Ethical Analysis of Eastern Promises, Essay Example

Critical Summary/Embedded Issues

Eastern Promises is a crime thriller in which the main character, a British midwife, unintentionally becomes involved with the Russian mafia in London. Although the film was meant primarily to entertain, the story allows the viewer to question the ethics of the situations that the characters encounter. Anna Khitrova becomes involved with the mafia when she tries to help the baby of a mother who passed away during childbirth. The deceased mother, Tatiana, had carried a Russian diary on her and Anna wished to use the diary to help the child find her family. However, both the diary and the child had ties to the Russian mob through a mobster named Semyon, who wished to destroy evidence of the diary. As a consequence, Anna is ultimately forced to make decisions that will either help the child or keep herself and her family safe. Despite the hardships that she encounters however, Anna aims to do everything in her power to help the child. However, these decisions are not easy to make and Anna must consider the ethical implications of her actions carefully.

The first time that Anna is faced with an ethical dilemma is when Tatiana passes away. As Anna attempts to help deliver the baby with several nurses, she notices that the mother must have been involved in a strange situation and needed help. However, it was too late for the unidentified mother because her vitals were too low for her to have been saved. At this point, Anna was able to make a conscious decision as to whether she should find out more about this woman to help her, or just to ignore what had occurred and continue on with her day. Rather than just leave this situation, Anna decided she wanted to help the woman somehow, so she took her diary to learn more about her. Although Anna decided it would be the most ethical to take an action to help the deceased woman, she could have made other choices that would be considered ethical as well depending on the individual’s point of view. In this situation, it was important for Anna to consider whether the woman would have wanted help and whether providing this help would lead to a greater good. Some people would argue that it is better to leave the woman alone and let her body rest in peace, however, Anna used physical evidence to decide that she should act because she noticed the woman was suffering. Second, Anna committed an unethical act by stealing the diary from Tatiana. However, she did so because she believed that taking the diary would be for the greater good. Other people may argue that it is never right to steal regardless of the situation. Despite this, Anna’s ethical decisions are guided by the fact that she wants to help others. Since Tatiana was dead, she wasn’t causing any harm to the owner of the diary by taking it, and decided that doing so would cause more good than harm. In this situation, Anna did make the most ethical choice because based on the knowledge she had about the situation, her action would benefit a child while not acting at all would have no impact.

A second ethical consideration in the movie is at the various points in which Anna decides to remain involved in helping the baby girl find her family even though she knows she or those close to her could get hurt. While it is endearing that Anna is so dedicated to the well-being of the baby, she constantly puts others in danger by doing so. The major ethical question in this situation is whether the life of an innocent child is more valuable than the life of an adult, and whether the actions required to save the life of this child will result in other deaths. Ultimately, it is difficult to weight one life against others in terms of value. Anna is perfectly clear about the dangers of her undertakings. When Anna’s uncle Stepan helps her translate the diary, he warns her of the trouble that she will encounter by trying to help the child. Despite this, she plans to continue her journey to find Tatiana’s family. In the process however, the Russian mafia decides that Stepan is a threat to them because of his knowledge of what is contained in the diary. At this point, Anna must make the same ethical decision regarding the value of life; now that her uncle had disappeared, she had to decide whether it was truly worth it to continue to try to find Tatiana’s family because the Russian mafia clearly wouldn’t back down and would kill someone else if they found it necessary to protect themselves. This situation makes Anna’s ethical point of view clear, because she prioritizes the lives of the innocent over the lives of others, including those close to her and herself. Many people would argue that the most good and therefore the most ethical option would be to take the action that would save the most lives, but clearly Anna has a different point of view. As a consequence, Anna’s decision was not ethical because she did not act in a way that would benefit the greatest number of people.

While Anna’s ethical decisions are the main driving force of the film, the decisions that other characters make are notable as well. When Anna asks her uncle Stepan to translate the diary, he agrees to help. However, when he realizes what is contained within the diary, he had the opportunity to stop providing the information to his niece. The ethical challenge that is presented here is the distinction between upholding a promise and protecting a loved one. By continuing to translate the diary and providing the information to Anna, Stepan was keeping his promise to his niece, but he was also endangering her because the words the diary contained would cause her to engage in dangerous actions. If Stepan had chosen not to continue translating the diary, he would have been able to ensure that his niece would remain safe. However, since Stepan didn’t know that Anna would be so brash about what she learned from the diary, he felt obligated to provide her the information she asked for. Others in this situation would have attempted to study the ethical of the situation further before making a decision. It would have been more ethical for Stepan to consider the outcomes of his actions before he agreed to Anna’s terms. Ultimately, the best ethical decision is the one that has the best outcomes for the most people, and by this definition Stepan did not make the ethical choice.

One of the most essential ethical situations in the story is Nikolai’s involvement with the Russian mafia in order to infiltrate the gang as a member of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. Although Nikolai was eventually able to find incriminating evidence against Semyon that would lead to his arrest and was able to pretend to commit many of the terrible acts that the Russian mafia believed he acted upon, Nikolai was still forced to do some terrible deeds in order to earn the trust of the mafia. During the time that Nikolai pretended to be a dedicated member of the Russian mafia, he would be responsible for dumping the bodies of people that were murdered in the Thames River, he abducts Anna’s uncle Stepan, and protects Semyon’s son. While Seymon certainly committed many terrible acts during his time as a mob boss, Nikolai must decide whether it is ethically correct to commit his own wrongdoings in order to prevent someone else’s. Clearly, Nikolai believes this effort is worthwhile.

The last ethical consideration that will be analyzed is Kirill’s involvement in the Russian mafia. He is mainly involved because his father is Seymon, the head of the mob. Kirill doesn’t seem competent enough to be a mobster, but does so because his father tells him to. If Kirill refuses to do what his father tells him, his father will likely kill him. However, what his father tells him to do will generally cause people to die. Although we never see inside Kirill’s head in the movie, this inner conflict must have arisen at some point in his life. In this situation, Kirill has a difficult choice to make because his only option is to kill or be killed. According to the ethical definition that the most ethical decision is for the greater good, Kirill could refuse to listen to Seymon and potentially save the lives of others. Kirill’s alternate option is to continue listening to Seymon and carrying out crimes when asked. In this case, it is actually difficult to determine which is the greater good because if Kirill is unable to commit a necessary murder, Seymon will ask Nicolai or another one of his followers to do it instead. Therefore, it would be necessary for Kirill to appeal to his own beliefs as to what is right and wrong. It is likely that he recognizes that what he is doing isn’t right even though he doesn’t seem to care about what happens to others.

Ethical Analysis

All of the ethical considerations mentioned above are essential to the plot of the movie because they generate the action that is seen. If the characters had made the best ethical decisions available to them in each situation, it is likely that the film wouldn’t have had a plot. Despite this, since the ethical choices that they encountered were complex in nature, it was often very difficult for them to determine the difference between right and wrong and good and better. One of the most important examples of an ethical question arises as a result of Nikolai’s involvement with the Russian mafia in order to take down their leader. Are his actions justifiable or should he have avoided this situation?

To fully understand Nikolai’s ethical dilemma, it is essential to understand the potential decisions he could have made in addition to their consequences. Ultimately, Nikolai decided to become involved with the Russian mafia and participate in a large amount of their illegal activities. This participation led to the mafia’s trust, but it also contributed to the demise of many people. Alternatively, Nikolai could have joined the mafia but used the evidence he gathered before Seymon forced him to do any real harm, he could have refused to join the mafia and act as an external FSB agent to try to stop them, or he could have done nothing and refused involvement in the situation.

This situation will first be interpreted using the consequentialist point of view, which dictates that the importance of maximizing good consequences and minimizing bad ones for all concerns leads to optimal ethical value. According to this definition of ethics, the worst thing that Nikolai could have done in this situation is to do nothing at all. If Nikolai had chosen not to act, many people would continue to be killed by the Russian mafia without any form of restriction. The next worst thing that Nikolai could do according to this definition is what he actually chose to do; become a member of the Russian mafia to try to stop them. Although Nikolai allowed some good to come from this situation because Seymon’s downfall would lead to a decrease in the amount of people killed or harmed for the mob’s purposes, Nikolai had to hurt a significant amount of people in order to get to this point. Therefore, this action is not doing the best to minimize harm. The second best option that Nikolai had before him was to join the Russian mafia but to use the evidence he collected against Seymon before the plot was able to thicken. Nikolai had read the diary before Tatiana died and this diary provided enough incriminating evidence against Seymon that he could have been arrested on this basis. It is unclear why Nikolai continued to remain in the Russian mafia, although it did help him gain some additional, yet not completely necessary, evidence. The most ethical decision that Nikolai could have made is to have remained an active member of the FSB and attempt to stop the Russian mafia through external means. The FSB was aware of the Russian mob operations, and a large enough group would have been able to take them out in a fight. This is the ethically best decision because the least amount of people would die during a potential battle and the demise of the Russian mob would prevent many potential deaths.

According to the deontological point of view, we should consider the actions that are done by the individual to determine whether they are ethical or not rather than use their outcomes as evidence. This ethical point of view would also rank doing nothing as the least favorable action in this situation. Nikolai would be doing harm by not doing anything, so this decision would be considered unethical. Since the deontological point of view considers actions rather than results, any situation where Nikolai joins the Russian mafia would be considered the second least favorable action because joining the mafia at all implicates that he is willing to commit crimes that will hurt others. Although the level of crime committed is a variable that should be considered in this option, Nikolai would have no way of knowing the exact amount of negative actions he would need to commit. Therefore, both options that involve joining the Russian mafia could be considered as one. Lastly, the most favorable option would be to remain a FSB member who fights the Russian mafia. In this situation, Nikolai’s actions would be purely to bring about a greater good. While some people may die in the crossfire between the FSB and the Russian mafia, Nikolai would be responsible for the least number of deaths of all the options available to him.

The Aristotelian definition of ethics considers the character of the individual. Typically, a good person is considered to have positive personality traits and these people are considered to be acting ethically when they make decisions. It is difficult to identify Nikolai’s personality based on the information that the movie provides, because his behaviors have a lot of twists and turns. Ultimately however, we know that he wants to help Anna and the baby and put an end to Seymon. As a consequence, we can conclude that Nikolai is interested in helping others, although he may be doing so for a personal advantage as well as his duties as a member of the FSB. Since Nikolai went through a lot of ordeals as a member of the Russian mafia in able to gain Seymon’s trust, it is more than likely that he was up to no good and was generally using his time in the mafia to suit a personal goal. As a consequence, Nikolai did not behave ethically by joining the Russian mafia according to this definition of ethics.

According to all three definitions of ethics, the consequentialist point of view, the Aristotelian definition, and the deontological point of view, Nikolai did not behave ethically by joining the mob to put an end to Seymon. His actions were not for the greater good, were not positive, and were not met with good intent. Although Nikolai’s actions end up in Seymon being overthrown from the Russian mob and arrested for his involvement in the rape of Tatiana, Nikolai’s behavior is shady until the end of the film. While we originally believe that Nikolai is a committed member of the Russia mafia, we then learn that he is a member of the FSB and trying to help prevent Seymon from getting away with his crimes. When we believe we have finally figured everything out, we then learn that Nikolai intends to remain a member of the Russian mafia with Kirill as his partner. Although Nikolai’s role as a FSB member would indicate that he is doing this to further crush the mafia, we don’t know this to be true because he says that he couldn’t be king if the king was still in place. As a consequence of this final action, we learn that Nikolai’s behavior throughout the film is in no way justified. Although he did help the baby, his actions were purely to allow himself to be at the top of the Russian mafia without Seymon being in the way.