People are strange. When faced with an ethical dilemma in real life situations they tend to shy away from it, or attempt to go around the issue. In movies however, ethical dilemmas seem to captivate audiences and drag them in. It is enjoyable to sit around and argue with friends about the moral situations presented in movies and many can be interpreted different ways. One of these movies is 10 Cloverfield lane. The movie is both an excellent example of utilitarian ethics and as it ends becomes a brilliant argument against them. The main issue revolves around John Goodman’s character, Howard, and if he is morally in the right for what he does. 10 Cloverfield Lane seems to suggest that based upon utilitarian ethics he is right in what he does. The movie is set almost completely in an underground bomb shelter. It revolves around Michelle, who, after getting into a car wreck, wakes up in the bunker with news of a widespread attack on US soil. Howard informs her and another farm boy, named Emmett, that they cannot leave the bunker or …show more content…
While he technically kidnapped Michelle, he did it so that she would be saved from the attacks that were coming. He would argue that he is serving the greatest good by saving her life as the only other option would be her death. The other issue is that once inside the bunker, opening it would cause possible harm to the two other people living in it as well. Michelle’s life is not inherently more valuable according to utilitarianism and therefor her staying is the best option. To calculate the greatest good in this scenario brings about the obvious choice the her life is better then her death so saving her was the right decision. As the movie progresses it begins to become suspicious that an attack ever happened. However when she finally escapes and sees the aliens it seems to validate the fact that Howard was making the right decision by not allowing them to