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.