1. There is the one student who doesn’t want to participate in the mind experiment, because of moral issues. What is her problem with that? It is a mind experiment. And in philosophical terms, the mind is all that is free.
I'm assuming you're talking about Georgina (the kid from Harry Potter).
The way I see it:
Georgina refused because she was idealistic and because she didn't want to be put into a situation where she'd have to categorize people into "better people" and "lesser people". Participating in such a situation without raising an objection would be like tacitly supporting (and thereby empowering) the unjust premise of that situation.
2. Then right after her there is Petra, who doesn’t wanna take part.
Again, I don’t really understand why. She could at least stay there. Besides, it is the last day. Why not just sit it through?
Petra refused because she more or less chickened out; she anticipated that this thought experiment would force her to show her true colors, which she saw as a threat; she didn't want to put herself into a situation where she's vulnerable (she recognized this exercise as one where she may not hold all the right perfect answers, and where her personal beliefs and values would get challenged). Furthermore, she probably already suspected that the teacher may have a double agenda behind the experiment.
She had perfect grades, she didn't really need this exercise (or so she thought), she'd rather avoid any risks that could tarnish her school record as well as her confidence.
3. Mr. Zimit then threatens Petra with her and others school grades.
What kind of school is this? Is it an international college? Is it a private boarding school? Can he actually do that? Well, at that point I guess he can, because she is about to skip class, even though I think it is pretty harsh.
Petra remarked that Mr. Zimit was risking "a board review", which means that no, he can't "just" do that, he could be reported and then he would have to answer to the school's board and justify his actions. It would then be up to the board to decide if he acted correctly or not.
4. Towards the end, when Petra is making her decision who to or not to take to the bunker, he is cutting her grade one by one. I understand that this is still a philosophic experiment and just as the trolley problem there doesn’t necessarily have to be a right (or wrong) answer, so this can’t be relevant for anyone’s grade. It is in the end her decision. When they decided before as a group, that didn’t seem to be a problem. Or is he just kidding?
Petra was used to getting straight A's. And, in spite of her nonchalant attitude, she valued those straight A's, which gave her a sense of being untouchable (she's the class' darling, she can do no wrong). Essentially she's hiding behind her record (notice how in the trolley problem, she didn't give a real answer or take a stand for one or the other side; her safe answer was that "they are both murder", without making a choice). So her learning moment was: would she still make the right choices if it meant that she would lose her record as "Miss Perfect"?
(Maybe that learning moment wasn't the direct intended objective of Mr. Zimit, but I think it is the lesson as intended by the screenwriter of this movie: would you take a stand for what you think is right when you're at risk of losing your "ratings", or would you chicken out and rather choose the easy route, by complying to the established comfortable "rules"/power structure?)
Why is he so eager to get into the bunker himself? Why does he always run to the bunker to get the gun? Since he is the one creating the environment, he could have just carried it all along.
Mr. Zimit played the discordant voice (the "villain", if you will) in the thought experiments. That doesn't mean that the teacher was also "evil" outside the experiments though. In the thought experiments, the students all represented different layers of society. One could say that Mr. Zimit represented a class of people who, rather than being compliant and relying on justice/democratic process/etc., are proactive and wouldn't hesitate to use force to get what they want, or to get things their way (regardless of whether it is right, or in the best interest of the group).
He is the only one who knows the exit code? How convenient. So he has to go to the bunker, and since he is the teacher, he can bend and change the rules and the conditions around just as he pleases, creating no-win scenarios all along.
If there was equality, acceptance, harmony etc. among the bunker selection then there would be no conflicts, but then it would be a boring experiment and the students wouldn't learn anything from it. So far these kids had lived a sheltered life, and they were about to embark on prestigious universities, start their careers and conquer the world. The goal of the experiment was to prepare these privileged students in a safe environment (the school class) for a day later in their lives where they would have to face a personal crisis and they would find out that their grades, titles, achievements, successes etc. didn't mean anything anymore. Not so coincidentally, the teacher was in such a position at that moment: he felt betrayed by the student who he thought he could always count on, and he felt that his logical skills, his academic achievements, his achievements as a teacher hadn't brought him what he thought they would bring. (He was 40, he was alone, he's about to lose his favorite student because, in spite of straight A's, she's not putting his teachings and values into practice but instead choosing her own way in life.)
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
https://y2u.be/VI57QHL6ge0
reply
share