Unable to determine title from blank input

¶ … Film Witness: The Right to Privacy vs. The Right to Know

There are a lot of differences between the Amish people and the rest of the American society as a whole. Two of the major differences between the groups are the shunning of technology by the Amish and the embracing of very strong morals and ethics by that same group. In the movie there are several times where the Amish widow seems startled and overwhelmed by things that most Americans would find completely normal, such as a car. There are also times when she seems much more resourceful than would be expected, and that leads to a little bit of a gap in the realism of the movie. Not everyone would likely be bothered by that, however, and it did not seem to detract from the popularity of the movie when it hit theaters, was made available on video, or has been shown on television.

From an ethical standpoint, there is an argument that the movie industry and Hollywood overall distorted what was true and accurate about the Amish so that it could portray them the way it wanted to for the film. For example, even though they do shun technology does not mean that they are completely ignorant of it. They have dealings with people who use technology, and they know what cars and telephones and computers and guns and other things are. They know what those things are for. Just because someone chooses not to use something in their life, it is wrong to assume that they do not know anything about it. The Amish people were also portrayed as ultra-religious and socially backward, and they are neither of those things. They are religious, and they are moral and ethical people, but to suggest that they are incapable of functioning on a normal level simply because they hold themselves to high standards is unfair and makes Hollywood look bad.

The Amish also have a right to privacy just like any other person, but I do not agree that their right to privacy was invaded any more than any other American's right to privacy would be invaded if a movie was being shot in their town or city. Even though the Amish prefer to be left alone they are part of this country and cannot force people to stay away from common areas and places of business that belong to everyone. I sympathize with their desire to be left to themselves and not be bothered, but I do not think that what happened to them was a legal violation of their right to privacy. Morally and ethically, though, perhaps. That is an argument that could be made either way, however, because everyone judges the idea of morals and ethics differently.

When looking at ethics, it is important to understand that, while a broad, general definition is available, a specific definition is very illusive. This is because the ethics are involved in so much of our daily lives, in both big and small problems that we may encounter. Because of this, ethics are difficult to define, unless you are looking at a specific instance or specific industry. Most people will say it is wrong to lie, cheat, or steal, but there are many smaller dilemmas that come up every day, and can make us uncomfortable. Even though they seem small, they are also ethical problems, and must be included in the definition when someone asks 'what is ethics' or 'is that ethical'? This is the issue that is being faced with the Amish community and the film Witness, because there is more than one actual issue at work there. This involves a whole community, some of whom may feel very differently about their Hollywood portrayal than others.

A lot of the issue with communities like the Amish and whether they are treated fairly or exploited is situations like this has to do with duty ethics, which was introduced like Immanuel Kant. Duty ethics deals with having the ability and understanding to do what is correct regardless of the consequences (Yirmiyahu, 1998). In other words, one needs to do one's duty regardless of what the other issues surrounding one may be. This is often difficult to understand and is generally even more difficult to do. It is much easier to do what one wants rather than what one should be doing. However, Kant's argument deals with the fact that the only way to be moral and virtuous in society was to have a sense of duty not just to oneself but to all of mankind (Brink, 1999). That would imply Hollywood's sense of duty to the Amish people and that is something that it did not seem like the movie producers considered. If they did, it apparently did not show enough that the Amish felt comfortable with it or like they or their beliefs were being as strongly respected as they could have been.