Utilitarianism In The Movie The Insider
The 1999 film The Insider is one that deals with a man trying to make the toughest decision of his life as it pertains to the safety of his family as well as the well being of the entire country. While the movie is plenty interesting in its own right, the dilemma the man faces becomes much more interesting, and debatable, when you look at it in terms of utilitarianism and its different branches. In short, the film delves into the life of a former corporate scientist for one of the biggest tobacco companies in the United States. Obviously, as a corporate scientist, the man knows the ins and outs of the tobacco industry, as well as the negative side effects of tobacco (which were unclear to the public at the time). When the man decides to
…show more content…
Eventually, his wife cannot take the media storm and the threat of danger, and leaves him. He stands by his decision, however, and eventually gets all of his knowledge across to the public. Now, the question of whether or not he made the right decision would depend on which theory you consulted. In terms of utilitarianism, there is no immediate right answer. The argument could even be made that an act utilitarian and a rule utilitarian would give the man different advice. So an act utilitarian is one that evaluates an action based on its individual effects; that is to say, they would perform an action if that specific circumstance would lead to more aggregate pleasure than pain. So in this situation, you would be required to try and quantify the aggregate pleasure and pain of the decision. On one hand, there would be potential for plenty of pleasure to be gained. If the man releases his knowledge, it could lead to health regulations and reforms, potentially saving thousands of lives and helping to avoid thousands more cases of cancer. However, there is also the chance that he would follow through, but his word would not have much of a social or political impact, and there would be very little aggregate pleasure. The same seems to hold true for the pain aspect. Potentially, the man’s
Eventually, his wife cannot take the media storm and the threat of danger, and leaves him. He stands by his decision, however, and eventually gets all of his knowledge across to the public. Now, the question of whether or not he made the right decision would depend on which theory you consulted. In terms of utilitarianism, there is no immediate right answer. The argument could even be made that an act utilitarian and a rule utilitarian would give the man different advice. So an act utilitarian is one that evaluates an action based on its individual effects; that is to say, they would perform an action if that specific circumstance would lead to more aggregate pleasure than pain. So in this situation, you would be required to try and quantify the aggregate pleasure and pain of the decision. On one hand, there would be potential for plenty of pleasure to be gained. If the man releases his knowledge, it could lead to health regulations and reforms, potentially saving thousands of lives and helping to avoid thousands more cases of cancer. However, there is also the chance that he would follow through, but his word would not have much of a social or political impact, and there would be very little aggregate pleasure. The same seems to hold true for the pain aspect. Potentially, the man’s