In the movie, On the Waterfront, the main characters are faced with a difficult situation. There is friction when the main character, Terry, has to decide whether to tell the authorities about crime on the waterfront, or whether he should remain loyal to the people who committed those crimes. Two opposing views in the story are those of Terry and one of the young boys who had (until the end of the film) looked up to Terry. From Terry’s perspective, he was ‘ratting’ on himself by not telling the police. Innocent people were being killed, and he was allowing it all to happen. From the young boy’s perspective, there is a golden rule to never tell on your friends. He saw Terry as a traitor. He says as much when he calls Terry a pigeon after killing all the pigeons in Joey’s coop. However, Terry might not have thought any loyalty existed after the mob killed his brother, so by he was still justified (and provoked) into telling the police.
This is a tough question. In my opinion, this decision is entirely based, on well, opinion. It just depends on whose perspective you choose to look at the film through. From the mob’s perspective, killing people was business as usual. This wasn’t how Terry looks at things, however. From his ‘perspective’ there is a difference between petty crime and murder. At the point where his brother is murdered, it is hard to not expect him to speak out. In the end, the difference between a whistle blower and a rat is the magnitude of what was being done. Unfortunately, the interpretation of ‘going too far’ or ‘loyalty’ differs from person to person. Because of this open interpretation, it would be possible for a person who blabbed on someone for stealing French fries to be considered as an ethical crusader, regardless of how ridiculous it may seem for anyone else. In the end, my opinion is that the situation and magnitude of what occurs differ, and how we interpret the difference between whistle blowing and a rat should move with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with you on basically all your points. But consider, if you saw someone "stealing French Fries", the act would not be affecting you and, although it would be the ethical thing to do, you could try to keep your nose out of others people's business. Now if that person was injuring someone, or injuring you, you would have to right to stand up for your personal, or the other person's, safety. Your post brought up interesting points and they came to a clear point. Good work.
Corrupt children sadden me. When a child is brought up corruptly, there really is little or no chance of changing them. They have it set in there ways to be corrupt and not know what they're doing is terrible. Hitler created his version of the Boy Scouts to teach children to be like him and follow him. I can't imagine trying to change them or the horrible things they would do without blinking.
I agree with most of your points. In the terms of 'ratting' and being an ethical crusader, it all does boil down to opinion. BUT if someone is killing innocent people, even if they're your friend, it is your duty to turn him in.
Post a Comment