background information
I have recently watched the movie: The box. First of all I will give a short summary to the people who do not know this movie: Norma and Arthur Lewis, a suburban couple with a young child, receive a simple wooden box as a gift, which bears fatal and irrevocable consequences. A mysterious stranger, delivers the message that the box promises to bestow upon its owner $1 million with the press of a button. But, pressing this button will simultaneously cause the death of another human being somewhere in the world; someone they don't know. With just 24 hours to have the box in their possession, Norma and Arthur find themselves in the cross-hairs of a startling moral dilemma and must face the true nature of their humanity. I think it’s an excellent example of a moral dilemma. The main characters in the movie have the ability to decide on the destiny of a human being. It’s either let the human being alive or push the button and let him die. Nowadays this is impossible. But in the ancient Rome, Julius Caesar decided on living and dying too with his thumb going up or down and this act even was a legal thing to do! Nowadays we can say that this is definitely illegal but what about the moral part? Negative duties like do not kill play a big role in this movie. Also the positive duty to respect others is important. According to this moral duties we can immediately say, that you should not push the button. If you do, you are self-interested and then you do not act in the public interest. Therefore this act is definitely immoral. Imagine that all people in the world have the possibility to earn an easy 1 million dollars. If everybody acts according to his or hers self-interest, this will result in the extinction of the human race. People need to align their self interest with the public interest, and by pressing this magical button they do not comply with this standards.
s861379
9 comments:
Indeed, the storyline as stated in your principal comment is a good example of humans as self interested beings who also have to obey moral rules. The couple in the movie considers acting against the commandments of morality to fulfill their self-interest. Morality becomes a problem in this case; it is experienced as a burden.
When looking rational to the case, pushing the button does not differ much of an assassination that pays $1 million. In both cases they get the same amount of money for the willful murder, but they differ in the case that the couple in the movie does not know the person who dies.
When the couple decides to push the button, they will violate the legal and moral duty not to kill. It is clear what the morally right course of action is (do not kill) and therefore this cannot be called a moral dilemma.
U1236310
Killing innocent people is wrong. In this case, if we assume, when a person is not interested to act morally right, he or she is preferred to kill (push the bottom) in order to get 1 million dollars, then we may say this situation is contradict to his/her the positive duty, respect people. We as observing parties actually will say that push the bottom is actually morally wrong, killing people. Furthermore, we still have a standing to comment, it is legally and morally wrong on his conduct, regardless of his subjective interest, money. By the $1 million reason, he or she is act in term of his or her self interest. When a person is fully self interested they are lack moral sensitivity or lack of internal moral lever. Therefore, act immoral in order to satisfy your self interest is wrong in this issue.
s241443
In my opinion, the movie storyline has a similarity with the Milgram Experiment where the participants are encouraged to press the button that can hurt other people by giving certain amount of electric shock.
The experiment is conducted to measure the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure that instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. As a result, surprisingly, 65 percent of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock, though many of them were very uncomfortable doing so.
It can be a good example in understanding that human beings are self-interested beings. People usually are self-interest oriented, meaning that they only care about themselves. They could harm other people in order to fulfill their needs and wants. Therefore, a regulation is needed to prevent people from enacting this behavior.
ANR 201026
U1235043
Reading the background information left me startled. It omits to mention the young family was in financial trouble. Which, in my opinion is a very important fact to this movie. The story therefore can be called a moral dilemma.
I have to agree, by pushing the button, the couple solely pursued their own self interest and violated an important moral principal. The act was morally wrong Although, during the movie it seemed the box was not able to do such a thing, it was just a button unlikely to be capable of such great devastation.
I have to disagree with Annisa’s comment. The dilemma in this movie is no comparison to the Milgram Experiment. Which had the intent to see whether people would hurt strangers for the sake of an experiment, so not for self-interest. The subjects in this research were told the shocks were “ok” and that they were “part of the experiment”.
ANR: 516159
U1237212
On another note, I would like to mention the background information also omitted the fact the husband (Arthur) encounters another, bigger, moral dilemma towards the end of the movie. Throughout the movie, their son turns both deaf and blind. Arthur has to chose to live with his wife, deaf and blind son and the 1 million dollars. Or to shoot his wife through the heart, upon which their son will be able to see and hear again, and the million dollars deposited in a savings account for their son. He chooses to shoot his wife (after she begged him to) buts gets arrested.
(“The Box” is based on the book “Button, Button” and in my opinion they did a poor job translating it to a movie script. The movie was vague and did a poor job incorporating such a big moral dilemma.)
I think it’s morally wrong to kill another person in order to get 1 million dollar with just press of the button. As morality is invisible and there are some moral commandments should always obey such as “Do not kill”. From the moral perspective, the couple should not only self-interested. In this case, there is also an overlap with legality. Thus the couple actually violates three duties here: the legal duty not to kill, the moral duty not to kill and the moral duty that always to obey the law.
For the extension of the story from Bart, I think though Arthur choose to kill his wife not because of his own interested but for his son and with the agreement of his wife, it’s still both morally and legally wrong to kill a person even she is his wife.
u1234010
anr 947656
In a liberal society, people are freed to choose which way they are going to live and their own life plan. However, it doesn’t mean people could harm someone in order to implement their own plan or make themselves interest. Morality is a normative discourse which all human societies are familiar with it. Morality as a categorical discourse tells us that do not kill, do not steal and helps others. In this case, if the person presses the button, an innocent people will be killed. Although the person could easily escape from the punishment of positive law, he may not overcome self-consciousness by himself which telling this deed is absolutely morally wrong.
ARN 914928
U1234021
There is an overlap between morality and legality in this case. Although humans are self-interested, they still need to obey moral and legal rules. When the couple decides to killing people in order to get 1 million, it is fulfill the self-interest. However it is morally wrong. It violates the moral duty (do not to kill) and law (do not kill people). Moreover, it does not obey the moral commandment “always obey law”.
S177575
Post a Comment