Hapkido network and Hapkido forum: Make friends, share photos & more!
Tags:
Permalink Reply by Erik Medeiros on November 2, 2011 at 11:39pm Wael, I'm going to assume you don't watch The Walking Dead, so you don't know that what Daniel probably has in mind is a scene where two men, Shane and Otis, are trying to flee a horde of zombies. The two men are almost out of ammo, they are exhausted and injured, and the zombies are catching up with them. They are carrying medical equipment needed to perform a life-saving operation on a dying boy at their home base, so if they both die, the boy will also die.
In this grim situation, Shane quickly applies a brutally utilitarian moral calculus, and shoots Otis in the leg, so the zombies will stop to devour him, while Shane limps away with the medical equipment and saves the boy. Now, is Shane a cowardly bad guy for tossing Otis to the zombies, or a decisive, tough-minded good guy for doing what was necessary to ensure at least one of them got back with the live-saving medical equipment. I should add that the boy was dying because Otis accidentally shot him while hunting, so maybe Shane rationalized that Otis had the obligation of self-sacrifice to save the boy. Except that Otis didn't get to make that decision; he had it made for him by Shane, who had no right to do so. Not that anyone on Earth will judge Shane unless he feels compelled to confess, because there are no living witnesses to his deed (and zombies tell no tales).
In a zombie apocalypse (or any other kind of apocalypse), there will be very difficult decisions to be made, and often, they will have to be made quickly, without time for deliberation, under extreme duress.
Permalink Reply by Daniel McCullar on November 3, 2011 at 3:30am Lets not forget Shane's relationship with the boy.
As for Otis, yes he shot the boy, but it as an accident while hunting. There is no way Otis could have ever known the boy was on the other side of the dear.
Permalink Reply by Wael on November 2, 2011 at 9:41pm How about government? Do you think a small community should choose a leader with total power, as was done in ancient days? Or maybe a single ruler who consults with a tribal council, like Native Americans did?
Or should we maintain democratic principles? Elect a leader, vote on important issues, etc?
I favor democracy. I recognize that dictatorship or martial law is generally more efficient in crisis situations, but I am unwilling to give up my freedom, no matter the circumstances.
Permalink Reply by Wael on November 2, 2011 at 9:41pm
Permalink Reply by Kris McCullar on November 2, 2011 at 9:46pm
Permalink Reply by Daniel McCullar on November 3, 2011 at 3:31am Yes, you are all welcome.
Daniel takes a bow!
Permalink Reply by Erik Medeiros on November 2, 2011 at 11:47pm Agreed, Wael. Democracy always, in good times and bad. Fascists will always be around to make the argument that crises require strong, decisive autocratic leadership. But old Ben Franklin said it best:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Permalink Reply by Daniel McCullar on November 3, 2011 at 3:31am Understand that many Native American tribes had multiple Chiefs.
I think it would be best to go more with a Roman Senate where everyone in the community would eventually serve.
Permalink Reply by Daniel McCullar on December 2, 2011 at 1:33pm I've come to realization that the only way we will survive the forthcoming 2012 "Zombie Apocalypse" is if we all learn Parkour!
© 2012 Created by Wael.