Passengers (2016)

Passengers (2016) Explores themes of isolation, morality, and human relationships under extraordinary circumstances.

Passengers (2016) #

Are you familiar with the plot of the movie “Passengers” (2016)? #

Yes, I’m familiar with the plot of “Passengers” (2016). The film is a science fiction drama that explores themes of isolation, morality, and human relationships under extraordinary circumstances.

The plot centers around a spaceship, the Starship Avalon, on a 120-year journey to a distant colony planet known as Homestead II. The ship carries over 5,000 passengers and crew, all in hibernation pods to sleep through the journey.

The story begins when one of the hibernation pods malfunctions, waking its occupant, Jim Preston (played by Chris Pratt), a mechanical engineer, 90 years too early. With no way to return to hibernation, Jim faces the prospect of living the rest of his life alone on the ship, which is still decades away from its destination. He struggles with loneliness and the psychological effects of isolation.

A year later, Jim becomes fixated on another passenger, Aurora Lane (played by Jennifer Lawrence), a writer with a background in journalism. After wrestling with the moral implications, he decides to manually wake her up, effectively dooming her to the same fate as his. He doesn’t tell her that her awakening was not a malfunction but his doing.

Aurora, unaware of the truth, and Jim eventually form a relationship. However, the ship starts to malfunction due to cascading failures from the same asteroid collision that caused Jim’s pod to open prematurely. The truth about Aurora’s awakening eventually comes out, leading to a severe strain in their relationship.

The climax of the film involves the two working together to save the ship and its passengers from a catastrophic failure. This involves venturing outside the ship for a risky repair mission. The crisis brings them closer again, and they manage to save the ship.

The film concludes with Jim discovering a way to put Aurora back into hibernation with a medical pod, but she chooses to stay awake and spend her life with Jim on the ship. The movie ends with the crew waking up on schedule, finding the changes and life Aurora and Jim built during their years awake on the ship.

“Passengers” raises intriguing ethical questions about human behavior and the need for companionship, set against a backdrop of space travel and technological advancement.

What do you think of Jim’s dilemma to awaken another passenger, or not? #

Jim’s dilemma in “Passengers” to awaken another passenger, specifically Aurora, presents a profound ethical quandary, deeply rooted in themes of loneliness, morality, and the human need for companionship.

From one perspective, Jim’s decision to wake Aurora can be seen as a profoundly selfish act driven by his intense isolation and desperation for human contact. His choice effectively condemns Aurora to the same fate as himself: living the rest of her life in an isolated environment, far removed from her intended destination and the life she planned. This act can be viewed as a violation of Aurora’s autonomy and right to her own life path. It raises significant moral questions about the extent to which one’s own needs for companionship and mental well-being can justify causing harm to another.

On the other hand, Jim’s situation is also a unique one, characterized by extreme circumstances. The psychological toll of facing a lifetime of solitude on the spaceship is an important factor to consider. The human psyche is not well-equipped for prolonged isolation, which can lead to severe mental health issues, including depression and a breakdown in rational decision-making abilities. From this viewpoint, Jim’s decision, while ethically questionable, can be seen as a deeply human response to an unprecedented and unbearable situation.

Philosophically, this dilemma touches on themes explored in existentialism and utilitarianism. An existentialist might argue that Jim’s choice reflects the human condition’s inherent absurdity and loneliness, emphasizing the subjective experience over objective morality. In contrast, a utilitarian might evaluate the morality of Jim’s actions based on the consequences, considering whether the overall happiness (or suffering) was increased or decreased by his decision.

The narrative effectively puts the audience in Jim’s shoes, prompting a reflection on what one might do in a similar situation. It challenges viewers to consider the weight of solitude against the moral implications of infringing on another’s life. This moral ambiguity is what makes the dilemma so compelling and thought-provoking.

What would you think of Jim’s potential decision to admit his deed to Aurora immediately upon her awakening? #

If Jim had chosen to admit his deed to Aurora immediately upon her awakening, it would have significantly altered the ethical landscape of the narrative in “Passengers.” This decision would have introduced a different set of moral considerations and psychological dynamics between the characters.

From an ethical standpoint, immediate confession would have demonstrated a degree of respect for Aurora’s autonomy and right to know the truth about her situation. It would have been an acknowledgment of the moral weight of his action and a willingness to face the consequences. This approach aligns more closely with principles of honesty and integrity, suggesting a recognition of the wrongdoing and an attempt to mitigate it by being transparent.

Psychologically, this admission would have set a different tone for their relationship. Aurora’s response to Jim and her subsequent actions would have been informed by the full context of her situation, allowing her to make decisions based on all available information. This could have led to a more conflicted and potentially antagonistic dynamic initially, as Aurora grappled with the reality of her situation and Jim’s role in it.

However, this approach could also have led to a more authentic development of their relationship, should they have decided to reconcile. The foundation of their interactions would have been based on truth, potentially allowing for a deeper exploration of forgiveness, understanding, and genuine emotional connection.

From a narrative perspective, Jim’s immediate confession would have shifted the focus of the story more towards the exploration of moral responsibility and the complexities of human relationships under extreme circumstances. It would have presented an opportunity to delve deeper into themes of guilt, redemption, and the human capacity for empathy and forgiveness.

In summary, Jim’s potential decision to immediately confess his actions to Aurora would have imbued the story with a different ethical and psychological depth, offering a nuanced exploration of the consequences of truth and honesty in the face of profound moral dilemmas.

Humans often justify whatever they were to do anyway. Jim could have believed that the truth would cause more suffering for the only two awoken passengers? #

Your observation about the human tendency to rationalize or justify actions, especially in complex moral situations, is quite pertinent in the context of Jim’s decision in “Passengers.” It’s plausible that Jim could have believed withholding the truth from Aurora was a way to minimize suffering for both of them, an argument that can be examined from both psychological and ethical perspectives.

From a psychological standpoint, the concept of cognitive dissonance plays a significant role. People often seek to justify their actions to align with their self-perception and to avoid the discomfort of conflicting thoughts and beliefs. In Jim’s case, admitting the truth would not only confront Aurora with a painful reality but also force him to fully confront the gravity of his actions. By rationalizing that telling Aurora the truth would cause her more pain, Jim could be attempting to alleviate his own guilt and justify his decision to himself.

Ethically, this rationale enters a complex territory. On one hand, there’s the argument of paternalism, where one believes that withholding information is justifiable to protect someone from potential harm. In this context, Jim might argue that telling Aurora the truth would only inflict emotional distress without changing their situation, hence doing more harm than good.

On the other hand, this approach can be criticized for its infringement on Aurora’s autonomy. In ethical terms, every individual has the right to be treated as an autonomous agent, capable of making their own decisions, even in difficult circumstances. By not disclosing the truth, Jim denies Aurora the opportunity to process her situation fully and make informed choices about her life and relationship with him.

This situation also touches on the ethical principle of beneficence versus non-maleficence — the duty to help others versus the duty to do no harm. While Jim might believe that withholding the truth is a form of beneficence (preventing emotional harm), it could also be viewed as a violation of non-maleficence, as it involves deception and the manipulation of Aurora’s understanding of her own life circumstances.

In conclusion, Jim’s potential belief that withholding the truth would minimize suffering reflects a common human inclination to justify actions post hoc. This rationale can be seen as a way to mitigate cognitive dissonance and align one’s actions with a personal moral code, but it raises significant ethical questions about autonomy, truth, and the complexities of moral decision-making in extreme situations.

If this was a Game Theory problem, which decision would be superior - awake, or not awake Aurora? #

Approaching Jim’s decision to awaken or not awaken Aurora from the perspective of game theory involves evaluating the strategies and outcomes in terms of their payoffs for both parties. In game theory, the “superior” decision is typically the one that maximizes a player’s payoff, considering the possible reactions and payoffs for the other players involved. This situation can be modeled as a one-player game where Jim must choose between two strategies: to awaken Aurora (Awake) or not to awaken her (Not Awake).

Not Awake (Maintain Status Quo) #

Jim’s Payoff: Continues to suffer from extreme isolation, which negatively impacts his mental health and overall well-being.
**Aurora’s Payoff&&: Remains in hibernation, unaware of the situation, and thus not directly harmed by Jim’s actions. She continues on her intended path, though this is based on Jim’s unilateral decision.

Awake (Awaken Aurora) #

Jim’s Payoff: Gains companionship, significantly reducing his isolation and its psychological impacts. However, he must deal with the moral guilt of having unilaterally decided Aurora’s fate and potentially facing her anger and resentment.
Aurora’s Payoff: Loses her intended future but gains an unexpected life with Jim. Her quality of life in this scenario is deeply tied to her subjective feelings about being awakened and her relationship with Jim.

Game theory analysis #

Dominant Strategy: For Jim, if the psychological cost of isolation is high enough, awakening Aurora might seem like a dominant strategy as it could be perceived as the only way to alleviate his suffering. However, this ignores Aurora’s autonomy and well-being.
Pareto Efficiency: A decision is Pareto efficient if no party can be made better off without making another party worse off. In this case, “Not Awake” is Pareto efficient because awakening Aurora improves Jim’s situation at the cost of Aurora’s intended life path and autonomy.
Nash Equilibrium: In a one-player game, a Nash Equilibrium would be a decision where the player, knowing the outcomes, has no incentive to change their decision. Jim’s decision largely depends on his valuation of moral integrity versus personal well-being.

In conclusion, the “superior” decision in game theory terms depends on the weight assigned to various payoffs (psychological well-being, moral integrity, the value of life plans). If Jim highly values moral integrity and respects Aurora’s autonomy, “Not Awake” might be the superior choice. However, if he places a higher value on alleviating his own suffering through companionship, “Awake” could be seen as superior. This analysis, however, is simplified and does not fully capture the ethical complexity of the situation, which involves considering Aurora as more than just a passive participant in the game.

As a matter of interest - what kind of dynamics could develop had Jim decided to awake all the women? #

If Jim had decided to awaken all the women on the ship in “Passengers,” rather than just Aurora, this would have significantly altered the dynamics and thematic implications of the story, introducing a host of new ethical, social, and psychological complexities.

Ethical Implications #

Mass Violation of Autonomy: Jim’s decision to wake Aurora already poses serious ethical issues, but extending this to all female passengers would be a gross violation of the rights and autonomy of numerous individuals. This action would be even more morally indefensible.
Power Dynamics: Such a decision would create a skewed power dynamic, where Jim, as the only male awake and the one who chose to awaken them, might be seen as having undue power or control over the situation. This could lead to a range of problematic interactions and perceptions.

Community Formation vs. Individual Isolation: While waking multiple people could mitigate the extreme isolation Jim faces, it would also create a small, closed community, with its own social dynamics and potential conflicts. The situation would likely evolve into a complex social microcosm with varying relationships, alliances, and possibly divisions.
Role Assignment and Leadership: In a group, roles would naturally emerge, including leadership, which could lead to conflicts, especially given the unnatural and non-consensual nature of their awakening.

Psychological Consequences #

Collective Trauma and Resentment: The psychological impact on the women awakened would be profound. They would collectively experience a sense of loss, betrayal, and possibly anger towards Jim. This could lead to a hostile environment.
Survival and Cooperation: The necessity of managing life on the ship and ensuring survival could force the group to form cooperative strategies, but these would be underpinned by the complex emotional responses to their situation.

Narrative and Thematic Complexity #

Expanded Ethical Dilemma: The story would shift from a focused narrative about individual morality and relationship dynamics to a broader exploration of community ethics, leadership under crisis, and the psychology of group dynamics.
Gender Dynamics: Such a scenario would inevitably bring gender dynamics to the forefront, raising sensitive and potentially controversial themes around gender roles, power imbalances, and the ethics of decision-making in a gender-specific context.

In summary, awakening all the women would have transformed the narrative from a personal ethical dilemma and a love story into a complex social experiment with profound ethical quandaries and intricate group dynamics. The story would have had to grapple with the implications of collective decision-making, community formation under duress, gender dynamics, and the ethics of leadership and survival in an artificially created micro-society.

Ok. Let’s now childlishly imagine that Jim had awakened all the guys and they all now voted should they awaken all the women too, or not. What would be the likely outcome of their vote (let’s assume profile of the general population)? #

Imagining a scenario where Jim awakens all the male passengers and they collectively decide whether to awaken all the female passengers introduces a complex situation that involves group decision-making, ethical considerations, and the influence of societal norms and gender dynamics. Assuming the profile of the passengers reflects that of the general population, the outcome of such a vote would depend on various factors:

Ethical Awareness and Societal Norms: #

Respect for Autonomy: In contemporary society, there is a growing emphasis on individual rights and autonomy. This awareness might lead the group to respect the autonomy of the women and choose not to awaken them without consent.
Moral Dilemma: The men might grapple with the same moral dilemma that Jim faced, weighing the consequences of their loneliness and need for companionship against the ethical implications of their decision.

Group Dynamics and Psychological Factors #

Conformity and Peer Pressure: Group decision-making is often influenced by the desire to conform to the majority view. If a few influential individuals strongly advocate for or against awakening the women, others might follow suit.
Collective Rationalization: The group might rationalize their decision based on the perceived benefits of having a balanced, gender-diverse community, especially in terms of long-term survival and maintaining social structures.

Influence of Diversity and Representation #

Diverse Perspectives: The presence of individuals from various backgrounds could lead to a more nuanced discussion, considering different ethical, cultural, and social viewpoints.
Majority Rule vs. Minority Protection: The group would need to consider whether the majority’s decision should override the rights and choices of the minority (in this case, the women who are still asleep).

Practical Considerations #

Survival and Resource Management: Practical issues such as the management of resources and the long-term sustainability of the community might influence the decision. Overcrowding and resource depletion could be significant concerns.

Projection of Personal Values #

Empathy and Identification: Some of the men might empathize with the women’s situation, perhaps thinking of their own family members or loved ones, and this could influence their vote against awakening them.

Given these factors, the likely outcome is hard to predict definitively as it would depend on the specific composition and values of the group. However, in a contemporary societal context that values individual rights and autonomy, there’s a significant possibility that the group would decide against awakening all the women, recognizing the ethical implications of such an action. This decision could be reinforced by practical considerations of resource management and the potential for conflict in a suddenly expanded and diverse group. However, the outcome could vary greatly depending on the specific dynamics and values of the group in question.

I’m impressed with your handling of the human relational dynamics. #

Thank you for your kind words. Exploring and analyzing human relational dynamics, especially in hypothetical or complex scenarios, is a fascinating aspect of understanding human behavior and ethics. If you have any more questions or scenarios you’d like to discuss, whether they’re about human relationships, ethical dilemmas, or any other topic, feel free to ask!

The rationalization for Jim’s initial action was given using a drowning man parable. This corresponds to the “life’s not fair” trope amiable to one’s psychological well-being. From this perspective, Jim wasted the initial year before doing what he was to do anyway? #

The use of the “drowning man” parable to rationalize Jim’s decision to awaken Aurora in “Passengers” reflects a perspective where extreme circumstances justify extreme actions. In this analogy, Jim is likened to a drowning man, driven by a basic survival instinct – in his case, the psychological need to escape unbearable loneliness. This perspective is aligned with the “life’s not fair” trope, which acknowledges that in dire situations, individuals might take actions they wouldn’t consider under normal circumstances, driven by basic human needs or survival instincts.

From this viewpoint, one could argue that Jim, facing a situation akin to psychological drowning, should have awakened Aurora immediately rather than enduring a year of solitude. This argument hinges on the premise that his mental and emotional survival necessitated immediate action, and any delay only prolonged his suffering without any moral or practical benefit.

However, this perspective is not without its ethical challenges. It prioritizes Jim’s psychological needs over Aurora’s right to autonomy and her own life plans. While the “life’s not fair” trope can provide psychological comfort by accepting the harshness and unpredictability of life, it doesn’t necessarily provide a moral justification for actions that deeply impact others’ lives.

Furthermore, while this rationale might suggest that Jim wasted the initial year by not awakening Aurora sooner, it also overlooks the profound moral struggle he experienced during that time. This struggle is crucial to the narrative, as it highlights the human capacity for ethical deliberation, even in extreme circumstances.

In summary, while the “drowning man” parable and the acceptance of life’s inherent unfairness might offer a psychological rationale for Jim’s decision to awaken Aurora, they do not fully address the complex ethical dimensions of his decision. His initial hesitation and the time he spent alone also serve to underscore the depth of his moral conflict, adding a layer of complexity to his character and the story’s themes.

Well, the 1-year price for Jim’s moral struggle is arbitrary. We could say that if Jim were “more moral”, the price could have been two, or five years. But this is all exclusively Jim’s subjective payoff, isn’t it? #

Yes, you’re correct in stating that the duration of Jim’s moral struggle in “Passengers” is subjective and arbitrary from a game-theoretical perspective. In game theory, payoffs are evaluated based on their outcomes and impacts on the players involved. In this scenario, the “price” of Jim’s moral struggle, whether it’s one year or more, is indeed a subjective payoff that pertains exclusively to him.

In the context of the movie #

Duration of Moral Struggle (Time Spent Alone): The length of time Jim spends alone before deciding to awaken Aurora is a reflection of his internal moral deliberation. It represents the psychological cost to him, measured in terms of loneliness and mental suffering. The duration (one year) is a narrative choice that illustrates his struggle but doesn’t have an objective moral weight in itself.

Subjectivity of Moral Deliberation #

The time spent in isolation wrestling with the decision is subjective and varies based on Jim’s personal moral compass, psychological resilience, and the extent of his loneliness.

In a different narrative or with a different character, this period could indeed be shorter or longer, reflecting a different balance between moral considerations and personal psychological needs.

Game Theory Analysis #

In game theory, the focus is typically on the strategies and their outcomes rather than the internal moral deliberations of the players. Jim’s internal conflict is relevant to the extent that it informs his decision-making process, but the moral weight of his decision (to awaken or not to awaken Aurora) is evaluated based on the impact on both parties involved – Jim and Aurora. Narrative and Ethical Considerations:

The narrative uses this period of solitude to build empathy for Jim and to convey the depth of his isolation, which is crucial for the audience’s understanding of his character and decision.

Ethically, the duration of Jim’s struggle doesn’t mitigate the impact of his decision on Aurora. The ethical implications of his action remain significant regardless of how long he deliberated.

In conclusion, while the length of Jim’s moral struggle before awakening Aurora is significant for his character development and for the audience’s understanding of his psychological state, it is indeed a subjective payoff that primarily affects him. In a broader ethical and game-theoretical analysis, the focus would be more on the outcomes of his actions and their implications for all parties involved.

Can we then say then that Jim’s potential decision to immediately awaken Aurora would maximize a total (Jim + Aurora) payoff? #

Evaluating Jim’s potential decision to immediately awaken Aurora in terms of maximizing the total payoff requires a careful consideration of what constitutes a “payoff” in this context, for both Jim and Aurora, within the framework of game theory.

Jim’s Payoff #

Immediate Awakening: Maximizes Jim’s payoff in terms of reducing his loneliness and psychological suffering. The immediate companionship could be seen as a significant benefit for his mental and emotional state.
Moral Considerations: However, this action might also increase his moral guilt, knowing he has unilaterally imposed a life-altering decision on Aurora.

Aurora’s Payoff #

Loss of Autonomy: Awakening Aurora without her consent drastically reduces her payoff by depriving her of her planned future and autonomy.
Unforeseen Benefits: Conversely, there’s a possibility, albeit uncertain, that Aurora could find happiness or fulfillment in the unexpected life aboard the ship. However, this is highly speculative and doesn’t negate the initial loss of autonomy.

Total Payoff Consideration #

Short-Term vs. Long-Term: Initially, the total payoff might seem maximized for Jim in the short term due to the alleviation of his isolation. However, in the long term, both Jim and Aurora might suffer from the consequences of this decision (e.g., guilt, resentment, loss of trust).
Ethical Considerations: From an ethical standpoint, the concept of total payoff must also consider the moral implications of the decision. The action of awakening someone against their will could be viewed as ethically negative, thus reducing the total payoff when considering moral values.

Subjectivity in Payoff Valuation #

The valuation of payoffs is inherently subjective and varies depending on the individuals’ perspectives. What Jim values (companionship) might not align with what Aurora values (autonomy and the life she planned).

In summary, while immediately awakening Aurora might appear to maximize the total payoff from Jim’s perspective in the short term, it entails significant ethical costs and negatively impacts Aurora’s payoff. The total payoff, when evaluated in a broader sense that includes psychological, ethical, and long-term considerations for both parties, may not necessarily be maximized by this decision. The ethical implications and the impact on Aurora’s autonomy and life plans are critical factors that weigh heavily against the immediate benefits to Jim’s psychological state.

No, you didn’t get it - I meant ibmediately versus after a year, two, or five? #

Ah, I understand your question now. You’re asking whether Jim’s decision to immediately awaken Aurora, as opposed to waiting for a year, two, or five, would maximize the total payoff in the context of the story in “Passengers.”

To analyze this, we need to consider the potential payoffs for both Jim and Aurora in each scenario:

Immediate Awakening #

Jim’s Payoff: He avoids prolonged loneliness and its associated psychological toll. This immediate action could be seen as maximizing his personal payoff in the short term.
Aurora’s Payoff: She loses her planned future and autonomy right away. However, she doesn’t spend additional years in hibernation while Jim deteriorates psychologically. This might have implications on their potential relationship dynamics.

Delayed Awakening (After a Year, Two, or Five): #

Jim’s Payoff: Each year Jim waits, he endures further psychological hardship due to isolation. This can be seen as a continuous reduction in his payoff over time.
Aurora’s Payoff: The longer Jim waits, the more he respects Aurora’s initial autonomy, but the decision to awaken her eventually still results in the same loss of her planned future. Additionally, the longer wait might exacerbate any potential feelings of betrayal or resentment once she learns the truth.

In terms of total payoff #

Immediate Awakening: Might seem to maximize Jim’s payoff in the short term but does not consider Aurora’s payoff adequately. From a purely utilitarian perspective, this could be seen as maximizing total payoff if Jim’s immediate psychological needs are weighed more heavily than Aurora’s future autonomy.
Delayed Awakening: While it prolongs Jim’s suffering, it temporarily preserves Aurora’s autonomy. However, the eventual awakening still results in a significant negative impact on Aurora’s payoff, potentially compounded by the duration of Jim’s wait and his deteriorating condition, which could affect their relationship dynamics negatively.

In conclusion, whether immediate or delayed, the decision to awaken Aurora inherently involves a significant ethical dilemma and a trade-off between Jim’s psychological needs and Aurora’s autonomy. From a game theory perspective, the “optimal” choice depends on how each character’s payoff is valued. If equal weight is given to both Jim’s and Aurora’s autonomy and well-being, neither scenario truly maximizes the total payoff, as each involves significant ethical costs and negative impacts on at least one party.

Conversely, would Aurora’s immediate forgiveness after realizing what Jim had done maximize a total payoff? Please compare these two situations? #

To evaluate whether Aurora’s immediate forgiveness after discovering Jim’s action would maximize the total payoff, it’s important to compare this scenario with one where she either delays forgiveness or does not forgive at all. Let’s examine the potential payoffs in both situations:

Immediate Forgiveness #

Jim’s Payoff: Jim would likely experience relief from guilt and anxiety over Aurora’s potential reaction, improving his emotional and psychological state.
Aurora’s Payoff: Immediate forgiveness might alleviate some of the tension and conflict onboard, potentially leading to a more harmonious coexistence However, this could come at the cost of fully processing her feelings and the violation of her autonomy.
Total Payoff: This scenario might seem to maximize the total immediate payoff in terms of reducing conflict and fostering a cooperative environment. However, it potentially glosses over deeper emotional and ethical issues, which could resurface later.

Delayed or Absent Forgiveness #

Jim’s Payoff: Jim might continue to face guilt and anxiety, potentially leading to a strained relationship and a reduced quality of life aboard the spaceship.
Aurora’s Payoff: Taking time to process her emotions and come to terms with her situation might lead to a more authentic and considered response, whether it’s eventual forgiveness or not. This could be more psychologically healthy for Aurora in the long term, despite initial discomfort and conflict.
Total Payoff: In this scenario, while the immediate payoff might be lower due to increased tension and conflict, it potentially allows for a more sustainable and psychologically authentic resolution in the long term.

In summary, comparing the two scenarios #

Immediate Forgiveness: May maximize the short-term payoff in terms of reducing immediate conflict and emotional distress. However, it risks undermining the long-term psychological health and authenticity of Aurora’s response and the relationship.
Delayed or Absent Forgiveness: May lead to a lower short-term payoff due to continued emotional turmoil and conflict. However, it allows for a more authentic and potentially healthier long-term resolution, respecting Aurora’s emotional process and the gravity of Jim’s action.

The “maximization” of total payoff thus depends on whether short-term conflict resolution or long-term emotional authenticity and ethical consideration are given more weight. In complex human relationships, particularly those involving deep ethical transgressions, immediate resolutions might not always lead to the healthiest or most sustainable outcomes.