The Ethics of Our Combat Revive Policy
As this group is primarily composed of scientists, it is worth mentioning that the official stance of this group is that there is no such thing as a combat revive. It is our belief that anyone who can be revived, should be revived.
To properly convey this group’s policy regarding combat revives, it is first necessary to understand what the phrase combat revive means to the zombie population of Malton. Ostensibly, a combat revive is a revivification procedure performed on a zombie who did not seek it. This procedure can be performed out of malice toward the subject, as an act of self preservation, or for no reason at all. In most zombie circles, a combat revive is considered rude as the zombie in question has no interest in being a human.
From a survivor point of view, many military organizations frown on combat revives as they may lead to freerunning zombie spies and/or vandalism of important generators. Other groups view it in a more utilitarian fashion, as the simplest and most effective way to drop a zombie and clear it from a building. To be clear, while some survivors view it as unwise, the primary victim of the combat revive is generally purported to be the zombie. The issue is then one of preference and ethics rather than of practicality or strategy. It must therefore be discussed in ethical terms. Something may be considered rude if it is a breach of decorum (something that does not usually happen), if it is uncalled for (that which not rendered necessary by the situation), if it is unfairly injurious or inconvenient to the recipient, or if it is aesthetically or personally insulting.
Is combat reviving a breach of decorum? Let the frequency of the action speak to that. Most zombies of high level will attest that at several points they have been combat revived. Additionally, the largest group tag active in Malton is “dual nature” which is composed of individuals who, by definition are never looking for a revive. If revivification without prior request was not a standard occurrence, these individuals would all remain permanently zombies. Facts attest that this is not the case as several can be spotted in each suburb populating survivor-held buildings. In fact, Combat revives are not irregular and are part of the standard way in which zombies and humans in Malton interact with each other.
May they then be considered capricious or uncalled for? While surely some of them can, the majority of combat revives are performed in defense of buildings. They are a part of the survivor skill-set and are a useful and practical tool as discussed earlier. Revivification is, much like the infectious nature of a zombie bite, a tool used to slow down an opponent. In many ways, revivification is the most effective means for dealing with a zombie as some will remain survivors and others will jump out the nearest window thereby removing themselves from the building. Some zombies will rise and attack the survivors within the building, but unless there is some ethical or social injustice that can be perceived to have befallen them, this behavior puts them on even footing with motiveless PKers and therefore outside of the scope of any ration discourse on this issue.
Having seen to the first two points, it must now be discerned if a combat revive is unfairly injurious or inconvenient to the recipient. As to injurious, since the outbreak, living and dead are temporary states in the city of Malton. Living persons may jump from windows or feed themselves to zombies easily reversing their condition and zombies can be revived at many locations. Physical injury is thereby irrelevant and emotional or psychological injury will be dealt with hereafter in the section regarding insult. As to inconvenience, if a person wishes to be human and possesses a human nature, a revive would seldom if ever be inconvenient. Dual natured individuals function in much the same way, experiencing perhaps the brief disappointment of mutilatus interuptus but overall experiencing a phenomenon that is in keeping with their standard operating procedures.
There can be no doubt that it is by definition inconvenient to a zombie natured player to be revivified when in the process of murdering a scientist. Anything that prevents said zombie from the accomplishment of his or her aims would be so. It can however be said to be not unfairly inconvenient. A scientist must spend several hours in search of a syringe before a revive can occur. Said scientist must then spend five hours draining the syringe into the offending zombie, an act which consumes the syringe requiring that another be obtained. The zombie, can reverse the process in a matter of minutes. The accomplishment of a combat revive is easier in some circumstances than a physical assault but, owing to the disproportionate ease with which a zombie can kill a survivor, the relative difficulty of once more becoming human after an attack, and the further inconvenience of infection, any inconvenience said to have been experienced by a zombie upon being combat revived does not, in a utilitarian sense, seem unfair.
Fair or not, combat reviving has a well known tendency to make zombies angry, and anger, defined by Aristotle as “an impulse accompanied by pleasure towards a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight against what concerns one’s self or what concerns one’s friends”, must either be a response to a slight or insult or else it is unjustified. Is there then such a slight? In order for there to be such, there must be a lack of respect on the part of the slighter towards the slighted: a feeling evinced by the one that the other is of no or little importance. In actuality, there is generally less slight intended in a combat revive than there is a physical assault especially when performed within a Necrotech facility.
To clarify, a scientist spends time and resources in the act of performing a revive that could have been used to aid his or her allies. Though the act of a combat revive itself is more expedient than a full assault, the reason the one who performs it has the skills and equipment to accomplish this task is that they are committed to performing such acts. They become so generally out of commitment to a cause or through subscription to the ideal that many zombies want to be survivors.
Though it may be argued that some zombies clearly do not want to be survivors and that reviving them is a form of “griefing” the line is not so clear. Many zombies, even those who are part of well known zombie organizations, enjoy being human from time to time for a variety of strategic or personal reasons. Those who wish to remain a zombie need but give in to the rot virus creating a condition called BrainRot. Brainrotted zombies CAN NOT be combat revived. It is therefore questionably ethical to revive a young zombie who has not had the opportunity to explore their connection to the virus to this degree, but entirely ethical to revive a zombie who has had the opportunity but not exercised it. To further clarify, BrainRot is a choice that indicates a preference for a way of life; those without it are de-facto Dual Role if not Dual Nature so there can be no personal offense in reviving them.
Despite the apparent finality of this decision, certain individuals with BrainRot still choose to be revived; I personally know several. They indicate this preference by congregating in the only places where they can still be revived: Necrotech facilities. Since Nerotech buildings are the only facilities capable of bringing life to the Brainrotted, a zombie in a Necrotech facility with Bainrot can be assumed to be seeking a revive. Any zombie who is not, should at least be open to the possibility that they will receive one. If a revive happens, a feat which takes even more resources than a standard revivification, and the zombie who receives it becomes enraged, it is not because they have been slighted but because they are being unreasonable. If they seek revenge for the act, it is they who are slighting the researcher who revived them, and it is therefore they who are guilty of “griefing” causing them to have to forfeit the moral high-ground.
So to sum up, those who can be revived should be considered willing to be revived, and ethics demands that, as physicians and scientists, we attempt to revive them. If a zombie does not wish to be revived, they can prevent it by succumbing to Brainrot and attacking any building but a Necrotech facility. A zombie who breaks into a Necrotech facility should be revived. If they receive a revive and did not want one, they should realize that they were asking for it. If they wish to destroy the facility as part of a strategy, they may at that point, jump from a window, reenter, and kill everyone inside; such activities are within their nature. However, if they remain in the building after the massacre instead of leaving to search out a fresh source of brains, they are once more de-facto asking for a revive. To put it colloquially, a zombie in an NT building who gets angry upon being revived is like a child standing in line with money at an ice cream parlor who gets mad when given ice cream. This I believe clarifies the stance of this organization
-- Albert Schwan
|
