Zombie Apocalypse - do old laws and rules matter?
Do laws apply in an apocalypse?
If so, which ones
Are there exceptions to every rule, or some, or none?
How far would you go?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Do laws apply in an apocalypse?
If so, which ones
Are there exceptions to every rule, or some, or none?
How far would you go?
Comments
i dont think you care about rules if someone tries to kill you
I don't really think so, the people who try end up dead. People can still have morality but in a different way.
The Walking Dead is not a zombie apocalypse, Kirkman himself said that zombies do not exist in The Walking Dead universe.
Edit : 8 Downvotes over a fact ;-;
It's basically a libertarian world without police officers to enforce laws. So who the hell is supposed to make sure you don't commit crimes other than the people you attack.
Basically, I see laws as violence (not necessarily a bad thing) - to the extent a social contract exists laws are effectively an agreement on where a state is or is not legitimate in using force, namely violence. The opposite phenomenon would be a law which does not have the backing of any sort of real force, namely no police, no army - there's a reason it's called law enforcement- and therefore cannot truly be considered a real law. Law is restrained force, however there has to be force for it to be law. Some believe that the law has a force unto itself as a product of decades/centuries long legitimacy - I disagree, laws that have existed for a long time tend to have an influence on an individuals value system; however it is precisely that, influence on the value system of the individual (and here is where I think the social contract breaks down). Laws presuppose the act that they inhibit, the individual is free to act according to his or her value system independent of, and possibly in conflict with, that of state.
What I'm really trying to say is, zombie apocalypse or not, laws are only as legitimate as the strength of the force which backs them up and individuals are free (in the metaphysical sense) to respond to that force as they see fit, whether support, begruding compliance, civil disobedience, or outright rebellion.
It depends on the person and their philosophical stance. Nate thinks that "It's the apocalypse, who cares?" and he ended up killing two people, so...
if the world ends, the same thing happens to its rules and laws. It isn't called an apocalypse for nothing. Everything from that moment on is a fresh, new start, where new rules have to be established.
It's a lawless land, in essence.
I don't think rules matter anymore, well...you know, it's the apocalypse
I read somewhere (as a joke) that the fact that murder is illegal saves a lot of lives. That's the basis for zombie movies.
Off course they don't. It's the new world which goes by its own totally new rules
"laws and rules" Will matter inside each group that your a member of. What happens in this anarchic setting, is really a return to tribalism. Small groups joining together with their own customs, rules, and beliefs. To say that their would be none simply isn't true, there just wouldn't be any "national or state" rules. Even in a small group they are going to be held together by a certain set of beliefs. Whether that's the idea of survival above all else, or something else.
Even in the comics, the current "big bad" group has a huge rule against rape where the leader of the group kills one of his subordinates for trying to rape a woman. Now he later killed and used her as a trap, but none the less even that tribe has certain rules it follows.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat??......
It's a world without society, governments, army, police. There's no one to enforce said rules. Some people build small groups and establish their own rules, others just do anything it takes to survive. As for me, I don't think I could bring myself to murder someone in cold blood like Nate did, or even kill someone in order to save myself. I would, however, not mind killing someone in self-defence.
What She/he means is that there is no Zombie movie/fiction in the TWD world so no one knows what zombies are in that world. Which is why they never call them zombies but walkers, lurkers etc.
You have an original way of trolling
They sometimes call them Zombies in the comics, they use lurkers, roamers and biters more often.
Communities might have rules and laws but most people out in the wild will probably go by their own rules and it would have a kill or be killed mentality.
They dont matter anymore.
They are zombies, people inthe walking dead just call them walkers, biters and lurkers.
The old laws of whatever land you were in wouldn't really apply. However new laws will appear in all of the new communities or indeed micro-nations in some cases that spring up. It all depends in what society you find yourself in once the initial shock is over. Hence you might get a community where the old system still goes strong and life isn't too dis-similar (minus zombies obviously) or some crazy survival of the fittest Crawfordesqu society.
Rules and laws exist only in the minds of those willing and able to enforce them. Absent of that, no, they don't matter.
What does matter, though, is morality. Morality isn't just a set of rules and laws. Doing the right thing is still doing the right thing, regardless of whether or not it jives with some abstract set of commands. If you go around raping and murdering people, you're immoral son of a bitch. An apocalypse doesn't change that.
You can always relativise anything and everything. That doesn't make you immoral.
I think there are some things that can't be excused under moral relativism. Thing like, I don't know, torturing toddlers for fun. Or just inflicting undue suffering on others in general.
Yeah good point I think I'd stick by a modified version of the Golden Rule - do unto others as they would do unto you but do it first.
Within a group, however, you need certain rules, or I should say it's easier with certain rules. Like if there had been a pre decideded protocol for the Larry situation.
Personally I'm of the same mind as Lee, you shouldn't hurt people and take their stuff, but If I'm in a group that's starving (in the campman scenario f.e) and I come across unattended food, I'll take it. Double so if I have kids to protect.
I can see Nates point of view, but you'd be a pretty shitty person to become a Save-Lots Bandit just because there's no one to stop you.
To conclude, I'd steal, lie cheat and kill, but only for the benefit of myself or my group.
Mercy, however, is one thing I wouldn't have.
Too many risks to let a person who has fucked you once have the chance again.
Wanna try? Torturing toddlers may make them mentally stronger and others will pity them so they could use a story like that to their advantage. Or maybe that the child services will be alarmed and the baby will be taken away parents who can't even protect their own child from someone who would do something like that. Torturing older people on the other hand may give them an unique experience and a life lesson to never trust others completely. And since being distrustful is a required skill for many upper jobs you are indirectly giving them a chance to live the American dream.
Consequentialist arguments like that only work if the expected benefits of such an action outweigh the expected costs. So even if torturing someone has some chance of providing an indirect benefit for them (which would be very low in this case) ,you'll have to weigh that against the guaranteed harm of the torture itself as well as the very high chance of causing indirect harm via the torture (their being distrusting of others might cause them to be unable to form lasting relationship with people, etc). And since people who have been tortured would probably say that they'd prefer it if they hadn't been tortured at all, I think there's a pretty good consensus that torture produces more harm than good for the person that you're torturing.
Beyond the consequentialist argument, though, there's also what the act of torturing itself says about you as a person. Even if your action somehow produces more good than harm to someone, your intention was still to inflict pain on them for your own enjoyment. Things like empathy and aversion to the distress cues of others should have prevented you from doing what you did and the fact that they didn't means that those capacities are diminished in you to some extent. This in turn means that you have a heightened tendency towards intentionally causing harm to others and the word we use to refer to people with a heightened tendency towards intentionally causing harm to others is "immoral."
dude they call them zombies in the comic a few times. There dead. They move. They eat you. They're zombies.