A Film Analysis

After watching the film, Source Code, it has come to my attention the moral ethics involved with the film. To give a mini back story, a soldier who is half brain dead is kept alive by a defense program named “source code”. The half brain dead man, Colter Stephens, is used in another dimension of time so he can help figure out who a bomber is on a commuter train. The man figures out who the bomber is while also figuring out that he’s being kept alive for the sake of the program. One of the coordinators in charge of the program, Colleen Goodwin, is faced with an ethical and moral decision at the end of the movie. Colter asks to be terminated at the end of the mission even if it means that he won’t go on any more missions and save more people. Colleen Goodwin eventually decides to take Colter all the way off life support and terminate his life. This situation reminds me of the classic category having to do with moral decision making. What makes Goodwin decide to do this act? How does she weigh it on the scale of right and wrong? Is keeping Colter alive morally ethical because it saves peoples’ lives or is letting him choose to die because he will never fully awaken the morally ethical decision because that’s what he wants. There are many theories that can be discussed that either contradict or back up the reasoning of Goodwin’s act in terminating the soldier. To back up Goodwin, John Locke’s Right theory has been brought up to my attention. It basically says that all mankind has a duty to respect each others rights that are given to humanity just because they are human. Goodwin is respecting Colter’s right as a human  to do what he wants to his body. A theory that contradicts Goodwin’s reasoning is the utilitarianism version of the theory of Consequentialists. This theory basically says that an action is alright to do if it brings forth the most good for the largest amount of people involved. If Goodwin hadn’t had terminated Colter, he would have been able to save many more lives as well which would have been more beneficial to a larger group of people. Both theories make sense when looked at in their perspective, but I would have to agree with the theory that John Locke talks about. In my opinion, if a person commits a heroic act but was forced to commit it, then the act cannot be a moral act because he did not choose it himself. It won’t be an act of good service to humanity because it does not come with good intention from the person committing it. I believe that morality, even if forced, does not prove that it is “right”? I can force someone to be good to the poor and give all their money and clothes against their will, but does that essentially make it right? I think that if the heart is not right, then the deed isn’t right. If Colter doesn’t want to live in a half brain dead body, and doesn’t want to save peoples’ lives, the ethical and moral thing would be for him to let himself choose what he wants to do.

Reference:

Source Code. Dir. Duncan Jones. Perf. Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga. Summit Entertainment, 2011. HD-DVD.