Introduction
Worth is a biographical drama based on events perfectly captured by Sara Colangelo. The 9-11 terror consequences horrified the national systems since stability and protection were no longer valid guarantees. Lawyers, insurers, and bankers had to suffer as well: they were forced to perform a humiliating job – assess dead people’s lives to pay their relatives. The movie discloses one of the most fundamental ethical issues regarding the worth of a human’s life.
Discussion
The movie suggests an accurate picture of events that occurred after the most horrible day for all Americans – September 11th. The leading roles in the film were played by Oscar nominees Michael Keaton and Stanley Tucci. In the film, Keaton will play the role of Kenneth Feinberg, who the US government appointed as the main one for the distribution of payments for the victims of the September 11th terrorist attack and their families. He needs to distribute budget funds with a cold heart and impartially, thus estimating the cost of a person’s life in money. However, when communicating with the victims, Feinberg could not detach himself from the experiences because he is also a living person and not just an insensitive worker. He still retains humanity and, at the same time, tries to calculate the amount of monetary compensation to the families of the deceased.
Hence, the central ethical dilemma is rooted in the idea of assessing one’s life in financial measurements. How can people be persuaded to agree to the terms of this fund if the real reason it was made is to prevent massive lawsuits against the state and airlines that could bury the economy? It sounds fantastic, but it all happened in reality.
The film could be viewed through the lens of utilitarianism. It is fundamental for utilitarian theories that they all proceed from the result of an action, the consequences to which it led, namely, the assessment of the benefits or harm of the results of a person’s activity. From the point of view of utilitarianism, an action will be morally justified even to the extent that it leads to an increase in the extra-moral good. Therefore, human activity in such fields as medicine, art, and science, which are not explicitly aimed at solving ethical problems, turns out to be morally significant or subject to moral evaluation. In terms of this theory, the lawyer Feinberg from the movie attempted to cover all victims’ deaths under a governmental fund. Thus, he tried to maximize the good out of the most pitiful situation.
From the point of view of supporters of the deontological approach to the assessment of human actions, first of all, concepts concerning obligations and rights are applicable. According to them, individuals are obliged to do something, not because it will be beneficial, but because they fulfill their duty. Regardless of Feinberg’s morale, his professional debt was to allocate finances to the victims’ families. He did exactly what he was asked to do, which made him a man of action.
Conclusion
In summation, the ethical dilemma concerning the price of human life was raised in the movie Worth. The drama tells the story of those who were in charge of assessing the amount paid to the victims’ families. Utilitarianism would view the lawyer’s actions as good maximizing, while deontology sees his job as a duty to fulfill. However, there was morale in Feinberg’s deeds – he managed to cover victims’ lives under governmental funds equally.