Source Code

Angela Compton
3.22.2013

            This week we were assigned to watch and analyze the movie Source Code and relate it to our second question of the semester “Who’s to Say What’s Right?”  This question involves normative ethics and how those different types of ethics affect our decision making processes. 

            My main focuses in this movie were the events that took place towards the end, particularly the situation that arises when Dr. Rutledge decided to renege on the agreement with Captain Stevens to terminate his life (or what remained of it) after successful completion of the mission.

            Dr. Rutledge, who was the creator of the Source Code, took the standpoint of consequential ethics, more specifically utilitarianism.  He believed that it should not be an issue to sacrifice this one life, to wipe clean his memory and use him over and over, if it meant saving hundreds of lives (and possibly more) in the present and future.  In return for not granting Stevens’ wish for a true death Rutledge is formulating his decision on the fact that he is bringing “maximum good to the largest number of people”, those being the people that are saved. (Simpler) 

            At first it is hard for me to say, “No”, that it is not right for Dr. Rutledge to go back on his word because in some ways he has a valid point.  Why wouldn’t we want to try and save as many lives as possible?  How could that be a bad thing?  What ultimately makes me disagree is the fact that Stevens didn’t ask for the assignment, he didn’t volunteer for it.  He was chosen because he met the criteria they were looking for.  That to me makes a huge difference on how I would process his request.  I think this reasoning could also be why Captain Goodwin made the decision to terminate Stevens’ life, going against Dr. Rutledge. 

            In Captain Goodwin’s case I think she used a combination of both virtue ethics and duty-based ethics (in the form of John Locke’s Rights Theory) to make her decision.  It was in her character as a soldier, a comrade to honor Stevens' wishes because she knew the importance of keeping her word.  Even though his memory could be erased and he would have no knowledge of that agreement, she would and I don’t think she was comfortable with living with that betrayal. 

            From the Rights Theory standpoint she knew that the government had a duty to protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of this soldier.  By denying his wishes to die (which should’ve already happened if not for Source Code) they are taking away his liberty.  The word liberties is defined as “The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.”  It is also defined as “Freedom from unjust or undue government control.”  In other words by keeping him alive they would be taking away his control over himself.  Not only that they were essentially keeping what was left of Stevens captive.  It wasn’t until Goodwin allowed herself to know him that he became real to her and the idea of keeping someone prisoner did not set well with her. 

            So, I believe that Goodwin made what was the correct choice for her in terminating Stevens’ life at his request.  Because to her it was the just and moral thing to do, even if it meant sacrificing herself, her job and possibly her freedom. 

TheFreeDictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2013. <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberties>.

Gyllenhaal, Jake, perf. Source Code. Perf. Jeffery Wright, and Vera Farmiga. 2011. Film. 17 Mar 2013.

Simpler, Steven. "Who's To Say What's Right?" Classical Categories (2013): n. pag. Web. 22 Mar. 2013.