When Is It Morally Right To Kill A Zombie?

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
When is it morally right to kill a zombie? The obvious answer is "ANYTIME!"

So does this mean that killing zombies is a morally questionable thing? It’s a trope that often plays an important part in the narrative of zombie stories. Imagine you’re the protagonist, and you have the opportunity to kill one of the undead. But you hesitate, maybe because you recognise the zombie, or maybe because you think you see a trace of the person’s past persona in the approaching horror. That split second of indecision could be enough for you to lose the advantage, and get munched on. But you have to appreciate that hesitation. The monster in front of you was once a living, breathing person with hopes, fears and dreams.
 
Aren't zombies already dead? In which case, all you're doing is putting them to rest again.
 
In California, the zombie must first eat your entire family, then be holding your heart in it's hand before you can give them a firm verbal reprimand. Then, if they do not desist after 90 days, you can use deadly force. If you have the right permits that is.
 
In California, the zombie must first eat your entire family, then be holding your heart in it's hand before you can give them a firm verbal reprimand. Then, if they do not desist after 90 days, you can use deadly force. If you have the right permits that is.

"California Prop-Z Warning: Zombies have been known to cause cancer and/or death in the State of California."
 
If it was morally acceptable to kill zombies, half our politicians would be dead right now and we would not have the economy problems we are faced with today.
 
when you have plenty of ammo to finish the stage without sneaking around them
 
In California, the zombie must first eat your entire family, then be holding your heart in it's hand before you can give them a firm verbal reprimand. Then, if they do not desist after 90 days, you can use deadly force. If you have the right permits that is.

I lolled
 
Obviously, this is mainly because you’ve just had to fend off a zombie attack, but it’s also because you’ve been confronted with these two conflicting beliefs. To try and get over this, you need to try and reconcile those beliefs so that they’re not at odds with each other any more.

Conflicting beliefs? Is he kidding? Being a Zombie is worse than being a vegetable. You are not only brain dead but are able to infect and/or kill. No conflict here. If you are in that state, you are going down! :)
 
Conflicting beliefs? Is he kidding? Being a Zombie is worse than being a vegetable. You are not only brain dead but are able to infect and/or kill. No conflict here.

This. People who hesitate to kill a zombie have emotional problems, not moral ones. The quicker they go down, the fewer live people that zombie has a chance to infect and kill. If by chance you leave it alive long enough for it to infect someone? You've just directly killed that person.
 
Mark my words: if zombies ever come into existence, there will be a bunch of dolts who suggest that they deserve equal rights.
 
Mark my words: if zombies ever come into existence, there will be a bunch of dolts who suggest that they deserve equal rights.

And I'm pretty damn sure I might "accidentally" miss a few zombies and hit those dirty protesting hippies in the heads instead.
 
"California Prop-Z Warning: Zombies have been known to cause cancer and/or death in the State of California."

Damn I was going to fire back with a Prop65 joke myself :D

That said California has a castle doctrine that's perfectly fine, maybe not as liberal as some other states where it applies to shooting anyone anywhere if you feel threatened but if you're cornered you can blast away.

Having not read the article, assume it's a halloween based haha piece, it does bring some interesting bits. Like is there any difference between zombies and say someone with mental health issues and a case of rabies?
 
"Like is there any difference between zombies and say someone with mental health issues and a case of rabies? "



So if there is an outbreak of SYMPTOM-X (you don't know what it is, lets say it turns out to be mutant rabies) that causes people to turn violent and attack others, spreading the disease.... is it morally right to kill them?

Given, it's an outbreak, you don't have perfect information like, if it's curable, if the infection is sometimes surviveable with memories and personality in tact etc or if it's 100% terminal etc.
 
If it's a zombie, kill it, they won't have any regrets for killing you...because they are a zombie.
 
Moral? I don't know, but if I see hordes of the undead eating other people I'm not going to worry about morality. Self preservation would be at the top of my list though.
 
So if there is an outbreak of SYMPTOM-X (you don't know what it is, lets say it turns out to be mutant rabies) that causes people to turn violent and attack others, spreading the disease.... is it morally right to kill them?

Given, it's an outbreak, you don't have perfect information like, if it's curable, if the infection is sometimes surviveable with memories and personality in tact etc or if it's 100% terminal etc.

Given the scope of damage such an outbreak could cause, I'd say restraining the infected and stopping them from harming others (physically or via spreading the disease) would be top priority. If you can't do this without killing them (even via hacking off their legs with an axe) and the police can't help, then sure, shoot to kill (so to speak).
 
I think you need to consider the effects of Obamacare on the possible treatment and even granting of human and voting rights to zombies. Also, some zombies are bound to qualify for certain health care tax credits due to low income levels. These and other critical issues must be resolved before any shots are fired.
 
On the other hand, maybe we should let the Zombies take over. In all the movies I've seen they seem to live perfectly well together without need for government or rules and all they crave is the one thing we don't; brains.
 
On the other hand, maybe we should let the Zombies take over. In all the movies I've seen they seem to live perfectly well together without need for government or rules and all they crave is the one thing we don't; brains.

I don't like the implication here...so we crave the rest too? Like the heart, for example?


Or maybe it's just you and your rituals where you need to eat still-beating hearts??? :eek:
 
Finding still-beating hearts is tough. These days you have to compromise. Tough times we live in :p
 
Zombies in the morning,
Zombies in the evenin',
Zombies at suppertime.

When zombies are on a rampage,
You can shoot zombies anytime!
 
...

When you see one? I'm pretty sure if you see one you can re-kill it on sight. Might be a law even.
 
In California, the zombie must first eat your entire family, then be holding your heart in it's hand before you can give them a firm verbal reprimand. Then, if they do not desist after 90 days, you can use deadly force. If you have the right permits that is.

QFT.
 
I say let lose the zombie apocalypse!
I don't want to live in a world ran by the lesser of two evils, where intelligence has dropped down so far "What does the fox say" is a hit, where children die in a fire at their aunt's house and the only thing she's concerned about is her food stamps.....
I may not make it a year, but at least I'll have a ball shooting and hacking apart zombies while taking comfort in the fact the idiots are getting toasted.
 
Here in Australia, killing zombies is a very serious crime. They are classified as a protected species and are housed in a large custom built enclave in our nations capitol.

Why the hell we also have them running our country is beyond me.
 
Has anyone noticed the most difficult thing about a zombie apocalypse, is pretending not to be excited.
 
I say let lose the zombie apocalypse!
I don't want to live in a world ran by the lesser of two evils, where intelligence has dropped down so far "What does the fox say" is a hit, where children die in a fire at their aunt's house and the only thing she's concerned about is her food stamps......

At least with a zombie apocalypse is the average IQ would probably jump 20 points. (That's including the zombies)
 
If zombies are considered "already dead", then how do you define "alive"? They're moving, eating, capable of some basic thought, apparently possessing senses of sight, hearing, and/or smell. Why are they not alive?
 
I say let lose the zombie apocalypse!
intelligence has dropped down so far "What does the fox say" is a hit, where children die in a fire at their aunt's house and the only thing she's concerned about is her food stamps.....

This was the exact thing I thought of. That @^%# idiot woman that was more concerning with her food stamp than the children that THEY left by themselves and ended up dead in a house fire. Even the familial love for children was absent in this person. That is inhuman.

The truth is there are zombies but they are not undead, they are brain dead. And when it all collapse and there is no gub-ment check for them, they are coming after you and yours.
The way thing are now if you DEFEND YOURSELF, you are the criminal.

Now I'm not talking any specific race, creed, etc. This kind of mentality will flourish in any people group because it panders to the lowest common denominator. Laziness.
Actually I had these exact kind in my own family. (unfortunately they died in a house fire because they were smoking in bed).

I believe the collapses is coming and the future is scary.
 
If zombies are considered "already dead", then how do you define "alive"? They're moving, eating, capable of some basic thought, apparently possessing senses of sight, hearing, and/or smell. Why are they not alive?

They're undead. Our job is to make them redead. Preferably while listening to this at least at some point.
 
If zombies are considered "already dead", then how do you define "alive"? They're moving, eating, capable of some basic thought, apparently possessing senses of sight, hearing, and/or smell. Why are they not alive?

Step back a minute, there's two types of zombies, there's the traditional ones that rise from the grave zombies, and then there's humans infected with pathogen zombies.
 
Step back a minute, there's two types of zombies, there's the traditional ones that rise from the grave zombies, and then there's humans infected with pathogen zombies.

I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't change the question. What I want to know is how being resuscitated from a state of death is not being "alive" again. I'm fine with the idea of "undead" in the movies, but if you want to project it onto a real-world hypothetical situation, I think zombies would be considered very much alive. Not that it would change anything about the moral implications of killing them, since they're just single-minded killing machines. I'm just arguing semantics here.
 
In California, the zombie must first eat your entire family, then be holding your heart in it's hand before you can give them a firm verbal reprimand. Then, if they do not desist after 90 days, you can use deadly force. If you have the right permits that is.

I laughed, but I have to question one part of it, I doubt CA would allow you to use deadly force, even after 90 days. :D


Mark my words: if zombies ever come into existence, there will be a bunch of dolts who suggest that they deserve equal rights.

And once again we're talking about California.
 
I think that Steve knows as well as I do, that The Walking Dead is the ultimate "How to kill zombies" guide to go by :D
 
Back
Top