The Question for 12/12

The movie On the Waterfront is an exceptional movie about a man named Terry and his involvement with the mob. When it comes to traitors and whistleblowers there is a distinct difference. A whistle blower works for the larger society while a traitor works selfishly. In the film, Terry, is ethically challenged on if he should “tattle” on the mob. Eventually he does just that and he is seen as a “whistle blower.”The characters beliefs are generally the same. A snitch is a snitch and there is no difference. Terry in the beginning of the movie would never dream of telling on the mob because the general idea was that anyone who gave information, no matter who it helped, was a traitor in the highest degree. Through the movie, though, we see that his beliefs change and, by the end, he knows that you are not a traitor if you help a larger, innocent society. Some characters, the ones who lead him to this decision, Edy and the Priest, always believe that a traitor and whistle blower are two very different things. The Mob characters always believe that any information given about the society was traitor behavior and was punishable by death. And finally, the views of the larger society. In the beginning no one was willing to talk because of their fear for themselves and for that, we can call them traitors to the greater good. They refused to protect the innocent, and by being faithful to the mob, they hust society. By the end, though, they realized that, if it protected the citizens and the larger group by giving information, it wasn’t treachery, it was protection.
I believe that anytime the innocent are being persecuted and information is given, the person is completely safe from the title of “traitor.” I believe that you are a traitor if you give information of protection to the ones trying to hurt something. In war (sorry, couldn’t think of a better example) if you give information to the other side, if both sides are fighting equally, it can be considered treachery. More importantly, I believe that whistle blowers are anyone trying to help those who have done nothing wrong. The difference between a traitor and a whistle blower is essentially this; when you “tattle” to help the wrongly persecuted you are a whistle blower, but if you are merely trying to win something by giving information, you can be called a traitor.

Post 3 of Outside reading

Much was revealed about David in my third reading and we now see his life in phases. In his novel Mr. Sedaris has written his life in phases so we can learn about one phase and then move onto the next. I find this interesting because we can see the characteristics that stick with him through these phases. For example, his interest in men is very prominent in the chapters I have read lately and this interest does not fade out. He does change though, my reading starts as he participates in a play and ends with him hitchhiking back to his college. His prejudice though does remain, “How was it that I was important and they were not? There had to be something that separated us” (109). He still views himself as God’s gift to creation but, I think it adds to his writing style; satirical and obnoxious. Mr. Sedaris continues his feeling in his writing that everything is new to him. As he learns new things and meets new people he puts himself above these things and wonders why his family is so accepting, “’Whore’ I whispered. ‘That lady is a whore.’ I wasn’t sure what reaction I was after, but shock would have done quite nicely. Instead, my mother said, ‘Well then, we should probably offer her a drink’” (117). David describes his life as chaotic and wild. As he hitchhikes, due to no rides from his parents, the people he meets are odd. At one point he ad gotten a ride from a man named Randolph who believed in “…the enforced sterilization of redheads” (126). Using hitchhiking he travels the country and comes back again.
Women remain a topic he uses for themes. Women remain the mystery in his life, “Lisa returned in an agitated state, asking my parents if she might use the station wagon” (111). He also continues to use his family as a theme for families are only functional in fairytales. “Woken by the noise, my father wandered up from the basement… His approach generally marked the end of the party” (118). His family works together because they lie and are all poised to hear lies and let them go. David is an avid liar as well. He uses his lies as a way to tell show that the truth gets you nowhere. “I hadn’t planned on lying, but it seemed a good move to embellish my stories” (131).

Question 2

The four main characters, Joe, Kate, Ann, and Chris all make a series of choices of actions whether they benefit family or society. Many examples arise like Chris inviting Ann to stay and Ann deciding to come, but I think the most interesting choice was that of Joe’s. The play gives us background knowledge that Joe sent out faulty airplane parts and blamed it on his partner. The faulty parts killed 21 men and Joe, when prosecuted, blamed a partner and his partner went to jail. For Joe money has always been important and money hurting more than helping is a prominent theme throughout the play. Joe claims, “Chris… Chris I did it for you, it was a chance I took for you. I’m sixty-one years old, when would I have another chance to make something for you” (70). Joe tells us that he only sent out bad parts for his family, he only sent them out so that his family could be successful. In this situation Joe did something for his family’s benefit and not for the benefit of society. Another interesting decision was Chris’s when he found out the truth about his father. He doesn’t know if he should do the right thing and report the truth to authorities or if he should keep it within his family. He ultimately decides, “What? Do I raise the dead when I put him behind bars? Then what’ll I do it for? We used to shoot a man who acted like a dog, but honor was real there, you were protecting something” (81). Chris was stuck between his family and what was right, although, we never really find out his decision because his dad kills himself shortly after.
In my opinion this play was very interesting in its discussion of morals and ethics. I think, for the mast part, one needs to look out for the greater good. I think the needs of society should outweigh family needs if the family made a mistake and hurt the society. Family needs are important, though, and I think that they can come before society needs in emergencies and when the family is innocent of something society is trying them against. Society needs are most important though. If society has a murderer on the loose, for example, and they are in your family, society needs you to reveal the murderer and you should. If society has a standard that is doable and a family will not comply, this is another example of where a society need would require you to put it above a family moral or ethic.