Why is time the ultimate currency in our human world, not just in the film? 1 mark
According to Investopedia.com, currency is defined as "a medium of exchange for goods and services." In our current human world, our primary means of currency is money. Money is earned through spending hours of one's life working. Therefore, money can also be viewed as a number of hours. For example, the minimum wage in Ontario is $15/hour. If one buys a pizza for $15, they have just spent the equivalent of one hour of their life. Thus, when you spend money, you also spend the amount of hours you spent earning that money – which is why time is the ultimate currency in our human world as well.
From a Natural law point of view, were the actions of Will Salas and Sylvia Weis justifiable? Why or why not? 2 marks
From a Natural law perspective, the actions of Will Salas and Sylvia Weis were not justifiable. Natural law does not take into account intentions, it looks solely at its fundamental principles to decide whether or not someone's actions were justifiable. Unfortunately for Will Salas and Sylvia Weis, thievery is not a fundamental principle. Therefore, from a Natural law point of view, regardless of the intentions and circumstances, Will Salas and Sylvia Weis' actions were not justifiable at all.
From a utilitarian point of view, were the actions of Will Salas and Sylvia Weis justifiable? Why or why not? 2 marks
From a utilitarian point of view, the actions of Will Salas and Sylvia Weis were justifiable. A utilitarian point of view looks at whether or not one's actions brought happiness to the larger group of people in comparison to harm to the smaller group of people. In this scenario, there was a far larger group of people who were benefiting from Will Salas and Sylvia Weis' actions compared to the group of people who were being negatively impacted. The larger group were the people who were running low on time and an increase of time was benefiting them and bringing them happiness, therefore from a utilitarian point of view, Will and Sylvia's actions were justifiable.
How would feminist jurisprudence describe the relationship between Mr. Weis and his daughter Sylvia? 1 mark
Feminsit jurisprudence would describe the relationship between Mr. Weis and Slyvia as oppressive. The overbearingness of Mr. Weis is mentioned several times in the movie by Mrs. Weis. Alongside, Mr. Weis constantly uses his power and social dominance to oppress Slyvia, by ensuring she is surrounded by guards constantly and by constantly putting the societal system above her.
Do you think robbing from the banks and giving most of the proceeds to the poor should be a crime? Why or why not? 2 marks
As much as I think robbing from the banks and giving most of the proceeds to the poor is a moral thing to do, I think it should be a crime. Canada follows a common law system, meaning a lot of our laws/interpretations of laws are based on precedents. My worry is that if we excuse people who commit this act, it will allow for other, far graver cases to be excused due to the judge's interpretations. If we didn't follow a common law system, and solely followed the civil law system, I would think that robbing a bank and giving most of the proceeds to the poor shouldn't be a crime.
Does the statement "for some to live forever many must die" reflect the natural law theory? Why or why not? 2 marks
No, that statement does not reflect the natural law theory. The natural law theory focuses on ensuring that the fair thing is done. Sacrificing many for some to live forever is not fair. Alongside, it would not be just to unknowingly sacrifice a large sum of people as you would be prioritizing the lives of others over them. Therefore, this statement does not reflect the natural law theory.
Why didn't the Government address the gangs in the ghetto, but persecuted Will Salas? How is this a reflection of legal positivism? 3 marks
In the movie, the Government doesn't really care if people steal money as long as they're stealing from the same time zone. The gangs in the ghetto are all stealing from people in the same timezone as them and their actions don't impact the system severely so the Government doesn't really enforce laws against the gangs. However, in Will Salas' scenario, his actions are gravely impacting the system and since that is something that the Government does not want, they strongly enforce the law against him. This is a reflection of legal positivism as the laws enforced and created by the Government are to ensure the good of the state as a whole. In this scenario, the Government believes that Will Salas' crimes and not the gangs' are negatively affecting society, so they decided to persecute Will instead.
How is Critical Race Theory reflected in this movie? Provide one example. 2 marks
An important part of Critical Race Theory is the ideology that laws should be used to create equality and not oppress groups of people. In this movie, the laws enforced are used to oppress people in the ghettos, and ensure that people in richer time zones are superior. For example, stealing from the rich is not okay but stealing from the poor is totally acceptable in the eyes of the law. This does not follow the Critical Race Theory at all as the laws do not support equality whatsoever and when someone tries to do something and create equality, the Government and judicial system attempts to stop them.
Is it OK to break unjust laws? Provide 3 examples from the movie showing conflict between morality and law. Why did this occur? 5 marks
In my opinion, it is okay to break unjust laws as long as the intention is really good and pure. In the movie, there are several instances where the law is broken because the characters believe they are unjust. For example, when Sylvia fakes her defeat in order to allow Will to threaten her dad. Threatening a person with a gun is illegal and that is a fact that Sylvia knows, however because she believes that her intentions are pure, for the greater good, and moral, she allows herself to commit to the ploy and threaten her father. Next, shooting someone with a gun is a crime, especially if they are a Timekeeper. However, Sylvia decides to do the illegal thing and shoot at Raymond, the Timekeeper. In that moment, Raymond was about to shoot at the innocently sitting Will, which in Sylvia's mind was immoral. Thus, she decides to do the moral thing and protect someone who has protected her and shoot the Timekeeper. In both of these scenarios, the audience sees Sylvia question the morality and intentions behind her actions and commit to the illegal, but what she believes is moral, option. Finally, the whole concept behind stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is illegal. However, Sylvia and Will believe that it is the moral and righteous thing to do, which results in them continuing to do it. After realising the immoral intentions and ideologies behind their judicial system, they take matters into their own hands and do what they believe is right, even if it's technically illegal.
How does the movie support the Marxist theory that laws are made by the privileged in society in order to preserve their dominant status? Provide 3 examples from the movie to support your explanation. 5 marks
The majority of the film revolves around Will Salas and Sylvia Weis attempting to create equality for all social classes by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. However, they are stopped countless times because their actions liberate the lower class and remove the societal dominance the rich have, which supports the Marxist theory. Stealing time is a crime regardless of who does it, however it is not enforced whatsoever in the ghettos where multiple gangs work and steal time for thousands of less-fortunate people. However, when Will was suspected of stealing time from an extremely wealthy person, the Timekeepers showed up and began an investigation. Why? Because in this scenario, a less-fortunate person was liberated, which threatens the social dominance of the rich; however, when the poor rob the poor in ghettos, there is little to no impact made to the rich, so the Timekeepers do not care. Next, the theory is supported by viewing Mr. Weis' reaction to Will's ransom for his daughter. Will asked for a thousand years which he would evidently give to the people in his timezone. Understanding that listening to his demands would impact the whole system and the power of the rich, Mr. Weis decided not to give any time. The judicial system and laws put in place were made to oppress the working class to the point that Mr. Weis basically gives up his daughter in fear of the law and collapse of the system. Finally, the phrase "for some to live forever, many must die" shows immense support for the Marxist theory. This quote is the basis of the law and judicial system set in place in the movie; it is what the Government believes is moral and for the best in society. However, the "many" in this quote refers to the working class who are out dying on the streets, while the "some" refers to the rich ruling class living in New Greenwich. The whole judicial system is based on the belief that the working class must be sacrificed in order for the ruling class to live. The working class is thus oppressed, which supports the Marxist theory.
