Virtue Ethics Of Carol In The Walking Dead

Carol is one of the main characters from this show called, ‘The Walking Dead’. She is one of the few survivors from this post-apocalyptic future where zombies are roaming around looking for their next victim. They all stick together for protection, but one of them leads Carol to make a hard decision. Lizzie is a girl who Carol had become a mother too and has suffered a serious psychiatric break, which made her believe that the zombies were misunderstood creatures that were entitled to be treated with respect, even if they weren’t exactly humans. This led Lizzie to turn another girl into a zombie and when Carol failed at trying to help her, she inevitably had to kill her for the protection of the rest.

Fictional stories or shows like this one are useful to clarify ethical theories and view different perspectives. For example, how would a consequentialist view Carol’s actions as the ethical thing to do or not? Well, if we were to evaluate her actions from the perspective of a consequentialist, they would say that the consequences produced from her actions are

the base for judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that action taken. In other words, for a consequentialist morality is all about producing the right consequences. That is to say, that the consequentialist would believe that Carol made an ethical decision in killing Lizzie because if she didn’t then Lizzie would end up trying to turn the rest of the survivors into zombies. Though killing is morally wrong, the consequence of her action saved the lives of the rest of the survivors which makes it morally right. Yet, some utilitarians would believe that Carol didn’t make an ethical decision in killing Lizzie because people should attempt to achieve the best for everyone which means that everyone’s happiness matters. Thus, Carol should consider the rights and needs of Lizzie before she shot her and considering another alternative.
On the other hand, what would a deontologist view Carol’s action as? Well, a deontologist focuses on the rightness or wrongness of the action itself rather than the consequence it produces, like consequentialist does. That is to say, that a deontologist would view Carol’s actions as moral and ethical because though killing is morally wrong, it is Carol’s sense of duty to protect her people. In deontology, actions and outcomes are measured separately and only considers what benefits you and the people you care about, not necessarily what is good for society or anyone else. Therefore, to a deontologist, Carol’s decision on killing Lizzie was right because it was her duty to kill one and save many then to save Lizzie and risk the lives of the rest.
Alternatively, what would a virtue ethicist perspective be of Carol’s action?

Virtue ethicists emphasize the role of character and virtue when considering what’s moral and what’s not, rather than doing one’s duty or acting to bring about good consequences. Furthermore, a virtue ethicist, such as Aristotle was, would not consider murder to be virtuous because being a murderer is not positive and would not be considered a moral virtue and neither is lying to Lizzie about being mad at her like Carol did. Therefore, they would say that Carol is a murderer, though she wanted to defend the rest, she still killed Lizzie and a virtuous person would not kill and that would be considered more of a vice. Yet, others might argue that it was virtuous of her to do so because she was being just and courageous in defending her people from being murdered and it not doing so she would be a coward which is a vice as

well.
In conclusion, the consequentialist would believe that Carol made an ethical decision in killing Lizzie because it would bring about a good consequence. On the other hand, a deontologist would view Carol’s actions as moral and ethical because though killing is morally wrong, it was Carol’s sense of duty to protect her people even if it meant killing Lizzie. Yet, some virtue ethicist would consider it morally wrong because killing isn’t a virtue while others would claim it to be an act of courage and justice.