Why Survivors Do Not Immediately Kill Their Bitten Friends
In the realm of zombie apocalypse fiction, the decision to euthanize a friend bitten by a zombie is often met with immediate and sometimes vehement opposition. As a seasoned SEOer, I understand the importance of addressing diverse viewpoints and ethical considerations to create compelling content. While some might argue for immediate termination, many others, including myself, find such an approach both morally questionable and unrealistic.
The Morality and Realism of Euthanizing Bitten Friends
One of the primary reasons for opposing the notion of euthanizing bitten friends is the belief that a bitten individual still has a chance to recover or survive the initial incubation period. The logic goes that until the bites and turns process is complete, the chance remains that the individual could still be saved. In reality, why would you want to sacrifice a potential ally who might yet survive? This approach often leads to a more compassionate and realistic portrayal of human dignity and friendship in crisis.
Respect for Ipsa's Autonomy
Friends, especially adult ones, should have the right to make their own life-and-death decisions. This respect for autonomy is a fundamental principle that should be upheld in survival scenarios. Consider the scene in the Dawn of the Dead remake where Ving Rhames' character makes the difficult but morally just decision to terminate his bitten father. This decision, although tragic, demonstrates the importance of allowing individuals to face their own end rather than having it done for them.
Survival Constructs Over Hasty Euthanasia
Survivor groups must focus on the larger goal of survival. Killing off bitten allies would be detrimental to the group's cohesion and morale. Ethical survivalists would opt for extending the timeline before resorting to euthanasia. This approach not only upholds the spirit of camaraderie and trust but also maintains a more balanced and realistic narrative.
Additionally, the decisions to kill are legally and ethically complex. Murder, regardless of the circumstances, is a universally condemned act. The decision to end someone's life, even to save others, should not be taken lightly. It is more humane and realistic to allow bitten individuals to face their fate while ensuring they do so with dignity and awareness.
Real-life Examples of Ethical Survival
Consider the scenario where friends or family members in a zombie apocalypse opt to accompany each other on a journey to find safety, as in the AMC series The Walking Dead. Instead of leaving a bitten friend to their fate, the group might prioritize finding resources and safe zones where they can all survive together. In the case of Greenwood's Jim, when he was forced to walk to his doom near a California RV, it was a decision that was ultimately made by him, not the group. This event highlighted the ethical complexities of survival in the face of an uncontrollable threat.
While some fictional works like Z Nation show instant infection and rapid transformation, such depictions lack the nuance and ethical complexities that make fictional representations more relatable and meaningful. In Z Nation, characters like Ving Rhames' in Dawn of the Dead often prefer to give mercy to the bitten, even if it means their own demise. This malaise is particularly evident in the case of a woman in a bed who hasn’t turned yet and is terminated to ensure a sane end. The underlying reason is to provide a saner and more aware death for the bitten individual, despite the pragmatic end to the situation itself.
Conclusion
The zombie apocalypse is a narrative that tests the limits of human nature, loyalty, and moral integrity. While practicality and survival skills are essential, ethical considerations must not be overlooked. The decision to euthanize a bitten friend is fraught with ethical complexities and countercultural implications. This is not just a matter of writing style, but a reflection of real-life values and the human struggle to maintain dignity in the face of peril.