What are teleological ethical theories?
Printable View
What are teleological ethical theories?
I'm not sure if there are any in this story. Then again, as a work of fiction, everything pretty much has a teleological aspect.
Teleological Ethical Theories are theories of ethics that focus on seeking, moving toward, or reaching proper purposes, goals, or results.Quote:
Originally Posted by alyssabenjamin
Hope that helps! Can clarify more if needed!
Ok, I'll take you up on that... Got any examples from the We're Alive storyline? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy D
Quote:
Originally Posted by alyssabenjamin
Were you asking for a definition or examples?
As for examples, the best scene would be 'The 31st' (I think) where the Michael, Kelly, Datu, Tanya and Pegs discuss their present circumstances juxtaposed against Kalani's actions after completing the reading of Kalani's journal. Another would be that Saul wouldn't have found his mother had not 1)They had a party. 2) Kalani's betrayal.
Considering the definition provided by Sammy D (thank you) I thought of the different community-solutions as a response to or result of the zombie-apocalypse - the Tower, Dunbar, the Mall, the Colony, the Irwin-Boulder-concept, and to some degree Ink's Horde. Looking at each of them they all share a few common ideas (struggle for survival, 'home'), but they vary a lot regarding other details (hierarchy, command-structure). Then, as soon as the activities of the different communities start to influence the activities of other communities conflicts and complications of different natures arise ...
But these things wouldn't be much theoretical to a greater extent; to me they just seem deductions based on 'practical conclusion' from certain basic concepts and conflicts.
Will chew on this (very good, interesting, and challenging) question for a bit.
All the best!
Liam
Good points, Liam. In the story so far we have been focused very much on one of these communities (aka Our Heroes) and only looking at the other ones when there is interaction. But, much like the Kalani journal part, there are other perspectives that we aren't getting directly.
It's been interesting trying to deduce the motivations of the other communities and the non-journalist characters. It's a really appealing part of the show IMO.
What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Well, I interpret the whole teleological ethical theories thing to be: why are all these people doing all these things? Through the end of Season 3 Our Heroes' purpose was survival (short and long term) through a "live and let live" approach. Season 4 looks like it will still have the same purpose (survival) but will have a different means (going on the offensive). Aside from story, there are motivations for them acting like this that put their character/ethics on display.
Anyway, that's all I got at the moment. Somebody else chime in here....
When I hear "theological and ethical theories," my mind immediately goes to something that has been fairly popular in zombie fiction, especially recently: Can zombies be "saved?"
What I mean is: are zombies irredeemable creatures that need to be wiped out, or are they sick people who need treatment and possibly a cure, if one exists? It pops up in quite a few stories. Romero's latest works come to mind, but he even asked the question back in the original Dawn of the Dead when he showed people keeping zombie family members locked up. And of course Walking Dead touched on the question as well (I won't elaborate here for the sake of spoilers).
But so far We're Alive has avoided the issue. There hasn't been any questions about the ethics of killing zombies on the show that I can think of even though evidence seems to point to the idea that the zombies may be technically living. (They can be killed by non-headshots. They can bleed out from having their limbs cut off. And they might even be able to starve.)
The question has popped up a little bit on the forums. I know some people chided Tanya for wanting to experiment on the zombies and claimed that it might be a slippery slope to a "mad scientist" mentality. But now I'm curious. What does everyone think? Can zombies be "saved?" Does whether or not they're technically living matter?
I don't think there is any saving them to what they were before or even close to what they were before. I'm sure they're zombies in the first place because a good portion of their gray matter is dead, their ain't no coming back. Besides could you imagine having to live with what happened to you if you were to be 'saved' and regain some sort of consciousness and have to deal with the shit you might have done to others. Would your pain receptors be healed and you're suddenly in agony because a lot of your flesh had been ripped and torn due to your mindless shambling, walking into walls and scraping at doorways for your next meal. You would be dealing with severely mentally and physically handicapped 'has-been' people screaming in agony. I think you're wayyyy beyond the point of no return. I see no point to being 'saved'.
I avoided that particular question as much as possible. But broken down to the core: Zombies of the WA verse are humans who are sick. Plain and simple. And the symptons of their 'zombie-ish flu' are extraordinarily intense changing the behaviour of the infected striving to survive at an animalistic level.Quote:
Originally Posted by HardKor
Treatment in the zombie-apocalypse is what Tanya names it: euthanasia, because there is no other treatment available - yet.
Question: Is shooting people in the face the right medicine, because you there is no other treatment available? To exagerate and transfer this into the real life: Is euthanasia the treatment of choice for people with HIV, cancer, ebola, or stuff?
No, I don't ask for a question to this question. I just point into the direction and say: As soon as we try to get into that discussion we have the tools at hand to destroy fiction and treat it as a danger for our ethics and morality; and then we would have to reconsider a lot more regarding popular culture in general. That is why I would like to be stated that on for as long as we on the one hand treat the zombie-topic as "light cost of popular culture" and don't get involved into serious talks about it and on the other hand acknowledge that solutions and 'opinions' within this kind of pop-culture is not applicable to real life, then we don't get into any trouble ...
All the best!
Liam
Basically, as has been discussed a bit any point where characters had a discussion about the ends justifying the means. I think about the pippen situation. The characters had the moral dilemma of do we kill him and do a bad thing in order to protect the larger group, the greater good.Quote:
Originally Posted by scbubba
Our friend pegs has had some of the greatest struggles to accept this concept of morality, as has been very well documented.
It has been implied that the zombie restoration problem has been addressed in universe. This is the stated reason that the east coast is gone, which is a bit disheartening on a personal level. They were holding back, hoping a cure would be possible.
I agree with Liam. If we start getting too deep into the question of morality as it applies in this situation then it will get very complicated. i am doing research in this field at the moment, shall return soon when I am at a computer
Fascinating point! I agree that there hasn't been an extended discussion in WA about the ethical issue of killing the zombies, but there was a cautionary tale, courtesy of COL Kimmet. When Kimmet first meets with Michael he mentions that the commanders of the other military bases he was in touch with tried to avoid shooting at the zombies, and one-by-one they were overrun. He had his people kill them, and his base was still holding out (at the time).Quote:
Originally Posted by HardKor
Exactly. Think about when they are discussing Kalani's betrayal and Micheal says, '...we can do this all day..' It was a cycle of bad actions with some good results. Part of the human condition is coping with the joy of a good outcome that came about via a tragedy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy D
Leave enough of you guys alone in a forum long enough, and you get deep, WOW.
Where have I been?
BBC America has a mini-series coming up that explores this idea. It's called "In the Flesh" and it will air in the US starting June 6, 2013.Quote:
Originally Posted by HardKor
http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglopheni...-event-june-6/
The story is set in the aftermath of a zombie outbreak, where the "zombies" have been cured, and are being returned to their pre-outbreak lives and homes. It takes the question of "can zombies be saved" as a given, and dives into the question of can they be forgiven, and can they forgive themselves for what they did while they were infected.
I don't know if this applies here, but I've been wondering what the storyline implies about war in general. If part of the subtext of this story could be seen as the reality of war against an aggressor. I mean, people in this story want to get together and make a happy safe normal life which will be impossible given Ink as a smart and really driven opponent. NOTHING they do will work in the long term as long as Ink is out there determined to destroy them because destruction is always easier and quicker than construction.
Lots of the Looney Tune cartoons from the WWII era show that it helps to dehumanize an enemy by stereotyping them and denying their motivations (they're just evil). But maybe you have to do that in order to win. If you treated the zombies like the people they used to be--trying to react tho them on a case by case basis--they destroyed you. Only defeated (cured) can they be seen as humans again and helped.
I guess for the Middle East it would have to be more like an Invasion of the Pod People (ignoring the whole red-scare aspect). You don't know who is your enemy and your friends could turn into your enemies. In fact, fighting your enemies causes so much destruction that it leads non pod people to become pod people...gnnnnngh...OW! I think I just broke my cerebrum.