Santa Clarita Diet: A Deontological Analysis
What if one day you woke up and your life was completely flipped upside down? In the Netflix series, Santa Clarita Diet, a family of three experiences the unthinkable dilemma of the undead. Based in Santa Clarita, California, the show starts off with any “normal” family of three. The parents, Shelia and Joel, are realtors in the neighborhood, while their daughter, Abby, is your typical teenage high school student. However, the family doesn’t stay normal for long before Shelia’s abrupt death and resurrection to the undead world. What does it mean to be undead? Well in accordance with the show, undead means Shelia’s body is dead, but she is living in a “zombie state,” while also living as the person she always wanted to be without fear and with
…show more content…
According to deontology the goal is to fulfill the moral duty, and while doing so it will be done in good will, which is the only intrinsic good. Therefore, Shelia’s duty should not be “actions motivated by desires/emotions are self-interested” because if they were motivated by desire they would “not deserve praise” (Garcia, Slide 11). Following the deontological theory in Shelia’s perspective you have to start by creating a maxim. The maxim in the situation would be, I will commit murder when doing so will allow me to feed my desires in order to promote my personal well-being. To check the maxim, we have to check the categorical imperative and its two principles, principle of universalizability and principle of humanity. By following the Principle of Universalizability, you have to universalize the maxim. The universalized maxim would be, everyone will commit murder when doing so will allow them to feed their desires in order to promote their personal well-being. However, the universalized maxim violates both categorical imperatives, violation of contradiction and inconsistent willing. The universalized maxim would also mean violating the principle of humanity because you have to treat a human being as an end, rather than a mere end. Therefore, by following both principles in the deontological theory the maxim
According to deontology the goal is to fulfill the moral duty, and while doing so it will be done in good will, which is the only intrinsic good. Therefore, Shelia’s duty should not be “actions motivated by desires/emotions are self-interested” because if they were motivated by desire they would “not deserve praise” (Garcia, Slide 11). Following the deontological theory in Shelia’s perspective you have to start by creating a maxim. The maxim in the situation would be, I will commit murder when doing so will allow me to feed my desires in order to promote my personal well-being. To check the maxim, we have to check the categorical imperative and its two principles, principle of universalizability and principle of humanity. By following the Principle of Universalizability, you have to universalize the maxim. The universalized maxim would be, everyone will commit murder when doing so will allow them to feed their desires in order to promote their personal well-being. However, the universalized maxim violates both categorical imperatives, violation of contradiction and inconsistent willing. The universalized maxim would also mean violating the principle of humanity because you have to treat a human being as an end, rather than a mere end. Therefore, by following both principles in the deontological theory the maxim