Justice Mending the Broken

 

Justice, Revenge, and Punishment

When we say "We are going to make an example of him", what do we mean?

What is the purpose of inflicting pain and violence on others in the name of "justice"?


Revenge is Payback

Should an angry parent be spanking a child?  Is the spanking about revenge or helping the child become a better person?  Is the parent working through their frustration or helping the child to think morally?

Is the grownup inflicting pain through spanking going to be a better person for the act?

What is the effect on the child to know that anger expressed as violence drives its pain?  What lesson is really being taught to the child?

Why would we think its wrong when a stranger spanks our child but assume its right when we do?

How is society different when it inflicts pain on an individual who commits a crime?  When society acts in anger and revenge does society become better?

Irony or hypocrisy?

Are humans more likely to stop their criminal behavior because they have had violence or pain inflicted upon them?

Punishment is too often about revenge.

Retaliation may be momentarily gratifying, but it is not a sound basis for law or education.

Retaliation is about spite and vindictiveness.  Taking joy in the delivering pain to others dehumanizes us.

Increasing the severity of punishment makes us feel like we are hurting the criminal.  We desire to inflict pain upon them.  When our law becomes about revenge, we lower ourselves to the level of the crime.  When we  use our anger and pain as the tool of expressing justice, we subvert it.


Means to and End

The purpose of of punishment is to stop a child or criminal from actions that are bad for themselves or society.  The purpose of punishment should never be so that the victim of bad behavior gets vengeance.  Vengeance is morally wrong.

There are four kinds of punishment; physical, verbal, withholding, and penalty.

Physical and verbal punishment have been shown in research to not work (see here and here).  Physical and verbal punishment may make us feel better, but simply do not accomplish the goal of justice.

Withholding and penalty punishments have been shown to be strong behavior modifiers.  Systems of justice based on withholding and penalty create a better society for individuals to live in.

People get better when they acknowledge they did wrong and strive to change.  This change toward better behavior ought to be the goal of justice.

Change comes from the inside.  It is our desire to be better that engenders change.  Change enforced from the outside rarely works.

Physical Punishment

A swat on the bottom is a mild physical punishment.  While it may do no permanent physical harm, it does not help the child develop a conscience. Instead, it teaches that physical violence is an acceptable way of dealing with problems.

Many of us grew up with being spanked and think we came out "OK". When you were spanked, how often was anger involved?  When you spank, how often is your desire for revenge involved?  What is the real lesson that was taught?  If we look at our own souls in the mirror can we not say there could have been a better way?  Is using violence to solve problems what we want to teach our children?

If this is wrong, why are other body parts right?

Parents who use physical punishment are setting an example of using violence to settle problems or solve conflicts, Children imitate their parents’ behavior. When parents use physical punishment, children are more likely to use violent acts to settle their conflicts with others.

Consider that if there is a way to teach the child that does not involve violence, why are you using violence?  

Teachers are able to maintain disciplined classrooms without resorting to violence.  It shows that there are other effective means of achieving discipline.

Physical punishment of criminals also has been shown not to be effective in changing behaviors.  Physical pain allows the individual to think they have "paid for the error".  It isolates the error behavior and the punishment as a single transaction.  Physical punishment frees a person from feelings of remorse.  Without remorse, there is no change to behavior.

When thinking about physical punishment, is may help to remember an ironic old saying "The beatings will continue until morale improves."  Morale or morality never improves because of violence.


Verbal Punishment

His concern is not justice.

Verbal aggression is just words right?  As the nursery rhyme says "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me".  This rhyme simply is not factual.

Words have the power to shape our minds.  Words can do great good or evil upon our persons.  Research shows children who are verbally abused are almost twice as likely to become juvenile delinquents or adult criminals.

Verbal aggression toward adults frequently leads to more violent acts by the criminal.  Telling someone off, giving them a piece of our minds is about our desire to express our emotion and not about changing the behavior of the person who did the crime.

Verbal punishment is too often really a form of bullying.  Violence of the mind is still violence upon our person.


Withholding

A time for reflection.

Withholding could be a "time out" or a "take away".  When an action or object of desire is removed from a child they have to deal with their desire as a result of the punishment.  Dealing with desire for a toy or freedom to play sets up a situation where the child can evaluate what they have done.  Time for self reflection is where we develop our conscious and learn to control our will.

Isolating a person from what it wants give it time to reflect.  Isolating a child is not about punishment, rather about education.  When we give a child a "time out" we help them become better.

Removing criminals from society is an effective means of giving them time to reflect on their crime.  Putting a bunch of criminals together in a crowded room often can subvert the purpose of isolation, however the failings of our current criminal justice system are not the topic of this blog entry.   Removing criminals from society also protects society from the bad actors.

Sometimes a person can never learn to be better; perhaps they are mentally ill or psychopathic.  In these cases it may never be possible to return a criminal person to normal society.  For the protection society  the criminals permanent removal is a necessary tragedy for both society and the criminal.


Penalty Punishment

Is this Justice?  Will it make their society better?

Consequences teach responsibility.  The world in which we live are full of consequences.  Often using the real world consequences of actions can help motivate us to change our behaviors.

Penalty punishments are about  using consequences, results of our actions, to change our behavior.  Penalty punishments are not about doing violence upon our persons or minds.

To be effective, penalty punishments must engage the person to do better.  The errant child or convicted criminal needs to see they must change what they do in the future.

To be effective, penalty punishments must relate the penalty to the offense.  If one doesn't wash their clothes, then they must either be naked or wear dirty clothes.  If one doesn't brush their teeth, their teeth will rot.  If one doesn't do their homework, they will fail in school.


Deterrence and Discipline

If our goal is deterrence then it is not the severity of the punishment, but the certainty of the punishment that matters.

If a person thinks they can get away with crime, they are more apt to try it.  If a person is fairly sure they will get caught, they will be deterred.

The death penalty only stops people from doing a crime if they think they will be caught.  A less severe penalty will also deter if the potential criminal knows they will be caught.

Severe punishment is about revenge.

Teaching discipline through non-violent means

There is a world of difference between "discipline" and "punishment".

Discipline is about learning to control one's actions.  Discipline can be learned without punishment.  Discipline can be learned by example, practice and reason.  We can teach our children discipline through sports, chores, and the example of our lives.

When we use the world "discipline" as a synonym for "punishment" we are often trying to justify to ourselves our desire to do violence.

The more effective we are at teaching good behaviors, the less need there is for punishment.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in justice as well as medicine.

So where do you draw the line between justice and revenge?



Note: If you think spanking is a good thing, here is a pamphlet used to train teachers about effective discipline from the Virginia Tech.

Gunning for You

I like guns. I shoot guns. I like wild venison and duck meat. I've had a gun near my pillow to protect me and mine from a perceived threat. I was a soldier who learned to operate, maintain and repair many kinds of weapons. I have been in the position where I had to consider taking another man's life away for a purpose. I never want to do that unless I have no other alternative. Nor, I hope, do you.

Hunting for food and sport

In my country we are now having a debate about restricting gun ownership. We can agree that we want to feel safe.  We can agree we do not want to be the victim of violent crime. We do not agree how to become safe and limit crimes.

The side against gun ownership is attempting to limit the access to certain types of firearms. To summarize their intention would be to say that guns do harm and that limitation of guns will limit the harm guns do.

The side for gun ownership wants to expand the number of guns. To summarize this position is to say that people need to protect themselves from crime and enemies domestic and foreign; more guns mean less harm.

Study with an open mind

A part of maturity and wisdom, in my opinion, is the ability to put aside my preconceptions and go seek information.  Researching facts allows me to become more educated and thereby have a more informed opinion. Below I try to share what I found. Maybe it can help you see better too.

This question of limiting access to certain kinds of weapons is nothing new. In feudal Japan there was an attempt to limit access to military grade weapons by only allowing Samurai to carry them. The British have long banned the carrying of firearms. Since the early history of the United States there have been attempts at limiting access to weapons starting at least with Andrew Jackson's presidency around 1830.

St. Valentines Day Massacre

During the Prohibition era, gangsters began to use some of the first automatic firearms with criminal intent. The Valentine's Day massacre became a public focus point resulting in the National Firearms Act of 1934 when fully automatic weapons became heavily regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

Even with those provisions being stopped and started, strengthened and weakened over time, the United States is commonly understood to have the least limitations of weapon ownership of any modern industrialized country on the planet.

Chemical weapons
should not be common

There is ample history of weapons' bans to draw upon in order to understand its effectiveness. However, much of research being done has NOT been from the objective view of “what are the facts so we can form opinions” but rather from the subjective view of “here is my opinion and the facts I found to back it up.” This makes finding studies with true objective analysis difficult at best.

Perhaps the most widely accepted objective studies involved using statistical analysis comparing gun ownership, level of gun controls, and crime rates.  The study was conducted in 1980 on 170 cities with 100,000 or more people. The results of this study was reported in the peer reviewed Journal of Quantitative Criminology. The models covered violent crime which frequently involve guns: homicide, suicide, fatal gun accidents, robbery, and aggravated assaults, as well as rape. It found the following seemingly confusing results:

• The number of guns did not increase the number of violent crimes
• When crime rates increased, more people acquired guns
• Gun control did not decrease the number of guns
• Gun control generally has no effect on violence rates

From this study, it is possible to conclude that gun control doesn't operate like the pro-gun or anti-gun debaters think. Below is an attempt to outline the finding, not justify it, so that we can consider our actions to reduce violence with better data.

Capone was just violent

Guns do not cause crime – The finding suggested that limiting access to guns will not decrease the number of violent crimes. Crimes occur for reasons having nothing to do with the weapons themselves. Violent crimes will occur because of other factors. We cannot then take the view that if we take away the guns we will be safer. Our wish to become safer by removing the weapons simply doesn't hold up, no matter what our intuition tells us.

Fear desires protection

Crime scares people – When we feel threatened, we protect ourselves. Purchasing or acquiring a weapon of violence makes us feel safer. It doesn't matter if we know how to use it, but the knowledge that a weapon is available to us reduces our fear of violence. This is a personal, internal experience of how human beings react to threats.

Gun smuggling

People will get guns – Attempts to take away weapons from law abiding citizens or potential criminals does not work. Both the lawful and criminal citizens will find ways to subvert the law and acquire the weapons they desire. The number of guns in a population is not related to the laws governing them. This process works much like the bans on alcohol or drugs; measures of law do not stop us from obtaining the things we desire.

Shoot out

Violence happens for other reasons - Human motivation for doing crime comes from other factors besides guns. People can be greedy, mean, unbalanced, over-emotional, impulsive, hyperactive, sensation seeking, and risk taking. These internal reasons that are in people drive them to commit criminal acts.  These motivations have no relation to the tools for violence at their disposal. The gun does not cause the crime, the person does.

Learning non-violent methods

In summary, more guns does not work and less guns does not work.  Our feeling of being protected is important to us.  Stopping violence is not about guns.  It would appear that both sides to this argument are wrong and right. Our intuitions about guns and violence could lead us to make bad choices that will not get the result of reduced violence we desire.

I have not been able to find an answer to how to reduce violent crime. This would appear to be a much harder problem than the pro- or anti- guns sides think.  Perhaps violence reduction can be found in other laws or in education. 

Learning about the
proper use of weapons

We can to find ways to identify people who would commit violent acts.  We can then reduce their motivations and lessen the number of crimes.

Education may also hold the key. We can education ourselves to prevent violence.  We can educate ourselves on the proper use of firearms.

I like guns. I shoot guns. I want the right to own them. I also want to be responsible and practical and decent to my fellow man. I don't fear my neighbors, rather try to love them. Even the ones who are not so nice.

Lex Talionis

Justice is blind

Lex Talionis is Latin for the legal concept of mirror punishment. It is based on the idea that a person who has injured another person is hurt to a similar degree, that the punishment should be similar in intensity and kind to the offense of the wrongdoer. The more common way to think of it is “an eye for an eye” or “a tooth for a tooth.”

The earliest known use of this idea comes from Hammurabi where if a person caused the death of another person, the killer would be put to death. This allowed legal codes to begin with very simple ideas of justice, understandable by all. A straight forward way to standardize justice.

As legal systems evolved, this simple idea led to more complex forms of justice. The Hebrew code of law slowly transferred the retribution from a physical one to a monetary one; the punishment of some crimes came to have a cost in goods instead of in kind.

Roman justice was still brutal

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus is quoted as saying “"You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

By the time of Roman law, the Lex Talionis idea had been largely abandoned for non-physical crimes and specific penalties for crimes had been codified that seemed “more fair” to the culture involved.

Lex Talionis is still practiced today in some cultures, although it is quickly diminishing as an alternative for punishment. Still it is not uncommon after a terrible crime to hear citizens demand “an eye for an eye”.

What purpose is served by Lex Talionis upon the criminal? What is the end we seek when a crime has been committed? I would challenge the assumption that Lex Talionis is a valid basis for justice.

There are many reasons we seek justice. Some victims desire revenge or payback. Governments wish to deter crime in order to keep a safe society. Many people seek repayment for the harm caused to make it right. Some desire only a public denunciation; showing the world that bad things were done.

A guillotine from the
 Reign of Terror

Revenge justice, sometimes known as retribution often comes from the anger and pain of the victim. Like in the famous movie “The Princess Bride” we wish to say “You killed my father, prepare to die.”

Revenge justice has several problems. It requires a level of violence that is not permitted by the society in the first place, giving sanction to a crime being met with another crime. Revenge justice can lead to a spiral of violence where one act triggers another and another. As Mahatma Gandhi said  "An-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye ... ends in making everybody blind."  Often the satisfaction of revenge is followed by the remorse of doing violence as it reduces the victim to the level of the criminal.  

Using revenge to punishing a child who broke my front window carelessly playing baseball would mean I advocate breaking his family's window as revenge. The father of the child would not like having his window broken and may well break another window of mine. My wife could respond and on and on, only the glazier being satisfied with the outcomes.

Revenge punishments have a tendency to degrade the society imposing them. Constant circles of violence make a culture gradually more brutal. It is the hallmark of civilized modern society that we do not allow the victim to take punishment upon the criminal. Lynchings and posse justice are examples of how we have moved away from revenge as a means to govern ourselves.

Deterrence justice is the credible threat of punishment might lead people to make different choices. Deterring or preventing a crime has the assumptions that specific punishments imposed on offenders will stop the would be criminal from acting badly.

Modern Iranian justice

Research has shown that increasing the severity of a punishment does not have much effect on crime. Killing a murderer does not stop other murders as we would suppose. Historical evidence that this method does not stop murder is quite good.

What does work to prevent criminal acts is the certainty of punishment. This idea works against our intuition, but never the less is real. Potential criminals think themselves more able than the law enforcers. Bad people think they can “get away with it” and are not stopped by potential harsh punishments like “an eye for an eye”. When, however, it is certain that some punishment will come, even if not severe, deterrence works. If a criminal is fairly certain they will be caught, then they do not do the crime.

Justice of cookie jar

A child who wants a cookie and knows that the cookie jar is forbidden will often take the cookie despite the potential for punishment if they believe they may not be caught. If however they know mom is watching they will not get anywhere near the cookie jar. It is not even necessary to spank the child to have this certainty of punishment effect. Simple knowledge of taking away a favorite toy or loss of privileges is sufficient for deterrence as long as the child knows there is a high probability of being found out.

The ultimate challenge of all justice is to minimize the amount of crime. The less crime, the fewer victims, the better the society. The emotions of the moment are a bad means to achieve that goal of justice. We must strive to build systems that make the punishment swift and certain, but we should not demean ourselves by sinking to the level of visiting a crime on the criminal.

Edges of our Freedom

Freedom is so basic to our culture we tend to take it for granted. When asked “Should we be free?”, citizens of western societies will consistently answer “Yes”. When you ask about the specifics, the answers vary widely and the reality of freedom becomes less certain. To understand this, lets take a journey around Ireland and see what we can sea.

Borders of Ireland

 Ireland is a island bordered by only sea. At some point, it appears, Ireland ends and the sea begins.

How long is the border of Ireland? Where is that border between land and sea? If we draw a simple triangle around Ireland we can get a rough estimate of just how long that border is.

Closer borders
are longer

Even at a glance, this border is not quite right. So lets break up the sides of our triangle and add some more triangles make our calculation more accurate. Notice how the length is now longer?

Clearly we are still guessing at the length of the Irish border. Farther and farther we can bring in the detail by adding more and more triangles. At some point we start to outline every bay and inlet, every bump and cranny visible to the human eye all along the coast. We could stop there, at what the eye can see, and call ourselves done. The border of Ireland has been found on a practical level.

Borders are hard
to define

If accuracy is our claim and desire, then 'being practical' isn't good enough. If we want to be as good as we can be, we must continue the mapping of triangle even further. Each pebble, each grain of sand, each molecule, each atom, and even to the level of each quark needs be measured.

The closer we look at the border between Ireland and the sea, the longer Ireland's coast becomes. This process can go on into infinity, or surely beyond the ability of our minds to understand and value.

Finding the edges of freedom is similar to finding the edges of the land. We can say “Here is land.” and be sure of it. We think we know what freedom is and sometimes it seems very clear. We can say “Here is water” and know that it is not land. Such too is lack of freedom known to us.

But when we try to say where freedom begins and ends, the closer we look the harder it is to tell. If we want to be accurate, if we want to be more than practical, we must consider more carefully the boundary of freedoms.

Women desiring votes were scandalous

 Freedom of speech is such beast where the borders are long and winding.

It is clear that 'freedom-land' should allow us to express our opinions, unmolested by government or citizens. The idea that we should be able to freely exchange ideas allows all of us to learn more and find a more perfect union between us.

We do not however allow all speech. The "freedom-less ocean" does not allow individuals to cause others clear and present danger. Inciting violence, fighting words, is likewise not permitted. Lying under oath is not considered just in the land of freedom.

Freedom's border in focus

The closer you look at the border between freedom of speech and immoral behavior the longer the line becomes to understanding the limits of our freedoms.

This is true for all our freedoms. Freedom of religion does not include those that practice cannibalism. Freedom to bear arms does not include nuclear weapons. Protections for assemblies of people do not grant the right for lynch mobs to form.

In each moment, we change the boundaries of our freedoms, much as the coast of Ireland is not fixed. In little ways, here and there, the coastline grows and shrinks.

Freedoms can get extended or be taken away. Examples of this are numerous; the extension of voting rights to un-propertied men, women and to lower age groups has increased our coast lines of freedom.

The sea of not free

Freedoms can be retracted or limited to protect us. Speed limits inhibit our freedom of movement. Pharmaceuticals are controlled in order to save lives. Copyrights limit the freedom to copy others speech for profit. Weights and measures are standardized to keep us fair and honest with each other.

We should cherish our freedoms and protect them. We should also not forget that all freedoms have boundaries that are not definable, that get longer and longer as you look at them. The simple answers may be easy but are frequently not the accurate ones.

Our government exists to help us define the edges of our freedoms in our time.

Just Be Claws

I caused my coffee to brew.

I got the beans out, ground them, put filter in pot.

I filled up the water, poured just the right amount.

I plugged machine into wall, turning it on.

I watched clear become my desire of dark, rich brown.

I caused the coffee to brew.

I did not grow the coffee.

I did not make the grinder, filter, or pot.

I did not make or lay pipes allowing water to flow.

I neither designed nor built the machine.

I was only a link in a long set of chains.

I did not cause the coffee to brew.

Normally we think of cause and effect as simple. Something is done that makes something else happen. A useful way to live in the day-by-day. Cause and effects usefulness betrays the more complex, the more subtle, the more beautiful of what the reality is.

Kitty Lust

Causes require connections. I open the tuna can, the cats come. The can and cats must be setup a special way in order for cause and effect to work. Each cat must be within ear shot of the opener or they do not know of the potential tuna. If the basement door is closed the feline returning from the litter box may be unable to reach the can in the kitchen. Most of the time, we do not think about the special setup that allows causes and effects.

Causes do not always have the same effects. My cats Pan and Dora run to the kitchen when I open a can. Do I cause Pan-Dora to run? The creatures smell food and follow their desire for tuna. The fact that I'm the one opening the can means nothing to Dora or Pan. If I allow them to gorge themselves on the tuna and wait a few minutes to open another can, they do not often come running again, rather lick their paws and ignore can, tuna, and me.

Dreams of my cats

Different things can cause the same effect. Sometimes, when I'm cooking dinner, I'll open a can of peas or carrots or maybe tomatoes. You can hear the cats come bounding from where ever they lay, claws on wooden stairs launching themselves with abandon to their hoped for treat. Most of the time the can opener is not opening something they want. But just on the off chance it might be, they come anyway.

Effects follow causes. I have never once seen the Pan/Dora run to the kitchen expecting tuna while I am in another room. Maybe, when away from home, if I left a web-cam in the kitchen, I could detect such behavior; but I'm pretty sure it would be a waste of time. It seems safe to say that without the cause of the can opening, the kitchen running does not occur.

Cats think they are in charge

Some effects have many causes. We have a little plastic mouse with a red beaming laser light for a nose. If I push the button between the mouses ears the laser light lands on wall and floor much to amusements of my pets. Pan especially likes it when the light leads her from room to room.  She runs with all her might chasing the red darting prey. Getting Dora to run to the kitchen where the cans are opened is no mean feat. I can get Pan to do it a half dozen times before she tires and just watches the light move about. The opening of cans are not required for the cat to run to the kitchen with desire.

Correlation is not causation. Sometimes I make tuna fish sandwiches and put them in plastic bags. When I take these bags out of the fridge and open them to eat, a cat in range will come to investigate the smell. This led me to understand that it was not really the can that drove the cat, it was the tuna. The can is merely a correlation. The furry creatures had connected the sound of the can opening with the oily satisfaction of eating fish. The idea that because you relate one thing to another does not mean that one thing is the cause of another.

This seemingly little distinction, that correlation is not causation, leads us to a totally different sense of justice when cause and effect are applied to the law. Our sense of justice is closely tied to our innate ideas of cause. If you break the law you will be punished. The words 'you break' point to the cause and 'punishment' is the effect.

We have law for reasons of causation

Consider the heroin addict who craves his drug like my cat craves tuna. His body drives him to acquire the drug. His desire overpowers his morality and he becomes able to make the mental leap that theft is a viable way to obtain the chemicals his body screams for. In this sense the addict has been driven to change his morality, his sense of justice by chemical demand.

We make assumptions about cause and correlations always with insufficient information. Can we say the addict is responsible, that he is the cause of the theft? Do we say the drug is the cause of the theft? Perhaps it was his mother who took drugs while he was in her womb that setup this chain of events? Or maybe the pusher who convinced him as a young boy that heroin was fun? Perhaps all are culpable, perhaps none.

Dora will often jump on the counter to look for tuna after I leave the kitchen. She knows that tuna was there and if I don't see or hear her jump onto the counter, there may be an unexpected treat. Dora also knows that if I find her there, or become aware, I will chase her down with a squirt bottle until fur is wet. Dora does not like wet fur. Not at all. When Dora wants the tuna, her desire often overpowers her sense of consequences. Sometimes I'm not around and she gets what she wants. Dora knows that the effect does not always follow the cause.

Human nature looks for the simple cause and the simple effect. Its useful, but not often accurate to assume the easy and direct relationship of cause and effect. So next time you judge remember to be 'just', 'be claws' it is the right thing to do.

Kill Them. Kill Them All.

Zombies.
Zombies want brains.
Zombies want my brain.
Zombies want my baby's brain.
Kill them.
Kill them all.
After all, they are just zombies.

Read the signs! They are here!

Pretend, for a moment, that the fictional but funly imagined Zombie Apocalypse has come. You have your shotgun. You know how to double-tap. Your chainsaw is well oiled and you've got plenty of gas. You're a fast draw and a faster runner and these are slow zombies.  Not the zombies from 28 Days Later, or The Dawn of the Dead.  These are zombies who shuffle along, whose fastest movement is slower than a Sunday stroll.

Our imagined zombies are just about totally independent from physical needs or wants of any sort. They do not eat for energy.  They eat just because it is what they do.

 Our zombies feel no pain. They have less mind than a slug, but more mind than a tree. They can open doors by accident, but ladders stop them cold.  Zombies are mostly not there at all, otherwise they wouldn't be zombies!

Zombie's Existentially

A good read.

Zombies are infectious. Their bite can make you become a zombie too, if they do not eat your brains first. According to “The Zombie Survival Guide” zombies became zombies because of a virus called solanum. Typically zombies are given an origin resulting from a virus or biological organism, disease, or some other source of physical damage. 

Zombies do not choose to be zombies, it just happens to them. Like cancer or the measles, there is no intent, there is no choice in getting the zombie sickness. You might want to say that “they could have tried harder to avoid it”. Try telling that to your eight year old boy picking his nose in the corner. Or your eighty-eight year old grandma drooling in her mid-day nap for that matter.

Many of us will just kill the zombies. The basic logic goes something like this; “They can infect me.  We will protect ourselves.  Zombies must die.” The desire for self defense is strong in we humans, especially when it comes to those we identify with as family.

After a little consideration you may well notice that when we take this view, we tend to say the word 'kill' rather than 'murder'. I kill the chicken for my diner, I do not murder it. Yet to the chicken and the zombie, our intent in murder or killing doesn't matter. It should matter to us.  Very much!

Animals slaughtered by necessity.

If we consider the zombies as humans with a terminal disease, then the word 'kill' gets a little bit harder to justify. If the zombie was your nice uncle Ralph, or the sweet old man next door who sometimes shovels your sidewalk when it snows, it would feel like 'murder'.  Even if you try to think you are doing them a favor. Have you ever heard of someone putting a clause in their will that says “If I become a zombie, please kill me.”? 

The threat that zombies pose is from instinct and not intent. How can we judge a zombie's character when they are obviously, and literally, dumber than door knobs? This reduction of the zombies brain to something less than human may give hope to the would-be-zombie killer to find some moral justification in their pursuit to eliminate zombies violently. To whit we must then ask; "Do zombies have a soul?"

Soul Brothers and Sisters?

Spirits in the world.

If you believe in dualism, that humans have an immortal soul, a separate from the body piece of the universe that makes up your mind or spirit, then you must ask "Does the soul still inhabit the body of a zombie?"

Consider for a moment a person in a vegetative state like a coma. Do they still have a soul? If you can answer 'yes' to the presence of a soul, then morality well may push you to save the zombies soul, to care for it, to make it at peace. We, as the superior mind, have a responsibility to care for those less fortunate; for shouldn't a person and even a society be judged for how it cares for the least of its souls?  Run like hell from the zombies. Build a barricade to hide behind, quarantine all the zombies in a pit, but do not under any circumstances kill them, for it is murder plain and simple.

Destroying barrels was fun!

On the other hand, the dualist who thinks the zombie's soul has already left their body can chain-saw away at will. Since zombies are just inanimate matter like a brick, the word 'kill' does not even apply. Zombies are already dead. In fact, it is good and proper to take pleasure killing zombies.
I would recommend whistling while you work at your de-zombification.  Singing an old chain gang song like “De Camptown Races” would be a wonderful way to spend an afternoon with friends while slicing and slashing and double-tapping; doing your duty for your fellow man.

Empirically Void?

The inventor of utilitarianism
looks a bit like a zombie.

What though, if you believe the there is no soul, but rather that the mind is emergent from the body? Your monist philosophy would dictate a different kind of assessment on the morality of whacking and hacking at the zombie critters. Thoughts on morality here fall into two camps; consequence and categorical.

The consequence, or sometimes called utilitarian, view is that questions about morality should be looked at in terms of what would be the greatest good. How do we help the most people? The consequence moralist would ask the question “If I terminate the zombies existence will it benefit more people?” Since clearly one zombie can infect many non-zombies, the zombie has got to go. With haste! The sum of the people saved must be greater than the sum of the people hurt. As long as I am saving non-zombie lives, its good and proper to grind zombie flesh.

If however, you think the golden rule should apply, then you would be taking the categorical idea and ask the question “If I became a zombie would I want someone to kill me?” Your answer to this question becomes the moral basis for whacking or running, double-tapping or containing. If you found yourself with a group of survivors, using logic and reason you would try to figure out together what is the group's view was. You would consider together what should be done if any of you became zombies. This would allow you to have the basis of law and order, probably on democratic terms about which zombies should be taken out.

Ummm.... Ooohhhmmm?

Lastly, a view from eastern philosophy.  The Buddhist tradition would absolutely forbid killing zombies.  This thought stream holds that killing is always a wrong thing to do.  The Buddha is said to have avoided killing any living creature, mosquito, ox, or human.  It is written in the Dhammapada "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill."

Would Buddha have survived the zombie invasion?  We may never know, but I rather doubt it, unless an impregnable fortress could be built to protect all non-zombie life.

Just Kill'em!

I do not know about what you would do, but I can speak for myself.

If come the zombie apocalypse and it is between a zombie or me, I would with great effort and little forethought be sure to separate its brain from its body.

 I'll shake them and break them nary pause to ask “is it right" or "is it wrong” or even “is there a better way”because...

Dad' gum' it! Im'a protect me and mine! Honey, wars the double-barrel? Git me dat der hatchet!  

And Kill Them!  Kill Them All!