March 31st, 2016 source code

            The complications of moral decision making is a major theme in the development of our characters. This makes for a moral paradox due the ambiguous nature of what is right or wrong. What it seems to come down to in this film is whether the value of one human life is more important than the life of millions.  Through the rationalization of each individual we can see different representation of normative ethics.

            When looking at Captain Colter Stevens as a character, you could say that he mostly represents Ethnic Altruism; which is a form of consequentialism, which says that any action to benefit you is wrong and any action to benefit others is right. This fits his character the most because even though he knows that he wont be benefiting at all personally in letting them use his body, he decides to help them find the bomber anyway. When looking at Colleen as a character you seem more of the instability in the more decision making, it becomes more complicated. For her she must rationalize whether the deceiving of Captain Stevens is worth saving all those lives. She does follow through with deceiving Captain Stevens, which means she falls more in the category of Utilitarianism, which is Kant’s theory that we should do what is best for the most amounts of people. Even though Captain Stevens will continue to have to use his body without his knowledge, she would be saving many lives. Even when looking at more morally ambiguous character such as Dr.Rutledge, he can justify his actions through normative ethics. More specifically he fits into the mold of Ethical egoism. This is the theory that an act is morally right if the total good of any action is favorable towards the agent of the act.  In Dr.Rutledge’s case he fits this criteria in that if the program shows good results then he will get recognition for his program, which we can tell to be of ultimate concern based of his choice to not tell Captain Stevens that they were going to wipe his mind and restart it again instead of letting him die. While Colleen justified this action because it helped the most amounts of people, Dr, Rutledge justified it due to the personal reward that it will bring him. Even though they both produced the same end result.

What can then be concluded by this movie is that the end result of any given moral decision can produce the same result using different normative ethics. They each used the same category of consequentialism but had different focuses in their moral code. Captain Stevens used Ethnic altruism, Colleen used Utilitarianism, and Dr.Rutledge used ethnical egoism. We can also conclude that some of them don’t really line up with our on individual values based of the disproval of certain characters.

Source Code

The film Source Code argues that we don’t have to right to make decisions for others.  What is real or morally right for some people is not necessarily the same for others.  The different characters in the movie display different forms of normative ethics, and while they each believe that their actions are morally right, their motivation behind the actions is what defines the ethics of each.

Captain Colter Stevens chooses to do what is best for others, even if it kills him.  Throughout the movie he trusted his instincts, and used his intuition to save himself, the train passengers, and the rest of Chicago.  His character embodies the protagonist set of morals in the storyline.  In this film, that appears to be consequentialist ethics.  There is a strong “the end justifies the means” mentality present throughout.  Because Colter was right, and people lived, the means to get there were seen as acceptable.  If the outcome had been different, we may have agreed more with Rutledge’s views.

Another interesting aspect of Colter’s motivation was his growth throughout the film.  In the beginning, he wanted to know about himself, his body, his life, his father, etc.  As he grew to know the people on the train, he cared about them, and was willing to give up his life in order to save all of them.

There is also the question of free will and the free sharing of information, which ties back into our first perennial question.  We are meant to believe that Colter should be given information about his state of life.  Because we (the audience) are in Colter’s shoes, we see from his perspective, and want to know more information ourselves.  Goodwin clearly agrees with this ideology.

Goodwin believed that the lives of the many outweigh the life of one.  Although Colter and Rutledge shared this ideal, it was for different reasons.  She strongly resonated with Colter’s values, and worked with him at the potential expense of his life in order to make sure that others would survive, and that he would be honored in his last wishes.  By the end of the film, she was less like Rutledge and more like Colter.

Rutledge is somewhat seen as the antagonist, although in many other scenarios we would not see him as such.  After all, his goal is to save lives.  However, in the process of doing so he belittled Colter’s need for knowledge of his condition and respect for his wishes.  His motivations were more selfish: he was willing to use a broken man as a tool and a weapon.  The payout was his brainchild, the Source Code, getting funding and being exalted himself as a genius.

Rutledge’s morals were surface-level for the right reason: ending terrorism, saving lives, etc.  But his true intentions were focused on the success of Source Code.  In our group meeting, we discussed how he treated Captain Stevens as an object in the war against terrorism.  He didn’t respect his wishes or his belief that he could save the train passengers.  Goodwin may have been like this in the beginning, but by the end she had realized what she believed was morally right, and risked her job for the good of Stevens, just as he risked his life for the passengers.

Christina was an intriguing character, the only one of the main cast who was unaware of Source Code and Colter’s actual intentions while on the train.  She is relatable to us, seen as “normal,” and yet retained her kindness, intelligence, and honesty, even in the midst of the craziness surrounding the potential bombing of the train, and even in the midst of her being kept in the dark of what Colter was doing.

The article made several good points in the balance of what was morally right, when it asked, “Is it morally justified to lie to Colter and keep him alive so you could use him on other missions that possibly could save millions of lives… Is it better to respect the dignity of one person and let him die or is it better to use the person against his will so that his life could help millions of others?”  This is the main conflict throughout the film, and though either option is admirable, each has its flaws as well.  I believe they could have easily switched places had Rutledge been the main character.  Ethics are definitely all about one’s perspective on the given situation.

Another important conflict was whether the “alternate timeline” was actually alternate, or if the “time reassignment” could actually change the past.  Although they were all fighting for the same cause, what Colter believed was right (saving himself and the train along with Chicago), Rutledge believed was impossible.  He thought Colter would die and Source Code couldn’t be used to save future people).  There’s also the moral question of what happened to the real Sean Fentress.  These are discussed less so than some of the major conflicts of the film, but each one contains a balance of options, each with its own pros and cons.  This reinforces my belief that one’s moral values heavily rely on their perspective of the situation.

Group Meeting #4

Normative Ethics

This week’s assignment was to pick one of the three categories of normative ethics that seem the most reasonable. Normative ethics is the way in which one makes decisions, and there are three different types of normative ethics. As I was reading through the three types of normative ethics, I seemed to be agreeing with small parts of two of the positions. Duty based ethics and virtue ethics are both positions that I seemed to agree with, until digging deeper into these terms.

Duty-based ethics can be defined as following the rules set in front of you and feeling that it is your obligation to follow them. These rules can be following the laws of this country or the Ten Commandments. I view this as following the simplest of rules, even when you think it’s silly to do so. I actually have done this multiple times because I know that’s just the way it is and it’s probably easier to just follow that rule than to not follow it. This way of thinking about duty-based ethics, from my understanding, is also how Immanuel Kant viewed it. His take on duty-based ethics is that you still follow the rules even if you do not desire to. A simple example of this that I personally experience is crossing at the crosswalk. Most of the time there is a more efficient way to cross the street rather than using the crosswalk. I use it because I know that’s the law even when it isn’t the most efficient path to my destination.

Virtue ethics is the other position of normative ethics that I think I can somewhat agree with. Virtue ethics is more about your own character and how the actions that you produce should reflect your character. Plato’s take on this position is that you must have specific characteristics that are considered good. Plato also thought there are specific vices, which are bad characteristics, that you should avoid. This part of virtue ethics is where I actually realized that I do not find it the most reasonable. I think there are a lot of characteristics that can be good or bad, and it depends on that person’s demonstration of that specific characteristic. An example of this is being protective. A mother can protect their child from the world’s dangers, but another mother can be so protective that their child never gets to enjoy his/her own life.

For me, I choose to follow all the rules because, as I have been told multiple times, I am a rule follower. I feel that the rules are there for a reason, and I need to abide by them. The Bible also tells us to follow the Ten Commandments, which is siding with duty-based ethics. So I would say that my decision are mostly made with duty-based ethics. I recognize that the rules are important and if I don’t follow them I am not only setting a bad example for others, but I am also another person disobeying the law.

Question number two Due: March 18th, 2016

Choosing the most sensible classic category would seem like an easy position to take given that we all use some form of a moral code everyday of our lives. However, It isn’t as simple when trying to some up ones choices into one particular moral code.  There are aspects of duty based, Virtue, and consequentialist ethics that seem to often come into play when making morally confusing decision. In many ways you can come to similar conclusion even in using different codes of ethics. For example, if we take the speed limit scenario. One may use virtue ethics to explain that they would not speed because that would not line up with being an individual with temperance. You could also take a categorical imperative approach and come to the same conclusion; only you might say that it was because you wouldn’t want everyone else to speed either.

            I think that my decision-making mostly lines up with virtue ethics. The reasoning for this is because it relies mostly on an individual’s view of what is most virtuous. It allows for you to decide what kind of a person you say you are and to make decisions that work towards that perspective. It also seems to create more of a balance into someone’s moral decisions. Aristotle explains how there is a “Golden mean” which is the balance of all things. This seems to me to be much more fluid and forgiving to everyday human decision making, as well as tending too much greater moral dilemmas. For example, say you are on your daily walk and you approach a homeless man who asks you for money everyday that you pass him. You believe that in order to be virtuous you must be generous. With this in mind you could say that you should give the homeless man all of your money. However, this wouldn’t be practical because then you couldn’t survive and therefore you would not be achieving the Golden Mean. On the other-hand, you could give the homeless man money anytime you have some extra cash on hand instead of going to buy a cup of coffee that day. This may seem like a more balanced way of approaching this scenario. Other moral codes don’t seem to have this same sense of balance to me. Virtue ethics requires you to look inward to what is perceived to be the most virtuous rather than outward. While sometimes yielding the same result, I see it t be much more practical. Other moral codes such as Utilitarianism I see to be equally as morally productive but less practical in practice when making smaller moral choices. To think of whether or not each decision you make is the best decision for the most amount of people would be overwhelming in trying to be the best person you can be.  Perhaps the way that I choose to make my moral decisions is by first using virtue ethics and use Utilitarianism as more of an over arching goal for my morals.

Ethics

After reading the articles about how we make ethical choices, it’s harder for me to think about my preference than it was for free will versus determinism.  I definitely understand how the three major classic category positions overlap, especially when I think about what my default reasoning is behind my own ethical decisions.

I think the most sensible may be consequentialist ethics.  Like the common saying “hindsight is twenty-twenty,” this theory focuses on the end results of our actions.  The idea that “an act is morally right if the end results are beneficial” makes sense to me.  I believe the reasoning behind an action and the actual outcome may differ, such as when one does the right things for the wrong reasons, or vice versa.  However, despite this, the consequentialist stance seems most logical, and more black-and-white than shades of gray.  Although shades of gray when it comes to morals must be taken into consideration, this is why I believe consequentialist ethics is the most “sensible” category.  It’s a happy medium between the strictly rule-based or virtues-based ethics.  It believes that looking at an action’s end results assumes the best final product.  By anticipating the consequences of our actions, we are forced to think first and not be impulsive, and try to make sure that the good outweighs the bad.

The different forms of consequentialist ethics make this debate more in-depth.  Utilitarianism is broad and makes sense to me.  The “greatest good to the greatest number of people” is a general and well agreed-upon notion for deciding whether a decision is morally right or wrong.  Ethical altruism makes sense as well, but seems almost unnecessarily selfless.  While its altruism is admirable, I don’t think that a negative outcome for the agent of the act is what makes the act good.  Finally, ethical egoism, or the social contract theory, is my least favorite of the three.  Regardless of the explanations in the reading, I can’t help but see it as selfish.  We should take others into consideration when acting.  If others are hurt in the process of doing what’s best for oneself, I can’t necessarily agree that what they did was morally right.

The strategy I think I use most frequently is probably virtue ethics, by looking at my personal habits of character.  Most of my morals come from what I was taught by my parents and from my beliefs based on my Christian faith.  Because of this, I like the idea of the golden mean, living life in balance.  I agree that too much or too little of any virtue can be a bad thing, but try to abide to the virtues in the examples in the reading.  The Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love, which we’re told partially came from the Greek virtues of wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice, are what I build my life and actions around.  My default, automatic response to decision-making seems to come from who I want to be as a person and what my personal virtues are, what standards I hold myself to.

Finally, duty-based ethics would be the classic category I relate to the least.  Although I tend to follow rules and laws pretty strictly, I don’t think that authorities are necessarily always right, especially if they condone something that conflicts with my values.  The first thing that this category made me think of was the character Javer from Les Mis.  His death was caused by the confliction he felt after the realization that the rules he’d spent his life enforcing didn’t match up with what he believed was right.  I particularly agree with deontology.  The idea that I shouldn’t analyze the reasons behind what is right and wrong, because it has already been deemed as such, makes me feel like a mindless citizen who is made to follow rules, not think for themselves.  I do, however, like John Locke’s Rights Theory.  Like in the example, I believe no one should be able to harm another person’s right to life, freedom, etc.

All in all, each category has points that I agree and disagree with, and I definitely use overlapping versions of each to make my own decisions.  However, consequentialist ethics seems to make the most logical sense, while I believe I base my own choices on virtue ethics.

So What?

Why does it matter if your life is determined or if you have the freewill to decide your life? This question is something that I had really not thought of before entering this class. If you life is determined, you aren’t the one deciding what your next step is. But if your life is in your own hands, meaning you have free will, then you are the one deciding your next step. There is also the intermediate of determinism and free will, which is compatibilism. Through the many examples of determinism, free will, and compatibilism that have been evaluated in this class, I am closer to understanding them.

In the movie The Adjustment Bureau, David realized that his life was determined and he basically had no control of his future. This made him very angry and he then became even more determined to make his own decisions. This movie showed how frustrating it is when you know that you are not the one determining your life. I think that if David didn’t know and didn’t run into the Adjustment Bureau, he would not have any problem with how his life was going. For me, I do think that God has parts of my life determined, but since I do not know what is determined or what is my free will, I cannot be angry about it. If something bad happens in my life, it could have been from my poor choices or it could have been determined by God. If my life was adjusted from people in the Adjustment Bureau, then I think that would change the way I view my own life.

At the end of The Adjustment Bureau, David earns free will for him and Elise. David proved to the Adjustment Bureau that he truly can be the one in charge of his life and make his own decisions. For me, free will does exist, but not with every single decision in your life.

The other fictional source used to evaluate determinism and freewill was The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon. In this novel a young girl got off the hiking path and had a creature follow her throughout the woods. She used her hiking skills and her imagination to continue fighting to find a way out of the woods. In this story Trisha used her free will to keep fighting and finding things that helped her survive. She also was forced in a certain way through the woods because of the creature following her, but it was unknown to her that this was happening. The takeaway from this story is that freewill and determinism are intertwined into compatibilism.

After going through these main examples of determinism and free will, I still believe that compatibilism is how my life is governed. God has a plan for my life, but I can make some of my own choices along the way. But why is this important? Personally, I find it very reassuring to know that God has a plan for my life. I think to understand compatibilism and how it’s a part of my life is important. It allows me to know that I am not just going about life aimlessly doing things. It is very comforting to know that God has a plan for me yet he allows me to make decisions along the way. Although, I still have so much more to learn about this and how it’s a part of my life, I am beginning to understand its importance.

So What?

The debate about and the different aspects of determinism, free will, and compatibilism have changed the way I understand my own life in that I now have a better understanding of how to put words to what I believe when it comes to this matter.  In my own sense of vocation, it brings to question whether the important choices I make are my decisions, God’s decisions, or perhaps a mix of the two.

Assuming that free will is present in society, I think a large part of our behavior as individuals is based on whether we believe in free will, determinism, or compatibilism.  Our own opinions on this matter affect the choices that we make.  If we believe everything is pre-determined, we may be more likely to take risks and live freely and carelessly.  With a mindset that every choice has already been made, it may take some of the pressure off of life, and may make the way we live more dangerous at the same time.  If we believe purely in free choice, I think we are more likely to take our decisions to heart.  It may lead to well thought-out plans, as well as over-analyzed decisions.

I’ve maintained the mindset since learning the classic category vocabulary to put to my beliefs that compatibilism seems to be, in my opinion, the most balanced situation of the three.  There still exists a sense of moral responsibility for what we do, yet we can also rest assured that some things may be out of our control, and rest in the hands of God, biology, or the natural order of the world.

I’ve found that I’ve pretty much retained my views since the beginning of the semester, but I have a deeper understanding of them, and know how to communicate them now.

When it comes to determinism, I still most strongly resonate with theological determinism.  Looking back on some of the earlier readings, I remember a passage that described how some see God as a micromanager.  I believe that God knows every detail of my life, but His path is a little broader, and my free will interacts with it to create the course of my life.

When I think of free will in my life, I think of the bigger decisions.  Like the characters in The Adjustment Bureau, I obviously have control over small things, like choosing what coffee I want or deciding how to reply to an email.  But when it comes to choices like what I want my career to be, I think of that same free will-meets-determinism intersection.  Does God’s plan for me include a career as a musician?  I’ve clearly made the choice to pursue this path, which is my free will, and I think that where it leads could end up being theological determinism at play.

Looking back on the article that explained compatibilism, I am reminded of the poker example.  Life is the hand we are dealt.  It is pre-determined; we cannot change it.  But each of us have a choice in how we play our unique hand.  This analogy has made me wonder how I use the hand I’m given.  In The Adjustment Bureau, humanity had free will taken away because they used it to start wars and mass murders, yet it ends with hope that we could do better.  Do I use my free will to make choices for the betterment of my own life and for humanity as a whole?

In the end, this has been a fascinating topic to learn about.  In diving into my own opinions, as well as hearing the opinions of others, I feel that my mind has opened up to the different possibilities of fate and decision.  I think more about what’s behind the decisions I make, and whether I’m living day-to-day or for the long run.  It’s put a different perspective on my life and vocation as a whole, and I’m glad I had the opportunity to learn about and discuss it.