On zombie invasions of ACS(I) Part 2

Perhaps the most pressing issue to be discussed by those who make it alive and unbitten into the safety of the second line of defense is that of long-term survival, both in a physical and psychological sense. The first and most fundamental (existential) truth that must be admitted openly both by the survivor government and the society being that all will die.

It is a conclusion most mortals will make, subconsciously or not, even given the well-being and relative luxury of living in a zombie-free world (especially for those in developed countries). But many readers will grasp why this question needs to be addressed and put out in open forum from the outset rather than being left to fester in the recesses of the survivor's psyche - wherein it will speed up the decomposition of other mental, spiritual and psychological faculties - hence making us zombies in all but the physical sense. I see this as the primary importance of doing so: it is one of the only fundamental philosophical truths the survivors will have to agree on. It's folly to agree on, for example, the aim to have everyone survive this episode or even profess that the governmental institutions care for the well-being of each individual survivor. The former is only a superficial attempt to assuage one's self or audience and the latter could possibly be an outright lie.

Most probably, the government will declare its aim of prolonging survival for as long as possible - perhaps a reasonable objective (or rather the only objective a government could meaningfully undertake). This aim makes the assumption that its citizens unanimously wish to survive (hence they are 'survivors'). This may not be so, as there may be some who do not see the point of prolonging their existence any longer for whatever reason (perhaps they have been satisfied with their part in establishing the institutions within which those less willing to accept the fact that they will die can live a little longer). Whatever the reason, some wish to die. They should be granted their wish once the laboratories have produced either enough suicide pills (or as a reader has contributed, trained enough doctors to administer much more efficient lethal injections). From the utilitarian point of view which the government would naturally take given their role and aim as an institution, this is efficient conservation of food for those who wish to survive. Some may take the idea further and suggest that the corpses be used as fertilizer for any agricultural enterprises. However, this might not be recommended given the psychological impact it could have on the rest of the population especially if such an outcome was against their express wishes (alternatively one could, via the propaganda machine, attempt to portray the suicidees as heroes sacrificing their bodies to recycle compounds for food and therefore justify their voluntary or involuntary use as fertilizer after their deaths).

Is there any alternative to a utilitarian ethical system from the point of view of the government? Provided their aim is to ensure the survival and well-being of as many survivors as possible, I would suggest: no. Readers are free to disagree and advance arguments to the contrary. Within the context of a human-threatening zombie apocalypse, perhaps any idealistic system based on something more unempirical than utilitarianism already may be could amount to empty moralizing at odds with the whole idea of 'survivor'.

One could of course argue that while moralizing as a general term will not make us live longer, it instead will confirm our sense of humanity (in a vague sense perhaps). Which brings me to the other possible desirable end other than "as many people as possible survive" - "everybody dies in a beatific way, completely at ease with their own humanity and with God". In other words, when everyone is willing to die, and dies in a way pleasing to themselves. That also could be a meaningful end, having come to terms with life, death and literally what's in between. If that is possible, then why not?

However, given a somewhat more pessimistic view of human nature, I doubt everyone will be able to die in such a way - therefore I do not see a realistic alternative to (either authoritarian or socialist, the choice between which depends on human nature) utilitarianism. For those (who may be understandably) unable to accept such a reality, heaven is a better place and as mentioned, paths should be provided in that direction.

I will discuss the more pessimistic scenario:
The fabric of society will be held together by an authoritarian government which will use whatever means, morally dubious or not, to achieve their aims. And an authoritarian government needs apparatus to effect its authority - a police force and propaganda being two important arms with others aside.

(Part 3 to follow since I need to gather my thoughts again after leaving this off for so long)