The Hangover Ethical Analysis

To analyze The Hangover I decided to make a list of every thing that could be viewed as unethical and the amount of ethical issues in this film is abundant the final tally was around 66 give or take a few roofies and counting explicit,offensive language throughout the movie as one. 

• Conning students into paying for their trip to Vegas
• Explicit, offensive language
• Making fun of Alan
• Alan "I don't care if we kill someone"
• Alan is not supposed to be within two hundred feet of school or Chuckie cheese
• A teacher calling his students nerds pretending they don't exist
• Lying to girlfriend of three years saying he's going to Napa Valley instead of Vegas
• "Paging doctor faggot"
• Little girl flicking off Alan
• Making light of drinking and driving
• Phil " I fucking hate my life" referring to wife and kid. You start dying a little bit everyday after getting married
• Alan telling Doug he was alright when he could have crashed into truck as a joke risking everyone's life
• Rude to elderly "I will hit an old man in public"
• Girlfriend fucked a bartender
• Counting cards
• Making light of 9/11
• Taking advantage of Stu making him pay for a villa
• Calling friends girlfriend a complete butch
• Same girlfriend beat boyfriends twice "she's strong willed"
• Couple having sex in elevator
• Going upstairs to roof of hotel is not allowed
• Alan cutting himself
• Looking for strippers and cocaine
• Trashed hotel
• Stealing tiger
• Baby in closet
• Don't call authorities about missing baby
• Cursing in front of baby
• pretending to make the baby jerk off
• "I've found a baby before"
• Driving/stealing cop car
• Impersonating cops
• Throwing hotel property (mattress) out the window
• Hitting baby with car door and only worrying about the glasses said baby was wearing
• Driving on sidewalk
• Doctor allowing guests in an examination room during patients nude examination 
• Leaving baby in the car
• Married stranger
• Asain guys attacking the "wolf pack" and hitting a cop car
• Shot Eddie
• Lying to Traci
• Cops blackmailing "wolf pack" to do taser demonstration
• Parking car in the middle of Las Vegas bolivard "couldn't find a meter"
• Fat Jesus
• Can't taser people because you think it's funny that's police brutality
• Naked Asian man in the trunk
• Alan drugged the group, he thought it was ecstasy it was roofies
• Their friend is still missing and they still don't call the authorities
• Mike Tyson punching Alan for no reason
• Use "Tend to do dumb shit when were fucked up" as an excuse
• Drugging tiger (animal cruelty)
• Stopping car on highway
• Trespassing on someone else's property
• Peeing in someone's pool
• Humping tiger
• Car purposefully crashes into them
• Stole money from Cho
• Making fun of fat Alan
• Kidnapping Cho
• Money for Doug deal
• Racist to "black Doug"
• Moved white Doug to the roof as a prank
• 80,000 worth of chips
• Acting like nothing happened with their families
• Trashing father in laws car
• The Photographic evidence

I felt kinda of stuck up, conservative, and hypocritical pointing out everything that was technically or ethically "wrong" with the film when in fact I was laughing the whole time. Even though we know that these are not encouraged we also know that as a whole human race we can't all be perfect drones and do everything to what is considered ethically right. The "wolf pack" has a lot of issues (see list above) that are not easy to pass of on a whim as being alright to do. And it's hard to believe they could really be a person like Alan in the world but there probably is and though he's pretty hilarious in the movie I don't think society would be laughing if we all acted like Alan.

The main ethical issue that can be seen throughout the movie is cussing. To cuss or not to cuss that is the question. Cussing is generally frowned upon, but the fact remains it's generally a very common thing in our world.When is it appropriate to cuss if ever? and Is someone a bad person if they drop the F bomb? I think it depends on context, I don't think it's right to cuss if you're verbally harassing someone, cursing in church or in a K-12 classroom, and so on. Me personally I can cuss like a sailor should the need arise and I really don't mind it unless it's a particular curse word that is derogatory towards me. I think it's fine among certain people that you know personally are comfortable with it, but you wouldn't go up to a elder or even your'e professor and just start dropping a curse word every other word. The first amendment also plays a role but i'm just going to say that, yeah you have the right to say whatever you want but not everybody wants to hear it. Depending on your setting and its context cursing isn't a big deal it's just a word, but there is a time and place for it.

To Swear or Not To Swear

"WHAT'S A FAIR START?"

                   

My group discussed the video above and we discussed various questions such as: 

-Is being naturally gifted unfair to those who are not? 

It could be said that people who are born naturally gifted don't have to work as hard as someone who isn't to attain the same goal. 

-Does the background we come from really matter? 

You could potentially gain more social connections and more opportunities when coming from a privileged background so in that sense background matters. 

-What could we do to have more equality in society today?

To answer this question we first created a genetic lottery of sorts to determine how far you would get in life depending on your race, gender, economic stature and whether you had brains beauty or strength. For example: if you were a disabled, Asian, women from a poor lower class background would you get as far in life as a smart, white, male from a rich upper class background? The fact that the white male would probably get farther ahead in life shows how unequal society is.

I believe there should be equal opportunity for everyone. We should try and see the world through lenses that negate race, gender,sexuality, etc. so people are judged strictly off of their merit and what they have achieved in life. 

Overall I really enjoyed the discussion in class along with hearing everyone's opinions. It wasn't so bad as far as oral presentations go.

What's a Fair Start Power Point

"Harrison Bergeron"

                  

Above is a short film based on the story Harrison Bergeron written by Kurt Voonegut, which explores the idea of an egalitarian society.

"The Year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal . They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else."

Maybe if everyone started with a clean slate and on the same level and then went on in life trying to reach their goals based strictly on their own merit, then I think it would be as fair as society could get. It's a nice ideal the possibility of an egalitarian society but not a realistic one. Vonnegut points out the flaws of an equal society in Harrison Bergeron, how total equality comes at the cost of individual freedom. An equal society would include everyone receiving the same amount of everything. For instance the same pay for maybe not the same amount of work. Now is that fair? Someone gets paid the same amount as you when you put forth more effort, shouldn't you get paid more? I don't think it's possible for everyone to be equal without hindering the exceptional and if we were all on the same level then our species would not advance. 



Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Voonegut

"Shooting an Elephant"

In Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell, the main focus of the story is a police officers' motive behind killing an elephant in must. Musth or must:"The frenzied state of certain male animals, especially elephants or camels, that is associated with the rutting season." The English police officer who is disrespected by the oppressed Burmese people seems to gain some of their respect after taking the first shot at the elephant. When the only thing the officer hears is the "devilish roar of glee that went up from the crowd". You can tell the police man is not proud of himself when he keeps shooting the elephant trying to kill it faster,trying to put it out of it's misery, but no matter how many shots he poured "into his heart and down his throat" the elephant just wouldn't let go. The English officer feels guilt for killing the elephant not simply because he had to kill an animal that didn't know what it was doing but because he killed the elephant so he himself wouldn't look bad in front of the Burmese people.

"I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool"

Though he feel guilt behind his motive for killing the elephant that doesn't change the fact that,"A mad elephant has to be killed, like a mad dog, if its owner fails to control it"

In both of the movie clips below there are examples of dogs that have been infected and must be put down because they are not in their right minds and they have become dangerous to others.

• I am Legend - Dog Scene
• Old Yeller has Rabies

Where as in the clips above the dogs were put down before they could hurt someone the elephant in this story has already killed in it's need to mate. Which is a fact the Officer focuses on, legally he was in the right to kill the elephant because it had killed someone and could kill others. However, I do think if the officer cared less about what the Burmese people think he could have possibly prevented the elephant from killing the "coolie" in the first place by gaining control of the situation. Even though the Burmese may disrespect him he still has the authority and he should have some control over the people. Maybe he could have found a way to tranquilize or subdue the elephant if the officer wasn't weighed down by the opinions of the Burmese people. 

We tend to fear what we can't control. The police officer said he "did not want to shoot the elephant...It seemed to me that it would be murder to shoot him." but the elephant had killed someone already and he had do right by the people, to in a way, earn their respect. Alot of people say they don't care what people think about them or their actions but I think no matter what they say they all care deep down and that influences their actions. Someone does or doesn't do something because they feel pressured into doing right by, not themselves, but the people watching in the crowd; like the officer who in the end falls to the peer pressure placed upon him and kills the "great beast".

Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell

"The Parable of Sadhu"

Partake in a once in a lifetime journey or help a man in need and forgo the opportunity? What would you do? This is the moral dilemma that the author Bowen H. McCoy is faced with in The Parable of Sadhu, when he takes a trip to the Himalayas.

On their journey through the Himalayas a group of people from all over the world come across a mostly naked man; A Sadhu, a religious or holy man, who "probably visited the shrines at Muklinath and was on his way home" 
and is now suffering from hypothermia. Ethical issues arise when various people try and help the Sadhu but they only help him as much as it is convenient for them. 

"No one person was willing to assume ultimate responsibility for the Sadhu. Each was willing to do his bit just so long as it was not too inconvenient. When it got to be a bother, everyone just passed the buck to someone else and took off."

They don't go out of their way to help him down the mountain because their journey is more important to them. As is the money they probably invested in this trip, basically they act out of their own self interest. So these people may try and help the Sadhu as little as they can to come off as humane but they don't do enough to ensure his safety. It is shocking to see that all these people from different countries, cultures, and walks of life, none of them goes out of their way and helps this man get home. And at the end of the story the well being of the Sadhu and whether he got home safely or even if he is alive is still in question.


"How do you feel about contributing to the death of a fellow man?"


Don't we as humans have an implied obligation to help out our "fellow man" when in need. Don't we like to think that if we were in the shoes of the Sadhu that someone would go out of their way to ensure our safety to possibly get us home to our families. Would we still have that obligation if it were a dead person. Would you continue on your once on a lifetime journey through the Himalayas and just walk pass a dead body without a second thought. The author's friend Stephen seems to be the only one who cares about the Sadhu, but in the end he doesn't help the Sadhu either.

"Where is the limit of our responsibility in a situation like this?"

There are unanswered questions that remain unanswered in the story like "Why (the Sadhu) had chosen this desperately high route instead of the safe, heavily traveled caravan route through the Kali Gandaki gorge. Or why he was shoe less and almost naked, or how long he had been lying in the pass" and what happened to the Sadhu? But the author clearly still has guilt over what he did or rather what he didn't do to help the Sadhu? Which means he knows he did the wrong thing. However if faced with the situation again he would probably do the right thing but it's probably a little to late.


The Parable of Sadhu by Bowen H. McCoy