The movie 28
Weeks Later is a sequel to the 2002 film 28 Days Later. This sequel
starts 28 weeks after the first movie where there is a viral outbreak in
England. Like the first film, this
sequel focuses on a small group of people banning together to survive. The main character, Don, and his wife Alice
hide in a country house with a few other survivors of the Rage virus while
their children are on a school trip in Spain away from the chaos. One night when they were eating dinner, they
heard a terrified young boy outside the cottage yelling and banging on the
door. Not realizing what they were
getting themselves into, they allow him to enter. This child had escaped a group of
infected. Not long after the boy entered,
the infected soon found the hiding spot and broke into the house. During the chase to safety, Don is separated
from the others while his wife is trying to save the boy. In the process of being separated, Don jumps
out of a window. Instead of returning to
help the others flee to safety, Don makes his way to a nearby motorboat,
allowing him to make his escape. This
point in the film brings about questions of ethics and whether Don did the
right thing or wrong thing by fleeing while he had the chance. As it is probably known, “ethical theories
help to guide people in their search for the correct decision” in situations
like this. (Salazar 2) Although various
theories can be considered in order to define whether or not the events that
took place were appropriate in the sense of ethics, the Utilitarian and Kantian
viewpoints will be the main focus. A Utilitarian
would disagree with Don’s decision because it did not benefit the group of
survivors as a whole. In fact, it
ultimately encouraged the death of more people because he did not return to help
save them. A Kantian would also disagree
with his decision because he did not fulfill his duty to his wife and the others. Instead, he ran away from the situation.
 |
| Alice in the window watching Don escape |
Utilitarianism is a theory of ethics
that is commonly talked about. In terms
of self-interest, a utilitarian believes that “one should benefit oneself only
if those acts benefit the whole of conscious life.” (Salazar 1393) This being said, a person should only perform
a certain deed if the outcome benefits others as well. A Utilitarian would view the situation where
Don abandons his wife and the others as unacceptable. This is because in the process, he is only
concerned for his own safety. Don did not care enough to go back for his wife, but rather saw a way out and took it in
order to save his own life. His action was completely motivated by self-interest,
as it resulted in the death of others.
He merely took his own interest into consideration, which is the
complete opposite of what is encouraged under utilitarian theory. This theory also states that individuals are
beings who can experience pleasure or pain.
In this situation, if Don had not escaped, he may have sacrificed his own
life for the life of Alice and others.
In general, Don’s choice to abandon the crew resulted in his own safety,
but ultimately led to the death of many more by the infected. Although he did not necessarily place the
others in danger, he did not come to their rescue when things spiraled out of
control. Because of this, a Utilitarian
would disagree with his decision since it ended up hurting more people than it helped,
as Don was the only one not infected by this outbreak.
Kantianism is another theory that is
popular among ethics. The ideas of Kant
are that "one must be motivated from duty, seeking to do what is right
because it is right, and not from self-interest or sympathy.” (Salazar
1392) In other words, “it is not only
what you do that matters morally, but with what motivation you do it.” (Salazar
4) Under Kant’s theory, he argues that
“good will” is the driving force for doing what is right, allowing people to
fulfill the duties they have to themselves as well as the duties they have to
others. Unlike the Utilitarian
viewpoint, the Kantian viewpoint does not take into account particular groups
or numbers of people, but rather states that “the core of morality lies not in
what we do, but in our motives in doing it. (Blackburn 119) Another characteristic of Kant’s theory is
Categorical Imperative. There are many
forms, one of which is called the Formula of Universal Law. This states that an individual’s actions must
be logical in order to be rational and this holds people responsible for what
it truly means to be human and put the interest of others ahead of oneself in
order to benefit the whole. (Salazar 6)
The Formula for Humanity, another form of categorical imperative,
reasons that people should only act in ways that will better humanity, and not
for selfish desires. A Kantian would
view the situation where Don abandons his wife and the others similarly to the
way a Utilitarian would, as unacceptable.
Although under this viewpoint it does not matter how many people died in
response to Don’s actions, it does take into account the reasons Don did not go
back, which was simply to keep himself safe.
This does not sound like a person who is doing something because it is
morally right. If that were the case,
Don would have rescued the others before worrying about himself. As a member of society, Don did not fulfill
his duties to the others, but instead, he did not take any of them into
account. He only wanted to save himself,
and therefore made the choice to sacrifice the others. If Don was to do what was morally right, he
would have brought the others to safety instead of allowing them to become infected
and increasing the population of infected people. Generally speaking, a Kantian would disagree
with the verdict made by Don because he did not fulfill his duty to his family
and friends.
Overall, I agree with both the
Utilitarian and Kantian points of view in that Don made the wrong choice when
he decided to abandon the others.
Although it may have been a spur of the moment decision that Don made,
it was completely irrational when considering all aspects of the
situation. He obviously did not have time
to think about what to do, but after he escaped through the window there was
nothing stopping him from going back besides his own self-interest. What Don did was the opposite of being a
hero. Although he is not necessarily a
villain, the fact that he left his wife with the infected as he fled to safety
really does not make him any better than the infected. The goal of the infected is to kill all
people in sight, and since Don did not save any of the others, he is not much
better. He allowed those people to die
because he left them there. If Don was
really concerned for the well-being of the others, he would have helped them
get away from the infected as he had done.
This goes to show he was not being heroic in any way, shape or form. To sum it up, a Utilitarian, a Kantian, and
myself all disagree with Don’s decision to run away when he saw himself faced
with danger. He did not do the ethical
thing and sacrifice himself for the better of his people, nor did he help them
to safety. These actions show that Don
was more concerned in the better interest of himself, and not the others. Because of Don, many people were killed by
the infected in 28 Weeks Later.
References
Blackburn,
Simon. Being Good, A Short Introduction
to Ethics. Oxford University Press, 2001. Print.
Salazar,
Heather. “Kantian Business Ethics,” in Business
in Ethical Focus, ed. Fritz Allhoff and Anand J. Vaidya. Broadview Press, 2008.
Salazar,
Heather. “Self-Interest,” The New
Catholic Encyclopedia, Series on Ethics and Morality, ed. By Rober Fastiggi.
Gale Cengage Learning, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment