In the beginning of the movie On the Waterfront, the character Terry believes that to inform police about the crimes of the mob is to snitch and be a traitor. This mindset continues while Terry has not himself been deeply scarred by the actions of the mobsters. For instance, when he got to know Edy, even though he loved her, at first he would not tell her his responsibility in her brother's death. Because he valued his relationship with the mobsters over telling Edy the truth, he kept "deaf and dumb". This attitude changes completely when the mob has turned its anger towards Terry personally. After Terry sees that his brother Charlie has been murdered by the mob, he forgets his past fear of being a rat and decides to take it out on the mob himself. When the priest sees his desire to hurt the mob and persuades him to tell the truth in court, Terry seriously considers telling the truth for the first time. This change of attitude shows that only when Terry felt that he had nothing more to lose did he make the decision to stand up for the truth.
Personally, I believe that in almost every instance someone should choose to stand up for the truth. However, I do think that someone is a snitch when they tell on people for trivial things that really have no importance in the long run. If someone's actions are wrong, but they are only hurting themselves, then I think a person shouldn't tell on them because the repercussions of the other person's actions are punishment enough. If however someone's actions were affecting the rest of society or even a small number of other people, I think that it is important to bring the truth into the light. This may be difficult to do and would certainly take courage to face the person one is telling about, but I believe that it is necessary to put yourself in a bit of danger to protect others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think your point about not needing to tell the truth when someone will hurt themselves by doing something wrong is a good one. It makes sense to let the person learn on their own that they shouldn't have taken that action, instead of punishing them twice. However, if the person did the same thing wrong twice, then I think it would be ethically correct for someone to turn them in, because clearly they weren't going to stop making the mistake without more punishment.
You seem to make a good point. Trivial things shouldn't be snitched on because they will have a way of coming back. However, it seems like if it involves and jeopardizes other people's safety and environment, it would seem best to "blow the whistle" for the benefit of others. However, there is another kind of snitch. That's the one that tells on others for their own benefits. Where do you think that belongs? It seems like it could belong to the blow the whistle or traitor category. However, as I have said many times, IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE CHARACTER of the person and what their intention is in ratting.
I do agree about the trivial things. That we shouldn't snitch on others if its trivial. But if your friend is hurting themselves, then I believe you should tell on them. The more extreme examples are the cutting, drug abuse, alcohol and sucidal ones. In those cases it doesn't only effect them, but everyone around them too.
Jade makes a good point as well. Also, there are often times when something trivial wont make a difference in the short run, but it could in the long run. We have the think of what the impact of our actions could be in the future as well, not just immediately. For example, will the situation only grow worse if we don't stand up and tell the truth now?
Post a Comment