Moral philosophy: Do Zombies Deserve Moral Consideration?

Ah zombies, I love them. I'm serious, I do, I love zombies. They're so much damn fun. Especially video games with zombies in them. Take Left 4 Dead, the simple premise is that you and three other people need to get from point A to point B and the only thing standing in your way is the festering horde of the undead, oh and you pretty much have unlimited ammunition. I could kill zombies for hours.
But, what if it really happened, what if I wake up tomorrow morning and the little girl down the street tries to rip out my jugular? Am I sure that it's morally acceptable to put a bullet in the brain of a cute little zombie girl?
Just so we're all on the same page, the type of zombie I'll be referring to (because there are many types of zombies out there) will be reanimated humans (either by a virus or by biblical Armageddon), are able to turn others to zombies upon exchange of fluids, and need to feed on living flesh in order to survive.
The first thing to consider is whether or not moral agency is a necessary condition for moral consideration (moral consideration is simply the act of deciding one's actions toward something else is right or wrong). Kant argued that morality only occurs between two parties able to understand the difference between right and wrong (oversimplification, I know). So, for Kant, only moral agents, get moral consideration. But, like with most of the crap (yes, crap) Kant said, I disagree. If we were to take Kant's criteria for moral consideration, then babies, retarded people, and animals deserved no moral consideration. Not only is this hypothetically repugnant, but it goes against our social intuition, we would not violently beat a baby, abuse the mentally challenged, or eat animals... err... I mean our pets, you know like cats and dogs. So, you don't have to have understanding of right and wrong in order to be treated in a morally responsible way.
But that leaves us with another problem, what exactly does qualify a thing to have moral consideration and more importantly... do zombies deserve moral consideration? So, let's determine the relevant qualities of a zombie.

1. They are reanimated human bodies
2. They sustain themselves by consuming flesh
3. They have little recognizable high order cognitive function
4. They are likely to try to kill you

Let's take each one of these relevant qualities and compare them to our collective social moral behavior.

1. Dead bodies, there are certainly no moral regulations regarding those, right? Wrong, there are not just social mores regarding the treatment of dead bodies, but there are laws about them. As social beings, we have a highly advanced set of rituals surrounding the treatment of dead bodies, in fact, some of the most profoundly disturbing images from inhuman actions revolve around the desecration of human bodies, i.e. the holocaust, Jack the Ripper, Jefferey Dahmer, etc. We have a sophisticated moral system in place preventing us from abusing dead bodies, let alone shooting them or smashing their heads.

2. Hmm... they eat flesh. Well, that obviously shows that they are barbaric and repugnant creatures deserving to be put down like the flesh eating monsters they are, certainly no creature with any sort of moral sensitivity whatsoever would even consider murdering another creature and consuming its flesh! The mere thought of a flesh eating, human creature being anywhere near us is enough to make one want to erect a barricade and load the shotguns.

3. From what I can tell, zombies run around and find stuff to eat and then they eat the stuff they find, the end. With the exception of a few movies, Fido and Day of the Dead, zombies are incapable of rational thought. So, are we able to treat things that lack cognitive function in whatever way we want? Well, two words come to mind Teri Shivo. Yes, remember the highly publicized and controversial woman in Florida who was a vegetable and her husband wanted to pull the feeding tube. In the end, he did kill her, but not without an enormous amount of social discourse. There are plenty of examples where we have trouble deciding how to treat living things that lack higher order cognitive functions.

4. Zombies want us dead, plain and simple, but so do lots of things like Islamic fundamentalists and serial killers, in fact there are all sorts of people who want to kill you and me. Does that give us the right to put a shotgun in their face? The answer is not just no, but hell no. One of the hallmarks of our advanced social system is our judicial system, in which those who want to collectively kill us can be handled in a way that's morally good (read: we lock them away, f.y.i. the U.S. is the only developed country that still employs the death penalty.)

So, 1. we don't desecrate dead bodies, 2. we don't kill people that eat flesh (otherwise most you out there would have to go), 3. we don't kill people who don't/can't think, and 4. we don't necessarily kill things that want to kill us.

Taking each quality of zombies on their own, it seems that they do deserves moral consideration according to our social practices. Oh, well...

But, wait, take all those qualities 1-4 and put them together... viola! Separately none of those qualities are sufficient for moral disregard, but if you put them together you have a sufficient condition for moral disregard.

And besides, they're zombies, if you see a zombie you kill it. I don't care if it's your mom, your dad, husband, wife, son, daughter, neighbor, priest, or garbageman. If you see a zombie, THEN YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO!