MATRIX ANALYSIS: Films 'The Emperor's Club', 'Stand and Deliver'

-
THE EMPEROR’S CLUB
CHARACTER/S
ETHICAL DILEMMA
HUMAN ACT
ETHICAL PRINCIPLE
Martin Blythe (Student)
At the dormitory. While studying with friends, Bell showed over to them (including Martin) his (Bell’s) nude magazines.

Will Martin reject an act of offense to their school, or will he go with them for peer pressure?

Martin rationally detaches himself from peer pressure and abides with the school policy as contradistinctive with his friends’ acts.
Authoritarian ethics. Martin’s decision is anchored on authority and force as determinants of the morality of an act.
Mr. Hundert (Teacher)
Qualified quizzers. Mr. Hundert checks the essays of students and decides who to qualify for the Julius Caesar quiz bowl.

Will he be honest and stick to the original qualified students for the quiz bowl, or alter the result since he believes by giving chance to Bell as one of the quizzers?

Mr. Hundert chooses to give Bell a chance to win the Julius Caesar crown since Mr. Hundert sees in the child, in that instance, the perseverance to achieve.
Utilitarian ethics.
Mr. Hundert attempts at maximizing the good he can extract from Bell’s motivation.
Mr. Hundert (Teacher)
Quiz Bowl. Mr. Hundert finds out Bell cheats in the quiz bowl, and decides whether or not to divulge Bell’s pretension.

Will he divulge right away Bell’s pretenses in order to arrive at truth, or ignore in order to avoid shame, especially so when Bell’s family (who was even there) is prominent?

Despite betrayal of trust by the student to his teacher, Mr. Hundert chooses not to disclose the truth in public, and he talks with Bell about the issue instead.
Teleological ethics.
The teacher is fully aware of the consequences in case he divulged the truth of the matter. For the good of the student and even for the institution, the act of not revealing all the lies in public is still justified.
Mr. Hundert (Teacher)
25 years later. For the second time, Hundert finds Bell cheating (in the quiz bowl) during their gathering. Then he decides powerfully whether to tell Blythe the truth about the past (about Blythe, who is the supposed candidate for the quiz bowl instead of Bell.)

Will Mr. Hundert tell the truth in order to free from bondage of pretenses, or to still keep it as secret in order not to have misunderstanding between him and Blythe?

While he already realized the virtue of honesty long ago, this time, Mr. Hundert is determined to confess to Blythe his misdeeds years back, and is ready to face whatever bitterness Blythe has for him.
Virtue ethics. 
Mr. Hundert is fully determined that moral life should be based on cultivating virtuous character, such as honesty.


STAND AND DELIVER
CHARACTER/S
ETHICAL DILEMMA
HUMAN ACT
ETHICAL PRINCIPLE
Mr. Escalante (Teacher)
First day of class. Students show aggressive behaviors towards everybody, even to their teachers. It is a struggle for Jaime (Escalante), a teacher, on how to respond to his students’ attitudes.

Will he punish students for their behaviors or just go with them and learn how to adjust with their attitudes?

Mr. Escalante willfully chooses not to punish them. Alternatively, he just goes with them. He adjusts. And he provides ways on how to win their attention.
Pragmatism.
Mr. Hundert does not see punishment as an absolute alternative in order to redress grievances. He is open to the idea that everything is changeable and depends only on the context in which they are being used.

Mr. Escalante (Teacher)
Christmas eve. Jaime informs his family that he will later spend more hours at school (that includes review sessions with his students at Garfield High School, and attending volunteer classes in their community). But his wife doesn’t like the idea.

Will he spend more time with his family and express loving concerns, or will he extend the help to the needy (students at Garfield and the illiterates in their community) which, in a way, sets aside his filial piety?

Mr. Escalante chooses to spend most of his time doing review sessions with his students at Garfield and attending volunteer classes in their community.
Utilitarianism.
“The greatest good for the greatest number of people.”
Students of Garfield High School
At school. Students are asked by the evaluators to confess an act of conspiracy in the said exam.

Will they be consistent with the truth, or admit something they did not do to end this hypocrisy?

The students remain consistent with the truth and are never afraid of whatever consequences they may suffer in telling the truth.
Virtue ethics.
“The focus is instead upon being rather than doing”

Mr. Escalante (Teacher)
Mr. Escalante is deliberating whether to quit teaching since nobody would still believe the achievements made by his students, or to pursue and aspire to really change the system of discrimination in their community.

Will he quit and let go of the dreams of his students to succeed, or to push through and reclaim respect and self-worth of his students?

Mr. Escalante pursues and chooses to stay in order not to shatter the full potentials of his students towards success.
Deontological ethics.
Mr. Escalante sees the sense of duty to help others as the most rational way to improve life.
Mr. Escalante (Teacher)
Re-take. Will he let the students re-take the exam and “assume they cheated if they do”, or not to and “if they don’t, everyone will assume they cheated”?
Despite people’s perceptions about them cheating the exam if they re-take it, the students of Garfield High retook the test.
Emotivism. Moral statements made by people are simply evoking from their own emotions. Whether people judge the students as cheaters or not, the truth of the matter remains unsullied. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tribiana vs Tribiana

-
EDWIN N. TRIBIANA vs. LOURDES M. TRIBIANA G.R. No. 137359. September 13, 2004 FACTS: Edwin and Lourdes are husband and wife who have lived together since 1996 but formalized their union only on 28 October 1997. On 30 April 1998, Lourdes filed a petition for habeas corpus before the RTC claiming that Edwin left their conjugal home with their daughter, (Khriza). Edwin has since deprived Lourdes of lawful custody of Khriza who was then only one (1) year and four (4) months of age. Later, it turned out that Khriza was being held by Edwin’s mother, Rosalina Tribiana.  Edwin moved to dismiss Lourdes’ petition on the ground that the petition failed to allege that earnest efforts at a compromise were made before its filing as required by Article 151 of the Family Code. ISSUE: Whether or not failure to allege compromise proceedings in a petition is a ground for dismissal. HELD: NO. Lourdes has complied with the condition precedent under Article 151 of the Family Code. She attac
Read more

Rodrigo, Jr. -vs- Sandiganbayan

-
CONRADO B. RODRIGO, JR., ALEJANDRO A. FACUNDO and REYNALDO G. MEJICA, Petitioners, vs THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division), OMBUDSMAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. G.R. No. 125498. February 18, 1999. DECISION : Petitioner mayor’s position having been classified as Grade 27 in accordance with R.A. No. 6758, and having been charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, petitioner is subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, as defined by Section 4 a. of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975. By virtue of the same Section 4 a., as amended, his co-accused are also subject to the Anti-Graft Court’s jurisdiction. Thus, a local government official’s actual salary may be less than what the Salary Schedule under Section 7 prescribes, depending on the class and financial capability of his or her respective local government unit. This circumstance, however, has no bearing on such official’s Grade. As the foregoing discussion
Read more

SPOUSES DE MESA vs. SPOUSES ACERO

-
SPOUSES DE MESA vs. SPOUSES ACERO G.R. No. 185064. January 16, 2012 FACTS: Sometime in September 1988, Araceli obtained a loan from Claudio D. Acero, Jr. in the amount of P100,000.00, which was secured by a mortgage over the property, where a house was constructed thereon in 1987, they jointly purchased in 1984 while they were still merely cohabiting before their marriage. As payment, Araceli issued a check payable to Claudio. But it was dishonored as the account from which it was drawn had already been closed. The petitioners failed to heed Claudio’s subsequent demand for payment. Thus, on April 26, 1990, Claudio filed a complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) against the petitioners. In 1992, the RTC rendered a Decision acquitting the petitioners but ordering them to pay Claudio the amount of P100,000.00 with legal interest from date of demand until fully paid. In 1993, a writ of execution was issued and Sheriff Samonte levied upon the subject property. On M
Read more