Quarter 2 Question 2

The movie On The Waterfront displays a wide variety of beliefs concerning what makes a traitor and what makes a whistle blower. On one hand, prominent mob members such as Johnny Friendly strongly believe that anyone who decides to inform the authorities about mob activity is a traitor, through and through. They believe this so strongly that they go to great lengths to prevent traitors from being successful. Anyone who is planning to rat out the mob is swiftly killed. On the other hand, the "good guys" believe the very opposite. Someone the mob would label as a traitor, characters such as the priest and perhaps Edie would label as a whistle blower. They believe it is doing the right thing to stand up against the mob. Also, there is the character Terry. Terry is interesting because his views slowly shift through the course of the film. His beliefs start from Johnny Friendly's end of the spectrum and eventually end up agreeing with the priest.

I personally believe that the difference between a traitor and a whistle blower lies in the motivations behind the person's actions. If someone rats out another to get revenge, or to intentionally create problems for another person, then I'd label them as a traitor. When their motivations are negative, they are a "stool pigeon." But when someone tells on another to help the greater good, or to stop unethical activity, they are a whistle blower. If the person truly means to have a positive effect and their intentions are pure, I'd say they're simply an "informant." I do understand, however, that lots of situations could blur this line. For example, if a worker went to the authorities because what his or her company was doing was wrong, they are an informant. But if that person didn't like their boss or other people in their company and also saw this as a good chance to mess up their life, then the proper label for them is much less clear. In a situation like this, more questions would have to be asked, such as would they have done it even if they liked everyone in the company.

Quarter 2 Post 3

Before I say anything about Martin Luther King Jr.'s ethics, I have to say one thing. GO READ THIS BOOK. Honestly. It is one of the most inspiring books I have ever read. Ever. This man and the effects he had were, and are amazing.
Anyway. Continuing on...
This week's chapters covered the Montgomery Movement; a mass boycott of Montgomery buses to protest the segregated bus seats. Within these chapters, there is a strong representation of King's personal morals. It was very clear to me that two main parts of his code of ethics are non-violence, and the value of family. Non-violent resistance was a key philosophy of King's, and he learned it from Mahatma Gandhi. (Not directly, I think, but I'm not positive). King implanted this philosophy within the movement he led in Montgomery. Through his speeches, he then implanted it in the people of Montgomery. He believed it was the best tool, morally, to attain a 'victory.' Of this method, King said, "It also provided a method for Negroes to struggle to secure moral ends through moral means. Thus, it provided a creative force through which men could channel their discontent" (99).
King's other main personal moral concern was his family. An entire chapter is devoted to his wife, Coretta Scott King. He repeats how important she is to him, how much she supports him, and how understanding and patient she is. King also talks about his love for his first daughter, affectionately nicknamed Yoki. He discusses his parents as well, and the hard times they went through when they knew their son was in danger during the protest. Although he chose to go against his parents' will and go forth with the protest no matter the potential harm to himself, King made it clear that this did not mean he didn't value their opinions. King expresses this internal struggle when he says, "No one can understand my conflict who has not looked into the eyes of those he loves, knowing that he has no alternative but to take a dangerous stand that leaves them tormented" (85).
By the end of these chapters, the boycott is victorious. King is among the first to ride a desegregated bus, and he sits next to a white, southern-born minister. It is an incredible moment.
Now really, go read this book. I wasn't kidding.

King, Martin Luther. The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. Ed. Clayborne Carson. New York: Warner, 1998

Quarter 2 Question 1

In the novel All My Sons, by Arthur Miller, characters value family over society or vice versa depending on the role they play in a family. The sons and daughters in the story see society as more important than family, because of their young, and perhaps naive, idealistic ethics. The adults and caregivers, on the other hand, see family as the first priority when making decisions because they must create a safe home and a good future for their children. Chris Keller, a young man, strongly believes that one should value the needs of society. His mother wonders what more she and her husband can do for their children, and Chris tells her she's looking at it the wrong way. He reprimands his mother by saying, "You can be better! Once and for all you can know there's a universe of people outside and you're responsible to it, and unless you know that you threw away your son because that's why he died" (84). Chris is trying to show his mother that there is more than family, in fact, there's the whole world to think about when making decisions. The opposing view is demonstrated through Joe Keller, who justifies the fact that he denied assisting in shipping out faulty airplane parts by saying he was supporting his family. While arguing with his son, Keller pleads, "Chris... Chris, I did it for you, it was a chance and I took it for you. I'm sixty-one years old, when would I have another chance to make something for you?" (70). Keller was trying to build a business for his son. With this goal in mind, he chose his son over the safety of men at war, thereby choosing family over society.
Personally, I have no clear idea how I would pick between family and society. It's obviously going to be on a situation to situation basis, because you can't lay out a specific method for choosing that will work every time. I do have some thoughts on it, though. First, I think that in a situation such as the Kellers, it would have been better to choose society. I say this because the part of the family that Joe was trying to protect was his sons, who both disagreed with Joe's morals, and would have been happier if he hadn't shipped out the parts. When the family understands the predicament and is okay with the consequences it'll have on them, it's better to choose society, although it's not like Joe could have known what his sons would say. My last thoughts on this difficult subject are that one of the best things you can do is to keep your family informed openly and honestly when the decision will affect them, and to consider the pros and cons of each path you could take.

Miller, Arthur. All My Sons. New York: Penguin, 2000.