Whether an individual can be sacrificed for the sake of the community is a matter of long debate. The principle of Kantian deontology suggests that even if the greater good is eventually achieved the sanctity of human life and dignity cannot possibly be violated. The proponents of the Utilitarian theory, on the other hand, hold the opposite view and believe that the primary focus must be on the common good. This paper will examine both views and argue that the practice of sacrifice of an individual is inadmissible in the modern world.
Summary of the Book
The book is written in a form of a series of interviews with the survivors of the zombie war. It follows the chronological progression of humanity’s fight against the new threat to its existence. The first outbreaks of the disease were registered in China; however, due to the attempts of the Chinese government to prevent its people from discovering the true nature of the illness epidemic quickly spread to Africa. It was initially believed to be a form of rabies; therefore, other countries, with the exception of Israel, did not regard it as a cause for serious concern and did not take measures to quarantine themselves. Moreover, a major pharmaceutical corporation developed an ineffective vaccine that was presumably helpful in the treatment of scary diseases.
A period before the start of the war was a short time of the world’s realization that the disease must be treated with the utmost caution and severity. Despite all measures taken by the Chinese government, the epidemic quickly swept through the entire nation and spread to the American continents and Europe. Governments across the globe took drastic measures and decided to relocate some parts of their population to safer areas such as the cold territories of Canada, Kamchatka, and the Arctic. Ten years after the first outbreaks of the pandemic the official end of the war was announced. The political map of the world was rearranged forever. The nations of Israel and Palestine signed peace, China and Cuba became democracies, Russia turned into a theocratic state known as the “Holy Russian Empire” (Brooks 47).
Proponents of Sacrifice
The sacrifice of the individual for the sake of community was the inherent characteristic of virtually every human society since its dawn (Pan 102). It seems, that in order to truly belong to some community, to be a real member of it one must give away some part of their individual freedom (Pan 102). German scholar Walter Burket believed that the sacrifice is the key component that differentiates humans from an animal kingdom and it allowed mankind to prosper in spite of the apparently overwhelming opposition from nature (Pan 102). He claimed that the sacrifice is more than just a tradition; rather, it is an “enduring obligation” that influenced the formation of an ancient world ethic and demanded a sacrifice from the warriors in a battle (Pan 105). It made possible the survival of the group after the physical destruction of some of its parts. Therefore, the sacrifice of an individual for the benefit of the collective was always an essential part of every community’s cultural identity and its social institutions (Pan 105).
The notion of giving up individual rights and freedoms for the common good was part of the rhetoric of the French Revolution (Strenski 2). However, French philosophers of that era were not so eager to simply accept the idea of sacrifice and wanted to strike the balance between the interests of the individual and the good of the group (Strenski 2). They struggled to understand how much a person must give up in the service to the state and community to ensure the existence of the nation (Strenski 2). Their ideas echoed those of the Roman Catholic theological school and its theory of “sacramental sacrifice” (Strenski 4). Moreover, the political discourse about social sacrifice during the French Revolution was almost identical to the discourse of saints and theologians about religious sacrifice (Strenski 4).
Deontology and Sacrifice
The terrifying plans of the South African government to sacrifice large parts of their populace to save others in small sanctuaries, described in World War Z, go against the principle of deontological prohibition, which specifically prescribes the murder of innocents for the greater good. Therefore, within the deontological framework, the actions aimed at saving one person at the expense of others would downgrade the latter to the status of objects and divest them of their human rights (Harel 111). It is important to mention, however, that deontological theory has a principle of secondary permissibility, which would consider contingency plan of the South African government admissible given that people in abandoned territories were destined to die (Harel 111). Nonetheless, it is clear that in this particular instance this principle is inapplicable due to a large number of victims, among whom there could have been many survivors.
Utilitarian theory, on the other hand, would be more favorable to the plan to sacrifice some for the sake of others (Harel 111). Moreover, it would most certainly demand to leave large portions of people in the disease-riddled areas for the increase of the aggregate good. In the framework of Utilitarianism actions of South African leaders in the face of pandemic threats are considered not only morally permissible but rather mandatory. A strategy for dealing with extreme moral dilemmas under extreme circumstances known as threshold deontology shares the utilitarian view of ethics (Harel 113). It states that it is possible to override some moral injunctions under severe circumstances. This principle is enshrined in the German Federal Constitution as well as in several other world constitutions (Harel 113). It presupposes the infringement of particular people’s rights for the sake of protection of “potential victims of a terrorist attack” (Harel 113). Kantian threshold deontology provides a defense of such a position. It states that even though the sacrifice of one person for the protection of two people would violate an individual’s dignity, similar sacrifice for the sake of large numbers of people would not constitute an impingement on the victim’s dignity (Harel 114).
Criticism
Joe Zilch vehemently disagrees with the doctrine of Kantian threshold deontology. He states that the idea of sacrificing an individual is unacceptable and that it is inconsistent with the notion of dignity (Rand 64). In Kant’s view “dignity admits no equivalent” therefore exchanging one life for millions is not better than trading it for the sake of a single person (Harel 114). Zilch argues that if society would prefer the deontological principle of saving innocents over the other principle of deontology prohibiting the killing of innocents for the greater good it would fall into a logical trap( Rand 64). Moreover, he denies the doctrine of self-sacrifice on the ground that it might be used for the justification of the sacrifice of others. Zilch criticizes the actions of Soviet rulers who “for the sake of the happiness of many more millions in the future generations” killed millions of innocent people (Rand 64). Ayn Rand also denies altruistic morality and argues that accepting its premise as good would render any society helpless to find a problem with justifying the sacrifice of others (Rand 64). She goes as far as to say that such a society would “have accepted the idea of man’s immolation as proper – just as they accepted it in the days of the ancient human sacrifices to Moloch” (Rand 65). According to this view, the heroism of astronauts on the International Space Station described in the book World War Z would be considered inadmissible.
Conclusion
Utilitarian theory and the theory of threshold deontology are highly controversial philosophical views that support the sacrifice of an individual for the benefit of the community. In the framework of these beliefs, the terrifying plans of South African leaders to abandon large parts of their populace in the infected zones for the survival of other groups would not seem as wrong or immoral. However, Kantian deontology specifically prohibits such tradeoffs. In Kant’s view “dignity admits no equivalent” therefore the exchange of one life for millions is not better than the similar exchange for the benefit of a single person (Harel 114). Zilch also argues that the society preferring the deontological principle of saving innocents over the principle of deontology prohibiting the killing of innocents for the greater good would fall into a logical trap and might use the former for the justification of a sacrifice (Rand 64).
References
Brooks, Max. World War Z. New York: Crown, 2006. Print.
Harel, Alon. Why Law Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Print.
Pan, David. Sacrifice in the Modern World. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2012. Print.
Rand, Ayn. Letters of Ayn Rand. New York: Dutton, 1995. Print.
Strenski, Ivan. Contesting Sacrifice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Print.