Philosophical Question: TWD & Moral Relativism

[Wyldwraith]

Hey all, The last season has given me a few things to mull over, not least of which is the evolution (or devolution, depending on where one stands on the issue) of Team Rick's moral code. We've gone from a group who wouldn't kill one unarmed prisoner from a group that tried to kill Rick and others (Randall, Season 2)...to a group quite willing to butcher about a dozen enemies who wanted to eat them, once said cannibals had surrendered and disarmed themselves. Significant change, morally speaking. However one sees it. My question is this: It took the group somewhere between a year and a half and two years to cross the moral ground from unwillingness to execute Randall for the sake of expediency to their willingness to slaughter the Terminians once they'd surrendered. So, do you see the time, suffering and losses they experienced along the way due to said moral code as being worth it...or rather worth holding onto as long as the group did before arriving at their current moral code...or do you see the losses and suffering the group experienced as preventable if they'd just "toughened up" sooner, and gotten to where they are now morally by a more direct route? I don't think it will surprise anyone here to learn I'm of the opinion that if you and your allies/friends/family members have been plunged into a T.E.O.T.W.A.K.I-type apocalypse of the sort portrayed in TWD, with no sign of the reestablishing of civilization in any significant way happening anytime soon, that Team Rick's CURRENT more realist-centric (as opposed to the idealist-centric code they began with) was a necessary step...and one the group paid in blood for not taking sooner. (Example: Look how different some events might have been under a different, harsher set of guiding principles of conduct. If Rick had shot Andrew in the face after locking him out, instead of simply assuming the Walkers would finish him off, Lori and T-Dog might well be alive. Or if Team Rick had opted to massacre the routed Woodburyites after their disastrous attempt to invade the Prison, rather than firing into the air A-Team style to scare them off...it's quite possible the Governor would've died then and there. Which would've in all likelihood saved Herschel's lives, and the lives of all the people from the Governor's "2nd Flock" with which he again attacked the Prison...plus all those who died on the bus during the attempted escape from said invasion. Even Andrea might still be alive, along with the Governor's brainiac former lieutenant Milton.) Now I'm NOT saying that these outcomes would have necessarily occurred just because hindsight seems to imply as much from a viewer's-eye perspective. Nor am I saying that plunging with abandon into amoral atavistic behavior = A necessarily improved chance at survival. Those examples are simply indications of what MIGHT have been different had the moral code of the group been harsher, as it now is. Is there intrinsic worth in the struggle to maintain pre-apocalyptic morality as long as possible, and if so, how and why? Conversely might it have been more rational for the group to take a really hard look at their reality much sooner than they were finally forced to, and choosing to adopt the more pragmatic code of behavior they now live by earlier in the struggle for survival? Again, if so, how and why? If not, same question. Another possibility to consider is this: Was there perhaps a certain amount of inevitability given the overall scope of the world they were suddenly thrust into that for survival's sake pragmatism as a larger component of the group's moral code seemingly became the only route forward to this point. In simpler terms: If the group was going to end up at this point morally and philosophically anyways, why endure the losses they endured in retaining the moral high ground for as long as they did? I'm hoping to see some well-considered opinions here. And for those who might say we've debated these issues before, I contend that taking the group's experiences as a whole from the group's formation to the present moment makes for a different foundation for the individual moral questions we discussed in a more episodic case-by-case manner. Just my opinion, but I feel it's a different debate when one looks at the events leading up to the group's present circumstances in their totality than when those same questions were tendered concerning individual events in the plot. - - - Updated - - - Postscript: Wow, 20 hours and not a single reply. Guess I severely overestimated interest in the subject of shifting TWD morality. Ah well.

[facestabber]

TWD offseason sucks. I'm gonna reply just busy. Just rewatched entire season 2 and it has me thinking

[shootemindehead]

Umm...I don't see the Randall situation as being even close to the Termites situation at all. Randall was part of a group that came looking for their buddies that Team Rick had just killed and played himself off as a misunderstood teen in the wrong place at the wrong time, when captured. This is a far "grayer" area than Gareth an Co. who deliberately lured Team Rick into Terminus and boxed them up in freight cars to await slaughter and cooking. To me there's no comparison. If the timeline had been reversed, I think there's a good chance of things playing out exactly the same. As far as morals are concerned, I'd be reluctant to get into too deep a discussion on the moral behavior of fictional, scripted, characters in a TV show TBPH. But I will say this about morals...I think they're bullshit, generally, and people's morals are as changeable as their underwear, given the right set of circumstances.

[Staredge]

Another possibility to consider is this: Was there perhaps a certain amount of inevitability given the overall scope of the world they were suddenly thrust into that for survival's sake pragmatism as a larger component of the group's moral code seemingly became the only route forward to this point. Yes. In effect, you've reverted to a survival of the fittest situation, much like in the natural world. In simpler terms: If the group was going to end up at this point morally and philosophically anyways, why endure the losses they endured in retaining the moral high ground for as long as they did? Because you fight to keep as much humanity as possible, for as long as possible. Shane may have been right, but had they taken his view from the beginning we'd be at the point where Judith is better as bait than as a kid. You have to fight the decline as long as possible, or anything becomes allowable.

[Wyldwraith]

Interesting point, About the possibility that if the group hadn't fought the reversion back to a more Darwinian model of behavior, that devolution of their morality might be much more pronounced at this point. I'm not sure I agree that (for example) making the determination to say: Use lethal force against any other group you come into significant conflict with, would also mean that the devaluing of the lives of those in your group would occur. Plenty of indigenous cultures are INCREDIBLY violent and hostile to anyone not of their tribe. The hunting of other humans from other tribes as a meat-source has been, and in some places still is a societal norm. The formerly cannibalistic groups in New Guinea only recently have abandoned said behavior, and there are strong suspicions that other more remote groups in New Guinea still include "Long Pig" as a staple part of their diet. These cultures also have elaborate courtship customs, coming-of-age ceremonies, and many other social practices designed to bind the group closer together. So it doesn't necessarily follow that choosing to look at "Outsiders" as "The Enemy" would make one view your own offspring as "bait"...anymore than it does in any of these indigenous cultures. It's quite possible for a social collective to have VASTLY different codes of conduct for their fellow members of said collective versus their code of conduct concerning Outsiders. However, since we are speaking of individuals who are in essence refugees from a now-defunct society which for the vast majority of their lives honored a social contract that stated using lethal force against fellow humans was a behavior of last resort in extremity, who are now challenged by an environment where the systems that allowed that high-valuation of others lives to be feasible, you might well be correct that complete atavism might be a more probable outcome than the development of a completely new code of behavior. Those indigenous cultures I spoke of had thousands of years of relative environmental stability in which to form their double-standard-embracing moral codes after all. I would like to believe there is inherent nobility in struggling to maintain what modern man considers their "humanity" under any and all circumstances, but a part of me wonders whether I would see it that way if I myself were thrust into the moral vacuum of an apocalypse setting. One thing I do believe....In the absence of artificial behavioral constraints like those which currently exist in our society. Laws and such....You would see the reality of a person much more readily exposed compared to during the continuation of our modern society.

[Neil]

In simpler terms: If the group was going to end up at this point morally and philosophically anyways, why endure the losses they endured in retaining the moral high ground for as long as they did? I think it's been an interesting watch, if not a little obvious; Rick was clearly an extremely moral person in effect still operating in "police officer" mode. But that mindset has well and truly been beaten out of him now to the extent he trusts no one, and is willing to kill first if in any doubt. It's taken sometime to get to this position and required some hard lessons

[MinionZombie]

Even though Rick has taken a dark turn, if you're on his side you can absolutely trust him. If he'd just given up at the earliest opportunity then he'd have become a total monster. Shane cut his moral ties very quickly, and his sense of loyalty was extremely skewed by selfishness and jealousy ... in his company you'd only be around long enough to help fulfil his needs and wants, and he never considered the extended group "family" (although he didn't have a lot of time to do so, admittedly). If Shane had been in charge - and had killed Rick - there would be many more dead members of the group by this point and/or many folks who had split of their own accord to get the hell away from him. On the other hand, Rick considers the entire group his "family" and will do anything to protect them. They all depend on each other and can rely on each other ... you'd never have got that with Shane in charge ... so holding onto his morality for as long as possible was extremely important, and I'd argue that he hasn't lost it completely either. Plus, this is the zombie apocalypse, there's no way through it clean. People are going to die no matter what you do, but the difference is clear. Just look at the Termites versus Team Rick. I know which group I'd rather be in!

[Wyldwraith]

Good points Minion, Yet again, I don't see where this linkage others perceive as iron-clad, between the treatment of "Outsiders" and the treatment of your own "Tribe Members" occurs. One possible outcome had the group chosen a harsher path (morally), certainly, but by no means absolutely inevitable. There ARE other points on the moral spectrum than the one Team Rick currently occupies, and the other which the Terminians occupied. One example of this would be the "Claimers" Daryl ran with for a bit. Most could be considered at the least extremely anti-social and of a very violent bent, and at most outright Psychopaths...but their simplistic rules WERE serving as an effective glue to hold their little band of marauders together. As bad as the Claimers were, they were SAINTS compared to the Terminians. The Claimers were at least honest in their violently antisocial outlook towards Outsiders....whereas the Terminians warped the hopes of others into a hook with which to pull them into their Butcher Shop. Also, why is it a binary proposition? Ie: Either the retention of modern civilization's moral code, or plunging utterly into the moral abyss where all manner of depravity and evil become not only acceptable but expected. Team Rick proves there is at least one other point on the moral compass, harsher by far than the moral code of pre-apocalypse humanity yet far more moral than the Claimers and light-years more moral than the Terminians. More than that, Team Rick has at different points embraced at this point several different iterations of moral codes. Now I agree 100% that if and when a social collective crosses the line where they no longer consider the lives of their own people to have intrinsic worth beyond what they offer the group in a material sense, that such a group has stepped off the cliff into the moral abyss. That said, I maintain the it is well within the possible range of human behavior to view one's own people as emotionally valued individuals which you continue to have empathy for, while simultaneously viewing "Outsiders" as beings the group responds to on a purely pragmatic level where the lives of said "Outsiders" are perceived as having no intrinsic worth. Massive upheavals affecting most if not all of humanity at once have ALWAYS throughout history lead to the radical restructuring of the values of those who survive. Humanity is capable of being morally multifaceted up to and arguably beyond what we modern humans would consider insanity. The same Nazi officer who eagerly anticipated his pre-breakfast cold-blooded murder of a Jewish concentration camp prisoner could be a doting father who weeps genuine tears that the circumstances of his "duties" kept him from being with his daughter on her birthday. (For the record, Nazis are evil scum I consider worthy of nothing more than the same methods of extermination one would employ against rabid animals.) Devaluing an entire human ethnicity to the point of considering them no different from rats or cockroaches, existing in that single individual's mind side-by-side with a fiercely protective devotion to his own family. It's as if humanity possesses the ability to consciously choose to be "Morally Schizophrenic." Now I am NOT saying that such a thing is in ANY WAY a desirable or admirable quality. ESPECIALLY to the extreme embodied by the above example. I'm simply reiterating my belief that humanity's "moral flexibility" coupled with this capacity to embrace multiple moral codes simultaneously, makes the eventual outcome....what moral code or CODES plural any given group of humans decide to embrace any one of a billion shades of gray rather than the black-or-white of Modern Morality Vs. Terminian-style animalistic embrace of Pure Expediency. Back to the original point though: I agree that maintaining as part of one's moral code deep and positive emotional bonds between group members is the only surety of remaining MEANINGFULLY alive. I truly desire to believe in the possibility of maintaining some method that would allow those who are currently just-encountered Outsiders to demonstrate they are individuals which can be added to the family-tribe structure....but in an apocalyptic environment I don't know how one would do such a thing without exposing those one KNOWS they can trust and love to extreme danger. The tenets of my belief system (which TBPH I often struggle with in many respects) say that one should make a leap of faith when it comes to choosing to trust others....but the part of me that wants to keep safe those I love and care for perceives such a leap as playing Russian Roulette with the lives and well-being of "My" people. How do you resolve such a conflict? Especially when many of those you've encountered in a post-apocalyptic environment are the very embodiments of the danger you wish to protect your own people from? Whatever the answer, I don't believe it ever could be as simple in an apocalyptic environment as "Hold onto as much of the morals/ethics we grew up with as we can, and hope for the best." For the best of reasons, with that much at stake it seems it could become all but impossible to put one's faith into any individual who is an unknown quantity. How would you live with yourself if you chose to take in Person X and make them part of the family, only to have Person X betray that trust and (for example) take or otherwise cause the loss of life of one's loved ones? To me it seems like it would be less about Good Vs. Evil and more about Trust Vs. Fear when you get right down to it. Thoughts?

[MinionZombie]

To me it seems like it would be less about Good Vs. Evil and more about Trust Vs. Fear when you get right down to it. Thoughts? Perhaps the former via the latter. The former is the overall goal (to be good instead of evil) and the latter is the day-to-day method for reaching that. Daryl brought Bob into the group, but didn't know about his alcoholism - which caused (accidentally, and by no particular intentions of Bob) a whole mess at the Big Spot in 4x01, which resulted in Zack's death. However, Bob got away with that (although, to be fair, he's only partially responsible as the entire structure was weak anyway) and then they got into a bit of a scrape when he was trying to save his back pack because of the booze inside. Daryl saw that and he immediately lost trust in Bob - his actions endangered the group and their objective (getting medicine for those back at the prison - of whom many were refugees from Woodbury and other environs). However, in 4x08 Daryl himself put a gun in Bob's hand - but asked simply "you good?", to look him in the eye and know that he could trust him as shit was about to go down with The Governor. There's a push and pull to any trusting relationship in this world. Sometimes people are going to let you down - just like in everyday normal life - but there are actions that can be forgiven and those that can't. When Shane led Rick out into the middle of a field to kill him, Rick knew that - despite his best efforts to maintain their friendship - all hope was lost and it was simply going to be him or Shane. A horrendous action to take in extreme circumstances, but it was the right - and only - choice to make. Interestingly in 4x08 when Rick was offering sanctuary to The Governor and his new gang, it was out of desperation and fear - fear of losing what they had. Better to share that with an enemy than lose it all and everybody (conceivably) ends up dead. When he brought in the Woodbury survivors who had been left behind it was out of compassion. It's an ever-shifting world, different people you encounter are going to give you different reasons to think and act in a different way. If you encounter nothing but scumbags you're going to be untrusting and fearful. If you encounter nothing but goodies (now that'd be a big old stroke of luck!) then you'll maintain your sense of trust (something that could kill you one day if/when your hugely lucky streak comes to an end). However, it's generally going to be a mix of both for the majority ... or perhaps neither in Gabriel's case for the most part as he was alone for a very long time. He had no choice but to let in Team Rick (he was outnumbered and outskilled), but they did save his life ... however they also brought death and destruction to his church in the name of survival and some of them committed horrendous acts of violence (to which the group's reactions were varied). Far better to strive to maintain your moral code - even if you have to bend the rules (or flat out break them) from time to time when no other option is available. It's a constant battle to maintain your sanity and your moral compass, and it's hugely dependent on the people you're with. Rick wanted to go in throat-slicing-aplenty at Grady, but Daryl (and others) stood up for a different approach. It didn't work out too well, but it could have gone disastrously wrong and didn't ... Rick's actions might have worked, but they might not have either ... there's no real way of knowing what the best choice is. Hindsight is a wonderful thing with 20/20 clarity, but you don't have that luxury in the moment as things unfold. So, really, in the moment, it's best to make your decisions based on your frayed morality and the council of your friends/family. Shane threw in the moral towel with ease and very quickly and it didn't do him any good whatsoever. His decision to shoot Otis was arguably the right one, but it was also a terrible act that pushed his sanity to breaking point ... in the end that decision cost him everything, but not before it turned him into a twisted shadow of his former self. Rick on the other hand places value in the thoughts, feelings, and actions of those around him. Sometimes he has to act in the moment purely on his own, other times he has the comfort of council with his closest allies. I would argue that, without striving to maintain your morality, you'd inevitably end up dead or without trusted council supporting you.

[Wyldwraith]

Shane threw in the moral towel with ease and very quickly and it didn't do him any good whatsoever. His decision to shoot Otis was arguably the right one, but it was also a terrible act that pushed his sanity to breaking point ... in the end that decision cost him everything, but not before it turned him into a twisted shadow of his former self. Was just re-reading this thread and something genuinely new occurred to me about the Shane-character and the "Otis Decision." Shane didn't begin going insane because of what he chose to do to Otis, instead he began going nuts because he was *deeply conflicted about it*...and also hyper-sensitive about how others would view him if the truth were known. Why do I bring this bit of ancient history up you say? Here's the new thought. Had Shane TRULY, without a shadow of moral conflict believed what he did to Otis was necessary and right given the extremity they found themselves in, with Carl's life in the balance (Someone we know he DID care for)..there would've been no internal mental conflict over his decision to kneecap Otis and leave him as Walker-food to facilitate his escape. Shane did what he did as a snap judgment, without the time (or arguably, even inclination, to think the decision through to its ultimate consequences)...It suddenly struck me that it was actually the last few threads of Shane's humanity that corroded him from the inside out. Had he not felt guilt, there would've been no mental strain. Now, I'm NOT saying that's what "Should have happened"...or any such thing. It just struck me as DEEPLY IRONIC that the poster-child character of TWD for a survivor who abandons their morality readily in essence lost his sanity (at least in part) precisely because of the ensuing moral conflict/guilt over what he'd done to Otis.

[MinionZombie]

I'd say in response to that - at least he felt guilty over that action - so that's something. It would have been even scarier had he just been totally okay with it, so yeah, good point you raise here - the irony of it is tragic - but then I feel at some point the guilt faded into the background (or faded away entirely) by the time we were around about "18 Miles Out", and 'the new Shane' started taking over. So there was a also switch in his mind that flipped, perhaps after being worn down by the initial (crushing) guilt he felt after having just sacrificed Otis. His snap decision to wound Otis was, I agree, likely a snap decision ... although I do wonder if it was something that was lingering in his mind for at least a few minutes leading up to that moment. The decision to shoot Otis therefore being a brief war in his mind and then when no safety presented itself, boom, he knew he had to shoot Otis in order to save Carl. It's one of those interesting damned if you do, damned if you don't Catch 22 situations. Very murky. Ultimately though, regardless of his intentions, Shane wasn't strong enough to maintain enough of his humanity and marry that with necessary evil in order to survive like Rick seems to have, for the most part, managed.

[facestabber]

Was just re-reading this thread and something genuinely new occurred to me about the Shane-character and the "Otis Decision." Shane didn't begin going insane because of what he chose to do to Otis, instead he began going nuts because he was *deeply conflicted about it*...and also hyper-sensitive about how others would view him if the truth were known. Why do I bring this bit of ancient history up you say? Here's the new thought. Had Shane TRULY, without a shadow of moral conflict believed what he did to Otis was necessary and right given the extremity they found themselves in, with Carl's life in the balance (Someone we know he DID care for)..there would've been no internal mental conflict over his decision to kneecap Otis and leave him as Walker-food to facilitate his escape. Shane did what he did as a snap judgment, without the time (or arguably, even inclination, to think the decision through to its ultimate consequences)...It suddenly struck me that it was actually the last few threads of Shane's humanity that corroded him from the inside out. Had he not felt guilt, there would've been no mental strain. Now, I'm NOT saying that's what "Should have happened"...or any such thing. It just struck me as DEEPLY IRONIC that the poster-child character of TWD for a survivor who abandons their morality readily in essence lost his sanity (at least in part) precisely because of the ensuing moral conflict/guilt over what he'd done to Otis. Good points. I feel bad I never got around to contributing on a topic that interested me. I have been a critic of Shane in the past. But I have no doubt he was a good man. The world changed and everyone living had to change. Some changed slower than others, holding on tightly to morals of the lost world(Dale). Obviously Shane's transition was much faster. There is no doubt Shane was conflicted when he shot Otis. It ate away at his soul. In a moment of absolute dire stress he made a decision. I hated it. I hope that I would not be able to do that to Otis if it were me fully acknowledging that I may die for my lack of action. But I understand now that Shane's motives weren't evil. His choice was a loved one or a stranger.

[Wyldwraith]

I respect your PoV and your values Facestabber, All the moreso because, if I'm being really honest if I were in the "Otis situation"...While I do NOT believe I would choose to do what Shane did simply (for example) to save myself, if I was the very last chance for survival of a very close friend or family member....to my discredit as a human being I truly believe I would've done the same thing. The DIFFERENCE is that I'm a "Do or Do Not" type of person. In my time there have been instances where I've done the wrong thing for the best of reasons...and for some reason I never really find myself second-guessing those decisions. Yet Shane didn't have the opportunity for deep soul-searching and mental deliberation, which set him up to make a decision it turned out he ultimately couldn't live with/because of. Decisions made without the opportunity to fully think them through are, IMHO, always going to be more likely to begin the second-guessing and self-recriminations after the fact. Never having been faced with such a weighty decision without the opportunity to give both choices at least a basic examination, I can't say my understanding of such snap judgments is particularly comprehensive and certainly not all that insightful. It's just sort of strange that sometimes it's the "better angels" of our nature that bring us down, rather than the devil on our shoulder. I think that as more and more time passes for the survivors of Rick's group, it's going to grow increasingly obvious that they need to develop one mindset for doing what needs to be done, and another more feeling and/or humane mindset for relating to each other. Which at present IMO makes Carol the exemplar of what a survivor in TWD universe needs to be to have any likelihood at all of say, living another five years.