Paul Lydio Anthony S.

Ariola Political Thought

12-1262 Ms. Natividad Gruet

“Thomas Hobbes and the Walking Dead”

Several writers have created several stories about the dead coming back to life. Through

their stories, they depict an image of a living corpse as a mindless body composed of maggots,

rotten skin and missing body parts (Loeffler, 2014). They call it a “zombie” – a dead person who

is able to move because of magic based on certain religious beliefs and in stories as defined by

the dictionary. Moreover, writers have been making up stories like this wherein the story

portrays an apocalyptic view of the world. Then and until now, various film writers, producers

and directors made several movies such as “28 Days Later, Dawn of the Dead, Night of the

Living Dead, World War Z,” etc. Through these, they give a clear understanding and a view of a

zombie apocalypse. In addition, Robert Kirkman’s “The Walking Dead” is one of the most

successful and popular comic book series which later turned into a TV show produced by AMC 1.

The story is all about a group of people trying to survive in a different world that is being

overrun by walkers2. The story is all about survival in which the series explores how the living

are changed by the overwhelming comprehension that those who survive can be far more

dangerous than the mindless walkers roaming the earth (TheWalkingDead, n.d.). So what would

happen to the world if was being overrun by flesh-eating monsters. Would there still be

civilization? Does the rule of law still exist? Or is this where Social Darwinism 3 can be applied.

What can man best assure his own survival?

1
AMC or American Movie Classics is responsible for the production of the Walking Dead
2
Walkers are called zombies in this TV series since they only walk slowly for catching their prey
instead of running or jumping
3
Social Darwinism I an extension of Darwinism in which sociocultural advance. A competition
and the elite possess superiority in the struggle for existence. [Dictionary]
Summary of Season 2

After the tragedy in season 1, Rick4 and his group heads out for a nearby camp to search

for provisions and equipment however the walkers interfered their plan. Luckily, they were able

to find a farm nearby free from flesh-eating monsters. They were able to establish shelter with

the help of the farmers. The group finally had a break from the nightmares they been through

(“What Lies Ahead,” 2011). Unfortunately, as they were staying in the farm of a long period of

time, disputes and issues were formed. One of their members got shot accidentally, one went

missing, and one betrayed his comrade own comrade for his survival (“Save the Last One,”

2011). Moreover, due to lack of resources, the owner of the farm also forced them to leave the

farm but after countless times of negotiations, they were able to compromise in giving them a

place to stay in the farm provided that the group must follow the rules and regulations

(“Cherokee Rose”, 2011). Despite this, the group encountered new people at a nearby town

outside of the farm. The scavengers5 tries to merge with the group but because the farm lacks

resources, they are unwilling to share their property. Evidently, they find the unknown

scavengers untrustworthy. Their solution to settle the issue was violence (“Nebraska,” 2012). In

addition, one of their most immoral act they did was that they condemned an injured scavenger

to death in which he never had the chance to defend himself6. Their solution to this issue was to

kill the lone scavenger (“Judge, Jury, Executioner,” 2012). Furthermore, one of the members of

the group attempts to retrieve his place as the old leader due to personal issues. He will execute

this by murdering the current leader discreetly who happens to be his best friend.

4
Rick is the leader of the group and the protagonist of the story
5
Rick, Glenn , and Hershel encountered two strangers who scavenges for supplies in the Tavern
6
After Rick killed the two scavengers in the Tavern, he then encountered another scavenger who
fell from a roof and accidentally impaled his own leg by a nearby fence. Rick helped him instead
of leaving him as the walker’s meal.
 The world in this story is in a state of anarchy in which it is a “situation of confusion and

wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc.” are not any more

controlled by rules or laws. With the help of leadership, Rick assures that his group will survive

this nightmare. However, the walkers are not their only problems along their way but also other

groups of people like them who will do whatever it takes to survive. Through this, their way of

surviving this nightmare is to either accept other people if they be worthy or kill them if they

threaten their own group. Ergo, through the performance and the behavior of man protrayed in

the story, the Walking Dead dwells on the ideas of Thomas Hobbes which man is naturally evil

and self-interested beings as seen in the story of Season 2. The content of this paper does not

discuss the famous work of Hobbes which is the “Leviathan” state but rather focuses on Hobbes’

view of man and the state of nature.

On Otis’ Death

In this scene, Carl, Rick’s son, got shot accidentally by a hunter named Otis. Luckily,

Otis’ boss is a veterinarian named Hershel (“What Lies Ahead,” 2011). The group moves to

Hershel’s farm and heals Carl. Unfortunately, the surgery cannot be completed without certain

meds needed. Otis initiated a plan to look for the meds with the help of Shane – Rick’s best

friend (“Bloodletting,” 2011). Otis and Shane got the meds needed but they were surrounded by

a hoard of walkers. Shane panicked and thinks the most possible way for him to survive and to

deliver the meds needed by his best friend’s son. Shockingly, Shane shot Otis’ leg and used him

as a bait for him to escape. As Shane got back to the farm, he delivered the meds and lied about

Otis’ death (“Save the Last One,” 2011).

With this situation, it is stated by Hobbes that man is naturally “evil” in which he is a

wolf unto his fellow man. He is a self-interested monster wherein he possesses natural desires
and aversions in which he will do whatever it takes to achieve his own interest (FOS, 102). With

this statement, this depicts the action of Shane wherein he killed his own fellow man for his own

survival despite the fact that one of his reasons were to deliver the meds needed for the survival

of Carl. Through this, man is naturally averse to destroying his life and he is willing to lay down

his right to all things if others would do the same (FOS, 102). This is acceptable to which he is

trying to save a life by risking his own. However, the life he risked was not of his but his fellow

man. He killed his fellow man instead of finding another solution to escape. This only proves

Hobbes view of man that he is naturally evil and a self-interested being. “All men pursue only

what they perceive to be in their own individually considered best interests - they respond

mechanistically by being drawn to that which they desire and repelled by that to which they are

averse” (Encyclopedia, n.d.).

The Scavengers at the Tavern

In this case, the distressed Hershel heads for a drink to an abandoned tavern. Glenn and

Rick went to the same place to retrieve him. As they reached the pub, they ran into two

scavengers. They finally met a new people after the nightmare they have been through. They had

a conversation about their experiences in surviving the said nightmare. They asked about where

they could find a place to stay. They also asked if they could stay in their farm and in return they

will contribute by means of finding provisions and other equipment for survival. However, Rick

declined the proposal since they only have a limited number of resources 7 and a sufficient

amount of provision which can only fit for their group. Because of this, one of the scavengers

showed frustration by revealing his own gun forcing Rick to admit them into their territory.

7
Hershel’s resources in his farm is only limited to his own family only. Hershel shared his
resources when Rick and his group provided that they will scavenge more provisions and
supplies outside farmer’s territory.
Evidently, they threatened Rick and his group. As the scavengers pull out their guns, Rick

immediately shot both in the head. This was the first time Rick shot a living person even if it

does not coincide with his principle of not killing the living.

In this situation, Hobbes stated “since men are created equal, they also possess the same

hope of satisfying their own desires. However, the problem arises when two or more men desire

thing, which only one can possess. Hence, each will do whatever it takes to possess that object”

(FOS, 102). In this scene, the scavengers and Rick’s group desire the same thing however only

one man can possess. Negotiation in this situation failed and both used violence to get what they

want - Rick annihilated them hurriedly. Through this, both tried to do whatever it takes to

possess their desired object. The solution that they had in mind was violence. Rick decided to kill

the living even if it goes against his principles. Furthermore, the three causes of quarrel by

Hobbes can be applied. One of which can best apply in this scenario is diffidence. Diffidence, as

defined by dictionaries, is the state of lacking confidence, not feeling comfortable around people

or very careful about acting or speaking. For Hobbes, this is man’s desire for safety which entails

the use of violence to defend one’s person, family and belongings (FOS, 102). As the leader of

the group, Rick shot the two scavengers to refrain them from stealing his group’s resources for

survival.

On Randall’s faith

After a shootout, they brought a wounded scavenger, Randall, with them back to the farm

(“Triggerfinger,” 2012). The group were surprised of what happened and decides what to do with

the lone injured scavenger. They finally decided to set him free by means of placing him in a
certain place far away from the farm. However, Rick and Shane realized that Randall identified

the owners in the farm. This urged them to take Randall back to their farm again and formulated

another way to get rid of him (“18 Miles Out,” 2012). Once more, the group had a heated group

debate whereas other members demands to kill the scavenger due to the following reasons. First,

if the scavenger was set free, he might find his own group and bring them to the farm which

could result to several problems such as overthrowing the farm, forcefully steal their resources

and possibly kill them. Another, without knowing Randall’s identity, if he were to be part of the

group, he might betray them in any circumstance by means of murdering them in their sleep or

steal their supplies and escape. On the other hand, one of their members named Dale seems to

have some sense of morality wherein he opposed with the idea of killing a human person without

due process and justice (“Judge, Jury, Executioner,” 2012). Unfortunately, due to time-constraint

and uncontrollable anger, Shane settles the issue by discreetly taking him into the field and snaps

his neck.

Similar to Hobbes statement stated earlier in this paper, man is seen as naturally evil. The

group’s decision condemning a person to death without any due process and justice system just

proves man is a self-interested being. Since the situation here is in a state of anarchy, justice

system does not exist “where there is no common power, there is no law; where there is no law,

there is no justice” (FOS, 102). Moreover, the notion of diffidence is present in this situation. To

assure the safety and security, they entail the use of violence to defend the group. However, Dale

stood up and valiantly opposed to the group’s decision. He believes that killing this person is an

immoral act to which he believes that it is inhumane and makes them less of a human being. The

dialogue below is Dale’s defense in the scene.

we are saying that there is no hope. Rule of law is dead. There is no civilization”

But despite his defense, the group still talked about how they are going to kill Randall.

Others stated that they have been talking all day and they have not created another alternative for

getting rid of the scavenger. Dale furiously defends:

“Hold on! You are talking about this like it is already decided. This young man’s life is worth

more than a hundred conversations. Is this what has come to? We kill someone because we can’t

decide what else to do with them? Now look at us. He has been tortured, he is going to be

executed. How are we any better than those people8 we are so afraid of?”

Luckily, others realized that another solution must be formulated the get rid of the

scavenger. Yet, one still opposes. After the group has compromised to kill the injured scavenger,

Dale walked out and meandered into the field. Outrageously, he encountered a walker and tried

to shoot it with his rifle. Unfortunately, the walker grabbed him quickly and slaughtered Dale to

death. Dale’s death symbolizes the death of morality in the group since he was the only one who

consistently opposed in killing the injured scavenger or any other living human being and served

as the group’s moral compass throughout the series.

On Shane’s death

After he murdered Randall discreetly, he went back to the farm to announce that the lone

scavenger escaped. He hides the fact that he killed Randall and uses the scavenger’s

disappearance as a trap to get Rick alone and away from the farm. In the later confrontation,

8
What Dale meant by “people” in this statement are the walkers that caused the apocalypse.
before Shane was about to kill Rick, Rick stabs Shane to death. Unexpectedly, Shane’s corpse

revives and Carl shoots him in the head. The loud gunshot attracted nearby walkers and then

attacks the farm (“Better Angels,” 2012). The group barely escapes from the walkers invading

the farm. As Rick’s group makes camp, Rick reveals that he learned at that everyone is infected

by the virus in which all will become walkers once they die (“Beside the Dying Fire,” 2012). The

decision and performance of Shane tantamount to the idea of Hobbes about man using violence

as his way to resolve issues.

Two of the three causes of quarrel can best apply in this situation – competition and

glory. According to Hobbes, competition is the desire for gain in which it entails the use of

violence to subjugate others (FOS, 102). Competitions existed between the two wherein Shane

always wanted to overpower Rick. The conflict between the two does not only reside with the

concern for the group but also their own personal conflict wherein Shane always wanted to win

Rick’s wife and son – Lori and Carl. He cannot achieve this with Rick along the way. Ergo, his

solution is violence. As for glory, this is the desire for reputation which entails the use of

violence to attain “trifles” (FOS, 102). Shane wanted to retrieve his place as the leader of the

group but Rick was chosen by the group to lead. This drives Shane his desire for reputation.

Again, one way to attain this is the use of violence by means of killing him. This just proves that

“everything we do is motivated solely by the desire to better our own situations, and satisfy as

many of our own, individually considered desires as possible” (Encyclopedia, n.d.). To prevent

Shane from taking his family, Rick killed him. Additionally, diffidence can best apply in Rick’s

decision of killing Shane (FOS, 102). For his group and family to survive, he had to carry the

burden of killing his own best friend (“Better Angels,” 2012).

Thomas Hobbes’ view of man and state of nature. Man is naturally “evil,” a wolf unto his fellow

man and the state of nature is a state of war wherein it is the war of every man against every man

(FOS, 102). Moreover, “Hobbes took the view that man was fundamentally vicious so could

expect to live in a state of continual war of every man against every man” (LawTeacher.net,

n.d.). These can be seen through every acts of man performed in the story. Despite one of them

having a sense of morality who fight for what is morally upright, this was disregarded. This

proves that man are naturally evil which he will do what he wishes based on his own set of

preferences. In addition, Hobbes’ perspective is realistic in the sense that men are born rational

wherein they are self-centered and self-interested beings who aims to satisfy their own desire.

Furthermore, even if “each person is free to decide for herself what she needs, what she's owed,

what's respectful, right, pious, prudent, and also free to decide all of these questions for the

behavior of everyone else as well, and to act on her judgments as she thinks best, enforcing her

views where she can” (Lloyd & Sreedhar, 2012), man lives to satisfy his desires which are

insatiable. Men will always have the desire for power which cause the difference among men

(FOS, 102)

References
Loeffler, J. (2014). Cleaners. Tales of the Zombie War. Retrieved from
http://www.talesofworldwarz.com/stories/category/short-stories/
Kelly, M. (n.d.). Social Contract. About Education. Retrieved from
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/g/social_contract.htm
Law Teacher.net. (n.d.). The Social Contract Theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
Retrieved from http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/the-social-contract-
theories-of-thomas-hobbes-and-john-locke.php
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Social Contract Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
Hobbes, T. (1660). The Leviathan. Retrieved from
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html
Lloyd, S. & Sreedhar, S. (2012). Hobbes’ Moral and Political Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Revised last 2014. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-
moral/#pagetopright
The Walking Dead: The Complete Second Season. Based on the work of Robert Kirkman. Dir.
Frank Darabont. American Movie Classics (AMC). 2010.
IMDb. (2010). The Walking Dead Season 2. Retrieved from
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1520211/
AMC. (n.d.). The Walking Dead. Overview. Retrieved from http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-
walking-dead/episodes/season-2
TheWalkingDead.com. (n.d.). The Walking Dead: The story so far. Retrieved from
http://www.thewalkingdead.com/tv/the-story-tv/
FOS 102. (2015). Leviathan [PowerPoint slides].
FOS 102. (2015). On the Social Contract Theories. [PowerPoint slides].