In response to the film watched in class:
What are some of the deontological aspects of this film? What about utilitarian aspects? What worldview are the filmmakers siding with?
Write one post and respond to at least one other student by Friday, September 26.
And because I can:
20 responses so far ↓
Reece Carine // September 25, 2008 at 9:29 pm |
Hey Mr. Wilson just to let you know a few people might not write their post by tomarrow because we have not finished the movie yet. I have already seen the movie so that is why I am posting now. The UN Colonel Oliver that atempts to get the west to care about the situation and stays with Paul takes up a Normanitve position by staying with Paul while everyone else did not because he saw it as his duty to protect anyone in the hotel.
Heather Ryan // September 25, 2008 at 9:35 pm |
Utilitarian: The Hutus in the movie had an end goal of ridding the world of Tsutsis(sp?). At first it may have started as an attempt to eliminate rebellion, but when we are introduced to the story, it is simply out of pointless racism. Anyway, their end of keeping the Tsutis from rebelling, in their eyes, justified the slaughtering of innocent men, women and children.
Deontological: Paul buys the lives of his family members out of a sense of *obligation* towards them. He does not want to live if it means that they die. This, in the eyes of the viewer, is supposed to be a good act.
Also, the West in this movie was depicted as good when they followed their supposed obligation to help the Rwandans. When they pulled their troops out, they were the enemy. I think it is obvious that the filmmakers are supporting the Deontological point of view with its emphasis on duty.
Debbie Bowerman // September 25, 2008 at 9:59 pm |
Deontological: Paul feels like he is performing a duety by buying all his neighbors and protecting all the other T(ppl- i have to no clue how to spell that so i’m not even going to try)
Utilitarian: The whole gorup of the H people are compltly utilitarian, whatever it takes to wipe out the T people they will do.
The filmmakers are siding with the deontological view because they glorify Paul’s duty in helpping out his fellow citizens and put down the idea that anything goes as long as what happens in the end is good for people.
@Heather- Even when the West brings in their troops they pull them right back. So how can they think they have completed their duty when they have not done anything.
Brock Terwilleger // September 25, 2008 at 10:18 pm |
Deontological: Paul let his family leave for safety and did not go with them because he thought that it was his duty to stay behind and protect the people that he had offered to help and protect.
Utilitarian: The Hutus believed that they have to eliminate all of the Tutsi for the greater good of the world and they would do anything for their end goal which meant killing all of the Tutsi even the women and children in attempts to completely wipe out the Tutsi.
The filmmakers side was with the deontological world view because the whole movie is based around Paul’s actions and they praise him for trying to help the Tutsi even though he is a Hutus and acknowledging that they are people and not different from anyone else.
@Heather
Yes, at first, they were all awaiting and hoping the West would bring troops to help them, but they were never really obligated to do so, they were only there to pick up there citizens. What I got from the West from various characters was that even from the beginning people knew the West really did not care about saving the Rwandans, they had their own priorities and did not want to get mixed up in some situation. So through my weird thought process I mostly agree with you
Heather Ryan // September 25, 2008 at 10:58 pm |
@ Debbie & Brock: That’s why I put “supposed” obligation. It was implied that it was their duty when it really was not. Then when they “failed” in the filmmakers’ eyes, they were depicted as evil.
Stephen Ilardi // September 26, 2008 at 5:45 pm |
The most evident view I saw in the movie was the deontological perspective. The Hutus developed their ideas of right and wrong from their hatred, and in Africa this tribal hatred is all too often a norm. I guess it could be seen as a duty to keep the honor of your tribe by eliminating all rivals. I only saw a small example of utilitarianism and that was the UN soldiers. They were there to protect the Tutsi, yet they didn’t walk around shooting any Hutu that tried to attack them. They tried to protect people without hurting the people who attacked them… and that’s about all I got.
Olivia Perret // September 28, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
Deontological : When Paul let his family go to be safe and stay at the hotel with all the other people to help them so they can be safe to and not get kill by the H, so Paul think that’s his responsibility to save them, so that’s the moral obligation.
Utilitarian : The idea of the H to kill all the T because they think that they are bad and that the world would be better without them, and they don’t have any pity killing all the T, even the children.
The filmmakers are siding with the deontological view because Paul is a H and he is helping all the T not to be kill by the others H.
Stephen Ilardi // September 29, 2008 at 8:18 am |
@ Brock: The Hutus weren’t killing Tutsi for anybodies greater good but their own.
David Navarro // September 29, 2008 at 10:46 am |
This is a test ive already lost everything i wrote and am not looking forward to retyping it
David Navarro // September 29, 2008 at 10:50 am |
Utilitarianism: The best example for this are the Hutus who would go to any extreme to get rid of the tutsie
Deontological: Paul staying back at the hotel even when he could have left with his family to safety, he felt it was his duty to watch over those people.
@Stephen
I have to disagree i think the Hutus are a prime example of Utilitarianism
Ivan // September 29, 2008 at 1:08 pm |
Utilitarianism: The Hutus because they are killing everyone for their greater good.
@David
Yeah seriously I logged on and started reading everyones posts and realized that everyone stole my idea -_- darn you all.
Heather Ryan // September 29, 2008 at 5:03 pm |
@ Ivan: Sure….
Christian Caldie // September 29, 2008 at 5:41 pm |
Utilitarian- In killing the tutsie, the Hutus are justifying this mean with the end result of no more cockroaches.
Deontological- Paul saves all those people as a response to duty.
@David
I agree that the Hutus are Utilitarian, but for a different reason. Part of the Utilitarian view is that the end justifies the mean, and for them the end that justifies all this killing is that all the tutsie cockroaches will be gone.
matthew brandon // October 1, 2008 at 11:03 am |
The deontological aspect of the movie hotel rwanda is the fact that paul felt like it was his duty to save the people. He did absolutely everything he possibly could to save them.
The utilitarian aspect of the movie was the fact that the hutus where killing all the cockroaches. The hutus where justifying there mean, by having an end result of killing all the cockroaches.
@Christian
I agree with christian because the hutus did have a purpose or an end mean of eliminating all the cockroaches.
Austin Kuhn // October 1, 2008 at 11:44 am |
As pretty much everyone else has said, Paul fits the Deontological aspect well because he feels it is his duty to stay and help all the people who seek shelter in his hotel. The UN officer who stays to continues to help Paul also is deontological, as he feels it is his duty (and the duty of the UN) to help the Rwandans.
@ Matt: The Hutus partly fit the Utilitarian aspect in that the ends justify the means, but they do not in any way follow the Principle of Utility, the most important thing in Utilitarianism.
Emily Ferrell // October 1, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
@ Austin
I totally agree that Paul takes the Deontological aspect. His since of duty led him to stay behind and help the people at his hotel. And in the end, they all made it out alive!
Mr. Willson // October 1, 2008 at 9:30 pm |
@Austin- nice, bustin’ out the Principle of Utility…
Cameron Russell // October 1, 2008 at 10:11 pm |
Deontological- Paul was the major source of the deontological pthe movie because he felt that it was his obligation to stay with the people who came to the hotel until they were safe or at least moved.
Utilitarian-I think that the Hutus trying to kill all of the “cockroaches” for their end goal is the largest Utilitarian aspect of the movie.
The film makers are siding with the Deontological side of the conflict te they should feel obligated to help these people and try to prevent more killing.
@ Matt
I agree that Pauls feeling of obligation was the biggest Deontological aspect of the movie
Paul // October 29, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
Paul is in many ways, deontological throughout the whole movie, you can tell at first that he is not too fond of sacrificing everything he has to save people he barely even knows and you see that he would much rather save his own family. But as the movie goes on his feels for the tutsi “cockroaches” deepen, and he gives up literally everything he has at one point to save them. His wife takes on a more deontological mindset than he does in my opinion though, because half of the time she is the one telling him “no we can’t leave all of these people” etc. etc.
Paul // October 29, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
feelings*