Wesley Gray
PHIL 3340
Felicia Dziadek
Ethical Reflection: Crash
In the movie Crash, each of the characters in faces some sort of ethical dilemma, though
these problems present themselves in a variety of situations. The character that most
interested me from an ethical standpoint was the television director, Cameron. Throughout the
film, Cameron seems to be presented with the highest number of moral issues, as well as being
the person who interacts with the highest number of characters in varying circumstances.
Taken at face value, Cameron appears to be the character that is the most balanced of
the entire cast; especially with regard to his persona early in the movie. I perceived Cameron as
being a person who generally is well-to-do, but not coming from a perspective of being overlyproud of his social status. The main point which would support this argument would be
Cameron’s apparent ethical relativistic perspective in his first scene with his wife Christine,
Officers Ryan and Hanson. Although many people might take issue with molestation
perpetrated by police officers in a random and unnecessary pat-down (like Christine did), the
abuse of power exhibited by Ryan in particular is almost entirely dismissed by Cameron. This
double-standard is a hallmark of ethical relativism when it comes to corruption in law
enforcement. Clearly, much of the reason Cameron does not react as his wife desires is due to
his understanding of social standards regarding unethical acts like molestation or threatening
citizens who do not pose an immediate danger with unnecessary exposure or imprisonment.
The main approach of Cameron in the film appears to revolve around the utilitarian
perspective, although this method is slowly abandoned as the story unfolds. Cameron realizes
the maximum utility which could be established from his lower position in the rank and file of
society, and this is proven by his actions and words directed at appeasing Officer Ryan. Instead
of standing up for himself and his wife in the molestation scene, Cameron encourages his wife
to do as he does and keep quiet. The purpose of such an action would be to limit the potential
harms of speaking out or resisting. This motivation seems to be most in-line with a
consequentialist or utilitarian outlook, as Cameron must realize that resisting or making a scene
would only serve to increase harms and decrease benefits; byway of being brought up on
charges, arrested and incarcerated. Furthermore, he later impresses upon Christine in their
home that her attitude regarding the molestation was justified, although unwise. The desire to
not compound negative outcomes seems to be a hallmark of pursuing maximum utility in this
case.
As Cameron reels from his encounter with corrupt policemen and an angry wife, he is
forced to continue in his daily activities as a director. In the scene with his producer Fred,
Cameron appears to be satisfied with the quality of acting presented by the cast members in his
show, but Fred is unsatisfied; stating that the product wasn’t meeting the appropriate social
stereotype regarding one of the character’s performances. As an African-American, Cameron
could be considered to be a person who would take great issue with Fred on this matter, but
instead, chooses the path of least resistance. This scene also lends itself to a consequentialist
framework as opposed to other ethical methodologies, as the director decides that long-term
utility would be jeopardized should he speak out against the racial stereotype.
Finally, under the emotional pressures of his wife and circumstances of his day-to-day
life, Cameron’s utilitarian position gives way to a more deontological one; based on respect for
others and not using others as a means to an end alone. Feeling victimized by law enforcement
and his boss, Cameron seems to take the position of Christine, which focuses directly on not
only the motivations of others, but also the actions of others. Whether or not the actions of
other characters toward Cameron appeal to a sense of fairness or general morality becomes
the main point of contention. When the thief Anthony attempts to carjack Cameron, Cameron’s
expression of feeling ethically mistreated comes to a head. In the final conflict between
Cameron, Anthony and Officer Hanson (when Cameron and Anthony are pulled over by the
police); Cameron switches from a system of utility to that of Kant’s moral imperatives. Luckily,
the result is not yet another issue of mistreatment/mismanagement, as Officer Hanson takes
the steps to protect the man he witnessed being violated by his ex-partner, Officer Ryan.
Altogether, Cameron seems to act in a manner that is generally responsible, but which
slowly degrades into a state of irresponsible behavior. It might be said that while Cameron’s
autonomy and preferences had been violated throughout the film, he conducted himself in an
honorable manner up to the middle-point of the movie. When he loses his ability to create high
utility and desire to act responsibly, the main expression becomes that of ethical egoism and
Kantian deontology. While such a shift is understandable, it is not necessarily advisable, since
Cameron’s life hangs in the balance as he is held at gunpoint by both a criminal as well as law
enforcement. In this sense, a utilitarian approach would have proven much more effective,
instead of taking a position of for/against as is common to deontology.