MovieChat Forums > Storm of the Century (1999) Discussion > There is no moral dilemma

There is no moral dilemma

posted 11 years ago by Vashramana
20 replies | jump to latest

Only a very illogical person would say no to Linoge's terms.

I am so smart, the only thing I can't comprehend is how stupid everyone else is

[–] Godzilla1981 7 years ago

That is precisely what he wanted them to think, that they had no other choice, that they would all die. But just like the "devil", he is full of lies and deception. He does not have nearly as much power over them as he pretends. Hence why they had to agree to give him one of their children freely.

[–] Strannger (2007) 7 years ago

He had to follow rules like taking a child. If the town hadnt entertain him and told him to leave it may have stopped any control he held.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

There is no moral dilemma;

An illogical person would only say no. Sacrifice themselves for the good of humanity that maybe this guy would just die before being able to create his successor.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I am not sure if I wholly follow what you are saying. I think the main argument is that, from a moral standpoint, denying Lenoge’s terms makes a statement that he has no right to force someone to give up their child. Threatening the rest of the town’s inhabitants in order to abduct a child should never be allowed and, regardless of the consequences, they should stand up to him.

We don’t really know if he actually would have been able to follow through with his threat. Maybe he lacked the power or, because of his age, this was his last chance to train a successor.

There is definitely a moral dilemma in place. The decision made by the town was not in adherence with their morals. Instead, it was a logical decision based based off of risk assessment (the chance that he would or would not follow through with his threat based off of their decision).

It was a good story. I really liked the movie.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

I didn't quite articulate my point very well. Mainly just wanted to do a snappy reply that played off of OP's phrasing.

I assumed the original OP was saying that "saying no to his terms" would be entirely illogical. I'm assuming he's suggesting that because he's weighing the price of the loss of one child versus the loss of the entire town. (Cause we're assuming that Lenoge CAN follow up with his threat.) This is in line with what you were saying; the town made a logical decision based off of risk assessment.

But I wanted to make the point that we're talking about the loss of the entire town versus all of the lives lost that would occur if Lenoge does train a successor, which means that the most utilitarian course of action here would be to say no. The town just wanted to save their own skins, which is why I think, in terms of risk assessment, the town's decision is illogical.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Yea, that makes sense. Much better explained than what I wrote before as well.

Definitely a selfish decision on the part of the townspeople. It also, like you said, probably resulted in more total lives lost.
👍

[–] NoEasyBuckets (334) 2 years ago

They made the obvious decision. Even if you believe he was bluffing and wasn't strong enough to destroy the whole town, he showed he does have SOME power and caused multiple deaths with no remorse. Why would you ever think he wouldn't kill the children after they defied him? As if he's just gonna say "Damn...you got me" and leave town. And for a parent that would rather everyone die than lose their child, what about the dozens of people who didn't even have children up for grabs? Who are you to sacrifice their lives?