OTW

In On the Waterfront, there are two extremes as to the answer to this question: what is the difference is between a traitor and a whistle blower? On one side, we have Ede; a pure girl who stands up for what she thinks is right and never questions her morals. She knows what is right and what is wrong, and has a large sense of justice when the rules are broken. Ede would be the first to report any injustice, hoping to change society for the better. She thinks that anyone who stands up for their ethics and tells to help society is a whistle blower. On the other side, we have the mob boss, who will stop at nothing to get what he wants, however he can. If the cost of his happiness is the life or happiness of another, he could care less. A selfish, evil man who keeps his secrets close. If you were to betray his trust and spill to the cops, then you’re as good as dead. Anyone who tattles on the mob gets the title of traitor and is punished like a traitor.
I take Ede’s stance on things. Take this example: I see one of my friends cheating on a test. Do I tell the teacher? Yes. The friend might be angry, as I have officially “tattled,” but I would feel justified in saying that I did it for her. If she just copied off of other’s tests, how would she learn? I would have just one regret in turning my own friend in, if she was doing something wrong and then called me a tattle tale. It would be the loss of a good friend.

blogger Q numba 2

There are several characters in All My Sons that base their decisions on personal and family gain rather than for the good of society. Joe Keller is the most obvious example of this act of selfishness. He allows his partner, Herbert Deever, take the blame for selling damaged goods to the army, thus escaping jail himself. Later in the play, he justifies his actions with this argument: “They came with handcuffs into the shop Chris, what could I do? Chris…Chris, I did it for you, it was a chance and I took it for you” (70). He tries to excuse his desperate actions by telling his son, Chris, that if he had taken the blame, the business would have gone up in smoke and there would have been nothing left for Chris. Keller’s son replies with: “For me!-I was dying every day and you were killing my boys and you did it for me? …Is that as far as your mind can see, the business?”(70). These two characters, Chris and his father, Joe, are opposites when it comes to ethics. Joe is fine with committing unlawful or otherwise disreputable acts as long as it benefits his family. Chris, meanwhile, is a regular crusader, striving to tell the truth wherever he goes. The two ends of the spectrum collide in so close a family connection, allowing the reader to see the differences between father and son clearly.
I personally side with Chris on this argument. The damaged airplane parts cost many young fighters their lives, all so that Joe Keller could retain his family business. The price tag on my happiness does not exceed another person’s life, and I could never ship off broken parts to the army if I knew it could put other men and women in danger. In this situation, I believe it was not appropriate to put the needs of my family and self in front of society’s. The cost would be too high for my conscious to bear. If another, less extreme case of similar moral complications arose, I would defend my family rather than society. For example, if my family was starving, and to get them the food they needed I would have to steal money from some rich neighbor, than I would take my family’s needs into account instead of what society thought was right or wrong.