"My Life in France" Ethical Decisions

During Julia Child's time in France, she was very fortunate not to be confronted by many difficult decisions. She does talk about a friend of hers named Lee Brady, who worked at the US Embassy in France. In 1950, Brady was assigned to work at the Public Affairs Office in Indochina (Vietnam). This meant that he would be taking orders from the emperor Boa Dai, seen by the rest of the world as a puppet for the French. Child tells the reader "... a most difficult and dangerous assignment indeed. He would be forced to work with the Boa Dai regime, which had not been freely chosen by the majority of the citizens (104). Not only was Brady putting himself at risk by working for an unpopular government, but he was also going against the American ideals that he had grown up with, the ideas of voting for a strong leader. Child points out that "What was an emissary of the US government supposed to say when the Communist claimed, correctly, that his government supported a puppet, dictator and horror?" (104). It seemed like the wrong choice from many angles, but for Brady his only other option was to quit. He chose to go to Indochina in the end, though what became of him when the US got involved in the Vietnam War is not mentioned in this book.

I think that Brady made the wrong decision to go to Indochina. Not only was he not following his own morals and ideas, but he was also putting himself in danger by supporting an unpopular government in a country that was on the brink of civil war. It does not seem fair though that the only other option was to resign his position and find a new job. I can Kind of understand why he chose to do what he did, but in hindsight I do not agree with his decision.

On the Waterfront

Throughout the entire movie "On the Waterfront," Terry is constantly plagued by the question of whether or not he should testify in court against the mob, or remain quiet. During the first part of the movie, Terry feels very strongly about not testifying. He feels that if he does, he would be a traitor, betraying his brother Charlie and others in the mob. He outright refuses to say anything to the police on multiple occasions. But as more people are killed by standing up to the mob, including Charlie, Terry's views begins to change. He starts to realize that testifying in court is not an act of treason, but a step that must be taken if he ever hoped to end the reign of terror the mob created on the waterfront. The rest of the workers on the waterfront thought he was a traitor too when he testified, but slowly they too begin to see him as an icon for change.

I think that Terry made the right choice in the end. Keeping silent about the mob was hurting lots of people. I think in the end the safety of the workers and the ability to speak freely was more important than the possibility of you being seen as a traitor. But I can't say for sure what I would have done in Terry's position. It was very dangerous to stand up to the mob, as we can see from Joey and Doogan. I guess in the end it all comes down to which is more important, your safety or the freedom of the waterfront workers.

Ethical Decisions in All My Sons

The play All My Sons by Arthur Miller shows two very different views on the same ethical question based on their experiences and situation. Joe Keller was born with very little, forced to struggle to make a name for himself. He spent 40 years building up the business he has now and it has become almost everything he has. That coupled with the fact that he does not want his son to have to go through what he went through gives him the motivation to do whatever he has to do to save the business. As he tells his son Chris "You lay forty years into a business and they knock you out in five minutes, what could I do, let them take forty years, let them take my life away?" (69). This desperation he feels to keep his business running motivates him to make the decision to ship the cracked cylinders, even though he knew that they could be dangerous. He puts his family before society. Chris on the other hand has had a very easy life, never having to work for anything. His experience in the war also instills in him empathy for those you do not know. He can not see beyond the fact that his father's actions resulted in the death of 21 men. As he explains to his father "I was dying everyday and you were killing my boys and you did it for me? What the hell do think I was thinking of the Goddam business?" (70). He values society over family. He is unable to see the business side of the issue, making what his father did into an awful crime. These differences form a brutal conflict which results in the death of Joe.

Even though I don't support his actions, I think it is unfair to judge Joe by his decisions until you understand his background and motivation. What he thinks is right could be very different from what his son or the rest of society thinks is right. Different experiences change people in different ways and can affect who they place first, society or family. I personally believe that in the majority of cases it is better to place society above family. Every person has their own family, their own story and their own right to live. Yet occasions arise when family does come first. It depends on the situation you are placed in and what your options are. Therefore I believe that it is impossible to say for sure that either family or society should come first.