In a zombie apocalpyse

[Tyndmyr]

What your not taking into account is that the slow guy ALSO has a gun. And he's slower then me. So he has a very, very good reason to shoot ME and leave me so that he can get away. AND he's behind me so i probably wont see it coming.

Yeah, shooting him makes it exceedingly likely he'll try to shoot back. There is little worse time to have a gunfight than when a giant mob of zombies is catching up with you.

Stuff is not getting better anytime soon. Probably not for years and years if ever. And that is the reality you would have to adjust to. Your not surviving for a while, your not surviving until help comes. Your just surviving.

Well, if you're willing to sacrifice others as convenient for you...then no, things won't get better.

Responding to 2 different people isnt double posting. With that sort of spot skill I'm not too worried about you being able to scavenge enough to survive zompocalypse anyway.

Yeah, it kind of is. Two posts, by you, back to back.

Responding to 2 different people uses the multiquote button to do it all in one post, sir. If you value spot, I'm sure you have already noticed this.

[boredgremlin]

Ok, so I'm part of the same group you and your family are in. Wheezy and you are away looking for supplies. We get overrun by zombies, no chance to fight them off. In your frame of mind, it is entirely ok if I decide to pull the two kids who can't keep up and won't be carried by your wife away from her and throw them towards the zombies to slow them down

Okay? No. Do i assume that you will turn around and fight the zombies to save them? No. Because thats what we are talking about. 1 dies (wheezy) or everyone dies (me and wheezy) neither has any more inherent right to live then the other.

The equivalent situation is that camp is over-run and you and YOUR family run back to mine, pull them out of whatever danger they are in and stay behind to fight and die all together so that no one gets away.

Do i hope you would do that? Of course, the humans might win despite the odds and my family might be among the winners.

Do i expect you to? No. I expect that you'll hustle your family away from the zombies look back with regret (you seem like a nice guy) and then turn back and try to block out the screams while you escape with your people.

At the very least, shoot wheezy in the chest, or the head if you're such a good shot that you think you can hit a knee. Shot in the head >> Torn to pieces alive.

I wasnt planning to stop and aim. I was thinking more turn and run backwards for a few steps, put one in him and keep going. And anway a pistol round center mass is very unlikely to result in an instant kill. So it really wouldnt change the situation much.

[boredgremlin]

the difference between despotism and practicality is that you, the despot, would kill me to give yourself more of a chance, I, the practical guy who has at least a pretention to a moral code, would kill you on account of the fact you're a dangerous liability,

A dangerous assumption. I consider YOU to be the group liability because you'll stop for moral equivocation in an extreme situation and not do what needs to be done to ensure collective survival.

In the running scenario you chose EVERYONE DIES instead of sacrificing one. Anyone who can find a way to justify choosing everyone dies rather then breaking an internal moral code is a time bomb for group survival. Just by virtue of being able to make that decision and be okay with it your a constant liability when decisions must be made.

because the premise is not "what do you do as a single individual"..but "what is your role in a group" it may seem stupid to you, or even not much of a difference, but I still feel entitled to the moral high-ground, without it being a one way ticket to the belly of a zombie.

The zombies dont give two craps whether your on the moral high ground, sunk waist deep in the moral sewers or somewhere in the middle. And they wont give you a get out of dinner free card for being on a high horse. Dead is dead.

I would think that the reminder of the group would agree with my practical decision, yet disagree (in the form of bullets) with yours

You might want to study human nature a little more. The entirety of human history shows that most people want to be led, and in extreme situations they are willing to be led by someone brutally ruthless as long as they have shelter and food.

You think the group would decide I should have let us both get eaten and be violently opposed to my decision? I say nonsense. Billions of people right now live under violent repressive regimes who make decisions much more arbitrary in much less extreme situations.

And I'm not talking about china here. You can see it in mainland africa where a half dozen strongmen brutally control a village of hundreds, who are also armed. The people put up with it because even though they are jerks, they're YOUR jerks. And you need people like them to shoot the others guys jerks.

The group would either be fine with it or be shocked and bothered but not enough to risk their own butts over it. Clearly I shoot back after all. And I'm probably coming back with resources.

Actually come to think of it in this situation it was just me and wheezy. None of you guys have the first damn clue what happened. And I am not coming back and saying......
"gee guys wheezy was a douche who should have jogged more so i capped him".

I'm going to say "he got caught, it sucked. Wish i could have helped but i couldnt". So you wouldnt have any idea what actually happened or have any reason to get on that moral high horse in the first place.

All you know is that I came back with supplies and no wheezy.

E. by not going there.. it's a strategy that brings up more issues than benefits, to begin with

Abdicating the decision to someone else is NOT a more inherently moral decision then making it yourself. Its just an easier one.

Someone WILL come along and make that call for those people. If you feel so strongly about it you have a moral duty to be the person who makes that call so whatever you think is the right thing to happen can happen.

At best your knowingly deciding to leave them in their cages to starve to death by not going over there and releasing them. Once you know they are there and face those choices you have the same moral obligations as if your group was in charge of the place yourself.

how do you plan to kill off several thousand individuals without the majority of them doing all they can to stop you from doing so? those places are built to be manned by dozens if not hunderds of people.. you and your couple of friends wouldn't be able to contemporarily contain the inmates and kill them off...all it takes is a dozen of them getting out of their cells and suddenly you have to worry about the zombies outside and the enemy inside..

Not to sound like a **** here but their locked in a cage and unarmed. Ever heard of fish in a barrel? I mean if your going to kill them anyway why would you let them out first? And even if we didnt want to move the bodies ourselves you have a dozen armed people (with specific training and experience on getting those guys out of a cell and restrained while they are resisting) surround a cell with 4 unarmed guys in it and its not too hard to hard to do.

and that's assuming that indeed your know how to operate all the security equipment

You must have missed the part where half of my group actually work at this place on a daily basis as guards. They absolutely know how all that stuff works and are intimately familiar with it. LOL i'm not trying to do this with my IT department at work. I have professionals. Thats why we chose this particular place.

and that food rations, your electricity supply, your fresh water, your health kits and what have you, last longer than the zombies outside. if they don't, all you've succeeded doing is delaying the inevitable at the gratuitous expense of thousands of people...because you'll have to head out.

That supply problem is exists with any strong point. Its not inherent to this particular one. It doesnt change the fact this is an excellent place to hole up and make further plans in security.

quite simply, since we're talking about a group here.. the first time you kill off one of the group, just about anyone of the others will put a hole in your skull the first time you fall asleep.

That is an absolutely flawed premise based on nothing but your own wishful thinking that people would continue modern morality in an extreme, apocalyptic situation. Even a cursory examination of human nature and history shows it to be simply false.

[boredgremlin]

Yeah, shooting him makes it exceedingly likely he'll try to shoot back. There is little worse time to have a gunfight than when a giant mob of zombies is catching up with you.

The point was that he's likely to shoot me first anyway. Anyone would think about it in that situation and some people would do it. Especially as the guy lagging behind.

Thats a real crappy time to find out that being a bad runner doesnt inherently make him a moral person who wont turn ME into zombie chow to help himself be the one to get away instead.

Its better to go first in that situation and be wrong then to go 2nd hoping to get him with MAD. Because really, i dont want MAD. I want to get back to camp. I dont want us both to die together honorably. I dont want him to shoot me first and shoot him back so we both die dishonorably. I dont really even WANT to shoot him. But I'm going to do it. Because the most important end game is me getting back to camp alive. Everything else is secondary.

Well, if you're willing to sacrifice others as convenient for you...then no, things won't get better.

Him or both of us survival doesnt equal convenience. That the first major flaw in your argument. This isnt a "i get back alone or we get back together" situation. Its an "I get back alone or we both friggin die and no one gets back" situation. World of difference.

The second flaw is assuming things would get better at all. This sort of situation would probably take generations to rebuild civilization from.

Yeah, it kind of is. Two posts, by you, back to back.Responding to 2 different people uses the multiquote button to do it all in one post, sir. If you value spot, I'm sure you have already noticed this.

No it isnt. Theres a basic truth in any forum. If you have broken down a response from several people into individual one sentence answers in a post your no longer debating the idea, your debating just to debate. And thus you are wrong.

[noparlpf]

Spoiler

Show

You probably dont have a choice who your around. Look at earthquakes and tsunami's or war dispossessed in the real world for example. completely random groups are forced to form by situational pressures where people try to survive by combining numbers and skills.

Sure some people will go off alone, but most people are going to get stuck with a group that they probably had little say in how it formed. And in that case you make do with what you have.

"giving up morality"

Is a laughable concept. Morality is a human construct designed to reinforce the laws of a given society. No more and no less. Its changed so much over the centuries that assuming any sort of objective morality is just silly.

Heres my zompocalypse morality. I have a wife and 4 kids. 3 of them under 5 years old, including an infant. They need a safe place to be away from zombies, food and medicine.

To get those things they need me to survive to protect them and scavenge up the stuff that they need.

Is it moral for me to put the life of Johny the chain smoker who cant out run a zombie ahead of the life of my infant and wife?

No it is not. Not only is johny unlikely to care for them if he's the one who happens to come back instead of me but he's less capable of it even if he does try. Which is why his wheezy ass was behind me in this scenario to start with. Because lets be honest here. Sooner or later Johny is zombie food anyway.

In this scenario the "morality" of an ordered society where you have a duty to law, order and some vague, ill-defined sense of right and wrong must give way to the "morality" of the hunter gatherer where you have a duty to yourself and your family first your small group second and everyone else a very distant third. Where your "duty" as a man is not to law and order or doing the right thing but to acquiring and protecting resources.

The people who can accept that reality the fastest and adjust accordingly are the people who will survive. Because as much as we can compare human reaction to massive disaster like war or natural disasters to how we might act in a zompocalypse there is one very important difference. It doesnt get better in zombie land.

Fire and EMS arent coming to fix the stuff.
The red cross is not coming with food and medicine
The police will not be there to protect you
The soldiers will not be there to protect and shelter you
The grocery stores and hospitals are not being re-supplied

Stuff is not getting better anytime soon. Probably not for years and years if ever. And that is the reality you would have to adjust to. Your not surviving for a while, your not surviving until help comes. Your just surviving.

Please start using "you're" when you mean "you are" instead of "your". It's making it hard for me to read your posts.

Anyhow, the apocalypse won't be a situation where overnight everybody but you and a few strangers are zombies. I can call my friends with my little magic talking-box (cellphones are so cool), organize a meeting, we combine our supplies and resources, and then go off to hide out. It's pretty straightforward.

As for morality--laws happened because of morality, not the other way around. Yes, morality changes over time, but then the laws change to accommodate that, AFTER the general morality of the culture has changed. (Read some Nietzsche, it's fun.) I don't do what I think is right because the government says it's right, I do what I think is right because I think it's right. There's no law saying I have to return a lost wallet, but I would try to anyway. Likewise, the law says I can't buy pocketknives or the like, but I have.

Responding to 2 different people isnt double posting. With that sort of spot skill I'm not too worried about you being able to scavenge enough to survive zompocalypse anyway.

It most definitely is double-posting as defined by the forum moderators.
As for my spot skill, it's pretty good. Goes with the mild paranoia. My eyesight may not be great, but with glasses or contacts it's fine, and I'm pretty observant. (Glasses might be a liability in an apocalypse, but I'm planning to get a couple of backup pairs soon, and then I'm switching to contacts with one of those one-two year supply plans.)

[Murska]

In a real situation where you and someone else are running away from zombies, how are you going to be absolutely certain that both of you won't be saved simply by running away, or that both of you won't die anyway if you shoot the other guy, or even that if you don't shoot the other guy he'll save your life and you'll both survive, but you'll die if you do.

It's easy to say that between everyone dies and one person dies you'd choose the latter, but in a real situation there are many more possible outcomes and you cannot know the result in advance.

[Coidzor]

^: Exactly. One can't see the future. And if one could, one was damned remiss in not trying to do something about the zombie apocalypse before it started by y'know, killing patient 0 before he could infect anyone.

What your not taking into account is that the slow guy ALSO has a gun. And he's slower then me. So he has a very, very good reason to shoot ME and leave me so that he can get away. AND he's behind me so i probably wont see it coming.

So you've almost managed to think it out for yourself why cultivating amoral sociopathy amongst the survivors you're around isn't really a good thing, but you still seem to be missing something in your moral calculus.

[boredgremlin]

{{scrubbed}}

Anyhow, the apocalypse won't be a situation where overnight everybody but you and a few strangers are zombies. I can call my friends with my little magic talking-box (cellphones are so cool), organize a meeting, we combine our supplies and resources, and then go off to hide out. It's pretty straightforward.

That all depends on when it starts doesnt it? If zombies get up and start eating people at 10 AM sure you'll know almost immediately and can plan. If zombies dig out of their graves and over run the hospitals and morgues at 2am there might very well be zombies all over the damn place before you realize it and wake up.

In that case you might not even know that there are zombies until the sound of breaking glass wakes you up and they come pouring through your front window.

When this problem actually starts makes a huge difference in how any of us could react.

Not to mention your being a little optimistic here.

For one thing your assuming your house is safe and you can sit in your easy chair BS'ing with your buddies about "these damn zombies" and what your going to do about them on your cell phone and they can do the same. Unless you have bars on your windows and security doors or your really in the middle of nowhere thats not likely to be the case.

Also cell phones tend to go down in emergencies. The lines get overwhelmed, a couple of cars slam into the wrong poles in the zombie slalom, or the power goes out and you forgot to charge your phone the night before and that thing is nothing but useless piece of plastic.

When you do head out for your meeting your not talking about a sunday drive. Your talking about zombies, crashed cars, police and maybe military barricades all over the place etc etc. Your probably going to have to detour all over the place to get to your destination and so will your buddies.

For most people your supplies and resources consist of your refrigerator (worthless after a few hours) and your pantry (not much good without a way to heat the food). Unless your very unusual you probably dont have enough food in your house to last more then a week. And that might be stretching it.

Then what? Your stuck scavenging like everyone else and facing the same problems.

As for morality--laws happened because of morality, not the other way around. Yes, morality changes over time, but then the laws change to accommodate that, AFTER the general morality of the culture has changed. (Read some Nietzsche, it's fun.) I don't do what I think is right because the government says it's right, I do what I think is right because I think it's right. There's no law saying I have to return a lost wallet, but I would try to anyway. Likewise, the law says I can't buy pocketknives or the like, but I have.

You have Nietzsche backwards. its a classic mistake by people who havent actually read his work but want to sound smart by using his name. Laws are formed to solidify a leader or ruling classes power base at first. They are ALWAYS written with the basic ideas to allow society to function efficiently first and to reinforce the leaderships desired morality second.

You do what you think is right because the culture has been changed by government and religious forces over time to teach you what they want you to think is right from the time you first started studying the world around you. They decided before you were ever born, back when the 60's generation was being born, what they wanted you to believe was moral. And how they were going to teach you things that would reinforce those morals with laws.

If you actually think you were born with some moral code and that moral code was hardwired into your DNA because you were born in a western society in the later half of the 20th century and theres no way you could have a different code in different situations I can only laugh at your naivete.

About the wallet? Property laws have been around for thousands of years. They have been reinforced that whole time because they are necessary for large societies to function. But its not human nature or yours inherently. Not taking other peoples stuff is something you were taught by your parents and they were taught by theirs from the time they were babies. Its not in any way human nature. Morality is by human nature ambiguous and flexible.

Take zompocalypse for instance. Your neighbors take off to escape. You know they have lots of camping gear and you have none and think you might need some. Do you go to their abandoned home and take their gear? Most people would.

And make no mistake, it is still THEIR gear. Its their home, their gear and they may come back for it. So if you decide to take it then you have stolen from them.

If you go into a store and loot food you have stolen. Its not your property, you have no right to it. Need does not equal right.

So if you wouldnt steal just in your daily life but you would steal in an apocalypse then you absolutely do have a subjective morality no matter how you justify it. Your line might not be in the same place as another persons line. But we all have those lines and we would all abandon virtually any morality with the right need.

{{scrubbed}}

[Coidzor]

Sorry but grammer nazi auto loses any online debate. Its a sort of forfeit.

Let's try not to get into mud-slinging here, or we'll likely start having Ayn Rand being invoked, which is never pretty.

[boredgremlin]

So you've almost managed to think it out for yourself why cultivating amoral sociopathy amongst the survivors you're around isn't really a good thing, but you still seem to be missing something in your moral calculus.

A few nitpicks.

1. Shooting someone is pretty much the complete opposite of cultivating. Cultivating is encouraging something to grow and helping it along. Shooting someone and leaving him for zombie chow isnt really cultivating anything but zombie based fertilizer.

2. "moral calculusses" are a liability in the standard sense of the word. There may or may not be something missing from mine. I wouldnt know. I tossed the chalkboard i was writing it on out the window when i saw the first zombie to make room in my bag for more bullets.

And that is why I will be alive while people who bother with traditional morality are warming some zombies stomach.

[boredgremlin]

In a real situation where you and someone else are running away from zombies, how are you going to be absolutely certain that both of you won't be saved simply by running away, or that both of you won't die anyway if you shoot the other guy, or even that if you don't shoot the other guy he'll save your life and you'll both survive, but you'll die if you do.

It's easy to say that between everyone dies and one person dies you'd choose the latter, but in a real situation there are many more possible outcomes and you cannot know the result in advance.

I wont be certain. Thats the whole point. Nothing is certain. In that sort of a situation you dont have the luxury of time to play out all the option in your head and hope for the best. You have to make a decision and you have to make it quickly.

If things look pretty grimm for both of you surviving and your solution is to just keep running and hope for the best then IMO you have made the wrong call.

Hoping things work out is just not effective planning in an emergency. You make a quick calculation based on known factors and optimum desired results and you go with it. Maybe your right, maybe your wrong. But most of the time in an emergency its better to do wrong thing quickly then stop and think about what the right thing might be.

Paralysis by analysis is more likely to get you killed then almost any decision you can make.

[Tyndmyr]

The point was that he's likely to shoot me first anyway. Anyone would think about it in that situation and some people would do it. Especially as the guy lagging behind.

Thats a real crappy time to find out that being a bad runner doesnt inherently make him a moral person who wont turn ME into zombie chow to help himself be the one to get away instead.

Its better to go first in that situation and be wrong then to go 2nd hoping to get him with MAD. Because really, i dont want MAD. I want to get back to camp. I dont want us both to die together honorably. I dont want him to shoot me first and shoot him back so we both die dishonorably. I dont really even WANT to shoot him. But I'm going to do it. Because the most important end game is me getting back to camp alive. Everything else is secondary.

Look, if the justification is "he might turn on me later", that justification can basically always be used. He could kill you while you sleep. Or he might set you up for an ambush to loot your stuff.

Thing is, unless you have reason to suspect him of intent of this, and you just kill him first so he can't kill you, then YOU are the immoral person initiating violence.

Him or both of us survival doesnt equal convenience. That the first major flaw in your argument. This isnt a "i get back alone or we get back together" situation. Its an "I get back alone or we both friggin die and no one gets back" situation. World of difference.

If he gets caught anyway because he runs far too slowly, and for whatever reason, you can't help him, no net loss. Shooting him merely removes any chance he might have to escape, slim as it may be.

And, seriously, if you start shooting at him, he's probably going to start shooting back. So, from a purely pragmatic point of view, it likely makes you worse off.

The second flaw is assuming things would get better at all. This sort of situation would probably take generations to rebuild civilization from.

Rebuilding civilization may not be EASY, but it can definitely be done. People turning on each other is not how you accomplish that. You need specialization, enough trust for trade, etc. People hiding off by themselves can't rebuild it solo.

No it isnt. Theres a basic truth in any forum. If you have broken down a response from several people into individual one sentence answers in a post your no longer debating the idea, your debating just to debate. And thus you are wrong.

Edit: Since you appear to be more interested in trolling/insulting others than accepting a polite suggestion, I'll just go with the report option instead.

[Murska]

I would note that if the reactions in this thread by the majority of people are anything to go by, if you make the mistake of advertizing to anyone your philosophy you'd get thrown out of any group of survivors or shot. So generally I'd say that regardless of what you might feel, it's best to at least look nice and moral when around other people. If you're well-liked, people who are 'foolish' enough to believe in their morals even in an apocalypse have a higher chance of going back and trying to save you from the zeds, which is all a bonus for survival chances.

EDIT: And my calculation in such a situation would be that I'm more likely to survive if I just run, instead of if I turn, slowing myself down, and shoot towards my companion, then turn and continue running. It's a calculation like any - I'm not going to stop and start drawing diagrams on the ground and trying to figure the optimum course of action, I've made a decision to run for it.

[Starwulf]

you know he's actually one of the more popular characters right? besides in a real situation just like that people would still keep him around for the same reason they do on the show. He's useful. And some people agree with the ruthlessness.

Popular in what way? I know a good many people who watch the show, and none of them like Shane at all. Actually, the general sentiment is "Hope he gets bitten by a zombie, so we can see how "ruthless" he is then as he begs for his life". Not to mention, IIRC, in the comic, Shane is already gone by this time. And, fyi, if I had a Shane in my survivor group, he wouldn't be IN my group, either exiled or shot. You just can't have someone like that with you, no matter their skills, because you never know when they are going to turn on an individual person when things get rough. You may idolize that behavior and think it's acceptable in that kind of situation, but you are definitely in the minority.

The point was that he's likely to shoot me first anyway. Anyone would think about it in that situation and some people would do it. Especially as the guy lagging behind.

yeah, I'll disagree here. I can safely say that if I was being chased by a pack of zombies, and there was someone in front of me, I would NOT think "Oh hey, I should shoot this guy in front of me, they'll eat him and I"ll get away scot free". I'll be thinking "oh ****, zombies are chasing us, man what can we do to get away safely". I am 99% certain that I would not think of shooting the guy in front of me. For any reason. On the 1% chance that it did slip into my brain, I'd instantly banish it, because I'm not the kind of guy who would do something like that. Moot point for me anyways, as I"m likely holed up in a cabin in the middle of nowhere.

[Maryring]

Nope. You'll be tossed out on your own by any sensible group because you are not reliable. No group will keep any unreliable individuals, and without a group you are unlikely to survive because there will be no one keeping watch while you sleep, no one dressing your wounds, no one constructing and upkeeping barricades, and so on. Having a lookout when you're scavenging food from a building will provide early warning for when the Z arrive. Having an extra pair of hands to lift heavy stuff can be the difference between a weak and a strong barricade. Morality isn't some weak-stomach excuse. It's the natural application of wisdom.

And even on the off chance that you survive on your own, you'll not be able to return to society. None would want you.

[Tyndmyr]

I would note that if the reactions in this thread by the majority of people are anything to go by, if you make the mistake of advertizing to anyone your philosophy you'd get thrown out of any group of survivors or shot. So generally I'd say that regardless of what you might feel, it's best to at least look nice and moral when around other people. If you're well-liked, people who are 'foolish' enough to believe in their morals even in an apocalypse have a higher chance of going back and trying to save you from the zeds, which is all a bonus for survival chances.

EDIT: And my calculation in such a situation would be that I'm more likely to survive if I just run, instead of if I turn, slowing myself down, and shoot towards my companion, then turn and continue running. It's a calculation like any - I'm not going to stop and start drawing diagrams on the ground and trying to figure the optimum course of action, I've made a decision to run for it.

This is game theory, really. In almost any situation, people are better off if they work together than they are fighting and losing. However, sometimes you can gain a temporary advantage by backstabbing someone who trusts you.

However, it's not optimal to backstab people since you need cooperation in the future. It's CERTAINLY not optimal if they can also backstab you.

Initial cooperation, followed by treating them exactly how they treat you is usually considered optimal in game theory. In a larger than two participant game, people will generally extend "treatment of others" into how that person will likely treat you. If I see a person killing and looting others, I assume he is likely to do the same to me, and respond accordingly. Almost everyone will behave accordingly.

Edit: I should note that among my RL friends who watch Walking Dead, the only discussion we had about Shane was WHEN we would shoot him. Nobody bothered to suggest letting him live, even, or kicking him out of the group. Everyone considers him a crazy liability.

[Coidzor]

1. Shooting someone is pretty much the complete opposite of cultivating. Cultivating is encouraging something to grow and helping it along. Shooting someone and leaving him for zombie chow isnt really cultivating anything but zombie based fertilizer.

If there's any witnesses there, that's exactly what you're cultivating. Just add one person to the scenario that you don't end up shooting and bingo bango. Of course, the more people there are, the more likely they're going to turn on you during the event itself for shooting them one by one...

2. "moral calculusses" are a liability in the standard sense of the word. There may or may not be something missing from mine. I wouldnt know. I tossed the chalkboard i was writing it on out the window when i saw the first zombie to make room in my bag for more bullets.

And that is why I will be alive while people who bother with traditional morality are warming some zombies stomach.

Uh, you're discussing this in this thread, dude. Explain how you've tossed it out and are surviving zombies when you're discussing things online in a thread with no zombies currently known to humanity.

[boredgremlin]

I would note that if the reactions in this thread by the majority of people are anything to go by, if you make the mistake of advertizing to anyone your philosophy you'd get thrown out of any group of survivors or shot. So generally I'd say that regardless of what you might feel, it's best to at least look nice and moral when around other people. If you're well-liked, people who are 'foolish' enough to believe in their morals even in an apocalypse have a higher chance of going back and trying to save you from the zeds, which is all a bonus for survival chances.

Doesnt bother me. Looks like most of this group would be toast on day 1 so you really werent going to be much help anyway.

Although this whole "moral" argument is a complete fallacy. Its based on the idea that theres an outcome where both coming are back and whether to take that option or not. That is not however the situation. There is absolutely no morality involved in the decision. Its a you or him situation. end of story. You cant change it around to make it different and say what you would do if it was different like it matters.

Because it ISNT different. It is what it is. A situation where you are simply not both going to make it whether anyone likes it or not and your only choices are to both die or kill him. Like starving to death on an island. Do you both starve or do you club and BBQ the other survivor when its clear you have no other choice.


In fact, lets make the situation clearer. The original statement was based on a situation in a TV show. So lets make it harder for you guys to try to obscure it with a false morality by assuming facts not in evidence such as we can both make it. Which is a moral convenience but not a fact.


In the show theres a group of survivors. One of them is a little kid. Probably 12 or so.

The kid gets accidentally shot in the woods. They get him to a doctor (vet but whatever both mammals and better then nothing). The doctor says he can treat the wound but he needs different equipment.

one of the survivors (cop) and one guy from a new group that he just met (wheezy) go after the needed equipment. Wheezy is old, fat and slow. But he knows where the equipment is and what it looks like so he basically has to go.

They get to the equipment but have to park pretty far away so they can sneak up past the zombies and get it. They manage to get in but the zombies discover them, much running away ensues and they wind up even farther away from the car then they started and very low on ammo.

While going out a window cop twists he ankle. he can still hop along but he's not full speed. Wheezy is fat and even slower then bum ankle cop now that he's tired.

Oh and this equipment is bulky and heavy and both guys are carrying some of it.

They are running for the car, which is far, far away. Cop is the only one with a bullet left, (wheezy used his last one) and the zombies are closing fast.

The car is too far away to reach before they catch both guys. Like it or not they are simply not going to beat the horde to the car. Period end of story, not going to happen.

Cop has a few choices.

a. turn and fight with wheezy hoping beyond hope to somehow beat all the zombies with one bullet left and his bare hands without getting eaten or bitten. Likely outcome? cop, wheezy and kid all die.

b. Keep running and hope the part of the gear he has is going to be enough to save the kid even though the doctor said he needed it all. Likely outcome? Wheezy and the kid die.

C. take ALL of the gear himself and hope he can find that last burst of adrenaline to take him miraculously to the car ahead of the horde. Likely outcome? Failure. Wheezy cop and kid all die. Best bet is just wheezy dies.

or

D. Put his last bullet in wheezies leg. Zombies are more likely to stop and attack a screaming, struggling target then a dead one so you dont shoot the head. And take the gear yourself hoping that wheezy distracts them long enough for you to make it to the car with the bags. Likely outcome? Cop and kid live.

I say D is the right choice. The moral choice is D. You preserve yourself and save the kid. 3/3 coming home simply is not an option that can be reasonably expected from any choice and if you fail a kid dies therefore failure is not an option.

So guys tell me how its the moral choice to do something thats likely to fail and let the kid die. I would like to see the mental gymnastics necessary to logically justify any action but D.

[boredgremlin]

Popular in what way? I know a good many people who watch the show, and none of them like Shane at all. Actually, the general sentiment is "Hope he gets bitten by a zombie, so we can see how "ruthless" he is then as he begs for his life".

Look at the online polls. You guys are the exception. He's pretty popular.

yeah, I'll disagree here. I can safely say that if I was being chased by a pack of zombies, and there was someone in front of me, I would NOT think "Oh hey, I should shoot this guy in front of me, they'll eat him and I"ll get away scot free". I'll be thinking "oh ****, zombies are chasing us, man what can we do to get away safely". I am 99% certain that I would not think of shooting the guy in front of me. For any reason. On the 1% chance that it did slip into my brain, I'd instantly banish it, because I'm not the kind of guy who would do something like that.

Easy to say safe there at home. People say all the time they would never kill anybody. Till someone breaks into their house and they shoot the bastard. Extreme situations change your perspective instantly.

And even if you wouldn't. That does not mean a majority of people wouldnt. Or even for purposes of whats relevant to the situation a sizable minority of people would still be too many to risk.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Your fallacy is that you're assuming the person you're with is a chain smoking overweight guy with no family. Four out of five times, if not more, that's not going to be the case.

[boredgremlin]

Initial cooperation, followed by treating them exactly how they treat you is usually considered optimal in game theory. In a larger than two participant game, people will generally extend "treatment of others" into how that person will likely treat you. If I see a person killing and looting others, I assume he is likely to do the same to me, and respond accordingly. Almost everyone will behave accordingly.

Which is why game theory is complete ivory tower wishful thinking. It in no way mirrors how people really act.

Look at any situation where there is looting. Do people attempt to stop them? Not unless it was their stuff being looted or they're a cop and its their job.

What do MOST do?

They say "hey i want a flat screen too" and start looting. Look at every single mob looting situation from race riots to hurricanes and earthquakes to civil disruptions in greece or a popular sports team losing or sometimes even winning a game. Its not isolated people looting and hurting people for their own gain.

Its groups of THOUSANDS looting and violence on masse for no good reason. And those situations are in no way as serious as a zompocalypse.

Assuming people are all going to be good little children and behave or even get themselves involved to stop someone mis-behaving is the most dangerous kind of wishful thinking.

[noparlpf]

Assuming people are all going to be good little children mature, civilised adults and behave or even get themselves involved to stop someone mis-behaving is the most dangerous kind of wishful thinking is, or at least ought to be, a reasonable expectation.

Fixed that for ya.

[boredgremlin]

Your fallacy is that you're assuming the person you're with is a chain smoking overweight guy with no family. Four out of five times, if not more, that's not going to be the case.

LOL you must not have been to the mall lately. 34% of americans are obese. Another 34% are overweight and not obese according to the CDC. Thats 68% of Americans who couldnt outrun a zombie horde literally to save their lives.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm

42% of americans are current or former smokers according to the CDC.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_perce...oke_cigarettes

even assuming all the smokers are also fat people you have at most 32% of people who are fit.

Some of those people are kids and old people who wont be fast even though they arent fat.

So assuming of course that no fit weight people are smokers which is of course patently absurd, your probably looking at 1 American out of 5 who is going to be able to outrun a zombie mob for very long.

When you look at it that way your 80% or 4 out 5 times (which is considerably MORE then 1 time out of 5) more likely to be running around with some piece of dead weight slowing you down then you are to be running around with a fit, effective scavenging partner.

[boredgremlin]

Fixed that for ya.

I'm waiting for your justification on why D isnt the right choice. Do feel free to keep dodging it though. I know that moral high grounds get real slippery once situations go from the hypothetical and poorly defined to specific and clear.

[noparlpf]

LOL you must not have been to the mall lately. 34% of americans are obese. Another 34% are overweight and not obese according to the CDC. Thats 68% of Americans who couldnt outrun a zombie horde literally to save their lives.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm

42% of americans are current or former smokers according to the CDC.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_perce...oke_cigarettes

even assuming all the smokers are also fat people you have at most 32% of people who are fit.

Some of those people are kids and old people who wont be fast even though they arent fat.

So assuming of course that no fit weight people are smokers which is of course patently absurd, your probably looking at 1 American out of 5 who is going to be able to outrun a zombie mob for very long.

When you look at it that way your 80% or 4 out 5 times (which is considerably MORE then 1 time out of 5) more likely to be running around with some piece of dead weight slowing you down then you are to be running around with a fit, effective scavenging partner.

Except that by the time there are zombie hordes, all the unfit people ARE those zombies, and most of the survivors are fitter.

Edit:

I'm waiting for your justification on why D isnt the right choice. Do feel free to keep dodging it though. I know that moral high grounds get real slippery once situations go from the hypothetical and poorly defined to specific and clear.

Well, because trying to help the guy out is THE RIGHT THING TO DO. If you're the type of guy to shoot an "ally" in the knee so you can get away, why are you going on a dangerous mission to help a child in the first place?

[Hiro Protagonest]

LOL you must not have been to the mall lately. 34% of americans are obese. Another 34% are overweight and not obese according to the CDC. Thats 68% of Americans who couldnt outrun a zombie horde literally to save their lives.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm

42% of americans are current or former smokers according to the CDC.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_perce...oke_cigarettes

even assuming all the smokers are also fat people you have at most 32% of people who are fit.

I said with no family. Or are you going to watch children and adults cry because of your actions?

Some of those people are kids and old people who wont be fast even though they arent fat.

...You know the children are the most important ones to keep alive, right?

When you look at it that way your 80% or 4 out 5 times (which is considerably MORE then 1 time out of 5) more likely to be running around with some piece of dead weight slowing you down then you are to be running around with a fit, effective scavenging partner.

Uh huh. And it just so happens that "dead weight" is the only doctor or mechanic or welder in sixty zombie-filled miles.

[DvsV]

my position? untyped. :P

back to original thread anyways.

I have minor skill with weapons, (ie military training), decent computer skills, larp training, decent problem solving skills, defensible house structure, although lacking food. I also have several display weapons which WILL help in a pinch, although I would expect them to fail me rather quickly.

Generally speaking, am fit enough to help those who I see as worth while to the group. Including those who are fodder...

But mainly.... I fall under the scoundrel class and will see how many people I can get to sleep with me under the "its the end of the world" excuse :P

[Murska]

I don't see how D is in any way better than C.

You're taking all the gear anyway. The Wheezy is going to be the first one caught anyway. He doesn't have bullets, he can't threaten you in any way. Worst case scenario, you can use that last bullet on something more useful. Best case scenario, by some stroke of luck both survive. Most likely he's going to be the one caught and so he'll be distracting the zombies while you run, exactly like in D.

EDIT:

Also, most people who see looting lock their doors and hide in their houses and hope it goes away.

[DvsV]

my position? untyped. :P

back to original thread anyways.

I have minor skill with weapons, (ie military training), decent computer skills, larp training, decent problem solving skills, defensible house structure, although lacking food. I also have several display weapons which WILL help in a pinch, although I would expect them to fail me rather quickly.

Generally speaking, am fit enough to help those who I see as worth while to the group. Including those who are fodder...

But mainly.... I fall under the scoundrel class and will see how many people I can get to sleep with me under the "its the end of the world" excuse :P

[Traab]

I said with no family. Or are you going to watch children and adults cry because of your actions?...You know the children are the most important ones to keep alive, right?
Uh huh. And it just so happens that "dead weight" is the only doctor or mechanic or welder in sixty zombie-filled miles.

Nah, children really arent even close to the most important ones to keep alive. They are small, weak, slower than you (depending on age of child of course) they probably cant handle a rifle, so they cant even help shoot zombies, and they will consume your food while contributing nothing of substance. You will have a harder time convincing a scared 6 year old to stop crying so the zombies cant hear you and track you down, than you would a scared adult. Bottom line, children are a serious liability in a zombie apocolypse. I count anyone under 13 as a child in this case. A teenager can handle a gun, can follow orders, and has enough comprehension of the danger he is in to not be a total moron when things get tough.