Moral Paradoxes in Source Code

After watching the movie Source Code, I was left pondering whether Commander Goodwin was justified in her decision to terminate Captain Colter Stevens following his successful mission to save millions in the city of Chicago. Based on contextual clues in the film, Captain Stevens appears to have been a decorated war hero who died in combat and was posthumously award for his actions. We don’t learn until later (along with Stevens) that part of his brain has been kept alive for the purpose of using him in simulated missions involving source code.  After Captain Stevens successfully saves thousands of lives in his mission, the director of the program muses that millions more lives could be saved with the addition of other soldiers that meet the specifications for the program. However, after witnessing the effect of the mission on Captain Colter, it made me realize that the value of an individual life was being overlooked.

In my opinion, one of the most interesting parts of this film was the relationship that Commander Goodwin and Captain Stevens develop through their mere minutes of communication between the repeated simulated missions. Goodwin, who starts outs as the robotic voice of the government, eventually gives in and reveals information to Stevens as he becomes more and more distraught. In doing this, Goodwin begins to view Stevens as a man, and not merely as a tool at the dispense of the government. Stevens, who learns that he is being kept alive through a life support pod, asks to be terminated upon the completion of his mission, due to the pain that he goes through as he realizes the pain he has left behind for his father. One of the most iconic quotes of the movie comes when Goodwin tries to convince Stevens that he is being given a second chance at serving his country, unlike other soldiers who have died in combat. Stevens replies, “I think that most soldiers would agree that dying for your country once is enough.”
In the final minutes of the movie, Goodwin is forced to decide between honoring her agreement with Stevens, and keeping him alive to use in other missions. In my opinion, Goodwin made the right agreement to terminate his life for a few reasons. For one, she had already made a promise to Stevens in the final moments of his life. To Stevens, this was in fact his dying wish. In addition, Goodwin recognized that the heart and soul of a single man was worth no less than the hearts and souls of a million more people like him. Even though by keeping Stevens alive more lives could have been saved, by not honoring her agreement, Goodwin would have essentially been saying that his life was not worth enough to give him the right to free will. By denying a single man the free will to decide how his life would be used, it could open a whole floodgate of decisions that could lead to the government adding tens and maybe hundreds more soldiers just like Colter into the program. In my opinion, the way to change is made with a single right decision, and more will stem from that first moral choice. The only thing that I struggle with in this moral paradox is the idea that this government and this whole country were built upon the idea of a greater good for the majority of American citizens, and by choosing to make all decisions based upon on the effect on the individual could have disastrous effects. The real question is, where do we draw the line between individual worth and rights, and the majority of all people?

Whose To Say What's Right

         The three classic categories of ethics are used to make the decisions we make in our everyday lives. After reading over the classic categories reading I realized that there are is not necessarily a right or wrong way to go about making a decision, but we all tend to make our decisions in different ways.

            The category that I feel is probably the most sensible of the three main categories is duty-based ethics. Duty based ethics is pretty much making a decision by following the rules. Making a decision using this method can come by following the rules of the bible, the rules set in place by the government or even the rules set by a university. If everyone used duty-based ethics our world be very boring, but at the same time there would not be as many problems, because a world ran by people who made there decisions based on this type of thinking would mean there wouldn’t be any laws broken which would lead to safety.

            Even though I believe that our world would be a safer place to live if we all made our ethical choices using the duty-based category I do not think that I necessary tend to make my decisions with that thought process. Whenever I am trying to make an ethical decision I tend to think about what will happen if I make a certain decision or as stated in the readings as the looking at the “end result of the action”. This decision-making may seem selfish, but that’s not how I view this category. You can make a decision based on what you think the result will be for you personally after you make the decision or you can think about the outcome of the decision and how it affects others around you.  To sum up the thought processes that I have would be summarized as consequentialist ethics, but that does not mean the decisions I make are always what is best for me. The decision may be made so that I can protect someone I care about or what may be the best for someone else.

            Overall I do not believe that there is a right or wrong way to go about making an ethical decision. Different decisions call for different thought processes to occur before making that decision.  I think that I may tend to lean to a specific category when I make my decisions, but that does not mean I always use the same category with every decision I make. For example I follow the laws such as the speed limit but if I was with someone who needed to get to the hospital, because they were injured badly or with a loved one that was going into labor I would break the law without thinking twice in order to help out that person even if that means I risk getting a speeding ticket. The safety of the person I was with would mean way more to me than following the rules.

Who's to Say What's Right?

After reading and reviewing the Classical Categories #2 document, I can honestly say that it is hard for me to distinguish which of the processes that I a) agree with the most, and b) actually abide by the most. As Dr. Simpler discussed in the document, there is a good deal of overlap between the categories, and different situations may also call for a combination of the different processes in order to make a decision that can be deemed the most moral. Overall, I believe that consequentialism (and specifically utilitarianism) is the process that makes the most sense, and also the one that I tend to use the most.

            I agree with Utilitarianism because I believe that the consequences of others as a result of individual actions should always be one of the first things considered when making a decision. With that in mind, I do not believe it is morally right to make a decision where the majority of those involved do not benefit. I think the fact that America is a democratic nation points to the fact that in our country, we value the power of the majority and should thus take that into account when we are making personal and majority decisions. For me personally, I believe that I agree with the consequentialist line of thinking because I am an extremely analytical person. When making any decision, I typically weigh the pros and cons of each outcome, and then make a decision that I believe to be best for everyone involved.

            Although I think that consequentialism makes the most logical sense, I can also see the merit in Virtue Ethics. It makes sense that we are all taught from birth to value certain virtues that should guide our decision making for life, but even though this is a pessimistic line of thinking, I honestly believe that the majority of people are quicker to think about the immediate consequences of their decisions rather than the moral character of their entire lives. I agree with the notion of the “Golden Mean” that was discussed in the document, because I think it allows for humans to do their best to act in a way that lines up with their virtues, without pretending that we never make decisions that line up more closely with our vices than our virtues.

            I honestly felt that the document Dr. Simpler provided did a great job of trying to simplify the categories and identify the distinctions between the 3 categories of thinking. However, I am still confused about ethical altruism vs. ethical egoism and how to distinguish between the two?

3/4

Throughout the first half of the semester we have been discussing the question of whether or not humanity is in control of their lives.  Are the choices we make our own or do they come from a higher power.  We have research to support both positions and I have learned a lot about this question.  I believe that humanity is not in control of themselves but that higher powers control our paths.  This has been evident throughout my entire life in many big decisions.  Everything that could be perceived in my life as a “choice” is actually just a consequence of another action.  I played basketball in high school because it was my families favorite sport and so I was put in it from a young age.  I go to Belmont because my mothers friend suggested I go and nowhere else i got into offered my major.  I drink a lot of black tea because my father is english.  I believe that everything I am is created by a unique group of circumstances.  I align most strongly with the Theological determinism belief.  Since I was raised in the church I have developed a relationship with God.  I was taught that everything good that happened in my life is a “God thing” or a miracle.  It is crucial that we understand how our lives are written so that we can make the best out of our lives.  Since I hold the belief that God is in control of my life, I will make choices that I believe will allow him to bless me.  God teaches that if you act according to his word, your life will be blessed.  Since there is nothing I can do as a human to change my life, I must look to God’s higher power for guidance.  This has implications on my every moment.  I must have a heart that pours out God’s love in order to live a blessed life.  This is almost a self fulfilling prophecy though because if I treat everyone i come upon kindly then I will probably be treated with that same respect.  And if I work my hardest at everything I attempt, then I will probably be successful at everything i do.  Honestly, after reading everything and studying about this subject, I still don’t know fully what I believe but I’m okay with that.  I attempt every day to honor God and to make what I believe are the best decisions for myself.  Therefore I am covering both the free will and the determinism sides.  I don’t think I will ever know for sure which is true and I have come to accept that.  Humans can debate which is reality but I think there are some things that are beyond our knowledge.  That is why I must lean towards determinism because there has to be something more than our limited brain power. But because I can never know for sure I will continue to attempt to live my life balancing the two.   

The Classic Categories In My Life

          Free will and determinism are both very different, however I completely understand why some people agree with determinism and why others agree with free will. This class has made me think every week about what I truly agree with. Do I make my own decisions in life, or is my whole life already planned out?

            After going back over all of the “classic categories” of Determinism I find that I agree with multiple positions. Mechanistic determinism is the first category that I believe my life follows. Mechanistic determinism “argues the process of cause and effect”. The first example that takes place in my mind is baseball. In high school I was really interested in Belmont and was hoping to get offered a scholarship to play baseball here, but never received a phone call. Since Belmont did not recruit me while I was in high school I had to choose somewhere else. I decided to play baseball at a school in Louisiana which so happened to not work out for me which then led me to junior college. After a year in junior college I received a phone call from the coach here at Belmont and the recruiting process began which obviously ended up in the opportunity for me to attend Belmont. One school led to the next, and somehow I ended up at a University that I have always wanted to attend.

            Theological determinism is another category that I agree with. Theological determinism “argues that God ultimately orchestrates all or at least some of our choices and actions”.  I have always believed that everything happens for a reason and even in the “classic categories” notes the example of everything happens for a reason is used. When I was growing up I was always taught that God has a plan for everyone’s lives. Since God has a plan for our lives and that everything happens for a reason I catch myself agreeing a lot with theological determinism.

            After going through every single category I soon realized that almost every single category seems to fit my life to some degree, or at least I could justify every single category with an event or events that have happened in my life. For this reason I find myself understanding my life as compatibilism.  “Compatibilism is the idea that determinism and free will exist together”. I did not choose who my family, how tall I am, or where I am from. Just like everyone else.  At the same time I believe that when I woke up this morning I had the decision to either stay in bed and skip my 8 a.m. or make the smart decision and attend class. I think God knew what decision I was going to make before I did. For that reason I believe he has our lives planned out for us and we are under his control, however at the same time I am able to make my own decisions in life. Such as whether or not I want to get a few extra hours of sleep or wake up for class. And even the harder decisions such as asking a girl to marry me. I am have the ultimate decision in what I do in life, however at the exact same time God is influencing our lives to push us to make the decisions that he wants. 

So What?

Over the course of the past four weeks, we have all been pondering one essential question: Who is writing the script of my life? Through Biblical texts, The Adjustment Bureau, and The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, we have been able to view the question with a variety of lenses. After a good deal of thought, I have found myself to agree most with the theory of compatibilism. As seen in The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, Trisha was able to make conscious decisions that affected her path, but God ultimately pre-determined that she would make it out of the New Hampshire woods. Regardless of the perspective that you most agree with, this question is important to compatibilities for two very important reasons. Firstly, as one of the class readings discussed, an absence of choice would completely eliminate the presence of moral responsibility.  Secondly, knowing who (or what) is determining the scope of our lives provides us with a sense of comfort in knowing that we are not alone on our respective journeys.

If we take a look around us at any given time, it is plain to see that there are good, bad, and downright ugly things happening constantly that are a direct reflection of the choices that humans make. When someone does something incredibly nice for another person, we don’t really think twice about it (other than to stop and maybe think about the last time we did an unsolicited good deed), but when someone commits a crime, one of the first things we ponder is their motive. If one agrees with the existence of free will, they must also agree that a person makes the choice to carry out any action, good or bad, and must live with the rewards or consequences of that action. However, if one believes in total determinism, who is to blame for the horrible things that happen in the world? If humans had no free will, they would be void of moral responsibility, and thus have no one to blame but God (or whatever higher power they believe in).

In addition, having an understanding of who is writing the script of our lives can give one comfort in knowing that even if we make a misstep in our daily lives, that God still controls our overall destination. Furthermore, God knows exactly where we should end up, and shows up to help steer us back in the right direction if we falter. For me, I take great comfort in knowing that 1) I am not merely a puppet that is void of responsibility, but 2) my God has my back in the 9^th inning when the choices I make are of the utmost importance. Having this thought in the back of my head is of vital importance to me when I make a mistake, because I know that one mistake will not eliminate my ability to reach my intended destination. One thing that I do have trouble grasping is how determinists plan to rationalize bad things happening to good people, or vice versa. If determinists believe that there are no truly free actions, how do we explain one’s choice to murder someone else? This reasoning is one of the main reasons that I personally have to believe in the presence of free will.