Please post your half page ethical review of a film of your choice on this prompt sometime before July 8. There is no class next week for Canada Day. And just a reminder for presenters on July 8, please e-mail me your paper the evening before you present in class.
Enjoy the break.
Written by Jody Picoult Directed by Nick Cassavetes Released on June 26, 2009
Based on the book of the same name, My Sister’s Keeper tells the story of 13-year-old Anna Fitzgerald whose birth was deliberately “designed” so she would be a perfect genetic match to her sister, Kate. Kate is dying from leukemia and her parents hope that the blood from Anna’s umbilical cord will keep Kate alive, which it does. As time goes on and Anna grows up she finds herself in the hospital again and again to undergo procedures like blood transfusions and bone marrow transplants. Finally, when she is expected to donate a kidney to Kate, Anna sues her parents for medical emancipation so she can make her own decisions about these medical procedures. This film is a veritable cornucopia of ethical questions and questionable ethic:
- Anna is conceived for the purpose of saving another child. Anna’s parents say they had planned on having a third child before they knew Kate was sick but they didn’t move ahead on that plan until they were aware that a designer baby might save Kate. Does the fact that Anna was genetically engineered to be a perfect match for Kate change the ethics around their decision to have another child? They say they would have had a third child even if Kate wasn’t ill or had died, so isn’t making sure the baby is a match just making Anna’s life count for mare than it would have otherwise?
- The film doesn’t really address the ethics surrounding scientific procedures such as genetic engineering but the debate roars on as to where this slippery slope might lead. If you can genetically alter a child for medical purposes why not for aesthetics, or gender, sexual orientation, or athletic ability?
- The Fitzgerald’s have a child with leukemia. As responsible parents are they morally bound to use any means necessary to try and save her? Even if that amounts to using their other daughter as a means to an end? Even if the result is that the younger daughter often ends up in the hospital feeling just as awful as her sister does? How does one determine if the possibility of saving one child outweighs taking away the childhood of another? Or of putting both daughters’ lives a risk?
Anna also has a bother, Jesse, who, because he isn’t ill or a good genetic match for Kate, is entirely ignored by his parents. What are the responsibilities of the Fitzgerald’s to their other children? When Jesse acts out by lighting buildings on fire they are too involved in the drama around the girls to pay much attention – even though his father is a fireman and people’s lives could be at stake. As a fireman, what are the father’s responsibilities to the community? [continued in next entry]
- Should the parents of a young child expect that child to do whatever they tell her to do with her body? Is it ethical to cite developmental maturity as the reason why she is not able to make her own decisions about her own body? If she refuses to co- operate can, or should, her parents force her in the name of the greater good?
- The lawyer in the story also faces some ethical decisions when he takes Anna’s case. She is just 13 years old, is it right for him to use client/lawyer privilege and keep Anna’s activities and thoughts from her parents? How does he know that she’s mature enough to be fully aware of what she’s doing and the possible repercussions?
- Anna’s mother is an ex-lawyer who decides to represent herself and her husband in the lawsuit even though she is hardly impartial. While acting as a lawyer on the case she tries, several times, to use her privilege and power as a mother to make Anna drop the lawsuit – and in doing so, goes against her husband’s, and so her client’s, wishes in the process.
- Her mother’s badgering gets to the point where Anna has to move out with a supposedly impartial court appointed guardian; but the guardian has had a relationship with Anna’s lawyer in the past and, as the story unfolds, becomes involved with him again. Neither the guardian nor the lawyer discloses their relationship to the court or the lawyer for the defence (Anna’s mother) even though the guardian is privy to confidential interaction between Anna and her mother (when the mother is acting as a mother rather than a lawyer).
- In court, after it comes out that it was Kate who asked Anna to file the lawsuit against their parents (she doesn’t want the surgery either) the judge rules in favour of Anna and appoints her lawyer as her medical guardian. As her lawyer drives Anna home they’re in a car accident and Anna is left brain dead. Despite the ruling, and what both Anna and Kate clearly wanted, the lawyer allows the kidney transplant to go ahead and Anna’s other organs are harvested for future needs. The surgery is successful and Kate lives, but was the lawyer’s decision ethical? His decision was against the court order and his client’s wished but, at the same time, how could it be right to let both daughters die? There are no answers in this film just as there are no pat answers to these dilemmas in real life. And while the film doesn’t address all the ethical questions involved in a direct way, or take us to the emotional depths one would suffer in real life, we do see the characters wrestle with some of the decisions they must make. And whether we’re for or against stem cell research or designer babies, parent’s rights, children’s rights, or any of the other aspects of this story, the film does remind us that the ethics involved are bound up with love, need, fear, hope and all the other emotions that make us human.
I would like to relate the classic spy film, starring Pierce Brosnan, of GOLDENEYE to Rawls Contractarianism. Here we have two former co-workers fignting over a key central theme. Where the Protagonist is dedicated to his role as a spy agent in the international world of espionage. This dedication puts him against his former partner by his beliefs. The Antagonist faked his death to leave that career and pursue more personal monetary gains at the expense of others. The film also has plenty of evidence of other unethical behaviors like taking pictures of a person in secret without their permission. In the movie the Protagonist is committed to the representation of his country, in this case England, for the overall benefit of his people. All of the actions that he takes are funded by those same peoples government. He is making moral decisions on a daily basis that recquires thinking about doing the correct thing for the greatest number of people. At one point he is able to use his connections to research a license plate of a car that is registered in a country other than his own.This is a sign that he is given power for his following of a moral value that is the backbone of his profession. The amount of trust given to him by other nations is relative to that given to him by his own nation. The Antagonist did not believe in this profession and the added benefit of it to the people of his country. He turned his back on it to pursue his own interests.These interests (pursuits of large sums of money) comes to benefit only a few while resulting in the loss of life for many individuals. Loss of life of the innocent goes directly against any good moral system. The use of deception by not showing your real motivations to the people you serve is another. In Contractarianism it is necessary to put aside personal intersts, desires, and interest for the purpose of recognizing and doing the right thing. We need to be able to recognize and cope with how we may have advantages over others. In the film the use of poltical power to gain personal profits that results in loss of innocent people is shown. I think that the conflict highlighted by this movie symbolizes how we must act in an empathetic way towards people in society in order for it to be successful. It also shows the tragedy that can occur if we act selfishly.
Title: Freedom Writers Release Date: 5 January 2007 Director: Richard LaGravenese
I have chosen Freedom Writers as the movie I will write an ethical review about. There are two points I want discuss first, Erin the teacher played by Hillary Swank becomes so involved with her students and their success that her life and marriage suffers. I want to look at this from Plato’s perspective in that to be an ethical person we must rationally control our emotions. Despite Erin’s noble intentions according to Plato she is acting immorally and his proof would be that her acting on her emotions and becoming obsessed with her students has led to the demise of her marriage. This activity has caused her soul to be put off balance and as a result her life is out of her control. Plato calls this virtue temperance, one could say Erin is lacking in temperance and therefore her soul is suffering.
The second point I want to make is when Mr. Whitebread asks his one African American student to provide “the black perspective” on a story they are studying. Looking at this from Kant’s categorical imperative the teacher wants to have a spokes person for a different race without having to think too hard, he is considering the maxim that every time a person is a visible minority in any situation they are to be called upon and singled out to speak for their minority. The universal maxim would be that we must always single out a minority to speak for their people. It would be unacceptable to make this into a universal law because that would mean everybody at one time or another in their life would be put on the spot and ostracized for appearing differently and become the spokesperson for their race regardless of what culture or ethnicity they identify with or consider themselves. In light of Kant’s perspective Mr. Whitebread was acting unethically.
Twilght of the Golds (1997) is a movie about a young Jewish couple expecting their first child. The father is a genetic researcher who is mapping the human genome, and the completion of his research project coincides with his wife finding out that she is pregnant. The Director of the research project convinces the father to run a full genetic sequence on the fetus to screen for genetic diseases. The results of the genetic testing indicate that the child does not carry the marker for any known genetic diseases, is completely healthy, will demonstrate above average intelligence, and has a 90% probability of being gay.
The first ethical issue is whether or not to test in the first place. A decision is quickly made to proceed with testing without a careful examination of the inherent ethical dimensions. The Ethics of Care suggests that we also have a duty to prepare a person for the emotional and psychological implications of genetic test results, (i.e. The right to be informed) and to give consideration to how our decisions will impact others. I question whether we have sufficiently trained counselors to help individuals make informed choices.
Divine Command theory suggests that God dictates what is morally right. Absolutism suggests that what is wrong is always wrong and what is right is always right. If God says, “Thou Shall Not Kill”, then abortion is morally wrong. However, if God also says that homosexuality is morally wrong then which principle do we uphold? Relativism suggests that what is right or wrong depends on the situation, time, place and persons involved. In the movie, each character brings a unique worldview to the debate of whether or not to end the pregnancy. The expectant mother’s brother is gay, her father and mother are homophobes who in the course of the movie disclose their complete distain for their own son’s “lifestyle choice”. “I think you are depraved and diseased and if there was a cure I would want you to be cured,” says the father to his gay son. Peripheral characters inject their own personal stories which influence the mother’s decision making process, including: a friend who is gay-bashed in front of the expectant mother, a close friend who is unable to conceive a child, and a father-in-law who is a holocaust survivor and abhors his son’s decision to use his medical training to work as a geneticist instead of a “healer”.
The characters must grapple with religious beliefs, discrimination, the rights of minorities, and abortion without moral agreement on higher order principles. Who gets to decide the value of each of the traits that make up our species? The holocaust-surviving father-in-law, the gay brother and his boyfriend each present their arguments through the lens of Enlightened Self-Interest, (we should not do to others what we don’t want done to us) with each character making a clear case against aborting the child. Also, from a feminist perspective, it could be argued that those who are most vulnerable to our choices deserve additional consideration in proportion to the degree that they are affected by our choices. In terms of strengthening relationships, the gay brother says it best, “we are all a tapestry, and if you start to pull out the colours that you dislike the whole thing falls apart.”
The movie scratches the surface on number of important and relevant issues related to genetic testing that we will face in our lifetime:
• Is it ethical to test for a disease when no cure or treatment is available? • Should we test in childhood (or in utero) for diseases that will not manifest themselves until adulthood or old age? • Can we be denied access to health coverage because we test positive for the genetic marker of a particular disease? • Will future generations be further stratified according to their genetic make-up? • What are the implications regarding the commodification of human genes by biotech companies (human genes, their tests and treatments can be patented)
This film is full of ethical debates that the different characters are forced to deal with. Each character has at least one ethical decision that they are forced to make throughout the film. The main and overarching issue in the film is that of racism. The characters come from many different racial, cultural, and socio-economic backgrounds which affect the way that they view and treat people of other races. We see this at numerous points throughout the film including at the start when a latina police office tells an asian lady that “maybe you see over the steering wheel” that there would not have been an accident. The characters in the film seem to believe that the problems that they are all facing are directly related to their race. This is seen even in the more affluent caucasian household where the woman complains that she cannot turn to walk the other way when she feels uncomfortable on the street because she would be viewed as a racist. When viewing the film through this ethical lens, I began to think of contractual ethics. The goal of contractarianism is to create a state of equality and justice for all. Furthermore, the theory states that we cannot make decisions without considering our own personal biases. In my opinion, if the characters of the film followed contractual ethics, many of the problems that arise in the film would not take place. One situation that is particularly poignant in this film is the scenes between the caucasian male police officer and the black female. During their first encounter he makes an ethical decision where he does not consider her feelings. During this encounter, he molests her in front of her husband and his partner. The next day, he comes across a car accident. In a flipped over car is that same women who has just left after fighting with her husband about the previous evening. In this second encounter, he does what is right and makes the decision to put her safety ahead of his own and does what it takes to save her. Another character who undergoes an ethical shift is the affluent caucasian women that was mentioned earlier. In the beginning she mentions feeling unsafe when she comes across African American people on the street and expresses her anger as to the fact that she cannot simply turn and walk away from them. She also treats her hispanic housekeeper as if she is a second rate citizen. After falling down the stairs she realizes that she has no real friends, and the only person who comes to her aid is her housekeeper. Overall, this film has many different ethical issues and I truly suggest that people watch it again through this ethical lens. Many of the characters in the film go through changes in their ethics in the film, some of the best and others for the worst. Many of the people begin only looking out for themselves, but begin a paradigm shift towards looking at the big picture and helping the greater good of society.
DOUBLE INDEMNITY is notable for many reasons. The film was directed by Billy Wilder and the screen-play was written by Wilder and Raymond Chandler. Also, it stars Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck and Edward G. Robinson. The movie is considered to be a "film noir" classic. Also, there are many important ethical issues in the film.
First, there are the ethics of insurance (in a sense, the ethics of capitalism). Should an insurance salesperson sell people products they don’t need—at a profit to the company—with only comparatively little expense to the customer?
Second, there is the issue of love. Should a person (in this case, Barbara Stanwyck’s character Phyllis Dietrichson) stay in a loveless relationship? How closely should one adhere to societal standards regarding legally recognized romantic relationships?
Finally, there is the ethics of friendship as depicted in DOUBLE INDEMNITY. This film is an amazing depiction of the pleasures and perils of what it means to be a friend. Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) and Barton Keyes (Edward G. Robinson) are fellow employees at an insurance agency. Keyes is Neff’s superior. Walter decides to collaborate on a “perfect murder” with Phyllis. Keyes has what he calls “my little man”—a kind of stomach ache that tells him when something is amiss with an insurance claim. Although he knows that something is wrong with the Dietrichson claim, he does not know that his colleague is responsible. At the end of the film Neff tells Keyes that Keyes could not account for the murder because the perpetrator was “Right across the desk” from him. Keyes responds with the incredible line: “Closer than that Walter.”
DOUBLE INDEMNITY makes the following important ethical claims: crime does not pay, life is worth more than money, and that certain ethical responsibilities trump friendship. I cannot recommend this film highly enough. A formal masterpiece, it is also an astonishing contribution to ethics and ethical philosophy.
When the idea of reviewing a film for ethics came up the first film that popped into my head was Terry Gillian’s Brazil. Gillian’s future is like a Dickens Victorian visions on LSD in which the thinning crust of aristocrats manage to cling to the top of a vast majority of starving or destitute masses. These aristocrats are moved purely by self interest with a preoccupied with plastic surgery and media persona, not unlike our own current reality. This system is maintained by a draconian and extremely violent police state mechanism that is ran by a grotesquely obese bureaucracy all justified seemingly by a blind belief in the “Greater good” The state machinery gone wrong argues the case of an absolute ideal society and the danger of myopic possibilities in Plato’s republic. I also see the ethos of deontology in conflict with a social contract that rationalizes self-interest above all as a way to ignore the horrific realities through justified egoism. The film Brazil brazenly lays out its moral position in the first five minutes When asked why terrorists have been entrenched in a 13-year bombing campaign, the deputy director responds confidently “Bad sportsmanship, They have forgotten the good old moral virtue of letting the other guy win” With that legendary director enters into one of the most horrific Orwellian visions of a possible future envisioned in the 1980’s and doesn’t miss the mark of our modern times by much. The story unfolds as our protagonist, an ambitionless everyman, Sam Lowry the son of a well connected socialite sidesteps advancement in the state run bureaucratic machinery known as information retrieval, (a sort of CIA on steroids) to hide away in records until the blind self interest pulls him into the heart of a terrorist plot.
Sam Lowery is motivated purely by self-interest. He is calmly complacent to the realities of his surroundings until it affects him. First his air conditioning goes on the fritz and then he falls in love. The first problem is solved by the movies hero a Harry Tuttle, a renegade-heating engineer, who can no longer bear the moral cost of serving the mechanism of the state, for his driven by a deep sense of duty to do his job. So he goes against the greater good in a Kantian way see past the tyranny and perform his duty. His intentions are portrayed in the film to be beyond anything other than it is the right thing to do. Demonstrating the need for good men to stand for their beliefs in the face of tyranny and oppression. (Robert Deniro as Tuttle makes the virtuous hero even that much more convincing.) Lowery, progressing becomes enthralled in the actions of a young woman he has dreamed of and the film takes a nod, to Descartes, as the dreams Lowery has been having, come to life. Lowery even remarks that, “he dreams there fore it can be real”, not unlike Descartes famous axiom. But it is the lack of righteousness in his motivations that leads Lowery to a dark end. (Spoiler Warning) I can see so many ethical arguments in this film that I could have stretched into as essay. Overall I find that it leads into the questions around what we ethically see as vital in a society in maintaining “THE GREATER GOOD” and who gets to decide and what if they are wrong, ethically.
It took me a while to decide which movie I was going to watch for this assignment. At first I was going to watch a movie called _Crimes and Misdemeanors_, a Woody Allen film I watch in my first year philosophy class (when we were talking about ethics). I also considered watching a classic Disney movie, _Inglourious Basterds_, _Drop Dead Gorgeous_, _Taxi Driver_, etc. I asked people what movies they thought might be good, movies that had some real issues. I started watching a movie I’ve seen before—just for fun—and started to recognize ethical issues in it. I realized I could really watch any movie I wanted, that ethical issues pervade our society and that discussing ethics with our students is something I’ve become to believe we are almost morally obligated to do! But I digress. The movie I ended up watching was _Sybil_, a made-for-TV movie starring Sally Field and Joanne Woodward. It’s based on a true story about a young woman who lived through an abusive childhood and developed 16 personalities to cope with the torment of the abuse. Woodward plays Field’s psychiatrist, Dr. Wilbur, who works with Sybil over several years until she is finally cured. There are two ethical issues I would like to discuss in regard to the film: 1) professional confidentiality and boundaries and 2) the need to report suspicious behaviour. I got tuned into the idea of confidentiality and boundaries early in the film when Dr. Wilbur first takes Sybil as a patient. Dr. Wilbur is walking with another woman, talking about Sybil’s case. I wondered, isn’t this breaking confidentiality? We learn that the other woman is Dr. Wilbur’s mentor, and this is where the ethical line blurs. It would seem as though she is breaking the patient/doctor confidentiality, but she is doing so to seek guidance and advice from another doctor. Throughout the film, I see Dr. Wilbur following Mill’s utilitarianism: whatever she does is for the greater good, namely the good of Sybil. For example, there is another time when the doctor breaks the confidentiality when Sybil (acting as one of her personalities, Marcia) is suicidal. Sybil’s neighbour is there and the doctor tells him about Sybil’s condition so he may handle the situation and save Sybil’s life. Dr. Wilbur’s utilitarian views seem to mix with other ethical issues, specifically in regard to her close relationship with one of Sybil’s personalities, Peggy. Peggy is a little girl and every time she visits the doctor she asks to sit in the big chair with the doctor and to rest her head on the doctor’s chest. Objectively, this violates major boundary issues, but viewers can tell the doctor is actually has Sybil’s best interest in mind since a great deal of Sybil's issues stem from the fact that she had an utter lack of love and affection in her life; also, their relationship lasted over 11 years and obviously involved a great deal of trust.
The second ethical issue I would like to discuss is Socrates’s idea that “being good is its own reward” and that we should be concerned with our own ideas of ourselves (having a “balanced soul”) rather than our perceived reputations. Throughout Sybil’s childhood, there were many people who could have recognized she was being abused. For example, her father turned a blind eye to her injuries and odd phobias and believed everything the mother said. In a scene where Sybil gets her tonsils out, she begs a young doctor to take her away from her parents and he says, "I can't." Can't what, exactly? Be bothered to go through the process of reporting the abuse? Risk making such an accusation against an established family in the community? Her family doctor, as well, tells Dr. Wilbur he treated a very young Sybil once for a bladder infection and saw signs of sexual abuse, though he reported it to no one. It is the responsibility of everyone—not just teachers—to report such suspicious behaviours. For me, this goes with the idea of being good is its own reward because, in this case, not being good (i.e. ignoring evidence of abuse) resulted in the family doctor, even years and years later, wondering how he could be absolved for his actions. This is a great movie and I would recommend it to anyone. Mostly, the acting is amazing. Sally Field IS Sybil Dorsett (and Peggy and Vicky and Vanessa and Marcia and…). Another really interesting thing I thought about while watching is how a lot of evil things were done to Sybil in the name of god: her mother used god to threaten Sybil and locked her in a box in the shed so she would learn the way god wanted her to act, and her father didn’t want to allow her to see Dr. Wilbur and get better because the church didn’t believe in therapy. It seems like some of the more radical religions can definitely get away from the 5(ish) core values we saw to be consistent over all religions.
“Nothing but the Truth” is loosely based on various true stories that relate to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The central character, Rachel Armstrong, is a journalist who works for a Washington newspaper. She is married to Raymond a novelist, and they have a young son named Timmy. Timmy’s elementary school classmate is called Alison. Alison is the daughter of a woman called Erica Van Doren. In the opening scene we see Rachel sitting on a school bus. Next to her is Alison and behind her is Timmy. Timmy berates Alison because she tattled on someone. Timmy tells Alison: “You’re not supposed to tattle” To which Rachel replies: “But you’re not supposed to put up with bullies either”. This is the underlying premise of the movie. Rachel has written a story that identifies Government misconduct on a major scale. In the story Rachel names a covert CIA operative. The CIA operative happens to be Erica. Rachel is brought before the Grand Jury and acting on her journalistic principles, she refuses to name the primary source for her story. There are many consequences for Rachel’s decision not to name her source. Firstly, when the story runs, Erica is exposed, and her life is ruined. She is hounded by the media, and her child has to leave town for the sake of personal safety. Erica is murdered by an extremist, so she pays for Rachel’s decision with her life. Secondly, Rachel goes to jail and then to prison because by not naming her source she is found to be in contempt of court. Rachel’s actions protect her source, her integrity, her journalistic principles and society’s right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Rachel sacrifices her marriage, time with her son, her job and her freedom to stand behind her principles. Her actions demonstrate virtues such as honour and courage. From Rachel’s perspective the choice not to reveal her source is a virtuous one. She’s doing the right thing. By acting on her principles Rachel protects the rights of one individual (her source) and the larger interests of society and democratic freedom. Her source has the right to expose government misconduct which in turn means government is accountable to its’ citizens. Society has the right to know what its government is doing. Therefore Rachel’s actions serve the greater good. On the other hand, Rachel’s husband and son pay part of the price of Rachel’s refusal to name her source because her courage and principles come at great personal cost to them. From their perspective, Rachel's decision may not be a virtuous one.
Sideways, directed by Alexander Payne, is a film set in California wine country. In contrast to the beautiful setting, themes of unethical behaviour run throughout the film as the lives of two middle-aged friends become entangled in webs of lies and deceit. Miles, a depressed English teacher trying to get his novel published, and his pal Jack, a womanizing actor, travel to Napa Valley for ‘one last week of freedom’ before Jack’s pending nuptials. Miles believes that the trip will allow the friends to play some golf, drink good wine, and eat good food before Jack becomes tied down to his new bride. Jack, on the other hand, soon makes it clear that he intends to have sex prior to getting hitched.
In Jack’s mind, it is ethically permissible to engage in extracurricular sex while engaged. He feels obliged to sow his oats before tying the knot, when in his mind it would no longer be permissible to sleep with someone else. Jack believes that he is doing his fiancée a favor by getting this out of his system before they are wedded. The issue of infidelity serves as a divisive force during the pair’s road trip as Miles takes issue with what he views as adulterous intentions on Jack’s part. Ultimately Jack does meet a woman at a winery, Stephanie, and proclaims his love for her as they spend most of the week together. Near the end of the week Stephanie finds out that Jack is engaged and promptly breaks his nose and ends the relationship. Unmoved, Jack picks up a waitress at dinner the following night only to be caught in the act with her by her husband. Miles appears to be the more ethical of the two main characters, however later we find out that he too cheated on his first wife, he steals from his aged mother, and he lies throughout the film. In the end the pair’s lies catch up with them and they each come to see the error of their ways.
One of the many ethical issues at stake in Sideways is that of what constitutes adultery. Jack contends that it isn’t cheating if you aren’t yet married, while Miles insists that engagement constitutes sufficient grounds for adultery to have occurred. In my opinion one simply needs to have outside relations while in a committed relationship, even if not married or engaged, to be an adulterer. According to Kant’s categorical imperative that states we ought to act in accordance with that which we would wish to be a universal law, Jack’s behaviour can only be judged as immoral. In no way would we want a universal law that supports all engaged people participating in sexual relations outside of their relationships. Moreover, Mill would also object to Jack’s behaviour (and Miles’ deception) on the Utilitarian grounds that while “an individual lie may cause more immediate happiness than harm to those directly affected by it, the long-range consequence will be more overall harm than there was immediate happiness” (77). Essentially, if everyone engaged in lies then society will suffer as people could not trust one another. As such, the deceitful behaviour depicted in the film could not be supported by Utilitarianism either.
Western film tells the story of Civil War United States Army lieutenant (Kevin Costner). The ethical value starts with an army individual injured in the battle and his leg to be amputated, as seeing many soldiers with amputated legs and realized that he is going to be no good in fighting pushed him to commit suicide. He stole a horse and ran away from the hospital to no man's land between the two armies (Union and Confederate). This action considered as great action and his officials to honor him as a hero as an army ethic is there even with misleading action. The ethical mood for centuries in American society as conflict with natives (Indians), as the soldier lost his group in the land of Indians, so nobody can go and find out what happened to him. So lonely soldier tried to get to Sioux neighbors (Indians). Here is an essential change in his army ethics towards the Indians. In his way to them, he found a white lady (Mary McDonnell) she just slit her wrists in a suicide attempt, and took her to the Indian camp to treat her. Her is another ethical misleading that the lady is white and lost her husband but she was afraid that the soldier would take her back to the white community in which she did not want as she is adapted by Indian leader and she was living with them. At the same time there is dramatic change in the ethics of Indians towards US Army individuals as the soldier brought the lady for treatment as he gained their attitude and established good relationship with them and the white lady translated between him and the Indians. The soldier has been drawn by Indian's lifestyle and customs and he was looking forward to their company, he became a hero between them and accepted as honored guest but not one of them in which the ethical conflict between Indians and US Army individual is there to prevent complete trust of actions and accept the soldier as one of them and they refused to take him to fight with them against the Pawnee tribe. Instead they left him behind to take care of the families. He falls in love with the white lady but her recent death of her husband pushed them to keep the relationships secret as for the Indians ethics. The Indians fight took long time and the soldier in a volunteer action used the army store and got all the stockpile of rifles to help them defend their camp which helped him meeting their ethics and accept him as a full-fledged member. After that he could marry the white lady. At this point there is a change in the soldier's ethics as he told the Indians that the US army will continue to invade their land (ethical change from self defending to invade their land). The soldier decide to find his diary and returned to the outpost which is occupied by the US army and since the soldier was dressed in Indians wears and he could not been recognized by the army, so they shoot him and injured him and the soldiers of the US army beat him and took time to recognize him. After that they decided that he is a traitor and suppose to be punished but he has been rescued by the Indians. There is clear and long mislead ethical conflict here as the US army ethics still does not trust and accept Indians as people you can live with them. When the soldier returned with the Indians to the camp, he told them that the US army will follow him as a deserter and murderer in which will endangering the tribe and is good to move away from them, this is a change in ethical value to the people who saved him and accepted him as a member. The ethical values of this movie is to make and trust animal as his horse and the wolves, and the soldier's barbarism could be changed when being in many difficult moments of life, the value of the freedom, and finally it shows the two sides; the US army side and Indians side and how they can be changed to meet the humanity clean souls and live together in peace.
Many comedies derive their humour by posing exaggerated ethical dilemmas. The interplay between competing belief systems is used to set up the conflict between an antagonist and protagonist, and this interplay is repeated many times in the movie CADDYSHACK. Caddyshack takes this concept a bit further by having several characters all in competition with the antaganoist, Judge Smails, a man who doesn’t appear to have any ethical system at all. Such absurdity is part of Caddyshack’s charm and humour.
Danny Noonan is one of the main characters in Caddyshack, and the movie is loosely centered around his desire to enter university and needing a scholarship to do so. Danny follows the ideals of Aristotle, whereby he tries to follow a set of virtue ethics while maintaining his own personal development. He demonstrates this on several occasions where he turns away from personal desires in order to follow a path that doesn’t necessarily give him immediate or obvious benefit (his affair with Lacey Underall being the obvious exception). Another main character is Al Czervik, a second protagonist that in many ways is the opposite of Danny. Al is decidedly utilitarian, whereby despite his sometimes ignorant and obnoxious behavior, his actions tend to promote happiness in both himself and others around him. Al is unafraid to break club rules in an effort to progress his personal agenda. However, he is also astute enough to realize that his actions are generally appreciated by those around him.
The struggle between ethic systems comes to a head near the end of the movie. On a personal level, Danny is presented with a dilemma and a choice to make. He can sink a putt to win a tournament, which is the action that a deontologist would take. On the other hand, he can purposely miss the putt which would have immediate benefits to himself. Furthermore, by missing the putt it is possible that the greatest amount of happiness would be achieved. Perhaps a utilitarian would actually miss the putt on purpose. Danny chooses to sink the putt, an action that is congruent with his virtue ethics.
I searched for many ways in which I could bring Carl Spackler, Bill Murray’s character, into this analysis. However, I reflected upon the idea that a person needs to use knowledge in order to be ethical, as ethics requires rational thought. It therefore makes sense that Carl is difficult to relate to ethics, as he is a completely irrational character. He is not devoid of a belief system though, as there are suggestions that he is a follower of Buddhism. Carl is happy with his lot in life, undoubtedly due to the fact that the Dalai Lama granted Carl “total consciousness.” As Carl says in the movie, this is a gift “which is nice.”
I chose the film Gattaca (1997) starring Ethan Hawk and Uma Thurman for my movie review. Gattaca focuses on a society that promotes physical perfection. Moments after birth a child’s blood is tested to determine probable life expectancy and possible health issues. The results of these tests determine each person’s social, educational and employment opportunities for the rest of their life. Ethan Hawk plays Vincent who is one of the last naturally conceived babies born into this society. The preferred method of conceiving a child is through genetic pre-selection of optimal embryos to ensure future parents the preferred gender of child, as well as height and other desirable physical attributes. Vincent’s dreams of space travel are hampered by the probability of developing a heart condition at some point in his life. Seeking to fulfill his dreams, he buys the identity of Jerome, a man who has superior genes but has been disabled in an accident. Using Jerome’s blood and urine, he passes countless genetic tests while applying and working at the Gattaca Corporation, as he strives to fulfill his life ambition of traveling to space. I really like this movie as it parallels many ethical issues our society is facing today. One such issue is genetic pre-selection. Currently in Canada there is the ability for fertilization specialists to identify the gender of embryos. This practice is currently banned except for use to avoid gender specific hereditary diseases such as hemophilia. Another accepted practice of genetic screening is amniocentesis, a test done to determine if a fetus has Down Syndrome or other genetic anomalies. Women are then asked if they want to continue the pregnancy or abort. Another service available to people is to use a sperm donor. When looking for a donor, prospective parents are given a list of the donor’s medical background including any major health issues of his siblings as well as parents. Also you can choose by hair colour, eye colour, height, weight and other physical attributes as well as cultural and religious background, and educational achievements. Prospective parents can use this information to aid in creating their “perfect child”. How different are we from the society portrayed in Gattica?
I’m sorry my summary of Traitor: The Truth is Complicated starring Don Cheedle and Guy Pearce is going to blow the ending. It’s a great movie. Maybe watch it, and then come back to my commentary.
The movie begins with a Muslim, Sudanese boy saying his prayers. He looks out the window to see his father, a spiritual leader, being blown up in a car bomb. The next scene is the man that boy became selling arms in Yemen to a terrorist group trying to free its people from American oppression. He gets caught by a joint force of Yemenis and American forces while conducting the transaction. He is taken to a Yemenis prison where he is contacted by both the FBI and another terrorist group. The FBI tries to manipulate him saying that they know he is not a “fanatic” and the terrorist group wants him to prove that he is not a traitor. The tug-of-war between sides continues for the rest of the movie.
In the prison, we begin to see the man’s, Samir’s, character. His faith is very strong. It guides him through difficult situations. He will not stand by and allow injustice. For example, a man is bullied out of his food in jail, so Samir offers his. The bully threatens Samir saying that the bully gets to decide who lives and dies in the jail. Samir answers, “It is up to God to decide who lives and dies.” We also find out that Samir is caught between cultures: his father was Sudanese and his mother was American. A fellow inmate, Omar, asks him what language he dreams in and he replies that it is in English. This divide intensifies his conflict in the tug-of-war between the Muslim and American influences.
Both sides ask him to compromise his values. The terrorist group leader forces him to drink alcohol to prove that he can follow orders. He is told to prepare a 17 year old boy to be a suicide bomber. He tries to get the boy out of the situation by saying that he’s not old enough to handle the mission. The leader undermines Samir’s request to remove the boy. Samir is devastated when the boy is killed because he fails his mission. To save the mission, he offers to set up a remote detonation of the American consulate in Nice. At this point in the movie, we begin to see that the Americans are pulling his strings as well. His US contact helps him set-up the bombing with fake consulate employees. Even with American support, Samir still kills six unintended victims. He says at one point in the movie, “I have made choices with peoples’ lives and I have to live with that.” He tells his American handler that the handler sounds no different than the terrorists. The handler replies, “Yeah, but we’re the good guys.”
Samir changes the terrorist’s plan to attack the United States resulting in only 30 or so deaths instead of hundreds. The FBI agent who has been trying to uncover Samir’s life throughout the movie meets with him at the very end of the movie to thank him. The agent tells him that his record has been wiped clean and that he is a free man. Samir says that he can never be free after what he has done: “The Koran says if you kill an innocent person, it’s as if you have killed all mankind.” The agent responded with “It also says that if you save one life, it’s as if you have saved all mankind.”
There is a disturbing trend in the way females are portrait in children’s movie. In most cases there are very few female. The Lion King, Ice age, Finding Nemo, UP, Monsters Inc, Toy Story are a few examples of children’s movies with few female characters. If one was to eliminate those females whose primary role was a shadow character for a male you will likely eliminate all of them. Is this what we want our children to see. I decided to take a closer look at how women are portrayed in the movie Cars. The first thing I noticed about the female characters is how few of them there are. By counting only the characters that talked, including characters that only had one line, there were 80 males and only 16 females. Most female characters are there support or enhance a male character. One third of the female characters are nothing more than show girls with large feather headdresses. These are simply there to decorate the sponsor tent of one all male racing teams. The other 10 Females in this movie also have other stereotypical roles. The stereotypes addressed include the crazy old woman who repeatedly talks to herself Some of these seem more objects than anything else. The objectification of women in this movie comes through in many other places. The most obvious example of objectification occurs at the meeting of the main male and main female character. In this dialogue the male character states “ all you have to do is stand there and let me look at you.” Even in the bonus material there is an advertisement for a gas station that has “convertible waitresses. I guess this means they can go topless. This is followed by a sketch of an attractive looking sports car. This suggestion of convertible being sexy is interesting when you look at the obsessed fans. The fans of the main character include a couple of young twin females. In order to increase the desirability they are made as small, red, convertible sports cars. This seems to be working because when they introduce themselves Mc Queens reply is I love being me, he also fantasizes living in his pent house with these same twins. Later these twins switch to a different male idol. This male then uses this switch to make his rival upset. This same male wins the race and asks bring on the confetti, where are the girls. Apparently winning gives you girls as prizes. With the poorly developed character these twins are nothing more than objects. This leaves 6 females over. Two of these were one line news reporters and one news reporter that actually appears more than once. She has no name and we are given no information into her life. The last three characters include the most disturbing one. One female minivan shows traits addressed by John Stewart. This female shows signs of obedience and submission. Her husband refuses to ask for directions. When one car tries to share a route with them she states “Oh do you now,” with a genuine interest. Her husband shushes her by simply telling her “No, Mini” His tone of voice similar to that used to control a dog. In this same couple the female also shows submission by always driving behind her man. It is with pure dog like faith she continues following her husband even at the end where he has obviously lost his mind. This also supports Stewart’s idea of low intelligence in women in society. The last two women are the most-well developed characters. One is an ex lawyer who now owns a motel. The other female is an ex R&B artist who gave up her dream and her life for a man she falls in love with and now runs a 50’s gas station (that was in the bonus features). Neither of these characters undergo significant life changes or realizations, nor do they go on any adventures. Why children’s movies don’t address the need for well developed female characters is very puzzling and, in my opinion, very inappropriate.
(in response to above post) ... sorry, I'm a die-hard Disney fan, so:
Sleeping Beauty Cinderella Snow White Mulan Pocahontas Lilo & Stitch Lady & The Tramp The Artistocats Beauty & The Beast Alice in Wonderland The Little Mermaid The Frog Princess
... off topic from the course content, and I'm not saying that your post is incorrect by any means, but let's not forget about the plethora of positive female role models that do exist for young people in Disney movies.
As a person that in recent months has had to endure more "princess" than any grown adult should ever have to, I have a different slant on Disney. In summary, I am much more in favour of Barbie. Barbie and her mermaid and thumbalina contemporaries are generally quite independent, feisty, driven and resourceful. Disney, on the other hand, typically succumbs to the conclusion that the princess needs to be rescued or loved by some dude. But let's not stop there, Disney also has some pretty bad stereotyping of males too. It goes without saying that the newer stories have better representations than the older ones.
It's ok though. I grew up with Disney, GI Joe and Big Jim, and I turned out ok. Really, I did. Just ask me. And I'm pretty sure my kids will be ok too. Like many things in life, it's not necessarily the information that counts but rather it's what you do with it.
Yeah, I'm by no means a Disney expert but doesn't The Little Mermaid exchange her voice for the chance to be with what's-his-face? And doesn't Cinderella basically spend all of her time cooking and cleaning until her life finally climaxes by becoming a wife?
I chose “Seven Pounds” the story of Ben, a deeply depressed and guilt-ridden man. After the death of his wife/girlfriend and six strangers in a car crash caused by his negligence, he decides to make amends by trying to help seven struggling individuals by forfeiting his life and supplying them with his organs. He assumes the identity of his brother, an IRS agent in order to find people who need help. He spends time with his prospective donors because he desperately wants to ensure that the people he chooses are living good lives.
The main ethical issue I see in this film is whether Ben (Will Smith) is acting ethically by taking his life to benefit others. There are a lot of ethical issues within this decision. There is the issue of suicide. Divine Command theory, a theory that states God’s word is the only word to consider, may consider the act of taking one’s life unethical. Furthermore, he takes the role of God into his own hands by hand picking who will benefit from his decisions. Whereas, Kant may be more inclined to focus on his intentions, intentions I would consider pure and motivated by duty. It is clear that Ben is not a man motivated by one’s own happiness, a motivation that Kant would consider unethical. This interpretation may be a little too black and white though. I think my interpretation doesn’t take into account that he may feel it is his duty because he caused an accident that killed seven people. Is an intention driven by guilt pure? If we look at the same issue through Socrates’ idea that “being good is its own reward” and that we should be concerned with our own ideas of ourselves rather than our perceived reputations I once again left unsure of how Ben’s actions would be evaluated. I do not think that he is concerned with reputation or ego, yet I also would struggle to argue that he has a “balanced soul”.
On the ethical critique of a movie of our choice this week, I choose to write about Titanic. Titanic is one of the most classic movies around the world. It was the largest passenger steamship in the world at that time but struck to an iceberg and sank, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people. I find this movie to be filled with moral dilemmas and ethical decisions. The first scene that comes to my mind is when the ship hit the iceberg, only women and children were allowed by the officers in charge into the lifeboats, followed by the upper class. The lower class people were left to die. Many of the lifeboats were only put half full of the upper class passengers when they could have filled every space up in a time like this. When Rose got rescued, she stand in the rain and states that of the more than 2,000 passengers on the Titanic only a little over 700 survived. This scene connects to Rawls’ debate on contractarian ethics where children born into poverty or into dysfunctional families face barriers those children born into middle or upper class families never have to confront. These contingent attributes made the people in lower class more likely to experience unfair situations and life dangers. Moreover, in Titanic, Rose points out to everyone that the boats could accommodate only to half of the number of those on board, putting them on the highest deck of the ship; meaning the first class passengers will be the first to use those boats compare to the lower class passengers under deck. I do not think this is an ethical decision that the upper class was treated to the lifeboats before the passengers of the lower class. Furthermore, if the owner and the designer of the ship were ethical on their decision makings then they might be able to avoid the tragedy of Titanic. During the final minutes before the ship is about to sink, the audience can really see and feel the reality and the reactions on many of the people. Many showed their negative side of the humanity while others try help the people in danger and sacrifice their own chance to get on the lifeboat to save others. I learn the ethical lesson of sharing our resources, mutual respect, carry out professional conduct at work, and considerable of others with different values.
I chose to write on the movie "Thirteen" starring Nikki Reed and Evan Rachel Wood. The movie is a semi-autobiographical retelling of Nikki Reed's trials and tribulations as a pre-teen.
The movie tells the story of Tracy (played by a 15 year old Wood), a thirteen year old honour-role student who's into writing and poetry, and her downward spiral into drugs, sex and alcohol. When she decides one day in seventh grade that she wants to become "cool" and "popular", she turns to Evie Zamora (played by a 14 year old Reed), a classmate and certified "hottest girl in school". Evie lives with her guardian Brooke, a struggling model/actress, but quickly moves into Tracy's house by convincing Melanie (Tracy's mom played by the talented Holly Hunter) that she is being hit by Brooke's boyfriend. Evie introduces Tracy to shop-lifting, selling drugs, and engaging in sexual activity (as well as how to manipulate everyone around her as she becomes a terror of a teenaged girl).
Other than the the title of the movie, there is rarely any mention of the two girl's ages. This presents an interesting opportunity for the viewer to make the decision themselves as to where their ethical boundaries lie when they watch the various activities the girls engage in. Tracy herself never questions her actions. She rarely hesitates before doing something new for the first time (snorting cocaine, getting her tongue pierced, performing oral sex) so long as Evie is there beside her doing the same thing. With no ethical standard for the viewer to refer to, it is entirely in our hands whether or not we condone or condemn the activity. Even at the very end of the movie, other than the knowledge that Evie is moving away, and Tracy has been reconciled with her mother, we don't know if she ever returns to the way she was. Given the behaviours the girls are engaging in, and the way they dress which makes them appear years older than they actually are, it even challenged my own beliefs on the matter. Of course I think that thirteen year old girls snorting cocaine and having threesomes with 18-year olds is wrong! But seeing these two girls who look like 20 year olds was subconsciously making me not see their actions as maybe "not so bad".
Further, it was particularly interesting that throughout the movie, none of the teachers at the girls' school got involved in regulating their behaviour. We see Tracy showing up late to her science class a number of times, but other than an advisory, "you're probably going to fail the seventh grade" warning from an unseen counsellor, there is no serious involvement. Personally, I have always maintained that when I become a teacher (Lord willing), I would never be able to watch a student slip into despair if I could avoid it. Evie was a foster child with no positive adult role models in her life, and regardless of whether or not it's a teachers job to be a positive role model on top of all their other responsibilities, it would be against my personal ethics to be one for any students who needed it.
Movie: Gone Baby Gone Year: 2007 Directed by: Ben Affleck After blogging about this one a couple of weeks ago, I am still thinking about it and would love to explore these ideas further…
Synopsis: Two private investigators are hired to look into the kidnapping of a young girl from a rough area in Boston. The girl’s mother is addicted to drugs and involved with shady characters (to put it delicately) and was portrayed as an inattentive and uncaring mother. After much investigation, it appeared as though the daughter was accidentally killed during the ransom payment. Later in the movie, one of the original private investigators discovers that the girl did not die, and in fact, was kidnapped by a recently retired police officer whose own child had been killed years previously. The girl was living happily in their home and it was clear that she was being well taken care of and loved dearly. The investigators were left with a difficult decision: to leave the child where she was and pretend that they had never found her, or to return her to her mother.
Ethical evaluation: This seems to be to be a case where the right thing to do isn’t clear at all. According to Virtue Ethics, it would seem that in order for the Private Investigator to be living up to his potential, he would need to return the girl to her mother and solve the case, which would in this case be his primary function. However, one could easily turn around and say that the police officer’s primary function might be to protect and that by kidnapping the girl in the first place, he is protecting her from a life of neglect.
Turning to Mill, the greatest good for the greatest number would likely be to leave the girl where she is. By keeping her there, no one is being further hurt – everyone, including her mother, already believes her to be dead. In taking her away and returning her to her mother, the police officer and his wife would be hurt, and the girl would not have the same opportunities she would have being raised in the police officer’s family versus the drug addict mother’s family. But, the other side of the jugement is that a child is best off with her mother and who are we to judge love? Beyond this, one could also argue that by letting people to go on believing that this girl is dead, one is lying to them, and is lying to people ever in their best interest? Kant would disagree… In lying, we take away one’s right to make an informed decision.
This movie has sparked much debate in those who have seen it. The ending never fails to get a rise out of an audience. Due to language and violence, I would hesitate to show this movie in class, although the ethical issues raised would set the stage for a lively class debate if presented as a scenario. Myself, I am still uncertain as to what the right thing to do would be. The moral compass seems to point in one direction, while sense and compassion point in the opposite. In a situation like this one, are we better off following the heart or the mind?
Movie: Gone Baby Gone Year: 2007 Directed by: Ben Affleck After blogging about this one a couple of weeks ago, I am still thinking about it and would love to explore these ideas further…
Synopsis: Two private investigators are hired to look into the kidnapping of a young girl from a rough area in Boston. The girl’s mother is addicted to drugs and involved with shady characters (to put it delicately) and was portrayed as an inattentive and uncaring mother. After much investigation, it appeared as though the daughter was accidentally killed during the ransom payment. Later in the movie, one of the original private investigators discovers that the girl did not die, and in fact, was kidnapped by a recently retired police officer whose own child had been killed years previously. The girl was living happily in their home and it was clear that she was being well taken care of and loved dearly. The investigators were left with a difficult decision: to leave the child where she was and pretend that they had never found her, or to return her to her mother.
Ethical evaluation: This seems to be to be a case where the right thing to do isn’t clear at all. According to Virtue Ethics, it would seem that in order for the Private Investigator to be living up to his potential, he would need to return the girl to her mother and solve the case, which would in this case be his primary function. However, one could easily turn around and say that the police officer’s primary function might be to protect and that by kidnapping the girl in the first place, he is protecting her from a life of neglect.
Turning to Mill, the greatest good for the greatest number would likely be to leave the girl where she is. By keeping her there, no one is being further hurt – everyone, including her mother, already believes her to be dead. In taking her away and returning her to her mother, the police officer and his wife would be hurt, and the girl would not have the same opportunities she would have being raised in the police officer’s family versus the drug addict mother’s family. But, the other side of the judgement is that a child is best off with her mother and who are we to judge love? Beyond this, one could also argue that by letting people to go on believing that this girl is dead, one is lying to them, and is lying to people ever in their best interest? Kant would disagree… In lying, we take away one’s right to make an informed decision.
This movie has sparked much debate in those who have seen it. The ending never fails to get a rise out of an audience. Due to language and violence, I would hesitate to show this movie in class, although the ethical issues raised would set the stage for a lively class debate if presented as a scenario. Myself, I am still uncertain as to what the right thing to do would be. The moral compass seems to point in one direction, while sense and compassion point in the opposite. In a situation like this one, are we better off following the heart or the mind?
When I first heard about the film critique assignment, I was concerned that I wouldn’t be able to find a movie that I could critique from an ethical standpoint. Much to my surprise, once I started looking for ethical issues in movies, I started seeing them everywhere. One movie that I was considering, but decided not to critique was “Unthinkable”. In this movie, there is even a scene in a change room where they talk about values. The central plot of the movie is the tension between act-utilitarianism (greatest good for the greatest number-not always an ethically acceptable course of action) and valuing social contract (contractarianism), ethics and morals above human life. But, as I mentioned, I decided not to critique “Unthinkable”.
Film Critique (Spoiler Alert!) 2 Movie: The Book of Eli
Instead, I chose to look at ethics in “The Book of Eli”. This movie is set in post-apocalyptic America. In the movie, there is a generation of young adults who have never seen a book (to give you perspective on the timeline). The story follows Eli, played by Denzel Washington, as he travels across America.
For me, this movie seems to involve two ethical belief systems. The most evident is divine command theory. In an early scene, Eli goes to help a woman who seems to have fallen. It is an ambush and he must protect himself by killing or seriously wounding the attackers. He is quite adept at fighting and is able to fight off four or five attackers. This ability to fight sets the stage for his next encounter. In the next big scene, Eli watches as two travelers are attacked, raped, and killed for their possessions and Eli appears to struggle with the ethics of watching this happen rather than intervening. At this point, he repeats over and over, “Stay on the path. It’s not your concern.” When you combine this statement with his reading of a bible, it appears that Eli is making his ethical decisions based on what he believes God has told him to do.
The second ethical belief system that seems to be at play is the idea of social contracts. In the movie, we are introduced to two distinct communities. When Eli enters a town to get his music player fixed we learn that the town is run by a dictator who is looking for a certain book (the community resembles the hard scrabble/violent communities we see in movies such as Mad Max). This man discovers that Eli has a bible. He believes that he can control people by reading from the bible (another nod to divine command theory). The next scenes are about the struggle over the book. This time, when Eli has to decide whether to intervene when a female character is being hurt, he intervenes and ends up losing the book and getting injured (has he stepped off the path?). Eventually, Eli makes it to the place he has been “told” to bring the book. This place is a totally different society. It is organized around the preservation of culture. It appears to be calm and peaceful, with gardens and famous works of art—a paradise. Eli is able to contribute to this society by recalling the bible verse from memory and dictating it verbatim.
Critics of enlightened self-interest and contractarianism would love “The Book of Eli” because it shows that the ethics of social contracts can result in the creation of very different societies and that not all of these societies would be lauded as ethical or moral.
The Reader, based on the book of the same name, is filled with ethical quandaries. The plot follows Michael, a German man who had a relationship with Hanna, an older woman when he was a teenager in the 1950s. He later becomes a law student, and while watching Nazi war crimes trials, realizes that the Hanna worked as a guard at Auschwitz. As an audience member, we are placed in a difficult ethical position as is the protagonist. We are asked to understand a person who shares direct responsibility for the deaths of 300 people as well as being complicit in the crimes of the concentration camps. In my opinion, deciding how to react to Hannah is one of the most difficult ethical questions of the film, because we, in a sense, want to dehumanize those who have done terrible things or have participated in something as evil as Nazism. At the same time, we must ask ourselves the question of whether we, in the situation of a German citizen during the war, would behave as morally as we like to think.
The film also contains overt discussion of the sources of morality. A law professor, endeavouring to instruct his advanced students, posits that law (not religion or social mores) is the source of morality because the law determines what can be punished and what cannot. He raises the question of what constitutes a just sentence in the trials of women like Hannah. According to German law, the women can only be convicted of crimes that were illegal at the time of the war (not after the fact). One of his students objects to this, implying that moral absolutes exist and that certain behaviour should be punished even if the social values of the past supported those actions. Is morality therefore as fluid as the values of a society that legislates it? Can there be moral absolutes?
The film adds to this discussion of the law and justice and what constitutes morality by throwing the protagonist into his own moral dilemma. At Hanna's trial, he realizes that he alone holds certain information that would give Hanna a greatly reduced sentence. However, she chooses not to reveal this information because she would rather be punished for something she did not do, than reveal something that she is deeply ashamed of. The law says that it is his duty to reveal the information, but his major dilemma is between doing the 'just' thing to save Hannah from a unjust sentence and preserving her dignity and doing as she wants. In some ways, this episode asks us to consider whether we should respect the wishes of someone who is making an incredibly bad decision for themselves and what we should do if we feel they do not merit 'saving.'
I examined the ethical issues in the film, Das Experiment (2001), which is based on the Stanford Prison Experiment that was actually carried out in 1971 at Stanford University. The purpose of this experiment was to see how regular people would react mentally if they were given the role of being a guard or a prisoner. Thus, white middle class males were selected to participate. The experimenters picked participants that did not have a history of any psychological problems. Many of these participants partook in this experiment because they needed money. The males were randomly given the position of being prisoners or guards. There was an enormous outcry regarding the experimenter’s decision to carry out this experiment. Most critics argued that it was unethical to carry out the experiment in the first place. The experiment was cut short because of the unimaginable and absolutely atrocious behavior illustrated by the guards. The guards became out of control and physically tortured the prisoners in unimaginable ways. The experimenters lost control of the experiment and the guards. There is no doubt that the guards acted unethically. However, after watching the film, one is left wondering what made the guards (who were found to be mentally stable prior to the experiment) commit such evil acts.
I think that perhaps Thomas Hobbes’s ideas regarding the concept of power can help one gain insight regarding the reasons behind the guards’ horrendous actions. In the movie, the guards started severely mistreating the prisoners after one prisoner started to defy some of the guards’ orders. According to Hobbes, “the goal of all humans is to get and keep as much power over others as possible” (Jane Ann McLachlan, 2010, p. 103). Since the role of the prisoner inherently comes with no power, the prisoners started to defy the guards’ orders in order to get power. Since the role of the guards inherently comes with power, the guards wanted to keep their power once they realized that it was slipping away. Hobbes’s explanation regarding people’s aim to get and keep power becomes complex when looking at this movie. Hobbes states that people want to keep and get power because of “the fear and lack of security“ (McLachlan, 2010, p. 103). Although “security” usually means safety, one must closely examine the term “security” in light of this film. Considering the film, the guards may have wanted to keep their power because there was a lack of security (the prisoners were not obeying all of the guards’ orders); in this case, the term “security” only referred to the control and strict rules that the guards imposed upon the prisoners. The guards were only concerned with what they thought to be a lack of strict rules and control that were preventing the prisoners from being defiant. The prisoners, on the other hand, may have wanted to get power because of the lack of security and because they were scared of the security; it seems that “security” in this case referred not only to the control and strict rules that were imposed upon the prisoners but to their safety as well. The prisoners wanted power because there was a lack of safety and they were scared of the rules/control.
The guards fit into Hobbes’s theory regarding human conflict and one’s aim to get power. The guards wanted to “keep what they ha[d] secure from everyone who would try to take it away” (McLachlan, 2010, p. 103). As mentioned earlier, the guards wanted to keep the power (in the form of rules and control) that they felt was slipping away from them. At the same time, though, the prisoners did not really have anything to keep secure in the first place: they wanted to get power. Thus, this conflict between the prisoners and the guards is different from the human conflict that Hobbes describes. According to Hobbes, both parties are in a conflict in order “to keep what they have secure” (McLachlan, 2010, p. 103); this idea assumes that both parties have something that they can lose in the first place. In the film, not all of the parties in the conflict have something to lose: for example, the prisoners do not have power, like the guards, which they can lose. The difference between the conflicts is due to the fact that the environment in the movie does not represent a “natural world” (McLachlan, 2010, p. 103), which Hobbes bases his theory on: his theory regarding human conflict and power is based on the idea that people exist in a “natural world, where it is each man for himself” (p.103). In the movie, the prisoners unite together to defy the guards in order to get power: there is a sense of camaraderie among the prisoners. The prisoners realize that only by working together will they be able to get power. Thus, it appears that the environment in the movie affected the conflict. I learned that perhaps the environment may help explain why the guards acted the way that they did. After all, a prison does not resemble daily life. As stated earlier, the roles of being a guard and prisoner each come with different inherent characteristics. A guard inherently has power and thus has the mentality that they are entitled to everything and to do anything that they want. A prisoner, on the other hand, inherently has no power and thus has the mentality that they are inferior in comparison to the guards: there is a natural imbalance of power. The meaning of the term “security” was also based on the role of the guard and prisoner.
Synopsis The movie I chose to write about is called “Splice” starring Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley. This horror, science fiction, and thriller movie is based around two young, brilliant, and ambitious scientists, Clive and Elsa. Clive and Elsa are married and work together in a laboratory where they are attempting to introduce a new species to the world. However, stepping away from the initial project at hand, Clive and Elsa set out to create their own species making them rebel superstars of the scientific world. In this new side project, Elsa secretly slips human DNA into the experiment for scientific purposes. The result of this new species is greater than the sum of its parts; a female animal-human hybrid that may be a step up on the evolutionary ladder is created. Clive soon discovers this human DNA as this new species has portrayed many new human characteristics. Elsa grows closer and closer to this new species giving her a name, Dren, and teaching her human abilities such as reading, writing and drawing. However, Dren, the new species creation imposes great danger on the ones around her but Elsa, who now considers Dren to be her daughter, believes she can manipulate her into being a tame and obedient girl. Elsa is weary to have her own child as while she was growing up her mother would torture and ignore her. Consequently, Elsa is scared that she too may treat her own child like this. As a result, Elsa soon tries to manipulate this new species into being her child. Clive and Elsa think they may have created the perfect organism, until she makes a shocking metamorphosis that could destroy them and the rest of humanity. This scientific experiment turned into a selfish motive for Elsa to become a mother and feel wanted by a child.
Ethical Aspect I thought this movie was quite frightening to watch as these two scientists take on the task of developing a new species. Elsa, who seems to be selfish and ignorant, does not consider the danger that this new species, Dren may impose on humans. Instead, she focuses on her own personal gain of a child and hopes to mould Dren to be human-like. It is not ethical to house such a species that requires living outdoors. Even Elsa is unaware of Dren’s abilities as she attempts to manipulate this new species into being more human-like and consequently, her child. Elsa is also aware of the fact that Dren poses a threat to the rest of mankind as Dren is seen to be dangerous and inhospitable. Yet, Elsa lets her selfish wants of a child overcome her and ignores the fact that this new species is dangerous. It is unethical for both Clive and Elsa to house this species and treat her as their child since this species is not fully human. Dren has animal like abilities which force her to be feisty. As a result, the movie Splice portrays many ethical issues as these two scientists create a new species and use it for their own personal gain. Treating this species as their child is both unfair to Dren and to the humans around them as this species is known to be dangerous.
Movie: Fight Club (1999) Directed by: David Fincher
Synopsis
When his doctor refuses to give him medication for his insomnia, the narrator, an office employee, attends a support group for men with testicular cancer even though he is not afflicte. There, he discovers he is able to release his emotions and in doing so finally get a good nights sleep. This emotional high becomes addicting so he fakes other illnesses in order to attend their support groups. This routine is disrupted when another impostor, Marla Singer, begins to attend the same groups he does. They decide to split the evenings so they won’t run into each other anymore.
Arriving home from a business trip, the narrator find this condo has burnt down. He calls Tyler Durden, a soap salesman he met during a business flight. Tyler allows the narrator to stay with him under the condition they fist fight each other. The two engage in a fight drawing a crowd. This connects with many of the spectators and they setup a fight club at in the basement of a bar.
Ethical Analysis
One of the biggest philosophical themes in this movie is the link between identity and consumerism. Early in the movie the narrator, while looking through an Ikea catalogue, asks himself, “What kind of dining set defines me as a person?” The movie breaks down social constructs of identity and takes on a nihilistic tone, “You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else.” There are many scenes that mirror what the military does with identity. Uniqueness is stripped away and the identity is the collective.
Closely tied to the idea of identity is the idea of purpose. In one of the scenes Tyler hold a gun to a convenient store clerk’s head and ask him what he wanted to be and why wasn’t he doing it? After the clerk answers Tyler takes the clerks drivers license says he will visit 6 weeks and if he is not on his way to doing that, he will return and kill him. In another scene Tyler ask two members of his group what they want to do in life. They were able to answer immediately suggesting they have a clear idea of what fulfillment would look like to them. The narrator wasn’t able to give an answer, showing he wasn’t on the same level of self actualization as the others.
Tyler subscribes to a teleological view of ethics. Many of these acts are ethically deplorable but Tyler believes they serve the better good. The film climaxes with Tyler and the narrator destroying the head quarters of several credit card companies. He sees these corporations are evil. Tyler believes by absolving everyone from their debt, they are able to free everyone from the chains of capitalism and give them a fresh start. He believes that tearing down all these social constructs of identity and purpose warrants the his acts of large scale vandalism. Though he makes sure no person is physically hurt, he does not consider how destroying these corporations will affect their employees. The ends justifies his means. He models himself as a freedom fighter, working against the powers that be to fight injustice.
“What the Bleep Do We Know” is a docudrama, and was released in 2004. The film presents a series of scientists who discuss the meaning and possibilities of reality through the perspective of quantum physics. At the same time, it presents the story of a deaf photographer who exists in a dispirited, angry and self-loathing state of mind. Amanda allows her painful past to control her outlook on the present and future – it is a choice that she makes, to hate rather than love her life as it is. Eventually, she comes to understand the meaning of reality – that it is shaped by our thoughts alone – and changes her mind frame from negative to positive, thereby attaining happiness. I feel the theme of this film echoes back distinctly to Aristotle’s aims of developing the self and cultivating personal happiness through the exercise of reason, and my review will focus on the similarities between Aristotle’s ethics philosophy and the film.
Like Plato and Aristotle, the film postulates that humans, because of their powers of reason or mind, are the highest beings who have the power to attain their highest self – and that we should exist as an integrated whole within our reality. Like Aristotle, the scientists featured in this film believe in the deliberate practice towards gaining excellence of knowledge and character – they propose that humans detach themselves from socially influenced negative or habituated thinking and to focus on practicing positive thoughts. A new philosophy on life will activate the creation of new neuron pathways in our brains, forming new, better habits and thus a better quality of life. Aristotle believed that reason helps us become what we want to be and do; likewise, the film argues that our thoughts or consciousness create our reality, and by virtue of the quality of our thoughts, we make the choice to perceive events and ourselves in one way or another, and that we should thus harness our minds towards living our best lives. Like Aristotle, the speakers in the film propose that we can achieve happiness through the virtuous or right choices we make and habits we practice. Both Aristotle and the film believe in practicing self-development, and that we become virtuous and happy by practicing virtue and existing in a happy state of mind. Additionally, the film illustrates that people are conditioned into living mediocre lives by believing that their reality is set and that they have no influence upon it, because they do not see the possibilities within their minds to create alternate options. Likewise, Aristotle spoke of people existing in a reality where they are blocked by their habits (laziness, fears, etc.) even though they know what is right. Both this film and Aristotle propose that the good life consists of inner harmony, which is dependent on our reason and thoughts, and both encourage that we think for ourselves rather than follow the trends and accepted conditions of our societies. “What the Bleep Do We Know” shows us indirectly how relevant and important Aristotle’s ideas are for today’s world.
The film also briefly touches upon the role of education in helping people develop an understanding of their potential, as rooted within their mind. It begins by telling us that “Children of today live in a culture that doesn’t appreciate the power of thought” – which I think is pertinent to how we educate or fail to educate our students about the potential that resides in their minds. The film argues that the problems humans face today are labeled as psychological but they are in fact a result of the “rotten choices” that they make – and people ought to be instructed in making right choices. The film’s scientists call for us to imagine alternative possibilities of right and wrong, and to improve our understanding of the reality we face. Once again, Aristotle’s philosophy resonates in these statements: that is, both share the belief that through cultivation of reason students practice and develop healthy, good habits.
CLASS SEVEN: MOVIE NIGHT- ETHICAL REVIEW Movie: Amistad (1997) Director: Steven Spielberg Writer: David Franzoni I first saw this movie in a Law 12 class during my short practicum and I thought, wow, everyone should see this movie. It was so empowering. There were so many significant matters portrayed in this movie that pertains to ethics: to power, to suffering, to change, to understanding and acknowledging life. The movie is based in 1839. Amistad is the name of a slave ship carrying cargo Africans who were sold into slavery. The Africans are chained in the cargo hold and endure horrendous conditions. Many die from starvation, brutal treatment, and many are thrown overboard. The Africans rebel and kill many of their capturers. But two ship officers were saved in hopes that they would take the Africans back to Africa. Eventually, the Amistad is found by a military vessel. The two ship officers tricked the Africans by sailing directly for the United States. The Africans are imprisoned as runaway slaves. They do not speak English therefore communication is near impossible. They figure they are doomed to die because they killed their capturers. One lawyer decides to take their case, arguing that they were free citizens of another country and not slaves at all. Most of the movie takes place in the court room, with a number of people fighting for the ownership of the Africans. There are so many issues that could be discussed on this movie (slavery, lying, torture, murder, etc.) but I want to focus on the lawyers character. I found his character profound in standing up for what was right, even though it brought about international conflict, community conflict, family conflict and for himself, internal conflict. Using page 40 from our text, the four key components of the ethical beliefs of anyone who follows Socrates’ and Plato’s ethics today are: 1. There are universal principles or ideals of good and bad Ex. don’t lie, cheat, steal, or kill. 2. People all innately know good and bad and right from wrong Each position (group of people that want ownership of the Africans) in this movie, therefore , according to Socrates and Plato know good from bad and right from wrong and ultimately don’t care if their actions are bad only that they would benefit from receiving ownership. On the other hand, the lawyer clearly knows good from bad and right from wrong and will fight to make things right no matter the obstacles. 3. It is our ultimate goal, or duty, to make ourselves (our souls) as good as possible According to Socrates and Plato: the lawyer is a prime example of this statement. He felt it was his duty to help and ultimately same/free the Africans because it was the right things to do and makes his soul good when no one else would stand up for what was right. 4. Behaviours that hurt us or deter us from this goal are wrong because they hurt us- in other words, we should always act in our own self-interest, and in our highest self-interest to make ourselves as good as possible, because this leads to inner peace and happiness. I find the lawyer in conflict with this statement. He knew when deciding to help the Africans, danger could be brought to both himself and his family, according to Socrates and Plato, this was wrong of him. He also knew, that his goal was possibly not achievable but he still decided to do what he felt was right. Therefore his behavior may have made nothing of his goal. Yet, at the same time he was willing to risk his own safety and of others for his own self-interest (his goal of saving the Africans). Overall, I think Socrates and Plato would say the lawyer’s behavior was ethical.
Synopsis/introduction: This movie stars bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol with Amitah Bachan. Bollywood movies always have some sort of love story however, this love story goes beyong just the typical "boy meets girl." "Khabi Kushi Khabi Gham" is filled with numerous moral issues that the cast fight with. Essentially it is a love story between Shah Rukh Khan who plays "Rahul" and Kajol who plays "Pooja ." Rahul is adopted into a wealthy family where he grows up loved by his parents and worships what they say and fulfills their wishes. However, when he falls in love with a girl out his cast, he knows his father will not approve. "Pooja's " Father passes away and he knows that he is all that "Pooja " has. He goes ahead and marries "Pooja " without the approval of his parents. When he brings "Pooja " home to meet the family, his father disapproves and kicks him out of the family and he is forbidden to return. The rest of the movie consists of Rahul younger brother and "Pooja " younger sister trying to bring the family back together.
Moral Issues: Throughout the entire movie there are numerous issues that are present. "Family and Faithfullness" is the ethical issue theme and this is present with 3 different conflicts. First is, husband vs. Wife. This issue involves the conflicting opinions between the parents. The wife struggles with following her husbands wishes to kick their son out. Despite what she feels, she does not know when to speak up and let her husband know of her true feelings. She doesn't know whether she should keep her feelings to herself and follow the indian norm of following the husbands decisions or tell him how she really feels. The second is father vs. Father. Here the father struggles with his own feelings. He knows what his son has done is wrong and his hardcore, traditional family values overpower what his heart his saying. He knows that his son has made a mistake but questions whether he should still pay such a high price. The third conflict involves the son vs. Father. Rahul knows that he "should" not be with "Pooja " because of her cast, he struggles with what his heart wants to do vs. What he should do based on his family.
Analysis: Essentially it comes down to the moral issue of following your own heart/desire vs. Following what your family wants. Many are faced with this issue everyday. In the indian culture, family, culture, tradition is a huge part of who we are. From a young age these values are highly taught and regarded. However these issues don't necessarily have to involve love, it can be with school, career path, friendships and activities. Approval is one of the guiding principles of indian families. Rahul and his family are faced with moral issue of whether he should follow his family tradition. This is an issue where personally, it would be difficult to decide what to follow. However, I feel whatever the decision, it should result in happiness!
Synopsis/introduction: This movie stars bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol with Amitah Bachan. Bollywood movies always have some sort of love story however, this love story goes beyong just the typical "boy meets girl." "Khabi Kushi Khabi Gham" is filled with numerous moral issues that the cast fight with. Essentially it is a love story between Shah Rukh Khan who plays "Rahul" and Kajol who plays "Pooja ." Rahul is adopted into a wealthy family where he grows up loved by his parents and worships what they say and fulfills their wishes. However, when he falls in love with a girl out his cast, he knows his father will not approve. "Pooja's " Father passes away and he knows that he is all that "Pooja " has. He goes ahead and marries "Pooja " without the approval of his parents. When he brings "Pooja " home to meet the family, his father disapproves and kicks him out of the family and he is forbidden to return. The rest of the movie consists of Rahul younger brother and "Pooja " younger sister trying to bring the family back together.
Moral Issues: Throughout the entire movie there are numerous issues that are present. "Family and Faithfullness" is the ethical issue theme and this is present with 3 different conflicts. First is, husband vs. Wife. This issue involves the conflicting opinions between the parents. The wife struggles with following her husbands wishes to kick their son out. Despite what she feels, she does not know when to speak up and let her husband know of her true feelings. She doesn't know whether she should keep her feelings to herself and follow the indian norm of following the husbands decisions or tell him how she really feels. The second is father vs. Father. Here the father struggles with his own feelings. He knows what his son has done is wrong and his hardcore, traditional family values overpower what his heart his saying. He knows that his son has made a mistake but questions whether he should still pay such a high price. The third conflict involves the son vs. Father. Rahul knows that he "should" not be with "Pooja " because of her cast, he struggles with what his heart wants to do vs. What he should do based on his family.
Analysis: Essentially it comes down to the moral issue of following your own heart/desire vs. Following what your family wants. Many are faced with this issue everyday. In the indian culture, family, culture, tradition is a huge part of who we are. From a young age these values are highly taught and regarded. However these issues don't necessarily have to involve love, it can be with school, career path, friendships and activities. Approval is one of the guiding principles of indian families. Rahul and his family are faced with moral issue of whether he should follow his family tradition. This is an issue where personally, it would be difficult to decide what to follow. However, I feel whatever the decision, it should result in happiness!
Synopsis/introduction: This movie stars bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol with Amitah Bachan. Bollywood movies always have some sort of love story however, this love story goes beyong just the typical "boy meets girl." "Khabi Kushi Khabi Gham" is filled with numerous moral issues that the cast fight with. Essentially it is a love story between Shah Rukh Khan who plays "Rahul" and Kajol who plays "Pooja ." Rahul is adopted into a wealthy family where he grows up loved by his parents and worships what they say and fulfills their wishes. However, when he falls in love with a girl out his cast, he knows his father will not approve. "Pooja's " Father passes away and he knows that he is all that "Pooja " has. He goes ahead and marries "Pooja " without the approval of his parents. When he brings "Pooja " home to meet the family, his father disapproves and kicks him out of the family and he is forbidden to return. The rest of the movie consists of Rahul younger brother and "Pooja " younger sister trying to bring the family back together.
Moral Issues: Throughout the entire movie there are numerous issues that are present. "Family and Faithfullness" is the ethical issue theme and this is present with 3 different conflicts. First is, husband vs. Wife. This issue involves the conflicting opinions between the parents. The wife struggles with following her husbands wishes to kick their son out. Despite what she feels, she does not know when to speak up and let her husband know of her true feelings. She doesn't know whether she should keep her feelings to herself and follow the indian norm of following the husbands decisions or tell him how she really feels. The second is father vs. Father. Here the father struggles with his own feelings. He knows what his son has done is wrong and his hardcore, traditional family values overpower what his heart his saying. He knows that his son has made a mistake but questions whether he should still pay such a high price. The third conflict involves the son vs. Father. Rahul knows that he "should" not be with "Pooja " because of her cast, he struggles with what his heart wants to do vs. What he should do based on his family.
Analysis: Essentially it comes down to the moral issue of following your own heart/desire vs. Following what your family wants. Many are faced with this issue everyday. In the indian culture, family, culture, tradition is a huge part of who we are. From a young age these values are highly taught and regarded. However these issues don't necessarily have to involve love, it can be with school, career path, friendships and activities. Approval is one of the guiding principles of indian families. Rahul and his family are faced with moral issue of whether he should follow his family tradition. This is an issue where personally, it would be difficult to decide what to follow. However, I feel whatever the decision, it should result in happiness!
Hi Everyone, I'm so sorry for the late post! I thought I posted already but I only saved the file on my computer!
Ethical Critique of a Film
The film I choose to watch was "Man for All Seasons". This film was directed by Fred Zinnemann and was released in 1967. I choose this film because it was a film I always wanted to watch but never had the time. "Man of All Seasons" takes place in the 16th century in Europe. The focus of this movie revolves around Sir Thomas More life and the struggle between him and his King, Henry VIII. The problem between the two men arise when King Henry VII wants to break off all connections with the Roman Catholic Church because he wants the right to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn.
More stands firmly against this because he understands from the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church that what King Henry is doing is wrong. The fact that More is taking a stand against King Henry makes him furious because More's stand against him portrays King Henry to look unreasonable to the rest of Europe. King Henry attempts to discredit More's words by attempting legal trickery. However, that fails and King Henry continues to grow relentless throughout the film. The film continues with King Henry creating the Church of England and appointing himself as supreme power . Anyone who continued to refuse to agree to King Henry divorcing Catherine of Aragon and marrying Anne Boleyn was seen to have committed a treasonous act. More continued to refuse to King Henry marrying Anne Boyleyn and this resulted in him being beheaded. This film raises many ethical questions if one should still stand up for their beliefs until the “very end”. More continued to stand by his beliefs even though he known in advance that if he did not agree he will be beheaded. More died for his faith and his prinpicals.
The title role of this movie is well acted by Meryl Streep. In brief, the movie (set in Brooklyn) follows Sophie’s interactions with her mentally ill partner, Nathan, and a very young aspiring writer called Stingo from the Southern States. Sophie grew up in Poland, and during the Second World War, was sent to Auschwitz with her two children. Later, with no surviving family, she ends up in the United States.
The movie uses flashbacks to look back at choices Sophie made in the past, the major one being the choice she was forced to make as to which of her two children would be sentenced to immediate death in the gas chambers and which one would be sent to a children’s camp. By the end of the movie it is clear that there are many ethical issues involved, beginning with what was clearly the indoctrination of Sophie by her father as to her role as a woman. She led a restricted life dominated by her husband and father. It is only when she is typing yet another of her father’s speeches and reads of his suggestion that all Polish Jews should be exterminated that she begins to question her father’s anti-semitic beliefs and her role in promulgating them.
Later in her new life in the USA, she lies to all those she meets and portrays her father as a self-sacrificing defender of Jews. I am not sure we can condemn this lie on ethical grounds, as it seems to harm noone but Sophie. She, however, has to justify this lie to herself as well as suffer the guilt caused by her own past choices. I think this added to the process of the unraveling of her personality. The ‘big’ choice of the title, which Sophie made, was forced on her in a situation where all normal humanity, and the ability to make truly ethical and rational decisions, was absent. The Nazi who forced her to make the choice was clearly not operating from any standpoint of ‘virtue’, under any ethical philosophy. It did not appear in the movie that he was under any immediate threat himself, rather he was enjoying his position of power. I think that Sophie had not spent much of her life examining ethical issues at this point. Her choice was clearly not going to be one which could be judged correct by Utilitarian principles nor could the Kantian view of reason being in control of actions come into play. Probably in amongst the complex emotions governing Sophie’s choice was the background of males being superior to females, but also her instinctive knowledge that a blond, blue-eyed, older male child was more likely to survive on his own. The ‘choice’ was not really a choice. There are far too many other areas of ethics that could be gone into. These include Sohie’s choices within the internment camp, her choice of partner later on and the relationships she had with the two male protagonists, not to mention her final choice.
The title role of this movie is well acted by Meryl Streep. In brief, the movie (set in Brooklyn) follows Sophie’s interactions with her mentally ill partner, Nathan, and a very young aspiring writer called Stingo from the Southern States. Sophie grew up in Poland, and during the Second World War, was sent to Auschwitz with her two children. Later, with no surviving family, she ends up in the United States.
The movie uses flashbacks to look back at choices Sophie made in the past, the major one being the choice she was forced to make as to which of her two children would be sentenced to immediate death in the gas chambers and which one would be sent to a children’s camp. By the end of the movie it is clear that there are many ethical issues involved, beginning with what was clearly the indoctrination of Sophie by her father as to her role as a woman. She led a restricted life dominated by her husband and father. It is only when she is typing yet another of her father’s speeches and reads of his suggestion that all Polish Jews should be exterminated that she begins to question her father’s anti-semitic beliefs and her role in promulgating them.
Later in her new life in the USA, she lies to all those she meets and portrays her father as a self-sacrificing defender of Jews. I am not sure we can condemn this lie on ethical grounds, as it seems to harm noone but Sophie. She, however, has to justify this lie to herself as well as suffer the guilt caused by her own past choices. I think this added to the process of the unraveling of her personality. The ‘big’ choice of the title, which Sophie made, was forced on her in a situation where all normal humanity, and the ability to make truly ethical and rational decisions, was absent. The Nazi who forced her to make the choice was clearly not operating from any standpoint of ‘virtue’, under any ethical philosophy. It did not appear in the movie that he was under any immediate threat himself, rather he was enjoying his position of power. I think that Sophie had not spent much of her life examining ethical issues at this point. Her choice was clearly not going to be one which could be judged correct by Utilitarian principles nor could the Kantian view of reason being in control of actions come into play. Probably in amongst the complex emotions governing Sophie’s choice was the background of males being superior to females, but also her instinctive knowledge that a blond, blue-eyed, older male child was more likely to survive on his own. The ‘choice’ was not really a choice. There are far too many other areas of ethics that could be gone into. These include Sohie’s choices within the internment camp, her choice of partner later on and the relationships she had with the two male protagonists, not to mention her final choice.
I am not sure if anyone watched the movie "Lust,Caution" directed by Ang Lee, the Oscar winning director for Broke Back Mountain, but the movie is excellent.
The movie is not an erotic one, this needs to be clarified. The ethical dilemmas of love, fealty, quislism, traitor are all presented in the movie.
The film dated back to 1938 when China was suffering from the war disaster with Japan. Wang, as the lead character in the movie, was a member of a student association which go against the war and Japanese invaders. During the war, one couldn't be missed is traitor. Yi is a crucial traitor and puppet commanded by the Japan. What Yi need to do was to suppress, seize, murder ans assassinate people who belong to the Communist Party, the larges organization that defend China and fight against the Japanese at the time.
Wang was committed to approach Yi and kill him with a few other high-mined men. Event though Yi has a wife, Wang finally became his mattress in order to complete the assassination. However, as time flies, true love was emerged between them even they didn't realize it explicitly. While Wang was still waiting for a chance to kill Yi, she encountered a ethical dilemma: to kill Yi for the nation and its people, or just undo it as she loves Yi. At the last few minutes of movie, Yi commits to love but not the nation: One morning, when everyone is ready to shoot YI, Want went into the building and intended to ask YI to come out of the building so that people could finish the execution. When the time Want was able to speak to Yi, Yi gave her a diamond ring. It's not the case that Wang admires the ring the let him go, but the ring means a lot to Wang: love and a promise. "Go, run away", Want yelled Yi, to signal him people are waiting to kill him downstairs. Yi escaped, and realized the status of Wang subsequently. He then seized Wang and his colleagues and killed them all. The ending is emotional: tears dropped from Yi.
While it seems that honor and fame of the nation overrides everything in the war time and people are committed to defense their own nation and go against the invaders, there are people who defense love. War is a disaster but people are positioned in moral dilemmas which make them hard to make decisions. A simple question is raised: to betray a beloved person who means significantly in your life, or kill this person for the others in your nation. The decent answer seems easy according to deontology and contratarianism: to kill a traitor is moral, but it doesn't work that well when it comes to the enlightened self-interest and consequentialism: my own good or the others.
While War creates heroes, it also tortures people and testifies the morality, ethical standard. Human being is a complex, we just can't obey the rules all the time.
I am not sure if anyone watched the movie "Lust,Caution" directed by Ang Lee, the Oscar winning director for Broke Back Mountain, but the movie is excellent.
The movie is not an erotic one, this needs to be clarified. The ethical dilemmas of love, fealty, quislism, traitor are all presented in the movie.
The film dated back to 1938 when China was suffering from the war disaster with Japan. Wang, as the lead character in the movie, was a member of a student association which go against the war and Japanese invaders. During the war, one couldn't be missed is traitor. Yi is a crucial traitor and puppet commanded by the Japan. What Yi need to do was to suppress, seize, murder ans assassinate people who belong to the Communist Party, the larges organization that defend China and fight against the Japanese at the time.
Wang was committed to approach Yi and kill him with a few other high-mined men. Event though Yi has a wife, Wang finally became his mattress in order to complete the assassination. However, as time flies, true love was emerged between them even they didn't realize it explicitly. While Wang was still waiting for a chance to kill Yi, she encountered a ethical dilemma: to kill Yi for the nation and its people, or just undo it as she loves Yi. At the last few minutes of movie, Yi commits to love but not the nation: One morning, when everyone is ready to shoot YI, Want went into the building and intended to ask YI to come out of the building so that people could finish the execution. When the time Want was able to speak to Yi, Yi gave her a diamond ring. It's not the case that Wang admires the ring the let him go, but the ring means a lot to Wang: love and a promise. "Go, run away", Want yelled Yi, to signal him people are waiting to kill him downstairs. Yi escaped, and realized the status of Wang subsequently. He then seized Wang and his colleagues and killed them all. The ending is emotional: tears dropped from Yi.
While it seems that honor and fame of the nation overrides everything in the war time and people are committed to defense their own nation and go against the invaders, there are people who defense love. War is a disaster but people are positioned in moral dilemmas which make them hard to make decisions. A simple question is raised: to betray a beloved person who means significantly in your life, or kill this person for the others in your nation. The decent answer seems easy according to deontology and contratarianism: to kill a traitor is moral, but it doesn't work that well when it comes to the enlightened self-interest and consequentialism: my own good or the others.
While War creates heroes, it also tortures people and testifies the morality, ethical standard. Human being is a complex, we just can't obey the rules all the time.
Film Critique: My Sister’s Keeper
ReplyDeleteWritten by Jody Picoult
Directed by Nick Cassavetes
Released on June 26, 2009
Based on the book of the same name, My Sister’s Keeper tells the story of 13-year-old Anna Fitzgerald whose birth was deliberately “designed” so she would be a perfect genetic match to her sister, Kate. Kate is dying from leukemia and her parents hope that the blood from Anna’s umbilical cord will keep Kate alive, which it does. As time goes on and Anna grows up she finds herself in the hospital again and again to undergo procedures like blood transfusions and bone marrow transplants. Finally, when she is expected to donate a kidney to Kate, Anna sues her parents for medical emancipation so she can make her own decisions about these medical procedures.
This film is a veritable cornucopia of ethical questions and questionable ethic:
- Anna is conceived for the purpose of saving another child. Anna’s parents say they had planned on having a third child before they knew Kate was sick but they didn’t move ahead on that plan until they were aware that a designer baby might save Kate. Does the fact that Anna was genetically engineered to be a perfect match for Kate change the ethics around their decision to have another child? They say they would have had a third child even if Kate wasn’t ill or had died, so isn’t making sure the baby is a match just making Anna’s life count for mare than it would have otherwise?
- The film doesn’t really address the ethics surrounding scientific procedures such as genetic engineering but the debate roars on as to where this slippery slope might lead. If you can genetically alter a child for medical purposes why not for aesthetics, or gender, sexual orientation, or athletic ability?
- The Fitzgerald’s have a child with leukemia. As responsible parents are they morally bound to use any means necessary to try and save her? Even if that amounts to using their other daughter as a means to an end? Even if the result is that the younger daughter often ends up in the hospital feeling just as awful as her sister does? How does one determine if the possibility of saving one child outweighs taking away the childhood of another? Or of putting both daughters’ lives a risk?
Anna also has a bother, Jesse, who, because he isn’t ill or a good genetic match for Kate, is entirely ignored by his parents. What are the responsibilities of the Fitzgerald’s to their other children? When Jesse acts out by lighting buildings on fire they are too involved in the drama around the girls to pay much attention – even though his father is a fireman and people’s lives could be at stake. As a fireman, what are the father’s responsibilities to the community?
[continued in next entry]
{continued from last entry]
ReplyDelete- Should the parents of a young child expect that child to do whatever they tell her to do with her body? Is it ethical to cite developmental maturity as the reason why she is not able to make her own decisions about her own body? If she refuses to co- operate can, or should, her parents force her in the name of the greater good?
- The lawyer in the story also faces some ethical decisions when he takes Anna’s case. She is just 13 years old, is it right for him to use client/lawyer privilege and keep Anna’s activities and thoughts from her parents? How does he know that she’s mature enough to be fully aware of what she’s doing and the possible repercussions?
- Anna’s mother is an ex-lawyer who decides to represent herself and her husband in the lawsuit even though she is hardly impartial. While acting as a lawyer on the case she tries, several times, to use her privilege and power as a mother to make Anna drop the lawsuit – and in doing so, goes against her husband’s, and so her client’s, wishes in the process.
- Her mother’s badgering gets to the point where Anna has to move out with a supposedly impartial court appointed guardian; but the guardian has had a relationship with Anna’s lawyer in the past and, as the story unfolds, becomes involved with him again. Neither the guardian nor the lawyer discloses their relationship to the court or the lawyer for the defence (Anna’s mother) even though the guardian is privy to confidential interaction between Anna and her mother (when the mother is acting as a mother rather than a lawyer).
- In court, after it comes out that it was Kate who asked Anna to file the lawsuit against their parents (she doesn’t want the surgery either) the judge rules in favour of Anna and appoints her lawyer as her medical guardian. As her lawyer drives Anna home they’re in a car accident and Anna is left brain dead. Despite the ruling, and what both Anna and Kate clearly wanted, the lawyer allows the kidney transplant to go ahead and Anna’s other organs are harvested for future needs. The surgery is successful and Kate lives, but was the lawyer’s decision ethical? His decision was against the court order and his client’s wished but, at the same time, how could it be right to let both daughters die?
There are no answers in this film just as there are no pat answers to these dilemmas in real life. And while the film doesn’t address all the ethical questions involved in a direct way, or take us to the emotional depths one would suffer in real life, we do see the characters wrestle with some of the decisions they must make. And whether we’re for or against stem cell research or designer babies, parent’s rights, children’s rights, or any of the other aspects of this story, the film does remind us that the ethics involved are bound up with love, need, fear, hope and all the other emotions that make us human.
I would like to relate the classic spy film, starring Pierce Brosnan, of GOLDENEYE to Rawls Contractarianism. Here we have two former co-workers fignting over a key central theme. Where the Protagonist is dedicated to his role as a spy agent in the international world of espionage. This dedication puts him against his former partner by his beliefs. The Antagonist faked his death to leave that career and pursue more personal monetary gains at the expense of others. The film also has plenty of evidence of other unethical behaviors like taking pictures of a person in secret without their permission.
ReplyDeleteIn the movie the Protagonist is committed to the representation of his country, in this case England, for the overall benefit of his people. All of the actions that he takes are funded by those same peoples government. He is making moral decisions on a daily basis that recquires thinking about doing the correct thing for the greatest number of people. At one point he is able to use his connections to research a license plate of a car that is registered in a country other than his own.This is a sign that he is given power for his following of a moral value that is the backbone of his profession. The amount of trust given to him by other nations is relative to that given to him by his own nation.
The Antagonist did not believe in this profession and the added benefit of it to the people of his country. He turned his back on it to pursue his own interests.These interests (pursuits of large sums of money) comes to benefit only a few while resulting in the loss of life for many individuals. Loss of life of the innocent goes directly against any good moral system. The use of deception by not showing your real motivations to the people you serve is another.
In Contractarianism it is necessary to put aside personal intersts, desires, and interest for the purpose of recognizing and doing the right thing. We need to be able to recognize and cope with how we may have advantages over others. In the film the use of poltical power to gain personal profits that results in loss of innocent people is shown. I think that the conflict highlighted by this movie symbolizes how we must act in an empathetic way towards people in society in order for it to be successful. It also shows the tragedy that can occur if we act selfishly.
Title: Freedom Writers
ReplyDeleteRelease Date: 5 January 2007
Director: Richard LaGravenese
I have chosen Freedom Writers as the movie I will write an ethical review about. There are two points I want discuss first, Erin the teacher played by Hillary Swank becomes so involved with her students and their success that her life and marriage suffers. I want to look at this from Plato’s perspective in that to be an ethical person we must rationally control our emotions. Despite Erin’s noble intentions according to Plato she is acting immorally and his proof would be that her acting on her emotions and becoming obsessed with her students has led to the demise of her marriage. This activity has caused her soul to be put off balance and as a result her life is out of her control. Plato calls this virtue temperance, one could say Erin is lacking in temperance and therefore her soul is suffering.
The second point I want to make is when Mr. Whitebread asks his one African American student to provide “the black perspective” on a story they are studying. Looking at this from Kant’s categorical imperative the teacher wants to have a spokes person for a different race without having to think too hard, he is considering the maxim that every time a person is a visible minority in any situation they are to be called upon and singled out to speak for their minority. The universal maxim would be that we must always single out a minority to speak for their people. It would be unacceptable to make this into a universal law because that would mean everybody at one time or another in their life would be put on the spot and ostracized for appearing differently and become the spokesperson for their race regardless of what culture or ethnicity they identify with or consider themselves. In light of Kant’s perspective Mr. Whitebread was acting unethically.
Twilght of the Golds (1997) is a movie about a young Jewish couple expecting their first child. The father is a genetic researcher who is mapping the human genome, and the completion of his research project coincides with his wife finding out that she is pregnant. The Director of the research project convinces the father to run a full genetic sequence on the fetus to screen for genetic diseases. The results of the genetic testing indicate that the child does not carry the marker for any known genetic diseases, is completely healthy, will demonstrate above average intelligence, and has a 90% probability of being gay.
ReplyDeleteThe first ethical issue is whether or not to test in the first place. A decision is quickly made to proceed with testing without a careful examination of the inherent ethical dimensions. The Ethics of Care suggests that we also have a duty to prepare a person for the emotional and psychological implications of genetic test results, (i.e. The right to be informed) and to give consideration to how our decisions will impact others. I question whether we have sufficiently trained counselors to help individuals make informed choices.
Divine Command theory suggests that God dictates what is morally right. Absolutism suggests that what is wrong is always wrong and what is right is always right. If God says, “Thou Shall Not Kill”, then abortion is morally wrong. However, if God also says that homosexuality is morally wrong then which principle do we uphold? Relativism suggests that what is right or wrong depends on the situation, time, place and persons involved. In the movie, each character brings a unique worldview to the debate of whether or not to end the pregnancy. The expectant mother’s brother is gay, her father and mother are homophobes who in the course of the movie disclose their complete distain for their own son’s “lifestyle choice”. “I think you are depraved and diseased and if there was a cure I would want you to be cured,” says the father to his gay son. Peripheral characters inject their own personal stories which influence the mother’s decision making process, including: a friend who is gay-bashed in front of the expectant mother, a close friend who is unable to conceive a child, and a father-in-law who is a holocaust survivor and abhors his son’s decision to use his medical training to work as a geneticist instead of a “healer”.
The characters must grapple with religious beliefs, discrimination, the rights of minorities, and abortion without moral agreement on higher order principles. Who gets to decide the value of each of the traits that make up our species? The holocaust-surviving father-in-law, the gay brother and his boyfriend each present their arguments through the lens of Enlightened Self-Interest, (we should not do to others what we don’t want done to us) with each character making a clear case against aborting the child. Also, from a feminist perspective, it could be argued that those who are most vulnerable to our choices deserve additional consideration in proportion to the degree that they are affected by our choices. In terms of strengthening relationships, the gay brother says it best, “we are all a tapestry, and if you start to pull out the colours that you dislike the whole thing falls apart.”
The movie scratches the surface on number of important and relevant issues related to genetic testing that we will face in our lifetime:
• Is it ethical to test for a disease when no cure or treatment is available?
• Should we test in childhood (or in utero) for diseases that will not manifest themselves until adulthood or old age?
• Can we be denied access to health coverage because we test positive for the genetic marker of a particular disease?
• Will future generations be further stratified according to their genetic make-up?
• What are the implications regarding the commodification of human genes by biotech companies (human genes, their tests and treatments can be patented)
Film: Crash
ReplyDeleteRelease Date: 2005
This film is full of ethical debates that the different characters are forced to deal with. Each character has at least one ethical decision that they are forced to make throughout the film. The main and overarching issue in the film is that of racism. The characters come from many different racial, cultural, and socio-economic backgrounds which affect the way that they view and treat people of other races. We see this at numerous points throughout the film including at the start when a latina police office tells an asian lady that “maybe you see over the steering wheel” that there would not have been an accident. The characters in the film seem to believe that the problems that they are all facing are directly related to their race. This is seen even in the more affluent caucasian household where the woman complains that she cannot turn to walk the other way when she feels uncomfortable on the street because she would be viewed as a racist. When viewing the film through this ethical lens, I began to think of contractual ethics. The goal of contractarianism is to create a state of equality and justice for all. Furthermore, the theory states that we cannot make decisions without considering our own personal biases. In my opinion, if the characters of the film followed contractual ethics, many of the problems that arise in the film would not take place.
One situation that is particularly poignant in this film is the scenes between the caucasian male police officer and the black female. During their first encounter he makes an ethical decision where he does not consider her feelings. During this encounter, he molests her in front of her husband and his partner. The next day, he comes across a car accident. In a flipped over car is that same women who has just left after fighting with her husband about the previous evening. In this second encounter, he does what is right and makes the decision to put her safety ahead of his own and does what it takes to save her.
Another character who undergoes an ethical shift is the affluent caucasian women that was mentioned earlier. In the beginning she mentions feeling unsafe when she comes across African American people on the street and expresses her anger as to the fact that she cannot simply turn and walk away from them. She also treats her hispanic housekeeper as if she is a second rate citizen. After falling down the stairs she realizes that she has no real friends, and the only person who comes to her aid is her housekeeper.
Overall, this film has many different ethical issues and I truly suggest that people watch it again through this ethical lens. Many of the characters in the film go through changes in their ethics in the film, some of the best and others for the worst. Many of the people begin only looking out for themselves, but begin a paradigm shift towards looking at the big picture and helping the greater good of society.
DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944)
ReplyDeleteDirected by Billy Wilder
DOUBLE INDEMNITY is notable for many reasons. The film was directed by Billy Wilder and the screen-play was written by Wilder and Raymond Chandler. Also, it stars Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck and Edward G. Robinson. The movie is considered to be a "film noir" classic. Also, there are many important ethical issues in the film.
First, there are the ethics of insurance (in a sense, the ethics of capitalism). Should an insurance salesperson sell people products they don’t need—at a profit to the company—with only comparatively little expense to the customer?
Second, there is the issue of love. Should a person (in this case, Barbara Stanwyck’s character Phyllis Dietrichson) stay in a loveless relationship? How closely should one adhere to societal standards regarding legally recognized romantic relationships?
Finally, there is the ethics of friendship as depicted in DOUBLE INDEMNITY. This film is an amazing depiction of the pleasures and perils of what it means to be a friend. Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) and Barton Keyes (Edward G. Robinson) are fellow employees at an insurance agency. Keyes is Neff’s superior. Walter decides to collaborate on a “perfect murder” with Phyllis. Keyes has what he calls “my little man”—a kind of stomach ache that tells him when something is amiss with an insurance claim. Although he knows that something is wrong with the Dietrichson claim, he does not know that his colleague is responsible. At the end of the film Neff tells Keyes that Keyes could not account for the murder because the perpetrator was “Right across the desk” from him. Keyes responds with the incredible line: “Closer than that Walter.”
DOUBLE INDEMNITY makes the following important ethical claims: crime does not pay, life is worth more than money, and that certain ethical responsibilities trump friendship. I cannot recommend this film highly enough. A formal masterpiece, it is also an astonishing contribution to ethics and ethical philosophy.
When the idea of reviewing a film for ethics came up the first film that popped into my head was Terry Gillian’s Brazil. Gillian’s future is like a Dickens Victorian visions on LSD in which the thinning crust of aristocrats manage to cling to the top of a vast majority of starving or destitute masses. These aristocrats are moved purely by self interest with a preoccupied with plastic surgery and media persona, not unlike our own current reality. This system is maintained by a draconian and extremely violent police state mechanism that is ran by a grotesquely obese bureaucracy all justified seemingly by a blind belief in the “Greater good” The state machinery gone wrong argues the case of an absolute ideal society and the danger of myopic possibilities in Plato’s republic. I also see the ethos of deontology in conflict with a social contract that rationalizes self-interest above all as a way to ignore the horrific realities through justified egoism.
ReplyDeleteThe film Brazil brazenly lays out its moral position in the first five minutes When asked why terrorists have been entrenched in a 13-year bombing campaign, the deputy director responds confidently “Bad sportsmanship, They have forgotten the good old moral virtue of letting the other guy win” With that legendary director enters into one of the most horrific Orwellian visions of a possible future envisioned in the 1980’s and doesn’t miss the mark of our modern times by much. The story unfolds as our protagonist, an ambitionless everyman, Sam Lowry the son of a well connected socialite sidesteps advancement in the state run bureaucratic machinery known as information retrieval, (a sort of CIA on steroids) to hide away in records until the blind self interest pulls him into the heart of a terrorist plot.
Sam Lowery is motivated purely by self-interest. He is calmly complacent to the realities of his surroundings until it affects him. First his air conditioning goes on the fritz and then he falls in love. The first problem is solved by the movies hero a Harry Tuttle, a renegade-heating engineer, who can no longer bear the moral cost of serving the mechanism of the state, for his driven by a deep sense of duty to do his job. So he goes against the greater good in a Kantian way see past the tyranny and perform his duty. His intentions are portrayed in the film to be beyond anything other than it is the right thing to do. Demonstrating the need for good men to stand for their beliefs in the face of tyranny and oppression. (Robert Deniro as Tuttle makes the virtuous hero even that much more convincing.)
Lowery, progressing becomes enthralled in the actions of a young woman he has dreamed of and the film takes a nod, to Descartes, as the dreams Lowery has been having, come to life. Lowery even remarks that, “he dreams there fore it can be real”, not unlike Descartes famous axiom. But it is the lack of righteousness in his motivations that leads Lowery to a dark end. (Spoiler Warning)
I can see so many ethical arguments in this film that I could have stretched into as essay. Overall I find that it leads into the questions around what we ethically see as vital in a society in maintaining “THE GREATER GOOD” and who gets to decide and what if they are wrong, ethically.
It took me a while to decide which movie I was going to watch for this assignment. At first I was going to watch a movie called _Crimes and Misdemeanors_, a Woody Allen film I watch in my first year philosophy class (when we were talking about ethics). I also considered watching a classic Disney movie, _Inglourious Basterds_, _Drop Dead Gorgeous_, _Taxi Driver_, etc. I asked people what movies they thought might be good, movies that had some real issues. I started watching a movie I’ve seen before—just for fun—and started to recognize ethical issues in it. I realized I could really watch any movie I wanted, that ethical issues pervade our society and that discussing ethics with our students is something I’ve become to believe we are almost morally obligated to do! But I digress. The movie I ended up watching was _Sybil_, a made-for-TV movie starring Sally Field and Joanne Woodward. It’s based on a true story about a young woman who lived through an abusive childhood and developed 16 personalities to cope with the torment of the abuse. Woodward plays Field’s psychiatrist, Dr. Wilbur, who works with Sybil over several years until she is finally cured.
ReplyDeleteThere are two ethical issues I would like to discuss in regard to the film: 1) professional confidentiality and boundaries and 2) the need to report suspicious behaviour. I got tuned into the idea of confidentiality and boundaries early in the film when Dr. Wilbur first takes Sybil as a patient. Dr. Wilbur is walking with another woman, talking about Sybil’s case. I wondered, isn’t this breaking confidentiality? We learn that the other woman is Dr. Wilbur’s mentor, and this is where the ethical line blurs. It would seem as though she is breaking the patient/doctor confidentiality, but she is doing so to seek guidance and advice from another doctor. Throughout the film, I see Dr. Wilbur following Mill’s utilitarianism: whatever she does is for the greater good, namely the good of Sybil. For example, there is another time when the doctor breaks the confidentiality when Sybil (acting as one of her personalities, Marcia) is suicidal. Sybil’s neighbour is there and the doctor tells him about Sybil’s condition so he may handle the situation and save Sybil’s life. Dr. Wilbur’s utilitarian views seem to mix with other ethical issues, specifically in regard to her close relationship with one of Sybil’s personalities, Peggy. Peggy is a little girl and every time she visits the doctor she asks to sit in the big chair with the doctor and to rest her head on the doctor’s chest. Objectively, this violates major boundary issues, but viewers can tell the doctor is actually has Sybil’s best interest in mind since a great deal of Sybil's issues stem from the fact that she had an utter lack of love and affection in her life; also, their relationship lasted over 11 years and obviously involved a great deal of trust.
The second ethical issue I would like to discuss is Socrates’s idea that “being good is its own reward” and that we should be concerned with our own ideas of ourselves (having a “balanced soul”) rather than our perceived reputations. Throughout Sybil’s childhood, there were many people who could have recognized she was being abused. For example, her father turned a blind eye to her injuries and odd phobias and believed everything the mother said. In a scene where Sybil gets her tonsils out, she begs a young doctor to take her away from her parents and he says, "I can't." Can't what, exactly? Be bothered to go through the process of reporting the abuse? Risk making such an accusation against an established family in the community? Her family doctor, as well, tells Dr. Wilbur he treated a very young Sybil once for a bladder infection and saw signs of sexual abuse, though he reported it to no one. It is the responsibility of everyone—not just teachers—to report such suspicious behaviours. For me, this goes with the idea of being good is its own reward because, in this case, not being good (i.e. ignoring evidence of abuse) resulted in the family doctor, even years and years later, wondering how he could be absolved for his actions.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great movie and I would recommend it to anyone. Mostly, the acting is amazing. Sally Field IS Sybil Dorsett (and Peggy and Vicky and Vanessa and Marcia and…). Another really interesting thing I thought about while watching is how a lot of evil things were done to Sybil in the name of god: her mother used god to threaten Sybil and locked her in a box in the shed so she would learn the way god wanted her to act, and her father didn’t want to allow her to see Dr. Wilbur and get better because the church didn’t believe in therapy. It seems like some of the more radical religions can definitely get away from the 5(ish) core values we saw to be consistent over all religions.
“Nothing but the Truth” is loosely based on various true stories that relate to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The central character, Rachel Armstrong, is a journalist who works for a Washington newspaper. She is married to Raymond a novelist, and they have a young son named Timmy. Timmy’s elementary school classmate is called Alison. Alison is the daughter of a woman called Erica Van Doren. In the opening scene we see Rachel sitting on a school bus. Next to her is Alison and behind her is Timmy. Timmy berates Alison because she tattled on someone. Timmy tells Alison: “You’re not supposed to tattle” To which Rachel replies: “But you’re not supposed to put up with bullies either”. This is the underlying premise of the movie.
ReplyDeleteRachel has written a story that identifies Government misconduct on a major scale. In the story Rachel names a covert CIA operative. The CIA operative happens to be Erica. Rachel is brought before the Grand Jury and acting on her journalistic principles, she refuses to name the primary source for her story. There are many consequences for Rachel’s decision not to name her source.
Firstly, when the story runs, Erica is exposed, and her life is ruined. She is hounded by the media, and her child has to leave town for the sake of personal safety. Erica is murdered by an extremist, so she pays for Rachel’s decision with her life.
Secondly, Rachel goes to jail and then to prison because by not naming her source she is found to be in contempt of court. Rachel’s actions protect her source, her integrity, her journalistic principles and society’s right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Rachel sacrifices her marriage, time with her son, her job and her freedom to stand behind her principles. Her actions demonstrate virtues such as honour and courage. From Rachel’s perspective the choice not to reveal her source is a virtuous one. She’s doing the right thing. By acting on her principles Rachel protects the rights of one individual (her source) and the larger interests of society and democratic freedom. Her source has the right to expose government misconduct which in turn means government is accountable to its’ citizens. Society has the right to know what its government is doing. Therefore Rachel’s actions serve the greater good. On the other hand, Rachel’s husband and son pay part of the price of Rachel’s refusal to name her source because her courage and principles come at great personal cost to them. From their perspective, Rachel's decision may not be a virtuous one.
Sideways Ethics
ReplyDeleteSideways, directed by Alexander Payne, is a film set in California wine country. In contrast to the beautiful setting, themes of unethical behaviour run throughout the film as the lives of two middle-aged friends become entangled in webs of lies and deceit. Miles, a depressed English teacher trying to get his novel published, and his pal Jack, a womanizing actor, travel to Napa Valley for ‘one last week of freedom’ before Jack’s pending nuptials. Miles believes that the trip will allow the friends to play some golf, drink good wine, and eat good food before Jack becomes tied down to his new bride. Jack, on the other hand, soon makes it clear that he intends to have sex prior to getting hitched.
In Jack’s mind, it is ethically permissible to engage in extracurricular sex while engaged. He feels obliged to sow his oats before tying the knot, when in his mind it would no longer be permissible to sleep with someone else. Jack believes that he is doing his fiancée a favor by getting this out of his system before they are wedded. The issue of infidelity serves as a divisive force during the pair’s road trip as Miles takes issue with what he views as adulterous intentions on Jack’s part. Ultimately Jack does meet a woman at a winery, Stephanie, and proclaims his love for her as they spend most of the week together. Near the end of the week Stephanie finds out that Jack is engaged and promptly breaks his nose and ends the relationship. Unmoved, Jack picks up a waitress at dinner the following night only to be caught in the act with her by her husband. Miles appears to be the more ethical of the two main characters, however later we find out that he too cheated on his first wife, he steals from his aged mother, and he lies throughout the film. In the end the pair’s lies catch up with them and they each come to see the error of their ways.
One of the many ethical issues at stake in Sideways is that of what constitutes adultery. Jack contends that it isn’t cheating if you aren’t yet married, while Miles insists that engagement constitutes sufficient grounds for adultery to have occurred. In my opinion one simply needs to have outside relations while in a committed relationship, even if not married or engaged, to be an adulterer. According to Kant’s categorical imperative that states we ought to act in accordance with that which we would wish to be a universal law, Jack’s behaviour can only be judged as immoral. In no way would we want a universal law that supports all engaged people participating in sexual relations outside of their relationships. Moreover, Mill would also object to Jack’s behaviour (and Miles’ deception) on the Utilitarian grounds that while “an individual lie may cause more immediate happiness than harm to those directly affected by it, the long-range consequence will be more overall harm than there was immediate happiness” (77). Essentially, if everyone engaged in lies then society will suffer as people could not trust one another. As such, the deceitful behaviour depicted in the film could not be supported by Utilitarianism either.
Dances with Wolves
ReplyDeleteWestern film tells the story of Civil War United States Army lieutenant (Kevin Costner). The ethical value starts with an army individual injured in the battle and his leg to be amputated, as seeing many soldiers with amputated legs and realized that he is going to be no good in fighting pushed him to commit suicide. He stole a horse and ran away from the hospital to no man's land between the two armies (Union and Confederate). This action considered as great action and his officials to honor him as a hero as an army ethic is there even with misleading action. The ethical mood for centuries in American society as conflict with natives (Indians), as the soldier lost his group in the land of Indians, so nobody can go and find out what happened to him. So lonely soldier tried to get to Sioux neighbors (Indians). Here is an essential change in his army ethics towards the Indians. In his way to them, he found a white lady (Mary McDonnell) she just slit her wrists in a suicide attempt, and took her to the Indian camp to treat her. Her is another ethical misleading that the lady is white and lost her husband but she was afraid that the soldier would take her back to the white community in which she did not want as she is adapted by Indian leader and she was living with them. At the same time there is dramatic change in the ethics of Indians towards US Army individuals as the soldier brought the lady for treatment as he gained their attitude and established good relationship with them and the white lady translated between him and the Indians. The soldier has been drawn by Indian's lifestyle and customs and he was looking forward to their company, he became a hero between them and accepted as honored guest but not one of them in which the ethical conflict between Indians and US Army individual is there to prevent complete trust of actions and accept the soldier as one of them and they refused to take him to fight with them against the Pawnee tribe. Instead they left him behind to take care of the families. He falls in love with the white lady but her recent death of her husband pushed them to keep the relationships secret as for the Indians ethics. The Indians fight took long time and the soldier in a volunteer action used the army store and got all the stockpile of rifles to help them defend their camp which helped him meeting their ethics and accept him as a full-fledged member. After that he could marry the white lady. At this point there is a change in the soldier's ethics as he told the Indians that the US army will continue to invade their land (ethical change from self defending to invade their land). The soldier decide to find his diary and returned to the outpost which is occupied by the US army and since the soldier was dressed in Indians wears and he could not been recognized by the army, so they shoot him and injured him and the soldiers of the US army beat him and took time to recognize him. After that they decided that he is a traitor and suppose to be punished but he has been rescued by the Indians. There is clear and long mislead ethical conflict here as the US army ethics still does not trust and accept Indians as people you can live with them. When the soldier returned with the Indians to the camp, he told them that the US army will follow him as a deserter and murderer in which will endangering the tribe and is good to move away from them, this is a change in ethical value to the people who saved him and accepted him as a member. The ethical values of this movie is to make and trust animal as his horse and the wolves, and the soldier's barbarism could be changed when being in many difficult moments of life, the value of the freedom, and finally it shows the two sides; the US army side and Indians side and how they can be changed to meet the humanity clean souls and live together in peace.
Many comedies derive their humour by posing exaggerated ethical dilemmas. The interplay between competing belief systems is used to set up the conflict between an antagonist and protagonist, and this interplay is repeated many times in the movie CADDYSHACK. Caddyshack takes this concept a bit further by having several characters all in competition with the antaganoist, Judge Smails, a man who doesn’t appear to have any ethical system at all. Such absurdity is part of Caddyshack’s charm and humour.
ReplyDeleteDanny Noonan is one of the main characters in Caddyshack, and the movie is loosely centered around his desire to enter university and needing a scholarship to do so. Danny follows the ideals of Aristotle, whereby he tries to follow a set of virtue ethics while maintaining his own personal development. He demonstrates this on several occasions where he turns away from personal desires in order to follow a path that doesn’t necessarily give him immediate or obvious benefit (his affair with Lacey Underall being the obvious exception). Another main character is Al Czervik, a second protagonist that in many ways is the opposite of Danny. Al is decidedly utilitarian, whereby despite his sometimes ignorant and obnoxious behavior, his actions tend to promote happiness in both himself and others around him. Al is unafraid to break club rules in an effort to progress his personal agenda. However, he is also astute enough to realize that his actions are generally appreciated by those around him.
The struggle between ethic systems comes to a head near the end of the movie. On a personal level, Danny is presented with a dilemma and a choice to make. He can sink a putt to win a tournament, which is the action that a deontologist would take. On the other hand, he can purposely miss the putt which would have immediate benefits to himself. Furthermore, by missing the putt it is possible that the greatest amount of happiness would be achieved. Perhaps a utilitarian would actually miss the putt on purpose. Danny chooses to sink the putt, an action that is congruent with his virtue ethics.
I searched for many ways in which I could bring Carl Spackler, Bill Murray’s character, into this analysis. However, I reflected upon the idea that a person needs to use knowledge in order to be ethical, as ethics requires rational thought. It therefore makes sense that Carl is difficult to relate to ethics, as he is a completely irrational character. He is not devoid of a belief system though, as there are suggestions that he is a follower of Buddhism. Carl is happy with his lot in life, undoubtedly due to the fact that the Dalai Lama granted Carl “total consciousness.” As Carl says in the movie, this is a gift “which is nice.”
I chose the film Gattaca (1997) starring Ethan Hawk and Uma Thurman for my movie review. Gattaca focuses on a society that promotes physical perfection. Moments after birth a child’s blood is tested to determine probable life expectancy and possible health issues. The results of these tests determine each person’s social, educational and employment opportunities for the rest of their life. Ethan Hawk plays Vincent who is one of the last naturally conceived babies born into this society. The preferred method of conceiving a child is through genetic pre-selection of optimal embryos to ensure future parents the preferred gender of child, as well as height and other desirable physical attributes. Vincent’s dreams of space travel are hampered by the probability of developing a heart condition at some point in his life. Seeking to fulfill his dreams, he buys the identity of Jerome, a man who has superior genes but has been disabled in an accident. Using Jerome’s blood and urine, he passes countless genetic tests while applying and working at the Gattaca Corporation, as he strives to fulfill his life ambition of traveling to space. I really like this movie as it parallels many ethical issues our society is facing today. One such issue is genetic pre-selection. Currently in Canada there is the ability for fertilization specialists to identify the gender of embryos. This practice is currently banned except for use to avoid gender specific hereditary diseases such as hemophilia. Another accepted practice of genetic screening is amniocentesis, a test done to determine if a fetus has Down Syndrome or other genetic anomalies. Women are then asked if they want to continue the pregnancy or abort. Another service available to people is to use a sperm donor. When looking for a donor, prospective parents are given a list of the donor’s medical background including any major health issues of his siblings as well as parents. Also you can choose by hair colour, eye colour, height, weight and other physical attributes as well as cultural and religious background, and educational achievements. Prospective parents can use this information to aid in creating their “perfect child”. How different are we from the society portrayed in Gattica?
ReplyDeleteI’m sorry my summary of Traitor: The Truth is Complicated starring Don Cheedle and Guy Pearce is going to blow the ending. It’s a great movie. Maybe watch it, and then come back to my commentary.
ReplyDeleteThe movie begins with a Muslim, Sudanese boy saying his prayers. He looks out the window to see his father, a spiritual leader, being blown up in a car bomb. The next scene is the man that boy became selling arms in Yemen to a terrorist group trying to free its people from American oppression. He gets caught by a joint force of Yemenis and American forces while conducting the transaction. He is taken to a Yemenis prison where he is contacted by both the FBI and another terrorist group. The FBI tries to manipulate him saying that they know he is not a “fanatic” and the terrorist group wants him to prove that he is not a traitor. The tug-of-war between sides continues for the rest of the movie.
In the prison, we begin to see the man’s, Samir’s, character. His faith is very strong. It guides him through difficult situations. He will not stand by and allow injustice. For example, a man is bullied out of his food in jail, so Samir offers his. The bully threatens Samir saying that the bully gets to decide who lives and dies in the jail. Samir answers, “It is up to God to decide who lives and dies.” We also find out that Samir is caught between cultures: his father was Sudanese and his mother was American. A fellow inmate, Omar, asks him what language he dreams in and he replies that it is in English. This divide intensifies his conflict in the tug-of-war between the Muslim and American influences.
Both sides ask him to compromise his values. The terrorist group leader forces him to drink alcohol to prove that he can follow orders. He is told to prepare a 17 year old boy to be a suicide bomber. He tries to get the boy out of the situation by saying that he’s not old enough to handle the mission. The leader undermines Samir’s request to remove the boy. Samir is devastated when the boy is killed because he fails his mission. To save the mission, he offers to set up a remote detonation of the American consulate in Nice. At this point in the movie, we begin to see that the Americans are pulling his strings as well. His US contact helps him set-up the bombing with fake consulate employees. Even with American support, Samir still kills six unintended victims. He says at one point in the movie, “I have made choices with peoples’ lives and I have to live with that.” He tells his American handler that the handler sounds no different than the terrorists. The handler replies, “Yeah, but we’re the good guys.”
Samir changes the terrorist’s plan to attack the United States resulting in only 30 or so deaths instead of hundreds. The FBI agent who has been trying to uncover Samir’s life throughout the movie meets with him at the very end of the movie to thank him. The agent tells him that his record has been wiped clean and that he is a free man. Samir says that he can never be free after what he has done: “The Koran says if you kill an innocent person, it’s as if you have killed all mankind.” The agent responded with “It also says that if you save one life, it’s as if you have saved all mankind.”
Portrait of a Woman according to the Movie Cars
ReplyDeleteThere is a disturbing trend in the way females are portrait in children’s movie. In most cases there are very few female. The Lion King, Ice age, Finding Nemo, UP, Monsters Inc, Toy Story are a few examples of children’s movies with few female characters. If one was to eliminate those females whose primary role was a shadow character for a male you will likely eliminate all of them. Is this what we want our children to see. I decided to take a closer look at how women are portrayed in the movie Cars.
The first thing I noticed about the female characters is how few of them there are. By counting only the characters that talked, including characters that only had one line, there were 80 males and only 16 females. Most female characters are there support or enhance a male character. One third of the female characters are nothing more than show girls with large feather headdresses. These are simply there to decorate the sponsor tent of one all male racing teams. The other 10 Females in this movie also have other stereotypical roles.
The stereotypes addressed include the crazy old woman who repeatedly talks to herself Some of these seem more objects than anything else.
The objectification of women in this movie comes through in many other places. The most obvious example of objectification occurs at the meeting of the main male and main female character. In this dialogue the male character states “ all you have to do is stand there and let me look at you.” Even in the bonus material there is an advertisement for a gas station that has “convertible waitresses. I guess this means they can go topless. This is followed by a sketch of an attractive looking sports car. This suggestion of convertible being sexy is interesting when you look at the obsessed fans. The fans of the main character include a couple of young twin females. In order to increase the desirability they are made as small, red, convertible sports cars. This seems to be working because when they introduce themselves Mc Queens reply is I love being me, he also fantasizes living in his pent house with these same twins. Later these twins switch to a different male idol. This male then uses this switch to make his rival upset. This same male wins the race and asks bring on the confetti, where are the girls. Apparently winning gives you girls as prizes. With the poorly developed character these twins are nothing more than objects. This leaves 6 females over. Two of these were one line news reporters and one news reporter that actually appears more than once. She has no name and we are given no information into her life.
The last three characters include the most disturbing one. One female minivan shows traits addressed by John Stewart. This female shows signs of obedience and submission. Her husband refuses to ask for directions. When one car tries to share a route with them she states “Oh do you now,” with a genuine interest. Her husband shushes her by simply telling her “No, Mini” His tone of voice similar to that used to control a dog. In this same couple the female also shows submission by always driving behind her man. It is with pure dog like faith she continues following her husband even at the end where he has obviously lost his mind. This also supports Stewart’s idea of low intelligence in women in society.
The last two women are the most-well developed characters. One is an ex lawyer who now owns a motel. The other female is an ex R&B artist who gave up her dream and her life for a man she falls in love with and now runs a 50’s gas station (that was in the bonus features). Neither of these characters undergo significant life changes or realizations, nor do they go on any adventures.
Why children’s movies don’t address the need for well developed female characters is very puzzling and, in my opinion, very inappropriate.
(in response to above post)
ReplyDelete... sorry, I'm a die-hard Disney fan, so:
Sleeping Beauty
Cinderella
Snow White
Mulan
Pocahontas
Lilo & Stitch
Lady & The Tramp
The Artistocats
Beauty & The Beast
Alice in Wonderland
The Little Mermaid
The Frog Princess
... off topic from the course content, and I'm not saying that your post is incorrect by any means, but let's not forget about the plethora of positive female role models that do exist for young people in Disney movies.
Caddyshack is one of all-time favourite movies. Bill M. is amazing. And of course, RODNEY!!
ReplyDeleteAs a person that in recent months has had to endure more "princess" than any grown adult should ever have to, I have a different slant on Disney. In summary, I am much more in favour of Barbie. Barbie and her mermaid and thumbalina contemporaries are generally quite independent, feisty, driven and resourceful. Disney, on the other hand, typically succumbs to the conclusion that the princess needs to be rescued or loved by some dude. But let's not stop there, Disney also has some pretty bad stereotyping of males too. It goes without saying that the newer stories have better representations than the older ones.
ReplyDeleteIt's ok though. I grew up with Disney, GI Joe and Big Jim, and I turned out ok. Really, I did. Just ask me. And I'm pretty sure my kids will be ok too. Like many things in life, it's not necessarily the information that counts but rather it's what you do with it.
Yeah, I'm by no means a Disney expert but doesn't The Little Mermaid exchange her voice for the chance to be with what's-his-face? And doesn't Cinderella basically spend all of her time cooking and cleaning until her life finally climaxes by becoming a wife?
ReplyDeleteWoah, woah, woah! I was mostly replying to the statement "In most cases there are very few female [lead characters in children's movies]"
ReplyDeleteps. Doug, I'm jealous that you get to spend time with people who are as passionate about Disney Princess as me. Need any babysitting? :P
“Seven Pounds”: An Ethical Review
ReplyDeleteI chose “Seven Pounds” the story of Ben, a deeply depressed and guilt-ridden man. After the death of his wife/girlfriend and six strangers in a car crash caused by his negligence, he decides to make amends by trying to help seven struggling individuals by forfeiting his life and supplying them with his organs. He assumes the identity of his brother, an IRS agent in order to find people who need help. He spends time with his prospective donors because he desperately wants to ensure that the people he chooses are living good lives.
The main ethical issue I see in this film is whether Ben (Will Smith) is acting ethically by taking his life to benefit others. There are a lot of ethical issues within this decision. There is the issue of suicide. Divine Command theory, a theory that states God’s word is the only word to consider, may consider the act of taking one’s life unethical. Furthermore, he takes the role of God into his own hands by hand picking who will benefit from his decisions. Whereas, Kant may be more inclined to focus on his intentions, intentions I would consider pure and motivated by duty. It is clear that Ben is not a man motivated by one’s own happiness, a motivation that Kant would consider unethical. This interpretation may be a little too black and white though. I think my interpretation doesn’t take into account that he may feel it is his duty because he caused an accident that killed seven people. Is an intention driven by guilt pure? If we look at the same issue through Socrates’ idea that “being good is its own reward” and that we should be concerned with our own ideas of ourselves rather than our perceived reputations I once again left unsure of how Ben’s actions would be evaluated. I do not think that he is concerned with reputation or ego, yet I also would struggle to argue that he has a “balanced soul”.
On the ethical critique of a movie of our choice this week, I choose to write about Titanic. Titanic is one of the most classic movies around the world. It was the largest passenger steamship in the world at that time but struck to an iceberg and sank, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people. I find this movie to be filled with moral dilemmas and ethical decisions. The first scene that comes to my mind is when the ship hit the iceberg, only women and children were allowed by the officers in charge into the lifeboats, followed by the upper class. The lower class people were left to die. Many of the lifeboats were only put half full of the upper class passengers when they could have filled every space up in a time like this. When Rose got rescued, she stand in the rain and states that of the more than 2,000 passengers on the Titanic only a little over 700 survived. This scene connects to Rawls’ debate on contractarian ethics where children born into poverty or into dysfunctional families face barriers those children born into middle or upper class families never have to confront. These contingent attributes made the people in lower class more likely to experience unfair situations and life dangers.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, in Titanic, Rose points out to everyone that the boats could accommodate only to half of the number of those on board, putting them on the highest deck of the ship; meaning the first class passengers will be the first to use those boats compare to the lower class passengers under deck. I do not think this is an ethical decision that the upper class was treated to the lifeboats before the passengers of the lower class. Furthermore, if the owner and the designer of the ship were ethical on their decision makings then they might be able to avoid the tragedy of Titanic. During the final minutes before the ship is about to sink, the audience can really see and feel the reality and the reactions on many of the people. Many showed their negative side of the humanity while others try help the people in danger and sacrifice their own chance to get on the lifeboat to save others. I learn the ethical lesson of sharing our resources, mutual respect, carry out professional conduct at work, and considerable of others with different values.
I chose to write on the movie "Thirteen" starring Nikki Reed and Evan Rachel Wood. The movie is a semi-autobiographical retelling of Nikki Reed's trials and tribulations as a pre-teen.
ReplyDeleteThe movie tells the story of Tracy (played by a 15 year old Wood), a thirteen year old honour-role student who's into writing and poetry, and her downward spiral into drugs, sex and alcohol. When she decides one day in seventh grade that she wants to become "cool" and "popular", she turns to Evie Zamora (played by a 14 year old Reed), a classmate and certified "hottest girl in school". Evie lives with her guardian Brooke, a struggling model/actress, but quickly moves into Tracy's house by convincing Melanie (Tracy's mom played by the talented Holly Hunter) that she is being hit by Brooke's boyfriend. Evie introduces Tracy to shop-lifting, selling drugs, and engaging in sexual activity (as well as how to manipulate everyone around her as she becomes a terror of a teenaged girl).
Other than the the title of the movie, there is rarely any mention of the two girl's ages. This presents an interesting opportunity for the viewer to make the decision themselves as to where their ethical boundaries lie when they watch the various activities the girls engage in. Tracy herself never questions her actions. She rarely hesitates before doing something new for the first time (snorting cocaine, getting her tongue pierced, performing oral sex) so long as Evie is there beside her doing the same thing. With no ethical standard for the viewer to refer to, it is entirely in our hands whether or not we condone or condemn the activity. Even at the very end of the movie, other than the knowledge that Evie is moving away, and Tracy has been reconciled with her mother, we don't know if she ever returns to the way she was. Given the behaviours the girls are engaging in, and the way they dress which makes them appear years older than they actually are, it even challenged my own beliefs on the matter. Of course I think that thirteen year old girls snorting cocaine and having threesomes with 18-year olds is wrong! But seeing these two girls who look like 20 year olds was subconsciously making me not see their actions as maybe "not so bad".
Further, it was particularly interesting that throughout the movie, none of the teachers at the girls' school got involved in regulating their behaviour. We see Tracy showing up late to her science class a number of times, but other than an advisory, "you're probably going to fail the seventh grade" warning from an unseen counsellor, there is no serious involvement. Personally, I have always maintained that when I become a teacher (Lord willing), I would never be able to watch a student slip into despair if I could avoid it. Evie was a foster child with no positive adult role models in her life, and regardless of whether or not it's a teachers job to be a positive role model on top of all their other responsibilities, it would be against my personal ethics to be one for any students who needed it.
Movie: Gone Baby Gone
ReplyDeleteYear: 2007
Directed by: Ben Affleck
After blogging about this one a couple of weeks ago, I am still thinking about it and would love to explore these ideas further…
Synopsis:
Two private investigators are hired to look into the kidnapping of a young girl from a rough area in Boston. The girl’s mother is addicted to drugs and involved with shady characters (to put it delicately) and was portrayed as an inattentive and uncaring mother. After much investigation, it appeared as though the daughter was accidentally killed during the ransom payment. Later in the movie, one of the original private investigators discovers that the girl did not die, and in fact, was kidnapped by a recently retired police officer whose own child had been killed years previously. The girl was living happily in their home and it was clear that she was being well taken care of and loved dearly. The investigators were left with a difficult decision: to leave the child where she was and pretend that they had never found her, or to return her to her mother.
Ethical evaluation:
This seems to be to be a case where the right thing to do isn’t clear at all. According to Virtue Ethics, it would seem that in order for the Private Investigator to be living up to his potential, he would need to return the girl to her mother and solve the case, which would in this case be his primary function. However, one could easily turn around and say that the police officer’s primary function might be to protect and that by kidnapping the girl in the first place, he is protecting her from a life of neglect.
Turning to Mill, the greatest good for the greatest number would likely be to leave the girl where she is. By keeping her there, no one is being further hurt – everyone, including her mother, already believes her to be dead. In taking her away and returning her to her mother, the police officer and his wife would be hurt, and the girl would not have the same opportunities she would have being raised in the police officer’s family versus the drug addict mother’s family. But, the other side of the jugement is that a child is best off with her mother and who are we to judge love? Beyond this, one could also argue that by letting people to go on believing that this girl is dead, one is lying to them, and is lying to people ever in their best interest? Kant would disagree… In lying, we take away one’s right to make an informed decision.
This movie has sparked much debate in those who have seen it. The ending never fails to get a rise out of an audience. Due to language and violence, I would hesitate to show this movie in class, although the ethical issues raised would set the stage for a lively class debate if presented as a scenario. Myself, I am still uncertain as to what the right thing to do would be. The moral compass seems to point in one direction, while sense and compassion point in the opposite. In a situation like this one, are we better off following the heart or the mind?
Movie: Gone Baby Gone
ReplyDeleteYear: 2007
Directed by: Ben Affleck
After blogging about this one a couple of weeks ago, I am still thinking about it and would love to explore these ideas further…
Synopsis:
Two private investigators are hired to look into the kidnapping of a young girl from a rough area in Boston. The girl’s mother is addicted to drugs and involved with shady characters (to put it delicately) and was portrayed as an inattentive and uncaring mother. After much investigation, it appeared as though the daughter was accidentally killed during the ransom payment. Later in the movie, one of the original private investigators discovers that the girl did not die, and in fact, was kidnapped by a recently retired police officer whose own child had been killed years previously. The girl was living happily in their home and it was clear that she was being well taken care of and loved dearly. The investigators were left with a difficult decision: to leave the child where she was and pretend that they had never found her, or to return her to her mother.
Ethical evaluation:
This seems to be to be a case where the right thing to do isn’t clear at all. According to Virtue Ethics, it would seem that in order for the Private Investigator to be living up to his potential, he would need to return the girl to her mother and solve the case, which would in this case be his primary function. However, one could easily turn around and say that the police officer’s primary function might be to protect and that by kidnapping the girl in the first place, he is protecting her from a life of neglect.
Turning to Mill, the greatest good for the greatest number would likely be to leave the girl where she is. By keeping her there, no one is being further hurt – everyone, including her mother, already believes her to be dead. In taking her away and returning her to her mother, the police officer and his wife would be hurt, and the girl would not have the same opportunities she would have being raised in the police officer’s family versus the drug addict mother’s family. But, the other side of the judgement is that a child is best off with her mother and who are we to judge love? Beyond this, one could also argue that by letting people to go on believing that this girl is dead, one is lying to them, and is lying to people ever in their best interest? Kant would disagree… In lying, we take away one’s right to make an informed decision.
This movie has sparked much debate in those who have seen it. The ending never fails to get a rise out of an audience. Due to language and violence, I would hesitate to show this movie in class, although the ethical issues raised would set the stage for a lively class debate if presented as a scenario. Myself, I am still uncertain as to what the right thing to do would be. The moral compass seems to point in one direction, while sense and compassion point in the opposite. In a situation like this one, are we better off following the heart or the mind?
Film Critique (Spoiler Alert!)
ReplyDeleteMovie: Unthinkable
When I first heard about the film critique assignment, I was concerned that I wouldn’t be able to find a movie that I could critique from an ethical standpoint. Much to my surprise, once I started looking for ethical issues in movies, I started seeing them everywhere. One movie that I was considering, but decided not to critique was “Unthinkable”. In this movie, there is even a scene in a change room where they talk about values. The central plot of the movie is the tension between act-utilitarianism (greatest good for the greatest number-not always an ethically acceptable course of action) and valuing social contract (contractarianism), ethics and morals above human life. But, as I mentioned, I decided not to critique “Unthinkable”.
Film Critique (Spoiler Alert!) 2
ReplyDeleteMovie: The Book of Eli
Instead, I chose to look at ethics in “The Book of Eli”. This movie is set in post-apocalyptic America. In the movie, there is a generation of young adults who have never seen a book (to give you perspective on the timeline). The story follows Eli, played by Denzel Washington, as he travels across America.
For me, this movie seems to involve two ethical belief systems. The most evident is divine command theory. In an early scene, Eli goes to help a woman who seems to have fallen. It is an ambush and he must protect himself by killing or seriously wounding the attackers. He is quite adept at fighting and is able to fight off four or five attackers. This ability to fight sets the stage for his next encounter. In the next big scene, Eli watches as two travelers are attacked, raped, and killed for their possessions and Eli appears to struggle with the ethics of watching this happen rather than intervening. At this point, he repeats over and over, “Stay on the path. It’s not your concern.” When you combine this statement with his reading of a bible, it appears that Eli is making his ethical decisions based on what he believes God has told him to do.
The second ethical belief system that seems to be at play is the idea of social contracts. In the movie, we are introduced to two distinct communities. When Eli enters a town to get his music player fixed we learn that the town is run by a dictator who is looking for a certain book (the community resembles the hard scrabble/violent communities we see in movies such as Mad Max). This man discovers that Eli has a bible. He believes that he can control people by reading from the bible (another nod to divine command theory). The next scenes are about the struggle over the book. This time, when Eli has to decide whether to intervene when a female character is being hurt, he intervenes and ends up losing the book and getting injured (has he stepped off the path?). Eventually, Eli makes it to the place he has been “told” to bring the book. This place is a totally different society. It is organized around the preservation of culture. It appears to be calm and peaceful, with gardens and famous works of art—a paradise. Eli is able to contribute to this society by recalling the bible verse from memory and dictating it verbatim.
Critics of enlightened self-interest and contractarianism would love “The Book of Eli” because it shows that the ethics of social contracts can result in the creation of very different societies and that not all of these societies would be lauded as ethical or moral.
The Reader and Ethics
ReplyDeleteThe Reader, based on the book of the same name, is filled with ethical quandaries. The plot follows Michael, a German man who had a relationship with Hanna, an older woman when he was a teenager in the 1950s. He later becomes a law student, and while watching Nazi war crimes trials, realizes that the Hanna worked as a guard at Auschwitz. As an audience member, we are placed in a difficult ethical position as is the protagonist. We are asked to understand a person who shares direct responsibility for the deaths of 300 people as well as being complicit in the crimes of the concentration camps. In my opinion, deciding how to react to Hannah is one of the most difficult ethical questions of the film, because we, in a sense, want to dehumanize those who have done terrible things or have participated in something as evil as Nazism. At the same time, we must ask ourselves the question of whether we, in the situation of a German citizen during the war, would behave as morally as we like to think.
The film also contains overt discussion of the sources of morality. A law professor, endeavouring to instruct his advanced students, posits that law (not religion or social mores) is the source of morality because the law determines what can be punished and what cannot. He raises the question of what constitutes a just sentence in the trials of women like Hannah. According to German law, the women can only be convicted of crimes that were illegal at the time of the war (not after the fact). One of his students objects to this, implying that moral absolutes exist and that certain behaviour should be punished even if the social values of the past supported those actions. Is morality therefore as fluid as the values of a society that legislates it? Can there be moral absolutes?
The film adds to this discussion of the law and justice and what constitutes morality by throwing the protagonist into his own moral dilemma. At Hanna's trial, he realizes that he alone holds certain information that would give Hanna a greatly reduced sentence. However, she chooses not to reveal this information because she would rather be punished for something she did not do, than reveal something that she is deeply ashamed of. The law says that it is his duty to reveal the information, but his major dilemma is between doing the 'just' thing to save Hannah from a unjust sentence and preserving her dignity and doing as she wants. In some ways, this episode asks us to consider whether we should respect the wishes of someone who is making an incredibly bad decision for themselves and what we should do if we feel they do not merit 'saving.'
I examined the ethical issues in the film, Das Experiment (2001), which is based on the Stanford Prison Experiment that was actually carried out in 1971 at Stanford University. The purpose of this experiment was to see how regular people would react mentally if they were given the role of being a guard or a prisoner. Thus, white middle class males were selected to participate. The experimenters picked participants that did not have a history of any psychological problems. Many of these participants partook in this experiment because they needed money. The males were randomly given the position of being prisoners or guards. There was an enormous outcry regarding the experimenter’s decision to carry out this experiment. Most critics argued that it was unethical to carry out the experiment in the first place. The experiment was cut short because of the unimaginable and absolutely atrocious behavior illustrated by the guards. The guards became out of control and physically tortured the prisoners in unimaginable ways. The experimenters lost control of the experiment and the guards. There is no doubt that the guards acted unethically. However, after watching the film, one is left wondering what made the guards (who were found to be mentally stable prior to the experiment) commit such evil acts.
ReplyDeleteI think that perhaps Thomas Hobbes’s ideas regarding the concept of power can help one gain insight regarding the reasons behind the guards’ horrendous actions. In the movie, the guards started severely mistreating the prisoners after one prisoner started to defy some of the guards’ orders. According to Hobbes, “the goal of all humans is to get and keep as much power over others as possible” (Jane Ann McLachlan, 2010, p. 103). Since the role of the prisoner inherently comes with no power, the prisoners started to defy the guards’ orders in order to get power. Since the role of the guards inherently comes with power, the guards wanted to keep their power once they realized that it was slipping away. Hobbes’s explanation regarding people’s aim to get and keep power becomes complex when looking at this movie. Hobbes states that people want to keep and get power because of “the fear and lack of security“ (McLachlan, 2010, p. 103). Although “security” usually means safety, one must closely examine the term “security” in light of this film. Considering the film, the guards may have wanted to keep their power because there was a lack of security (the prisoners were not obeying all of the guards’ orders); in this case, the term “security” only referred to the control and strict rules that the guards imposed upon the prisoners. The guards were only concerned with what they thought to be a lack of strict rules and control that were preventing the prisoners from being defiant. The prisoners, on the other hand, may have wanted to get power because of the lack of security and because they were scared of the security; it seems that “security” in this case referred not only to the control and strict rules that were imposed upon the prisoners but to their safety as well. The prisoners wanted power because there was a lack of safety and they were scared of the rules/control.
The guards fit into Hobbes’s theory regarding human conflict and one’s aim to get power. The guards wanted to “keep what they ha[d] secure from everyone who would try to take it away” (McLachlan, 2010, p. 103). As mentioned earlier, the guards wanted to keep the power (in the form of rules and control) that they felt was slipping away from them. At the same time, though, the prisoners did not really have anything to keep secure in the first place: they wanted to get power. Thus, this conflict between the prisoners and the guards is different from the human conflict that Hobbes describes. According to Hobbes, both parties are in a conflict in order “to keep what they have secure” (McLachlan, 2010, p. 103); this idea assumes that both parties have something that they can lose in the first place. In the film, not all of the parties in the conflict have something to lose: for example, the prisoners do not have power, like the guards, which they can lose. The difference between the conflicts is due to the fact that the environment in the movie does not represent a “natural world” (McLachlan, 2010, p. 103), which Hobbes bases his theory on: his theory regarding human conflict and power is based on the idea that people exist in a “natural world, where it is each man for himself” (p.103). In the movie, the prisoners unite together to defy the guards in order to get power: there is a sense of camaraderie among the prisoners. The prisoners realize that only by working together will they be able to get power. Thus, it appears that the environment in the movie affected the conflict. I learned that perhaps the environment may help explain why the guards acted the way that they did. After all, a prison does not resemble daily life. As stated earlier, the roles of being a guard and prisoner each come with different inherent characteristics. A guard inherently has power and thus has the mentality that they are entitled to everything and to do anything that they want. A prisoner, on the other hand, inherently has no power and thus has the mentality that they are inferior in comparison to the guards: there is a natural imbalance of power. The meaning of the term “security” was also based on the role of the guard and prisoner.
ReplyDeleteFilm Critique: Splice
ReplyDeleteReleased on June 4, 2010
Synopsis
The movie I chose to write about is called “Splice” starring Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley. This horror, science fiction, and thriller movie is based around two young, brilliant, and ambitious scientists, Clive and Elsa. Clive and Elsa are married and work together in a laboratory where they are attempting to introduce a new species to the world. However, stepping away from the initial project at hand, Clive and Elsa set out to create their own species making them rebel superstars of the scientific world. In this new side project, Elsa secretly slips human DNA into the experiment for scientific purposes. The result of this new species is greater than the sum of its parts; a female animal-human hybrid that may be a step up on the evolutionary ladder is created. Clive soon discovers this human DNA as this new species has portrayed many new human characteristics. Elsa grows closer and closer to this new species giving her a name, Dren, and teaching her human abilities such as reading, writing and drawing. However, Dren, the new species creation imposes great danger on the ones around her but Elsa, who now considers Dren to be her daughter, believes she can manipulate her into being a tame and obedient girl. Elsa is weary to have her own child as while she was growing up her mother would torture and ignore her. Consequently, Elsa is scared that she too may treat her own child like this. As a result, Elsa soon tries to manipulate this new species into being her child. Clive and Elsa think they may have created the perfect organism, until she makes a shocking metamorphosis that could destroy them and the rest of humanity. This scientific experiment turned into a selfish motive for Elsa to become a mother and feel wanted by a child.
Ethical Aspect
I thought this movie was quite frightening to watch as these two scientists take on the task of developing a new species. Elsa, who seems to be selfish and ignorant, does not consider the danger that this new species, Dren may impose on humans. Instead, she focuses on her own personal gain of a child and hopes to mould Dren to be human-like. It is not ethical to house such a species that requires living outdoors. Even Elsa is unaware of Dren’s abilities as she attempts to manipulate this new species into being more human-like and consequently, her child. Elsa is also aware of the fact that Dren poses a threat to the rest of mankind as Dren is seen to be dangerous and inhospitable. Yet, Elsa lets her selfish wants of a child overcome her and ignores the fact that this new species is dangerous. It is unethical for both Clive and Elsa to house this species and treat her as their child since this species is not fully human. Dren has animal like abilities which force her to be feisty. As a result, the movie Splice portrays many ethical issues as these two scientists create a new species and use it for their own personal gain. Treating this species as their child is both unfair to Dren and to the humans around them as this species is known to be dangerous.
Movie: Fight Club (1999)
ReplyDeleteDirected by: David Fincher
Synopsis
When his doctor refuses to give him medication for his insomnia, the narrator, an office employee, attends a support group for men with testicular cancer even though he is not afflicte. There, he discovers he is able to release his emotions and in doing so finally get a good nights sleep. This emotional high becomes addicting so he fakes other illnesses in order to attend their support groups. This routine is disrupted when another impostor, Marla Singer, begins to attend the same groups he does. They decide to split the evenings so they won’t run into each other anymore.
Arriving home from a business trip, the narrator find this condo has burnt down. He calls Tyler Durden, a soap salesman he met during a business flight. Tyler allows the narrator to stay with him under the condition they fist fight each other. The two engage in a fight drawing a crowd. This connects with many of the spectators and they setup a fight club at in the basement of a bar.
Ethical Analysis
One of the biggest philosophical themes in this movie is the link between identity and consumerism. Early in the movie the narrator, while looking through an Ikea catalogue, asks himself, “What kind of dining set defines me as a person?” The movie breaks down social constructs of identity and takes on a nihilistic tone, “You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else.” There are many scenes that mirror what the military does with identity. Uniqueness is stripped away and the identity is the collective.
Closely tied to the idea of identity is the idea of purpose. In one of the scenes Tyler hold a gun to a convenient store clerk’s head and ask him what he wanted to be and why wasn’t he doing it? After the clerk answers Tyler takes the clerks drivers license says he will visit 6 weeks and if he is not on his way to doing that, he will return and kill him. In another scene Tyler ask two members of his group what they want to do in life. They were able to answer immediately suggesting they have a clear idea of what fulfillment would look like to them. The narrator wasn’t able to give an answer, showing he wasn’t on the same level of self actualization as the others.
Tyler subscribes to a teleological view of ethics. Many of these acts are ethically deplorable but Tyler believes they serve the better good. The film climaxes with Tyler and the narrator destroying the head quarters of several credit card companies. He sees these corporations are evil. Tyler believes by absolving everyone from their debt, they are able to free everyone from the chains of capitalism and give them a fresh start. He believes that tearing down all these social constructs of identity and purpose warrants the his acts of large scale vandalism. Though he makes sure no person is physically hurt, he does not consider how destroying these corporations will affect their employees. The ends justifies his means. He models himself as a freedom fighter, working against the powers that be to fight injustice.
“What the Bleep Do We Know” is a docudrama, and was released in 2004. The film presents a series of scientists who discuss the meaning and possibilities of reality through the perspective of quantum physics. At the same time, it presents the story of a deaf photographer who exists in a dispirited, angry and self-loathing state of mind. Amanda allows her painful past to control her outlook on the present and future – it is a choice that she makes, to hate rather than love her life as it is. Eventually, she comes to understand the meaning of reality – that it is shaped by our thoughts alone – and changes her mind frame from negative to positive, thereby attaining happiness. I feel the theme of this film echoes back distinctly to Aristotle’s aims of developing the self and cultivating personal happiness through the exercise of reason, and my review will focus on the similarities between Aristotle’s ethics philosophy and the film.
ReplyDeleteLike Plato and Aristotle, the film postulates that humans, because of their powers of reason or mind, are the highest beings who have the power to attain their highest self – and that we should exist as an integrated whole within our reality. Like Aristotle, the scientists featured in this film believe in the deliberate practice towards gaining excellence of knowledge and character – they propose that humans detach themselves from socially influenced negative or habituated thinking and to focus on practicing positive thoughts. A new philosophy on life will activate the creation of new neuron pathways in our brains, forming new, better habits and thus a better quality of life. Aristotle believed that reason helps us become what we want to be and do; likewise, the film argues that our thoughts or consciousness create our reality, and by virtue of the quality of our thoughts, we make the choice to perceive events and ourselves in one way or another, and that we should thus harness our minds towards living our best lives. Like Aristotle, the speakers in the film propose that we can achieve happiness through the virtuous or right choices we make and habits we practice. Both Aristotle and the film believe in practicing self-development, and that we become virtuous and happy by practicing virtue and existing in a happy state of mind. Additionally, the film illustrates that people are conditioned into living mediocre lives by believing that their reality is set and that they have no influence upon it, because they do not see the possibilities within their minds to create alternate options. Likewise, Aristotle spoke of people existing in a reality where they are blocked by their habits (laziness, fears, etc.) even though they know what is right. Both this film and Aristotle propose that the good life consists of inner harmony, which is dependent on our reason and thoughts, and both encourage that we think for ourselves rather than follow the trends and accepted conditions of our societies. “What the Bleep Do We Know” shows us indirectly how relevant and important Aristotle’s ideas are for today’s world.
The film also briefly touches upon the role of education in helping people develop an understanding of their potential, as rooted within their mind. It begins by telling us that “Children of today live in a culture that doesn’t appreciate the power of thought” – which I think is pertinent to how we educate or fail to educate our students about the potential that resides in their minds. The film argues that the problems humans face today are labeled as psychological but they are in fact a result of the “rotten choices” that they make – and people ought to be instructed in making right choices. The film’s scientists call for us to imagine alternative possibilities of right and wrong, and to improve our understanding of the reality we face. Once again, Aristotle’s philosophy resonates in these statements: that is, both share the belief that through cultivation of reason students practice and develop healthy, good habits.
CLASS SEVEN: MOVIE NIGHT- ETHICAL REVIEW
ReplyDeleteMovie: Amistad (1997)
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writer: David Franzoni
I first saw this movie in a Law 12 class during my short practicum and I thought, wow, everyone should see this movie. It was so empowering. There were so many significant matters portrayed in this movie that pertains to ethics: to power, to suffering, to change, to understanding and acknowledging life.
The movie is based in 1839. Amistad is the name of a slave ship carrying cargo Africans who were sold into slavery. The Africans are chained in the cargo hold and endure horrendous conditions. Many die from starvation, brutal treatment, and many are thrown overboard. The Africans rebel and kill many of their capturers. But two ship officers were saved in hopes that they would take the Africans back to Africa. Eventually, the Amistad is found by a military vessel. The two ship officers tricked the Africans by sailing directly for the United States. The Africans are imprisoned as runaway slaves. They do not speak English therefore communication is near impossible. They figure they are doomed to die because they killed their capturers. One lawyer decides to take their case, arguing that they were free citizens of another country and not slaves at all. Most of the movie takes place in the court room, with a number of people fighting for the ownership of the Africans.
There are so many issues that could be discussed on this movie (slavery, lying, torture, murder, etc.) but I want to focus on the lawyers character. I found his character profound in standing up for what was right, even though it brought about international conflict, community conflict, family conflict and for himself, internal conflict.
Using page 40 from our text, the four key components of the ethical beliefs of anyone who follows Socrates’ and Plato’s ethics today are:
1. There are universal principles or ideals of good and bad
Ex. don’t lie, cheat, steal, or kill.
2. People all innately know good and bad and right from wrong
Each position (group of people that want ownership of the Africans) in this movie, therefore , according to Socrates and Plato know good from bad and right from wrong and ultimately don’t care if their actions are bad only that they would benefit from receiving ownership. On the other hand, the lawyer clearly knows good from bad and right from wrong and will fight to make things right no matter the obstacles.
3. It is our ultimate goal, or duty, to make ourselves (our souls) as good as possible
According to Socrates and Plato: the lawyer is a prime example of this statement. He felt it was his duty to help and ultimately same/free the Africans because it was the right things to do and makes his soul good when no one else would stand up for what was right.
4. Behaviours that hurt us or deter us from this goal are wrong because they hurt us- in other words, we should always act in our own self-interest, and in our highest self-interest to make ourselves as good as possible, because this leads to inner peace and happiness.
I find the lawyer in conflict with this statement. He knew when deciding to help the Africans, danger could be brought to both himself and his family, according to Socrates and Plato, this was wrong of him. He also knew, that his goal was possibly not achievable but he still decided to do what he felt was right. Therefore his behavior may have made nothing of his goal. Yet, at the same time he was willing to risk his own safety and of others for his own self-interest (his goal of saving the Africans).
Overall, I think Socrates and Plato would say the lawyer’s behavior was ethical.
Synopsis/introduction:
ReplyDeleteThis movie stars bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol with Amitah Bachan. Bollywood movies always have some sort of love story however, this love story goes beyong just the typical "boy meets girl." "Khabi Kushi Khabi Gham" is filled with numerous moral issues that the cast fight with. Essentially it is a love story between Shah Rukh Khan who plays "Rahul" and Kajol who plays "Pooja ." Rahul is adopted into a wealthy family where he grows up loved by his parents and worships what they say and fulfills their wishes. However, when he falls in love with a girl out his cast, he knows his father will not approve. "Pooja's " Father passes away and he knows that he is all that "Pooja " has. He goes ahead and marries "Pooja " without the approval of his parents. When he brings "Pooja " home to meet the family, his father disapproves and kicks him out of the family and he is forbidden to return. The rest of the movie consists of Rahul younger brother and "Pooja " younger sister trying to bring the family back together.
Moral Issues:
Throughout the entire movie there are numerous issues that are present. "Family and Faithfullness" is the ethical issue theme and this is present with 3 different conflicts. First is, husband vs. Wife. This issue involves the conflicting opinions between the parents. The wife struggles with following her husbands wishes to kick their son out. Despite what she feels, she does not know when to speak up and let her husband know of her true feelings. She doesn't know whether she should keep her feelings to herself and follow the indian norm of following the husbands decisions or tell him how she really feels. The second is father vs. Father. Here the father struggles with his own feelings. He knows what his son has done is wrong and his hardcore, traditional family values overpower what his heart his saying. He knows that his son has made a mistake but questions whether he should still pay such a high price. The third conflict involves the son vs. Father. Rahul knows that he "should" not be with "Pooja " because of her cast, he struggles with what his heart wants to do vs. What he should do based on his family.
Analysis:
Essentially it comes down to the moral issue of following your own heart/desire vs. Following what your family wants. Many are faced with this issue everyday. In the indian culture, family, culture, tradition is a huge part of who we are. From a young age these values are highly taught and regarded. However these issues don't necessarily have to involve love, it can be with school, career path, friendships and activities. Approval is one of the guiding principles of indian families. Rahul and his family are faced with moral issue of whether he should follow his family tradition. This is an issue where personally, it would be difficult to decide what to follow. However, I feel whatever the decision, it should result in happiness!
Synopsis/introduction:
ReplyDeleteThis movie stars bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol with Amitah Bachan. Bollywood movies always have some sort of love story however, this love story goes beyong just the typical "boy meets girl." "Khabi Kushi Khabi Gham" is filled with numerous moral issues that the cast fight with. Essentially it is a love story between Shah Rukh Khan who plays "Rahul" and Kajol who plays "Pooja ." Rahul is adopted into a wealthy family where he grows up loved by his parents and worships what they say and fulfills their wishes. However, when he falls in love with a girl out his cast, he knows his father will not approve. "Pooja's " Father passes away and he knows that he is all that "Pooja " has. He goes ahead and marries "Pooja " without the approval of his parents. When he brings "Pooja " home to meet the family, his father disapproves and kicks him out of the family and he is forbidden to return. The rest of the movie consists of Rahul younger brother and "Pooja " younger sister trying to bring the family back together.
Moral Issues:
Throughout the entire movie there are numerous issues that are present. "Family and Faithfullness" is the ethical issue theme and this is present with 3 different conflicts. First is, husband vs. Wife. This issue involves the conflicting opinions between the parents. The wife struggles with following her husbands wishes to kick their son out. Despite what she feels, she does not know when to speak up and let her husband know of her true feelings. She doesn't know whether she should keep her feelings to herself and follow the indian norm of following the husbands decisions or tell him how she really feels. The second is father vs. Father. Here the father struggles with his own feelings. He knows what his son has done is wrong and his hardcore, traditional family values overpower what his heart his saying. He knows that his son has made a mistake but questions whether he should still pay such a high price. The third conflict involves the son vs. Father. Rahul knows that he "should" not be with "Pooja " because of her cast, he struggles with what his heart wants to do vs. What he should do based on his family.
Analysis:
Essentially it comes down to the moral issue of following your own heart/desire vs. Following what your family wants. Many are faced with this issue everyday. In the indian culture, family, culture, tradition is a huge part of who we are. From a young age these values are highly taught and regarded. However these issues don't necessarily have to involve love, it can be with school, career path, friendships and activities. Approval is one of the guiding principles of indian families. Rahul and his family are faced with moral issue of whether he should follow his family tradition. This is an issue where personally, it would be difficult to decide what to follow. However, I feel whatever the decision, it should result in happiness!
Synopsis/introduction:
ReplyDeleteThis movie stars bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol with Amitah Bachan. Bollywood movies always have some sort of love story however, this love story goes beyong just the typical "boy meets girl." "Khabi Kushi Khabi Gham" is filled with numerous moral issues that the cast fight with. Essentially it is a love story between Shah Rukh Khan who plays "Rahul" and Kajol who plays "Pooja ." Rahul is adopted into a wealthy family where he grows up loved by his parents and worships what they say and fulfills their wishes. However, when he falls in love with a girl out his cast, he knows his father will not approve. "Pooja's " Father passes away and he knows that he is all that "Pooja " has. He goes ahead and marries "Pooja " without the approval of his parents. When he brings "Pooja " home to meet the family, his father disapproves and kicks him out of the family and he is forbidden to return. The rest of the movie consists of Rahul younger brother and "Pooja " younger sister trying to bring the family back together.
Moral Issues:
Throughout the entire movie there are numerous issues that are present. "Family and Faithfullness" is the ethical issue theme and this is present with 3 different conflicts. First is, husband vs. Wife. This issue involves the conflicting opinions between the parents. The wife struggles with following her husbands wishes to kick their son out. Despite what she feels, she does not know when to speak up and let her husband know of her true feelings. She doesn't know whether she should keep her feelings to herself and follow the indian norm of following the husbands decisions or tell him how she really feels. The second is father vs. Father. Here the father struggles with his own feelings. He knows what his son has done is wrong and his hardcore, traditional family values overpower what his heart his saying. He knows that his son has made a mistake but questions whether he should still pay such a high price. The third conflict involves the son vs. Father. Rahul knows that he "should" not be with "Pooja " because of her cast, he struggles with what his heart wants to do vs. What he should do based on his family.
Analysis:
ReplyDeleteEssentially it comes down to the moral issue of following your own heart/desire vs. Following what your family wants. Many are faced with this issue everyday. In the indian culture, family, culture, tradition is a huge part of who we are. From a young age these values are highly taught and regarded. However these issues don't necessarily have to involve love, it can be with school, career path, friendships and activities. Approval is one of the guiding principles of indian families. Rahul and his family are faced with moral issue of whether he should follow his family tradition. This is an issue where personally, it would be difficult to decide what to follow. However, I feel whatever the decision, it should result in happiness!
Hi Everyone, I'm so sorry for the late post! I thought I posted already but I only saved the file on my computer!
ReplyDeleteEthical Critique of a Film
The film I choose to watch was "Man for All Seasons". This film was directed by Fred Zinnemann and was released in 1967. I choose this film because it was a film I always wanted to watch but never had the time. "Man of All Seasons" takes place in the 16th century in Europe. The focus of this movie revolves around Sir Thomas More life and the struggle between him and his King, Henry VIII. The problem between the two men arise when King Henry VII wants to break off all connections with the Roman Catholic Church because he wants the right to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn.
More stands firmly against this because he understands from the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church that what King Henry is doing is wrong. The fact that More is taking a stand against King Henry makes him furious because More's stand against him portrays King Henry to look unreasonable to the rest of Europe. King Henry attempts to discredit More's words by attempting legal trickery. However, that fails and King Henry continues to grow relentless throughout the film. The film continues with King Henry creating the Church of England and appointing himself as supreme power . Anyone who continued to refuse to agree to King Henry divorcing Catherine of Aragon and marrying Anne Boleyn was seen to have committed a treasonous act. More continued to refuse to King Henry marrying Anne Boyleyn and this resulted in him being beheaded. This film raises many ethical questions if one should still stand up for their beliefs until the “very end”. More continued to stand by his beliefs even though he known in advance that if he did not agree he will be beheaded. More died for his faith and his prinpicals.
Caroline wrote:
ReplyDeleteMovie: ‘Sophie’s Choice’
The title role of this movie is well acted by Meryl Streep.
In brief, the movie (set in Brooklyn) follows Sophie’s interactions with her mentally ill partner, Nathan, and a very young aspiring writer called Stingo from the Southern States.
Sophie grew up in Poland, and during the Second World War, was sent to Auschwitz with her two children. Later, with no surviving family, she ends up in the United States.
The movie uses flashbacks to look back at choices Sophie made in the past, the major one being the choice she was forced to make as to which of her two children would be sentenced to immediate death in the gas chambers and which one would be sent to a children’s camp. By the end of the movie it is clear that there are many ethical issues involved, beginning with what was clearly the indoctrination of Sophie by her father as to her role as a woman. She led a restricted life dominated by her husband and father. It is only when she is typing yet another of her father’s speeches and reads of his suggestion that all Polish Jews should be exterminated that she begins to question her father’s anti-semitic beliefs and her role in promulgating them.
Later in her new life in the USA, she lies to all those she meets and portrays her father as a self-sacrificing defender of Jews. I am not sure we can condemn this lie on ethical grounds, as it seems to harm noone but Sophie. She, however, has to justify this lie to herself as well as suffer the guilt caused by her own past choices. I think this added to the process of the unraveling of her personality.
The ‘big’ choice of the title, which Sophie made, was forced on her in a situation where all normal humanity, and the ability to make truly ethical and rational decisions, was absent. The Nazi who forced her to make the choice was clearly not operating from any standpoint of ‘virtue’, under any ethical philosophy. It did not appear in the movie that he was under any immediate threat himself, rather he was enjoying his position of power.
I think that Sophie had not spent much of her life examining ethical issues at this point. Her choice was clearly not going to be one which could be judged correct by Utilitarian principles nor could the Kantian view of reason being in control of actions come into play. Probably in amongst the complex emotions governing Sophie’s choice was the background of males being superior to females, but also her instinctive knowledge that a blond, blue-eyed, older male child was more likely to survive on his own.
The ‘choice’ was not really a choice.
There are far too many other areas of ethics that could be gone into. These include Sohie’s choices within the internment camp, her choice of partner later on and the relationships she had with the two male protagonists, not to mention her final choice.
Caroline wrote:
ReplyDeleteMovie: ‘Sophie’s Choice’
The title role of this movie is well acted by Meryl Streep.
In brief, the movie (set in Brooklyn) follows Sophie’s interactions with her mentally ill partner, Nathan, and a very young aspiring writer called Stingo from the Southern States.
Sophie grew up in Poland, and during the Second World War, was sent to Auschwitz with her two children. Later, with no surviving family, she ends up in the United States.
The movie uses flashbacks to look back at choices Sophie made in the past, the major one being the choice she was forced to make as to which of her two children would be sentenced to immediate death in the gas chambers and which one would be sent to a children’s camp. By the end of the movie it is clear that there are many ethical issues involved, beginning with what was clearly the indoctrination of Sophie by her father as to her role as a woman. She led a restricted life dominated by her husband and father. It is only when she is typing yet another of her father’s speeches and reads of his suggestion that all Polish Jews should be exterminated that she begins to question her father’s anti-semitic beliefs and her role in promulgating them.
Later in her new life in the USA, she lies to all those she meets and portrays her father as a self-sacrificing defender of Jews. I am not sure we can condemn this lie on ethical grounds, as it seems to harm noone but Sophie. She, however, has to justify this lie to herself as well as suffer the guilt caused by her own past choices. I think this added to the process of the unraveling of her personality.
The ‘big’ choice of the title, which Sophie made, was forced on her in a situation where all normal humanity, and the ability to make truly ethical and rational decisions, was absent. The Nazi who forced her to make the choice was clearly not operating from any standpoint of ‘virtue’, under any ethical philosophy. It did not appear in the movie that he was under any immediate threat himself, rather he was enjoying his position of power.
I think that Sophie had not spent much of her life examining ethical issues at this point. Her choice was clearly not going to be one which could be judged correct by Utilitarian principles nor could the Kantian view of reason being in control of actions come into play. Probably in amongst the complex emotions governing Sophie’s choice was the background of males being superior to females, but also her instinctive knowledge that a blond, blue-eyed, older male child was more likely to survive on his own.
The ‘choice’ was not really a choice.
There are far too many other areas of ethics that could be gone into. These include Sohie’s choices within the internment camp, her choice of partner later on and the relationships she had with the two male protagonists, not to mention her final choice.
I am not sure if anyone watched the movie "Lust,Caution" directed by Ang Lee, the Oscar winning director for Broke Back Mountain, but the movie is excellent.
ReplyDeleteThe movie is not an erotic one, this needs to be clarified. The ethical dilemmas of love, fealty, quislism, traitor are all presented in the movie.
The film dated back to 1938 when China was suffering from the war disaster with Japan. Wang, as the lead character in the movie, was a member of a student association which go against the war and Japanese invaders. During the war, one couldn't be missed is traitor. Yi is a crucial traitor and puppet commanded by the Japan. What Yi need to do was to suppress, seize, murder ans assassinate people who belong to the Communist Party, the larges organization that defend China and fight against the Japanese at the time.
Wang was committed to approach Yi and kill him with a few other high-mined men. Event though Yi has a wife, Wang finally became his mattress in order to complete the assassination. However, as time flies, true love was emerged between them even they didn't realize it explicitly. While Wang was still waiting for a chance to kill Yi, she encountered a ethical dilemma: to kill Yi for the nation and its people, or just undo it as she loves Yi. At the last few minutes of movie, Yi commits to love but not the nation: One morning, when everyone is ready to shoot YI, Want went into the building and intended to ask YI to come out of the building so that people could finish the execution. When the time Want was able to speak to Yi, Yi gave her a diamond ring. It's not the case that Wang admires the ring the let him go, but the ring means a lot to Wang: love and a promise. "Go, run away", Want yelled Yi, to signal him people are waiting to kill him downstairs. Yi escaped, and realized the status of Wang subsequently. He then seized Wang and his colleagues and killed them all. The ending is emotional: tears dropped from Yi.
While it seems that honor and fame of the nation overrides everything in the war time and people are committed to defense their own nation and go against the invaders, there are people who defense love. War is a disaster but people are positioned in moral dilemmas which make them hard to make decisions. A simple question is raised: to betray a beloved person who means significantly in your life, or kill this person for the others in your nation. The decent answer seems easy according to deontology and contratarianism: to kill a traitor is moral, but it doesn't work that well when it comes to the enlightened self-interest and consequentialism: my own good or the others.
While War creates heroes, it also tortures people and testifies the morality, ethical standard. Human being is a complex, we just can't obey the rules all the time.
I am not sure if anyone watched the movie "Lust,Caution" directed by Ang Lee, the Oscar winning director for Broke Back Mountain, but the movie is excellent.
ReplyDeleteThe movie is not an erotic one, this needs to be clarified. The ethical dilemmas of love, fealty, quislism, traitor are all presented in the movie.
The film dated back to 1938 when China was suffering from the war disaster with Japan. Wang, as the lead character in the movie, was a member of a student association which go against the war and Japanese invaders. During the war, one couldn't be missed is traitor. Yi is a crucial traitor and puppet commanded by the Japan. What Yi need to do was to suppress, seize, murder ans assassinate people who belong to the Communist Party, the larges organization that defend China and fight against the Japanese at the time.
Wang was committed to approach Yi and kill him with a few other high-mined men. Event though Yi has a wife, Wang finally became his mattress in order to complete the assassination. However, as time flies, true love was emerged between them even they didn't realize it explicitly. While Wang was still waiting for a chance to kill Yi, she encountered a ethical dilemma: to kill Yi for the nation and its people, or just undo it as she loves Yi. At the last few minutes of movie, Yi commits to love but not the nation: One morning, when everyone is ready to shoot YI, Want went into the building and intended to ask YI to come out of the building so that people could finish the execution. When the time Want was able to speak to Yi, Yi gave her a diamond ring. It's not the case that Wang admires the ring the let him go, but the ring means a lot to Wang: love and a promise. "Go, run away", Want yelled Yi, to signal him people are waiting to kill him downstairs. Yi escaped, and realized the status of Wang subsequently. He then seized Wang and his colleagues and killed them all. The ending is emotional: tears dropped from Yi.
While it seems that honor and fame of the nation overrides everything in the war time and people are committed to defense their own nation and go against the invaders, there are people who defense love. War is a disaster but people are positioned in moral dilemmas which make them hard to make decisions. A simple question is raised: to betray a beloved person who means significantly in your life, or kill this person for the others in your nation. The decent answer seems easy according to deontology and contratarianism: to kill a traitor is moral, but it doesn't work that well when it comes to the enlightened self-interest and consequentialism: my own good or the others.
ReplyDeleteWhile War creates heroes, it also tortures people and testifies the morality, ethical standard. Human being is a complex, we just can't obey the rules all the time.