Source Code is a mind trip of a movie. U.S. Army Aviation pilot Caption Colter Stevens wakes up on a train to Chicago, except he's not himself. Christiana, the women sitting across him, keeps calling him Sean, and when Stevens looks in the mirror he realizes he's not in his own body. Still trying to grasp what's happening, the train explodes and the next thing he knows Stevens is waking up strapped to a chair in a capsule. As the movie progresses we find out that he has been dead for two months and has since then been the lab rat for "Source Code", an experimental device used to reach alternative timelines. He now has to find the bomb as well as the person who planted it in order to stop future attacks in the present timeline. In typical movie fashion, Stevens saves the present timeline and figures out he can continue to live on in the alternate timeline through his new identity as Sean Fentress. So where does classical categories come into this? What part(s) involved moral decision making?
Stevens: "Any soldier I've ever served with would say that one death is service enough." Rutledge: "...And Captain Stevens, I'd like you to remember that it's not only about you, but it's also about two million real world Americans. Now, you may not value your own life. I do, however, ask that you value theirs."
First, we can look at Colter Stevens. Once he finds out he is in fact dead, Stevens essentially freaks out and says that the Source Code project is unethical and they should of have let him officially die. The creators of Source Code see their project as ethically right because they are trying to save lives. In the eyes of Stevens - in the eyes of the experiment - service to the country has been paid. He served, he died, and now he should have his peace. Why does he have to be the one? He didn't have a say in any of this. The emotional strain is too much (or at least it can grow to be too much). Working through these thoughts, Stevens comes to terms with his fate. Without him they have no hope. This isn't about him anymore, his time has already gone. Now it's about those that are living, it's about saving them. Consequentialism says that the importance of outcomes that are good for the community outweigh the importance of individual pleasure and pain. Stevens takes the ethical altruism route as he takes the action that has the best consequence for everyone but himself.
Goodwin: "Sir...we told Captain Stevens that we were gonna let him die." Rutledge: "Let him die? He just saved millions of lives today. How many other disasters might he divert down the line?"
Second, we can look at ethics through the eyes of Goodwin and Rutledge. Once Stevens finds out he is dead, Rutledge tells him that once the mission is complete they will terminate his life support. Later, Goodwin, when she allows Stevens to return to the alternate timeline one last time, tells him that she will terminate his life support once the eight minutes is up. Goodwin intends to keep the promises made, but Rutledge has other plans. In his eyes, the world needs Stevens and it would therefore be unethical and selfish to terminate one life that could save millions more. Goodwin, on the other hand, feels that a promise is a promise and if Stevens wanted his life to be terminated then it would be ethical to honor that right. Her ultimate goal is to keep her word to Stevens, but the path to get there involves her lying to and disobeying Rutledge (not to mention she will probably lose her job). All of that doesn't matter. All that matters is the end result: honoring her word to give Stevens happiness. I also think that by this point Goodwin really wanted to know if time went beyond the eight minutes, so she sort of disobeyed Rutledge for her own curiosity, too. Consequentialism says that to act in an ultimate end manner is to act in faith rather than rational. Rutledge was acting in a rational manner when he lied about terminating the life support in order to save more lives. Goodwin was acting in a faithful manner when she lied to Rutledge about performing the memory wipe in order to provide Stevens with (hopeful) happiness.
Overall, Source Code showed me how one situation can be viewed ethically in multiple ways. Through the eyes of the doer (Stevens), the initiator (Rutledge), and the middle man (Goodwin). I still find it difficult to distinguish between the three normative ethics, though. Maybe it's because I feel that not one in particular is always used. Like if you knew that millions of people could die if you don't find this bomber, aren't you morally obligated to indeed find the bomber? At the same time, aren't you going through pain to help the greater good? And even more so, isn't this considered virtuously ethically? Confusion ~
No comments:
Post a Comment