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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree with your view on ethics, everything is very situational. In the instance of of the worker informing of wrong doings, but doing it for the wrong reasons, I don't think you can call them either good or bad. It's a grey area. A whistle blower is someone who does something selflessly and a traitor is someone who does something with selfish intent. There are deffinately in betweens and that would be one of them.
Your view on "Whistle Blowers" and "stool pidegons" are very interesting. I can see them as being accurate. The thing is, how do you know everyone's intentions. Its a tricky subjects to label people in such a way.
I really like your distinction between a traitor and whistle blower. I have been struggling to find a way to describe my definition of each term and "the difference between a traitor and a whistle blower lies in the motivations behind the person's actions" sums it up perfectly for me.
I like how you included grey areas because it is true that these 'gray areas' occur a lot in lofe. Maybe the one in on the waterfront was one of them? It seems like any black and white view of a situation is an incorrect one.
Post a Comment