Ashley Ng, Period 8, 5/13/22

Modern Mythology 2022

Ashley Ng

Period 8

5/13/22

In class, the topic of moral relativism was discussed in detail because of the reading we did the night before. World War Z explores the different aspects of humanity that rise to the forefront in the event of a zombie apocalypse. And the chapter we read in particular focused on Breck Scott, who produced a placebo vaccine for rabies. He’s responsible for the deaths of many due to purposeful misinterpretation, corruption, and self-service. However, in his interview, I do agree that in the event of a zombie apocalypse, people should’ve done their research. The tricky part is that while emotionally, my head says Breck Scott is a villain, he technically hasn’t done anything wrong and I can’t fault him for bettering himself in a situation where people had a lot to lose. 

Again, we reviewed how ethics refers to the law while morality has to do with personal values. To summarize my earlier statement about Breck Scott, from an ethics standpoint, Breck Scott isn’t in the wrong, but from a moral standpoint, he’s wrong for taking advantage of so many and leading many to their deaths. In times of upheaval, there’s often the adjustment of morals. Moral relativism brings up the question of how much can someone justify in the name of the greater good. 

In many hypothetical situations, such as the cable car example, “The Grove” episode from The Walking Dead, or even going back in time to kill someone who will cause massive harm, it’s about taking action to stop a perceived eventuality. But there’s no way of knowing the future for sure. How proactive should a person be? Or rather, how reactive should they be? It’s about justification and the amount of justification needed differs from person to person. Going with the “going back in history” example, how would you react if you travel back in time, knowing the person in front of you will kill millions? How would you react if you were a bystander that the time traveler told? What if you were the said person? Then it’s about the credibility of the source.

One person brought up that if they’re the time traveler, then they have established history on their side. They would know for a fact that the other person would go on to cause the deaths of millions, citing Adolf Hitler as an example. The role of the bystander or the person themselves was never brought up. Documented history is the same as a word-of-mouth prophecy about the future to the bystander or outsider. Anyone who isn’t a time traveler is considered an outsider. They’re lacking information, or at the very least, the complete picture due to completely different experiences. It reminds me of the occurrence of self-fulfilling prophecies, often as a result of incomplete information. The three types of people in the situation are free to act on their own, with different levels of understanding. Most of the time, they work to avoid the end that was prophesized. This can set forth a complex chain of actions and then end in the same result. At the very least, this is my interpretation of self-fulfilling prophecies in Greek mythology.

This discussion brought up how important and different information, interpretation, and justification can be for people. What’s considered fact for one person can be something else for another person. In the end, it’s important to consider how different types of people will react to the information presented to them.