The film gives the impression that Nick’s influence on his son was not negative. Do you agree? Why or why not?
His son is very shy and introverted at the beginning of the movie but in the end he turns out to find confidence in himself because of Nick, which is the only positive aspect of Nick’s influence. However, I disagree that the influence is not negative ethically.
For example, Nick teaches his son to talk his way out of almost everything. While questioning what we do not understand is good it does not ethically justify defending something he knows will bring people harm. He also teaches his son to bribe a dying man and teaches his son to take the money if the same thing happened to him. If that man had gone out and spoken for himself against cigarettes, which would be ethical according to deontology, then it would have made an impression on lots of smokers since he was the original Marlboro man. Nick instead teaches his son that even if you know that something is harmful or wrong you can speak for it and even defend it because it gives a fair chance. And that influencing the masses in anyway is giving them a fair chance. He however, goes against himself when he guilt the Marlboro man into keeping quiet.
Nick is a charismatic and eloquent man and so is his son by the end of the movie and had he given his son a less loose ethical and moral compass, it could have been better for his son as he grows into an adult.
For example, Nick teaches his son to talk his way out of almost everything. While questioning what we do not understand is good it does not ethically justify defending something he knows will bring people harm. He also teaches his son to bribe a dying man and teaches his son to take the money if the same thing happened to him. If that man had gone out and spoken for himself against cigarettes, which would be ethical according to deontology, then it would have made an impression on lots of smokers since he was the original Marlboro man. Nick instead teaches his son that even if you know that something is harmful or wrong you can speak for it and even defend it because it gives a fair chance. And that influencing the masses in anyway is giving them a fair chance. He however, goes against himself when he guilt the Marlboro man into keeping quiet.
Nick is a charismatic and eloquent man and so is his son by the end of the movie and had he given his son a less loose ethical and moral compass, it could have been better for his son as he grows into an adult.
Did your feelings change towards Nick by the end of the film? Did he change?
Throughout the movie, we keep waiting for Nick to change. When he gets kidnapped and consequently has to give up cigarettes altogether it seems like the right time for him to have a change of heart. Instead, he uses it as an excuse to me even more morally despicable. He even admits himself, in the movie that he is flexible with what he can do regardless of morality to his son and proves time and again through out the whole movie that he is not going to change for the better. He throws his friends under the bus, grooms his son to be just like him, and gets an upper hand at the journalist who seemed to have the same ethical spectrum as him. In the end he becomes even more cunning. Nick and his MOD squad use act utilitarianism, which is not justified except for a short period of time and for the people who use alcohol, guns or cigarettes. This movie however, is very enlightening to the workings of a system, which we do not want to acknowledge or are very ignorant about. As such Nick’s character and his refusal to change might be a learning point for the audience.
My feelings towards Nick did not change. If anything I found him to be less likeable by the end of the movie.
My feelings towards Nick did not change. If anything I found him to be less likeable by the end of the movie.