Movie: “Election” (1999- Matthew Broderick, Reese Witherspoon)
Scene:
“After all the ballots are counted, Tracy has won by one vote (we learn that Paul, who has no ill will towards Tracy and did not want to egotistically vote for himself, voted for her). McAllister is so angry that he secretly disposes of two of the pro-Tracy ballots, demands a re-count, and names Paul as the winner.”[1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_%281999_film%29
We can see that the decision taken by the professor McAllister is a human act since he has the intention to do so. That is, he considered that she does not deserve to be the class president; so when he counts the ballots and sees that she wins, he disposes of two of the ballots. He has the intention to make his student notice that there are more important things than winning that election. That is why he takes that decision considering that that is the right time to do so.
McAllister is completely awareness of his acting brings. That is, he knows what consequences his disposing of the pro-Tracy ballots carries. That is why he decides to act like that so as to reach his purpose. However he is not aware at that time of the consequences that he deals with when everybody knows about his cheating. If he had analyzed the consequences that his acting would bring, he would have avoided many unpleasant situations, to be fired from her job, considered to be a dishonest and disloyal person, to lose the respect he used to have among the community where he lives (one of his students spit him out after his cheating came to light).
Although McAllister has other choices to teach Tracy a lesson, he does not take them into consideration; so that he considers that preventing Tracy from winning is the most suitable choice.
According to Daniel Ruiz (1987) there are three requirements that a human act must have in order to be morally good. These requirements are the following:
· the action must be good in itself
· good intention/ purpose
· good circumstances.
To begin with, an action to be good in itself must follow two principles “kinship (to help somebody who belongs to your community) and reciprocity (to help somebody and assume that that person will do the same for you) principle.” So according to that, this human act is not good in itself; it responds neither kinship nor reciprocity principle although he thinks that his acting is right. This human act lacks these principles since he does not think about Tracy and the harm that he may cause her (he is not helping at all, he thinks that though).
The circumstances at which he tries to teach that lesson are not good either. I think that it is not the right moment or situation to show Tracy that he/she is wrong about being very ambitious. The intention that his acting may respond is not good since what he wants is Tracy to lose so as to learn a lesson about life. Would you make somebody feel bad and sad in order to teach her a lesson?This professor does.This human act is not morally good because it does not follow to any of the requirements that they must have to be considered good.
Finally, I think that there are other options to be considered in this decision, for instance, to talk to the girl and make her reflect over her acting. The teacher considers that she is “evil and needs to be stopped, especially when she is able to use her rather false good girl image” so that he decides to stop her in that way. Neither he nor anybody can prevent somebody from being happy, no matter what that person thinks about being happy. “Tracy wants to be simply because it would make her college application even more desirable to colleges;” that is why she works to the bone in order to win, so why do the teacher feel that she does not deserve to win if she responds to the characteristics that any commitment person have to fill that role?
What is more, the teacher knows that Paul, the boy who wins, is not very concerned with the issues that he must deal with as being a school body president.
So to my mind this was not the best choice to take since as a result of the teacher’s acting, many people got hurt.
2 comments:
Hi L@ur@!
You've certainly chosen a most interesting scene to discuss!!
Here are some questions that have kept "bubbling" in my mind after reading your entry:
1. Apart from the fact that McAllister has the intention to destroy the winning votes for Tracy, what else would you take into account in order to ascertain this was a human act? And is "considering it is the right time" one of the requirements, in your view?
2. At first, you state "McAllister is completely aware of the consequences his acting brings." Some lines later, however, you add "he is not aware at that time of the consequences" that he will have to face. I'm not sure which you really meant, but in either case, it is important to consider he might even have chosen to act like this if he had been aware of its cost... Can you speculate on what might have led him to do such a thing?
3. You also say that morally good actions must respect the principle of reciprocity, which you define as "to help somebody and assume that that person will do the same for you". Do you mean morally good actions always involve expecting people to pay you back?
4. You conclude your reflection saying "his was not the best choice to take since as a result of the teacher’s acting, many people got hurt". Now, I ask, isn't this sometimes unavoidable? Some lines above, you've asked your readers:"Would you make somebody feel bad and sad in order to teach her a lesson?"
My answer is "I might" 8-0! Now, does that make my choice morally bad? That is the question you need to answer in ethical terms!
Let's keep thinking together, shall we?
LOL,
Gladys
1. I think that other thing that I would take into account to say that this is a human act is that he has the CHOICE to act like that. I mean, he would have decided to behave in a different way but he made his mind up to act in that situation and not in another one. As regards the “right time”, I think that it may not be one of the requirements but it is very important to consider since this also influence over the consequences that his acting brings.
2. What I wanted to say is that he may be aware of his acting but not of the consequences that his acting brings (I don’t know if it is clear…). I think that he as an Ethic’s teacher wanted to teach his student moral values and he might have considered that through this experience of losing the school election, she would learn a lesson. He might think that a just talking to her wouldn’t help since we people tend to learn more from our own experiences rather than from a piece of advice.
3. Morally good actions not always involve expecting people to pay you back, but what it may involve is the fact that when you do something good for somebody you suppose that that person would do the same for you if you were the one who need some help. However, to me what is good and what is bad is subjective so it is very difficult to state that something good is good for everybody.
4. I agree with you Gladys when you say that is sometimes is unavoidable. Now the thing is that sometimes people know that and they have the intention to hurt somebody, there the act is morally bad since they don’t try to help in a “good way”. I don’t think that because your choice is morally bad because your intentions are good in itself. All depends on our own intentions, I think…
Post a Comment