Ethical Dilemma in World War Z Book

World War Z book wrote by Max Brooks. This book quickly clarifies about Zombie War. The writer of this book wrote about global conflict against the zombie viral attacks. In which, survivors shared their experiences living with both dead and humans. The characters in all chapters convey few examples of the worst and greatest of the human behavior. Chapter 2 Blame explaining about Individual Vs Community dilemma in which some people make a difference and give higher priority to the whole community rather than one person as far as in chapter 3 Great Panic describing the viral disease and the community war that infected people and force them to get the vaccine. After seeing, the situation of both chapters care-based strategy plays an important role to promote the ideas and let the reader make decisions between Individual Vs Community dilemma. In chapter 2 the role of Bob Archer to indicates the CIA couldnt stop the Zombie War they are just given hopes to people in China. also, everyone blamed CIA for non expecting conflict. Claiming that the large Health and Safety sweeps they were creating were the part of the dissident crackdown and not the good well-being circumstance. Additionally, Bob Archer explained that China's privacy deceives the CIA because of there the loss of intelligence resources. General Travis D Ambrosia defeated the intelligence and accepts the possibility of shifting the army, He controls it, and well he let other people know how to become a military officer. Breckinridge Scott is seen as a greedy and bad person who is prepared the counterfeit vaccine to give people harm and wants to get enough money from them. As Grover Carlson, the White House has confirmed that this problem may be calm and he was trying to keep the community safe. Mary's Miller, unlike, has been accused of similar to herself and all the Americans as risky for such informal and tender attacks. This essay Id prefer to discuss Individual Vs Community which is having toward a group of people rather than an individual. During the Crisis, In these kinds of scenarios people usually sacrifice as an individual greater cost to save a community or a group. For Example, In chapter 2 CIA chose to cover the real reasoning of many people died who were killed by Zombies to keep the community goes under a panic. In this situation, CIA chose to save the community by not saving the real danger, but it might be very dangerous to an individual who might be processing a regular life might face a danger. In a way is a good thing because they ended up saving a lot of people live by choosing not to create danger in the community. But, on the other hand, it cost lots of individuals who were not prepared for the danger they were in. In another example, CIA decision to keep the true danger hidden it might save many lives, it gave them time to create a vaccine to save many people from that disease. In my opinion, choosing a community over individuality could be seen as a good thing, but at the same time, it could injustice toward individual who might face circumstances of the situation. Can you imagine the damage it would have done to that administrations political capital (Brooks 60). that was one of the hard decision needed to be done because the panic over other diseases which was new to the people and they had no clue on how dangerous the disease could be. Which couldve to result in a big cease in the community? But on the other hand, it was an injustice for that individual who was already infected by this disease because they had no clue on how to save themselves from this harmful disease. Furthermore, In chapter 3 Great Panic, it shows that sometimes you have to sacrifice to save a community over one individual. In this chapter, when the news was spread out about the disease it caused the war in between communities and the people with the access to vaccine chose to show their power and people with the power of the vaccine made a decision based on their gender and age that will be more beneficial for them. For my point of view, sometimes, we have to make some sacrifice for a greater cause. In some situations, choosing community over individuality because it could be saving a bigger harm in the community that we are living in. In both chapters, the writer chooses the community over individuality. Within the first chapter, choosing to hide the real danger from the world might help them to save the world from ceasing. And in the second chapter choosing the individuality by spreading the reality of the disease brought the cease and war to the world. And people were forced to choose to kill their child so they could save them from becoming a prey. The relation between my chosen chapter and care-based strategy. Both chapters from the book World War Z clearly promotes the idea of care-based resolution strategy by seeing the ethical dilemma of Individual Vs Community. In both chapters, the audience is needy people and need help from the CIA. Like, how ClA in the chapter make the vaccine and try to prevent the whole community from real danger. They choose the whole community and provide them the vaccine that might help to save their kids and do not leave them for death. They chose the whole community over one individual. because, the disease was really effective and danger for the community and the group of people including kids, aged people, and many other youngsters. But the individual was only one person and if one person catches the virus the chances should be more of disease spreading. In contrast, Grover Carlson builds the example of care based strategy. In chapter 2 he was really wanted to help the people and in one of his quote, he said the duties of politicians to help humanity and save them from poverty and provide them a job. And keep trying to keep the community away from any war and harm I put myself as a human being to provide a few thought of the moral situation in our everyday lives. We make choices on a day by day premise and continuously attempt to act on them. If I briefly start my conversation on the case of one bad man and the entire community. And the protagonist incorporates solid convictions against the larger part of the individuals and try to act on it, and he is infected by the disease like becoming a racism and stopping people in the community to love each other. And continuously hurting them in other ways. If we have this kind of person in our community. we always take a step to finish the disease by making planes, get support and together stop the disease try to save others to get infected. As same as, In the chapter, they were trying to make the vaccine to save the life of community over one individual. They want to save the whole community, but if one person in the community infected by the disease. And the disease is going to viral because of that person so the community has to take a step to stop the infection and save the group of people instead of one. In conclusion, The book World War Z is a better set to explain the impulses of nature including our very own human instinct. World War Z is a super decent activity book, in which the purpose of the writer describes the Zombie viral attacks. And briefly explains the roles of the characters and their experiences during the war. Both chapters and their characters follow the rules of an ethical dilemma. like, Individual Vs Community. For instance, they made the vaccine to prevent the whole community and gives their all priorities to the community over one individual. During this, care-based resolution strategy gives company to my chosen ethical dilemma by giving such examples of kindness and humanity.

Cite this page