While a philosophical essay by John
Stuart Mill is a sufficient means of raising the question of whether one human
life can have more value than another, it is not the most accessible. John is a
nineteenth century British philosopher … and he writes like one. Most people
won’t delve into philosophical literature because they know that their energy
will be exhausted simply by attempting to make sense of the manner in which the
author has constructed his paragraph-long sentence before they ever even get to
philosophize. (hah!) And this is where The Walking Dead barges in. The Walking Dead confronts its audiences
with all the profoundly ambivalent conundrums that come attached with this
strange human concept of morality without all the rubbish that typically stagnates the conversation.
By tackling this task through the
medium of film, all the silly red-heron analogies that bog philosophy down fly
out the window. There is no wriggle room for drawing extreme comparisons when
the issue at hand is as extreme as it gets. The viewer’s pure mathematical
logic is mucked up as they become emotionally invested in the hypothetical
characters of the hypothetical situation. One does not simply watch The Walking Dead; they experience it.
Over the next few months, I am
going to write a series of essays exposing and analyzing the moral controversies
this show challenges its viewers to deliberate. They will all revolve around the
question of whether or not morality is simply circumstantial. If you have not
seen the show and are planning on watching it – don’t read this series. I am
going to use specific incidents in the show to illustrate my points. If you
have seen the show and are as engulfed in it as I am – hold onto your butts!
We’re goin’ for a ride!
-
Josh. Out.
No comments:
Post a Comment