Ethics Philosophy - Ethics in

Ethics Philosophy - Ethics In the famous Woody Allen movie Broadway Danny Rose, the title character, played by Allen himself, is portrayed as a moral character who must contend with the vices of others as part of his lot in life. According to Gert's conception of morality, Danny Rose would most certainly fit the category of a morally virtuous person. He does not kill anyone in the course of the film, and we can believe easily that he would never kill anyone willfully.

Nor does he cause pain to anyone - at least not willfully. There is one scene in the film in which Danny inadvertently causes someone else pain. When he and Mia Farrow's character are on the verge of being killed by two Mafia hit men, lest they reveal the name of the man that Mia Farrow has actually been having an affair with, Danny names a random ventriloquist that he knows.

The ventriloquist has not actually been carrying on an affair with Mia Farrow's character - in fact, he does not even know who she is. Yet he winds up being the scapegoat and getting seriously beat up by the two Mafia hit men It is difficult to determine whether or not this would qualify as an immoral action, according to Gert's theory. It is rational for a person to wish to avoid death.

For this reason, Gert justifies the usage of self-defensive killing in the face of the threat of death; when one does this, one is not doing something wrong. In a way, Danny Rose's lie to the Mafia men is thus justified - he is saving the life of himself and Mia Farrow's character, whose name is Tina.

But then there is the question as to why he lies and gives them the name of a random, totally innocent person that he happens to know, rather than being honest and giving them the name of the true guilty party, who happens to be his friend and client. Clearly, self-interest is at the heart of Danny Rose's decision - something that Gert also asserts his morally virtuous.

What is not morally virtuous about this particular instance of self-interest, however, is that he causes an innocent man pain as a result of this. It is clear that Danny feels guilty for causing this man pain, because later in the film, he goes to great lengths to help the man. He cannot take back his actions, which in the end only benefited him and no one else, but he can at least attempt to make amends by behaving towards the man in a generous, virtuous fashion.

The two other main characters in Broadway Danny Rose, Lou and Tina, are rather less than virtuous, especially when compared to Danny himself. Tina announces at the outset that her personal philosophy involves doing harm to others before they do harm to you. This assumes that all men are evil, rather than good, and thus attempts to justify evil, selfish behaviors towards others. Thus, from Tina's standpoint, none of the ten moral rules identified by Gert would apply.

With Lou, on the other hand, the situation is a bit more ambiguous. While he does have some virtues, his selfishness prevents him from avoiding such vices as deceit (towards his friend and partner, Danny Rose), not keeping one's promise, and not doing one's duty. By the end of the film, Lou has left his family and his manager who helped him revive his career, and all for selfish reasons. Clearly, his moral standing is highly dubious, if not completely tarnished.

If the Gyges ring were to fall into my possession, I would attempt to do something just to make the world a better place - but what I consider to be just, others might consider to be unjust. For example, I am opposed to many of George W. Bush's actions as President of the United States.

I believe that, through his actions, he is personally responsible for many instances of death and destruction, not the least of which has resulted from starting a war that never should have been a war, as there is not a single shred of evidence that affirms this war is being fought for a good reason. Yet more and more people continue to die each day as a result of it.

Thus, if I had the Gyges ring, I would try to figure out a way to use my invisibility so as to somehow punish George W. Bush. Now, I'm not saying that I would actually kill George W. Bush. As I believe killing to be morally wrong, then it follows that it is wrong to punish a murderer with murder.

but, assuming I can take liberties with the original story of Gyges ring and perhaps extend the ring's capabilities a bit, updating them to 21st century technology, I would probably do something like trap the American president in a room for several days and make him watch gruesome footage of the carnage he has been responsible for.

Since I do not believe President Bush is fully aware of his actions - as I do not believe him to be either an intelligent or moral person - I believe that such a form of punishment might bring him some sort of moral consciousness. So perhaps the story of the Gyges ring, as it is used to make an ethical point in the Republic, is overly.