers for each of us. Breaking points.

Some people beg for the lives of murderers who have killed their children because they are passionately against the death penalty on a deep seeded moral and religious level. Would that change if zombies were walking around? Would their entire value system change because the world changed?

I think you would find cases where it did, and it did not.

Beyond that I am anti-death penalty and I am against torture but I am for doing what has to be done to save lives and there is a point in my mind where I say this is justifiable. A lot of it depends on variables far too numerous to even mention, even in the above scenario you describe Wyld I find myself asking who the prisoner is, what are their crimes, what have they done, how old are they, what is their sex? Has every other possibility been explored? I can not just blanket say in my mind 'Screw them do whatever you have to do and they are collateral damage" doesn't make you bad if you do, it means we might just be different people *gasp*.

Now comes the hypocrisy and the double standard and this is a self admitted flaw even as a leader of men which I have been my whole life, if given a situation where MY 10 year old daughter was in the clutches of slavers as described above I would kill anyone who had to be killed, and do what needed to be done to get her back. Does that mean I would torture a child? No, and heaven help me if it ever came to that. I would seriously beat the ass of someone protecting slavers who had my kid and extract the information out of them however...

See to me that is culpability, and we would at that point be in a war. Their faction versus our faction and I would unleash an unholy beat down to get what I needed to get my kid back and I would F%$K up anyone who stood in my way inside of my own group. Hypocritical? Double standard? Make me a bad person? Maybe in the eyes of some and I respect that but I seriously would not give a shit at that point.

Again I need more information, to really say in the situation above what I would do. Even then we are just talking crap because we don't know what we are and are not capable of.

My thought is this though, you would not torture a kid without information, and a kid would tell you what you needed to know. Torturing an adult without information wouldn't happen either... it would just be making that determination. In the end what if you have a case of mistaken identity, what if the person really doesn't know and you torture, maim and kill them to get what you want and get nothing for it because you are wrong? Are you okay with that? Does the ends justify the means when the end is you coming up an empty handed murderer and torturer of innocents?

Part of the fun of some of the chats on the older forums was to have people really discuss how ready they were for a shit storm like a zombie apocalypse, and the funny thing was so many of us we found lacked certain things to even make a go of it despite everyone's obsession. I look at this the same way, talking about torture and murder are fascinating things for forum chat but how many of you have actually killed? How man of you have EVER tortured someone?

I am sorry but life is not as easy as just saying you think you could do it, you know in your heart what you feel you are as a man or a woman and the rest is wild speculation at best and in the end so many of us experts likely wont even live long enough to ever get there.

[Wyldwraith]

@Thorn:
I don't consider what you said about getting your own child back safe, and what you'd be willing to do to accomplish that to be hypocritical. We ALL have moral boundaries that under normal/"sane" conditions we'd never even consider crossing. (For example, in the here and now I would never consider killing someone who seemed a bit shady and couldn't provide a good reason for being on my property. If I felt they were up to no good I would make sure all my family/friends were inside, lock up the house and call the police while we tried to keep an eye on where this shady stranger was.

On the other hand, if someone was in the direct process of offering/doing real harm to someone I care for I would kill them. Have I ever killed someone? No. However, I have permanently crippled and maimed men attacking a young woman I didn't even know. Does this mean I would automatically be able to take lives? Of course not. It does, however, at least for me serve as an indicator of the strength of my resolve and a capacity for viciousness when dealing with evil men on my part.

Admittedly, that was ONE situation. No one could be blamed for thinking it can or should take more information than that to truly judge what a person is capable of when the feces have hit the fan. That said, this reasoning is why I use descriptive terms like "indicator"...rather thank blanket statements. I've never been faced with a situation that requires I kill to protect someone I love. What is true for any untested warrior in a combat situation would therefore be as true for me as for anyone else without that experience.

I do feel the discussion of these issues has more value than simple wild speculation. Considering such issues forces us (if we take the subject matter seriously) to think critically about who and what we are, and what we believe ourselves to be capable of versus what we know ourselves to be or not be capable of.Such consideration always has value (IMO).

[Thorn]

Agreed, there is certainly value, was merely saying our reactions and are wild speculation because there is no basis in reality for it. Starring at a zombie horde is so foreign to us from our every day life... our answers and thoughts are just speculation and I use wild to indicate that it is just a crap shoot you never know the bravest of us might crumble, the weakest might be a hero.

Love the topic, it is like the what if scenarios I posed in the old forums that always seemed to get heated ;)

[Wyldwraith]

Agreed,
There is an element we've yet to cover in depth as yet, though some have touched on it briefly. Namely, we ALL have dark sides. Some darker than others, but dig deep enough into anyone's psyche and you'll find their Inner Savage snarling back at you. Not talking about choices we make, courses of action we choose or anything like that at the moment. I mean...(struggling for clear examplar)...ok, here's an example:

Laurie shutting Shane down totally in Season 1 Ep: "Tell it to the Frogs" visibly left Shane stewing with pent-up frustration primarily, with a secondary (but still powerful, as circumstances shortly thereafter proved) undercurrent of great anger and a desire to lash out and physically give voice to the pain, frustration, again anger, jealousy and no doubt several other sub-issues.

When Ed strikes Carol, is grappling with her after bordering on/briefly attacking the other women to an extent as well when they tried to protect Carol and called Ed out as the wife-beating redneck coward he was...Shane allows the event to throw wide the door to the cage his Inner Savage had been struggling to get free of since his conversation with Laurie was abruptly ended by Laurie 30 seconds earlier. He beats Ed savagely for the primary motivation of blowing off steam in a really anti-social and savage way, and the secondary motivation of deterring Ed from any future aggression towards Carol and any of the other women.

It would be TOO EASY to simply conclude that this sort of behavior stems from an unusual/uncommon emotional/psychological aberration. We've all been driven straight up a wall by the words or actions of someone we desired/cared for...and when wrestling with such intense and often conflicting emotions in an emotional quagmire that's shifting every moment...we've all lost control and expressed that outpouring of emotion through the entire spectrum of possible responses. I've known both men and women that turn to physical tasks and go about them with far more intensity than is reasonable for the task, for example.

On the other hand, I've also known a few individuals who did something like storm off and go get drunk or high, before returning and giving free rein in an utterly unacceptable way...such as domestic and/or child abuse that begins explosively after the TINIEST new provocation. I'm sure we all have greater or lesser experience, first or second-hand, with responses ranging from the healthy to the utterly unforgivable if not incomprehensible behavior.

In my meandering, roundabout way I guess I'm trying to say that the existence of preventative factors, such as social and legal deterrents to vicious outbursts, in all probability stop just as many...if not MORE instances of savage violence/other unacceptable/immoral behavior than self-control and morality.

I genuinely fear the idea of a world without such deterrents, since it's not like people who have given in to their Inner Savage have neon signs floating over their heads.

Thoughts?

[Thorn]

I hear a lot about inner beasts, and monsters, and how all mean are inherently savages as part of our evolution from lower functioning life forms to where we are now. I found it interesting in "along came a spider" when the kidnapper mentioned this to Morgan Freeman's character and he responded 'I see him from time to time" or some thing of that nature.

I guess I just never see it in myself on any sort of level that allows me to really grasp it, I am just not a violent person. I do not wrestle with rage, or greed, or lust, or a desire to harm or take or act in a way that is not in alignment with societies norms.

Would that go out the window is the world as we knew it went away? Maybe. I can't say I just feel it is so counter to who I am, it just seems like you can't undo 39 years of being "you" in a day.

[Wyldwraith]

Thorn:
If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt your truthfullness, or your belief in your complete truthfullness) then I ENVY you! I could blame it on abuse from a psychotic father figure early in life, despite my mother's and maternal grandparents' lion-pride-like defense of me and my little brother whenever able. Or, I could blame it on a partial genetic heritage/inherited predisposition to possessing a lower-than-normal violence threshold...or I could even blame it on all the bullying I and my friends were subjected to in Middle & High School until the beginning of my junior year, when my massive over-the-summer growth spurt allowed me to take revenge for myself and my friends, and go beyond justified revenge in cultivating the bone-deep terror of the maladjusted punks who had so tormented us.

NONE of which makes me an iota less responsible for my decisions, however. I simply offer it mainly as explanation as to possible reasons why I see the world and react to conflict in such totally different ways than those you've described.

I've TRIED my very best, with some admitted "slips"...especially when younger and dumber...to hold my Inner Savage in check, for I am QUITE and very often reminded of my awareness of said Inner Savage. I attribute much of my self-control to a wonderful mother and grandparents doing all they could to undo the psychological and emotional damage my biological father had done to me, and hold up an easily-admired (though very often difficult-to-emulate) example for me to do my best to learn how to handle myself and my feelings about the people and situations I had or would encounter. There again, just like where I profess my responsibility for any actions taken while my Inner Savage has slipped free and into the "driver's seat"...I am (Justifiably, I believe) proud that instead of a predator I turned my anger and often violent reactions to certain conflict-centric situations to productive ends and used that anger and violence to either protect those weaker than myself, those I cared for.....and to provide an ACTIVE and VISCERAL deterrent to budding psychopaths whose inherited socioeconomic status made them feel (sadly, rather accurately) beyond all but the most severe and "open-and-shut cases" based consequences.

I don't know about anyone else, but High School was for me and mine very often a battleground as often as it was a place of learning. I think that was at least in part due to the fact my High School was located in the in-between area beyond 3 ENTIRELY DISTINCT economic and social brackets, as well as 3 different racially-centric communities. In other words, throw a bunch of rich white punks whose parents bail them out of trouble for things that invariably they should be JAILED FOR, but instead escape any such consequences...a bunch of minority members from often-dysfunctional and then (at school) socially mistreated situations...and the rest of us who you could call "regular kids" from the entire spectrum of "normalcy" into a building and then leave us in the charge of jaded, utterly disinterested teachers/other authority figures...and rampant conflict became inevitable.

Back to the main issue though: The example I've provided of my own life is my response to what you've offered concerning yourself Thorn. It is my contention that the Inner Savage is alive and well in most of us, at the very least. The only question is how sturdy the cages we keep said Savages in are, and what sort of circumstances lead to our Inner Savages breaking loose and going on a rampage.

Just my .02, and certainly anecdotal evidence at the very best.