Ethical Conundrums In Blade Runner 2049 (I Loved It)

Ethical Conundrums in media

Blade Runner 2049 (I loved it)
This movie discusses an ethical conundrum regarding the rights of artificial intelligence. Now, artificial intelligence is beginning to become an overused movie trope where AIs become more intelligent than humans. The entire series of Blade Runner revolves around this idea and this newest installment is no different. The movie poses the question on what makes something human. Does the fact that a replicant has emotions and memories make it human?
There are a number of ethical schools of thought that we discussed in class that may apply to this dilemma. To start off, cultural relativism can be applied to this discussion. In a way, the replicants have their own culture. It may

be shrouded due to their need to assimilate into human culture to avoid being killed. However, given the opportunity to be apart from humans, one could speculate that the replicants would develop a culture of their own since they possess emotions and memories that differ from humans. This is where cultural relativism comes into play. Anything that the replicants do cannot be disdained just because they’re artificial. This would violate cultural relativism as one culture cannot judge what is right and wrong for another culture.
Another moral school of thought that applies to Blade Runner 2049 would be Utilitarianism.

The humans within Blade Runner’s world attempt to avoid many moral dilemmas that may come up by practicing Utilitarianism. It’s difficult to say whether an artificial intelligence can be held accountable for murder or theft. As with many laws that are created for humans, not many of them can be reapplied easily to replicants. Thus, the movie avoids these problems entirely. By the humans considering the replicants as non-human they can apply an action that has the best outcome for every human involved. This includes sending out bounty hunters (or Blade Runners) to kill the replicants before they commit any crimes that cannot be held lawfully accountable

for.

The Mountain Between Us (Yay happy ending… sort of)

This movie deals with one important question, can you put your life in the hands of a stranger?

The story follows Ben and Alex who fight for survival after their pilot suffers a stroke and their plain goes down amid a mountainous area. Immediately due to this scenario involving two strangers, two schools of thought stand out as being part of this movie’s ethical discussion. These two schools of thought are Kant’s Theory and Ethical Egoism.
Kant’s Theory becomes apparent because he believed there must be respect for other people. As long at the person is rational, they must be treated as an end, never as a means only. In the case of Alex and Ben, Alex is injured. Ben is faced with the choice of exerting his own energy to aid Alex and keep her alive, or to leave her to die. Kant believed that we must strive to promote other’s welfare. Alex’s rights as a human being must be respected and if harm could be prevented, it should be prevented. Ben must keep helping Alex so long as it furthers the ends of

Alex.
Contrast this with Ethical Egoism. Ben has the choice of leaving Alex to ensure his own survival. He cannot know what lies ahead. There may be a shortage of food, lack of shelter, or even no civilization in sight. Ben could have left Alex at the airplane to ensure that he has enough food and energy as possible to move forward. In a sense, he would have been following his own self-interest. Of course, this would mean a certain demise for Alex who’s injured and cannot move forward without assistance from Ben. Ben’s primary obligation on that mountain is his own personal survival. If Alex is standing in the way of that, then he will need to leave her to ensure his goal is pursued. Ben decides to help Alex because he belies that her life is valuable and cannot be wasted for his own personal gain.

Ethical Egosim