The moral choice based on utilitarianism in the film: Al Pacino didn't want to ruin little Milk's life for 2 Pieces of Shit, which no one would care about at all, but would be very happy if he died, so he closed the case directly and did not pursue it (of course It has a special relationship with Milk's father in it, which also has a huge impact on making ethical decisions).
In the end, everyone lived in peace. Milk inherited his father's business as a policeman, married and started a business, which was quite promising.
The moral choice in the film is based on absolute morality: Vicky, the letter writer who appears at the end of the film, believes that the police upholding social justice has committed two murders, which is unacceptable in absolute morality. Her conscience could not help condemning, so she tried to bring the truth out to the world.
As a result, it almost ruined the life of a good-natured police officer who was only forced to commit a murder without intention; and actually caused the death of 3 innocent people; we can also imagine that if it is successfully exposed, then the credibility of the police in people's hearts It will disappear and cause great social chaos.
Moral decisions that were originally made out of conscience have turned out to be extremely immoral facts.
Therefore, morality and immorality are relative, and there is no absolute moral choice, because the two opposites always coexist. For example, the "trolley problem" is a good illustration of this. Whether it is not to pull the lever to press 5, or to pull the lever to press 1, it is immoral in an absolute sense. But obviously it's more unethical to press five than one, and that's the real standard by which we make ethical decisions.
In the film, it is of course immoral for the police to commit murders; but if you try to expose the truth, unearth irrelevant old accounts, and destroy the future of a good policeman for two scumbags that have no mercy at all, it is even more so. for unethical behavior. The screenwriter even arranged a few more dead people here to illustrate the more immoral nature of the second approach.
Note: The Trolley Problem.
The "Trolley Problem" is one of the most well-known thought experiments in ethics, and it goes something like this: A madman ties five innocent people to a tramway. An out-of-control tram was heading towards them and was about to run over them in moments. Fortunately, you can pull a lever and send the tram to another track. But there's a problem, that lunatic tied a guy on that other track too. Considering the above, should you pull the lever?
The trolley problem was first proposed by philosopher Philippa Foot as a critique of major theories in ethical philosophy, especially utilitarianism. Utilitarianism makes the point that most moral decisions are made on the principle of "providing the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people." From a utilitarian point of view, the obvious choice would be to pull the lever, save five and kill only one. But critics of utilitarianism argue that once the lever is pulled, you become an accomplice in an unethical act—you are partly responsible for the death of a single person on the other track. Others, however, believe that your situation requires you to do something, and that your inaction would be equally immoral. In conclusion, there is no such thing as complete moral conduct, and that is the point. Many philosophers have used the trolley problem as an example to show that real-life situations often force a person to violate his own moral code, and there are also situations where there is no fully moral approach.
View more about The Son of No One reviews
