12 angry men
12 Angry Men 12 Angry men presented moral dilemma of twelve jurors. The moral dilemma is of justice and prejudice as we see throughout the movie. A moral person does the right thing for the group or society as a whole, not just what’s right for themselves or another person at any given time. Juror number 8 creates his own dilemma because he believes that the boy is not guilty. He seeks answers to the dilemma himself by bringing up the uncertainties of case presented in court. He does not turn to religious beliefs. He followed societal mores of the time. Juror number 8 could have easily just gone with the norm and found the guy guilty. Instead he went against everyone to stand for what he believed was right. That’s what I believe a person with good morals is.
Juror number 3 had already made a moral decision that the 18 year old boy was guilty. He had made up his mind even before the case had started. He believed that he had to sacrifice this 18 year old boy’s life to make other younger people see that it’s not ok to disrespect their parents. Given his past experiences, he would feel more inclined to vote guilty as to punish and make an example of this boy so that other kids would think twice. Juror number 3 does not change the involvement of juror number 8. Juror number 8 tries to change the mind of juror number 3 by giving facts. The main character does substitute the secondary’s character’s ethical values. Juror number 8 approached his dilemma as am pluralist. He believed that there were multiple perspectives on this issue. The other jurors all approached it in absolutist way. They believed that there was only one truth. That was before juror number 8 helped them realize that there is more than one perspective. When you have the life of an 18 year old boy in your hands you have to base it on the actual facts, not just ethics. Especially for the fact that ethical morals change over time and it’s different for everyone. The way juror number 8 presented
Juror number 3 had already made a moral decision that the 18 year old boy was guilty. He had made up his mind even before the case had started. He believed that he had to sacrifice this 18 year old boy’s life to make other younger people see that it’s not ok to disrespect their parents. Given his past experiences, he would feel more inclined to vote guilty as to punish and make an example of this boy so that other kids would think twice. Juror number 3 does not change the involvement of juror number 8. Juror number 8 tries to change the mind of juror number 3 by giving facts. The main character does substitute the secondary’s character’s ethical values. Juror number 8 approached his dilemma as am pluralist. He believed that there were multiple perspectives on this issue. The other jurors all approached it in absolutist way. They believed that there was only one truth. That was before juror number 8 helped them realize that there is more than one perspective. When you have the life of an 18 year old boy in your hands you have to base it on the actual facts, not just ethics. Especially for the fact that ethical morals change over time and it’s different for everyone. The way juror number 8 presented