Today we addressed a number of issues.
First, several individuals, including Isaiah, stated firmly that the Corleone’s
were justified in killing. We considered the differences between rationalizing
and justifying. And many still argued with good reasons that the Corleone’s
were justified in killing. Given the details of the film and our conversations
today, do you agree or disagree that the Corleone’s were justified in killing?
The key is, of course: why do you think they were justified or were not justified?
Was the same true for all killings? Make sure that you make your arguments with
solid references to the film/”the text.”
Secondly, Jonathan and others brought us back to one question behind all of this. In the America the Corelone’s have immigrated to, the police are corrupt. Judges and politicians and political institutions are corrupt as well. (Several of you even said with good reason that the Mafia was needed to address this injustice.) So, if a government and the laws within it are unjust, shouldn’t individuals like the Corleone’s be able to disregard and then revolt against these laws? As one individual mentioned on his way out, like early figures in American history and many since then, the Corleone’s are disregarding and rebelling against unjust laws. Focus on the film, but also share your thoughts on a more universal question as well. When is it exactly OK for someone or some group to disregard and to revolt against laws that many do find corrupt and that clearly discriminate against certain individuals and groups?
Please respond thoughtfully and thoroughly to these questions as a whole.
Most of the time, killing isn’t justified at all, but in the case of the Corleone family, many of the killings were justified. For example, the killings of the corrupt police cop and the drug dealer. They were both a huge threat to the family and had already proven to be by starting a war. Also, the drug dealer attempted murder on the most important person in the family, Don Corleone. The policeman was corrupt and was part of another attempted murder on Don Corleone. These murders were justified because if they didn’t kill them, even worse thing would happen to the family. “So why kill them?” you may ask. While it does seem more humane to put them in prison, this would never work. Many of the people the Corleone’s must kill have bought political influence. They would never be convicted and sentenced to jail. Even then, they could still organize attacks from jail. The only way to ensure the family’s safety is to kill them. I believe it’s acceptable to revolt and break laws only when there are corruption/bad laws and they affect people around you. In this case, killing corrupt police officers is completely tolerable because he would terrorize and affect your family and other families (who haven’t bought him ought) for years.
ReplyDeleteI think that most of the murders committed by the Corleone family are rationalized. Justified seems to me to be too strong of a word. For instance, Michael's killing of the drug dealer that assassinated Luca Brasi and the police officer that broke his jaw was rationalized. The two men had huge amounts of power and political influence, and if Michael hadn't killed them, they could have used their power to destroy the Corleone family. However, I do not believe that this act was completely justifiable. The murders were done solely for the interests of the Corleone family. The men were dangerous to the organization, but we have to remember that it's an organized crime organization, people who also commit unreasonable violence, such as the killing of the Jewish movie producer's prize race horse. That killing was not justifiable at all, as it was only committed in order to land a part in a movie for a friend of the family. The family isn't only made up of good people, and not all of their crimes are even rationalized. However, some of their crimes can be justified. An example is in the opening scene, when the undertaker comes to Vito Corleone with a request. He says that he went to the police, but they just let the abusers go. This shows that sometimes, the law and the government can be corrupt and untrustworthy, and people need somewhere else to turn. This is where the Mafia comes in, and in situations like this one, they can be necessary. This is one acceptable use of crime, and there are more in this world, where there are corrupt and unjust laws.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that some of the murders ordered by the Corleones were justified and all were rationalized. There was never a hit ordered by Michael or Vito that seemed to be completely random or unfounded. In the cases where the murders were justified, they were justified because there wasn't really another option. Like Bonasera talked about in the beginning of the movie, sometimes doing things the "right" way doesn't work. I found the murder of Tessio, who tried to have Michael killed after Vito's funeral, to be rationalized while the murder of Carlo, Connie's husband, to be justified. I found Tessio's murder to not be justified because while Tessio did turn on Michael and posed a serious threat to the family, he never actually had anyone killed. Carlo, on the other hand, physically abused Connie and was directly affiliated with Sonny's murder. I find the Corleones' murders to be justified when they kill someone who has killed.
ReplyDeleteI think that when a law or rule is morally unjust, you even have a moral obligation to disregard it. Following an immoral law makes you just as immoral. Killing Carlo, like I said before, was completely justified and needed. Since Carlo worked with a powerful, connected man like Barzini, the men who killed Sonny probably would've gotten away with it. People like the Godfather exist because people need them when the law fails - like in Bonasera's case. Another example of the law not working and thus the need for an alternative is with corrupt police like Captain McCluskey. In the scene where he and other officers came to the hospital where Michael was protecting Vito, he has two officers hold Michael back as he punches him square in the face. This occurs after Tom Hagan comes with other Corleone enforcement and tells the cops that they have gun permits and are licensed to protect Vito. Once McCluskey realizes that he can't use the law to get the men to leave, he (a police officer) reverts to violence. While this is not an example where violence is justified, it shows that when the law fails to help, violence seems to be the only answer.
The Corleone family rules and protects each other. They have come from a harsh background that leaves them fending for themselves. In a total new environment, the Corleone family must make their past efforts worth while by fortifying their new home. However, not all of the members have the same mindset or “moral” mindset, which, in a way, sets up the possibility of an immoral action. Everyone, except for Michael, is part of the Corleone family business. Through several persuasive family members this all changes. But, before discussing this change of course, I think it’s important to look more into the family, since The Godfather seems to intensely show how important family is. The family has a strong bond and travels everywhere together. So, already there is this idea of attachment. Given their background and their new home, they naturally have to be hypersensitive and “violent.” Indeed, they are, because with a strong family and with so much authority, they are going to encounter problems from others as well as become a problem for each other. But since they, in a way, have “evolved” to become vicious and vigilant, they may not respond smartly or in a moral way. Michael emulates some of these things because at first he wishes to not be a part of his family’s business or in their decision-making. But, given the family’s strength and power, Michael totally banishes his ultimatum and wants to kill the guy who caused his father much needed attention at the hospital. His first instinct was violent, kind of like what much of his family has shown. But that is exactly the problem. If they keep this violence up they will get more adversaries and will continue this cycle. Now, it is no longer justified, because this continuation results from several past losses and demotes. However, this family business does and will affect everyone unless a course of action is seen as “beneficial” to the family. However, the Corleone’s sensitivity makes it difficult to distinguish whether breaking “unjust” laws is going to always be seen as moral or immoral. If these laws specifically degrade them and future opportunities, of course something is going to need to be done, but if it’s this idea of them trying to gain respect and status to be seen as the norm, then that’s another issue that is hard to justify.
ReplyDeleteIn everyday life, there is no way for a person to justify murder. However, this isn't real life; the Corleone's don't really have a choice in killing these people. Killing people is the only way to protect themselves and their family in the corrupt world they live in. For instance, if Michael didn't have the heads of all five families killed, they may have killed him or at least ruined his family business. So, I think in this case, all the murders were justified but only because the government and police are corrupt. If they lived in a city that was run in a moral way with police who do their jobs for the greater good of the community, the killings would not be justified but they could certainly be rationalized or explained.
ReplyDeleteIn broader terms outside of the movie, if laws are unjust or the law enforcers are unjust, people should have the right to revolt and take care of their business personally. I think that our communities would fall apart if people started taking matters into their own hand but if the police aren't going to help than we don't have much of a choice. My first thought when Michael killed the corrupt cop and the drug lord was why didn't anyone at the restaurant call the cops for help. But, I thought about it realized that everyone living in that area at that time knew that cops were of no help and they knew that people had to handle their own business.
As I said in class, I still firmly believe that the Corleone’s were justified in killing. I think they were justified because most of their killings revolved around protecting the family and hopefully preventing future issues. For example, when Michael has Carlo murdered, he does it because not only did Carlo have Sonny killed, but Carlo also has a history of beating Michael’s sister Connie. This does not mean that all of the killings are particularly justified. In the case of Vito Corleone, he is not killed, but an attempt is made for his life. While I can rationalize why one of the families attempts to kill him, I do not think it is justified. The audience is unaware of any of Vito’s involvement other than the fact that he is a Don. Also the killing of Apollonia isn’t justified. While Michael was the intended target, Apollonia did not deserve to die as she had done nothing wrong, did she truly know of Michael’s involvement in the mafia.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is ok to revolt against laws if the institution that is suppose to protect you and provide “justice” for you fails, especially and institution that is not only corrupt, but also discriminates against a large portion of the population as well. During the first scene, a man comes to Don Vito requesting to have some people killed for severely beating his daughter. Vito feels that this is not justice because the daughter is still alive. Vito also feels disrespected that this gentleman went to the police first instead of him. This scene is important because it captures one of the many uses of the mafia. The police had let the perpetrators walk, so this man feels that justice was not served in any way, shape, or form. This is why he has come to Vito. Because the mafia does not play a strict set of rules, they often act above the law and carry out their own form of justice (if the price is right of course). This scene/example shows the corrupt and unjust law system at work. The perpetrators got no punishment at all for beating up a woman. Even though woman were not looked on as equal during this time, it is still wrong for them to beat her within an inch of her life for no legitimate reason. As time has gone on, things of become less corrupt, making the need to find other means to achieve “justice” less of a common occurrence, but, this does not mean that the presence of a mafia is and ever will be unneeded .
In my opinion, I think the Coreleones were definitely justified in the killings at the end of the movie. In the corrupt world depicted in the movie, you can either decide to kill or be killed. You can escape to Italy, but there are still no guarantees of safety, as shown by Michael’s near death experience. Michael, as the new head of the family, has the job of protecting his family. With the other families breathing down his neck, Michael’s options were limited. He knew the Branzinos were planning to kill him, and killing the head of that family was the only way to stop them. Moving to Nevada was no guarantee of surviving, and going to the police was out of the question. So while the killings were by no means fair, they were justified. Michael didn’t want to be killed or have his family be killed, and he did the only he could do so that wouldn’t happen.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do think these killings were justified, I don’t think the main reason is because of the corruption of the police and political institutions. Corruption never justifies killing alone, but it certainly plays a large role. The killings would be far less justified if the Corleones could just go to the police for protection. Aside from the movie, I do think people have the right to revolt and disregard certain laws if the government and their laws are unjust. I’m pretty sure John Locke once said something along the lines of that if the government ever doesn’t protect the rights of the people then the people have the right to rebel, and I think that can be translated to laws. If the government breaks the laws and doesn’t protect the people, then the people can rebel against the government institutions by breaking the laws.
I agree that some of the killings are justified. The killings of the heads of the five families can be rationalized, but not truly justified. There was no guarantee that any of the five families would have taken future action to try to wipe out the Corleone family. Even if they were, pre-emptive murder is rarely justified. However, the killing of Carlo, in my mind, is the one death that is completely justified. Carlo’s betrayal of the family and abuse of Connie are bad enough, but he is directly responsible for Sonny’s death. If you accept that killing someone can be justified, nothing (other than self-defense) justifies murder more than revenge for the death of a loved one. Michael could not have kept Carlo alive anyways – he would have been too large of a liability. On the other hand, I believe that Tessio’s murder is not justified. It is rationalized very well by Tessio’s betrayal, but Tessio’s death cannot be truly justified until Tessio has taken actual action against the family. I believe that individuals can morally refuse to follow unjust laws. I think it is always morally sound for a group to revolt against unjust laws. The Corleone family’s actions are obviously very illegal, but I think that some of their activities are justified because the corrupt world around them means that the law says is not always right or moral. The opening of the film shows this very well: the Corleone family has become their own lawmakers. Just like government-imposed law, the Corleone family has a strict set of rules that they live by. However, the Corleone family only focuses on what is best for the family business – not what is best for the general populace.
ReplyDeleteWhen we see the Corleones in the Godfather, there is no stopping their murderous ways at this point in their existence. They are an established crime family who must do business to keep their family and those who they look out for safe. I would argue that families like the Corleones should never have even dabbled in their type of organized crime and killing in the first place, but at this point, there’s no use in condemning them for their criminal acts. That said, I believe that none of the Corleones’ killings were justified. However, all were rationalized, in a way, because someone in the family had to come to the conclusion of “kill so and so” by some means; therefore, there is rationalization in each murder. But rationalization does not rise to justification in every case. For example, it is understood that Michael thought he needed to kill every head of the family for precautionary reasons, for they definitely could plot against him and finish off the Corleones. But what if they never even wanted to land a finger on the powerful Corleone family? You cannot justify these killings.
ReplyDeleteIt is okay to act against a law if it is harmful, discriminate, cruel, etc. However, it is not okay to act against a law if it is soundly put in place to protect the greater good and population i.e. you shouldn’t kill people. Isn’t that just common sense, Corleones? Instead of protests, rallies, etc., the family serves justice and kills the corrupt cop McCluskey in an unjust manner: killing. Points can easily get across by means of peace. Heck, I could even justify the Corleones in using their newspaper contacts to put McCluskey into a spotlight, revealing his corruption and killing his reputation and job without taking his life. Though our legal system is definitely flawed, there’s a just way to go about reforming it.
There’s a difference between justified and justifiable. Something that is justified can be defined as ‘having been done for a good or legitimate reason’, and in my opinion most (if not all) of the Corleone’s killings can be described as being justified. Each of the killings was either a response to an action from the other families or to protect the Corleone family, there aren’t many unexplainable murders. However, justifiable means ‘able to be shown to be right or reasonable’, which not all of the murders are. When you look at the killings, especially many of those Sonny is responsible for, or even Michael’s mass murder at the end of the film, there are alternative actions that could’ve been taken, or the murder was to gain power or in response to another act of violence. At the meeting of the five houses in New York, Don Vito shows that he is willing to stop the killings, and by doing so shows how needless many of the murders really were in the all out war between families. Being justified is easy, you just have to have a reason for your actions, being justifiable is much harder.
ReplyDeleteIt’s funny that we should talk about we should talk about the right to rebel against a corrupt government right after talking about being American. Our country was founded on the idea that there are certain rights a man has, amongst them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and it is the duty of the government to protect these rights. In the Declaration of Independence it states: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”. You can easily argue that what the Corleone family is doing by disregarding certain laws or killing corrupt government officials is considered just in the eyes of the founding fathers and is defined as a right of the people in one of the nations most important documents. You could also argue that the hierarchy the Corleone family put in place is their own form of government which will protect their rights. If the government fails to ensure justice or the safety of its citizens then it is the right of the people to alter or overthrow it, at least according to our founding fathers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile analyzing the killings in The Godfather, we have to realize that we can’t apply our preconceived morals and views of killing into their situation. In the Mafia, it seems established that death is the societal norm and the forgive-and-forget mentality is the exception. However, it seems that the killings can be classified into two categories, revenge and ‘survival.’ The retaliation killings of Sollozzo and McCluskey are “rationalized” because they made multiple attempts on the life of Vito Corleone, which have only failed because of chance. The killing of Paulie is because he had sold out to Sollozzo. However, an area that seems to be unclassifiable is the massacre Micheal orders on the heads of the five families. Are they killed because he does not trust their truce? Or has Micheal made a strategic move eliminating more established rivals while the Corleone family deals with the loss of Vito? However, this “eye for an eye” type of revenge, or “justice”, is not one that leads to an eventual peace, because there will always be a grieving family. The only way to end a killing war like that is to call for peace, like Vito does. So the killings become the problem as opposed to the means to get to a ‘solution.’
ReplyDeleteIf laws are unjust, we are told to rally, to petetion and peacefully protest. However, political action comes slowly if at all by this method. It seems easier to take care of problems in other, more immediate actions in a small area as opposed to trying to get rid of a law. The ‘benefits’ of violence can be tempting to a struggling group. In a situation where the law is unjust and harmful, it may seem like the only option that is available. However, there are policies enforced by the government that are unjust that exist today- like the wage gap between men and women- that are regularly cited in arguments. The ‘closing of the gap’ is taking years, and requiring patience. Obviously, all women everywhere cannot apply to a mafia boss for help, but we see in The Godfather characters taking on issues, like immigration policies which could be arguably unjust, on smaller scales. In these close proximity cases, violence works fast and surely. But when a society is trying to change a law on a bigger scale, more unreliable, slower methods must be used. I think that the way people are ‘revolting’ to unjust laws in modern times is by calling attention to the slow moving political change of these issues to try to speed them.
I find it difficult to say murder is ever justified. Maybe understandable or explainable, but not justified. "Justified" murder is still murder -- somebody is taking the life of another human being. That said, the Corleones are hardly in a position to take the high road. If Michael didn't kill the other heads of the five families, they'd eventually kill him or his family. But murdering the five heads was based on that assumption, which does not seem to justify the act in my opinion. I don't believe acting on revenge for something that actually happened is any more justifiable. That only leads to a never-ending cycle of murder and vengeance. Furthermore, Michael's call for mass murder goes beyond protecting his family. He is clearly trying to make a point and to assert his power. I can't see Vito doing something as vicious. Rather, Vito tries to salvage peace among the five families and promised not to be the one to break that peace. Vito appears to struggle when deciding to kill somebody, and he won't kill somebody who doesn't deserve it (like the undertaker's request to get back at the man who abused his daughter). It appeared to me as though Michael let go of much of his father's desire to "justify" murder when he proactively murdered the heads of the five families.
ReplyDeleteLaws are put in place for a reason. I tend to believe that rules are meant to be followed more than they are meant to be broken. I probably sound rather straight-laced, but laws are generally there for a good reason. They prevent chaos. Of course, there are circumstances in which citizens must take action. When a law disproportionately disadvantages a certain group of people, it is unjust and should be changed. In that case, Americans have not only a right, but a responsibility to see such a change through (kudos to John Locke). However, the laws which the mafia break are not very disputable in terms of sensibility or justness -- murder should definitely be illegal. The Corleones rebel against unfair law enforcement (rather than actual legislation) that discriminates against foreigners like themselves. The Corleones don't try to change the corrupt law enforcement, but instead try to get around it by challenging it with brute force. That's like if somebody were to purposefully break an unjust law rather than to attempt to change it.
As stated in our first class discussion, justifying something as severe and violent as murder depends on the circumstances surrounding the event. In "The Godfather," the movie forces its audience to sympathize with the mafia. As the viewer becomes attached to the characters, it also becomes easier to justify their actions. Murder, however, is often hard to justify. The murder of Carlo feels justified for a number of reasons. First of all, Carlo brutally beat his wife, who was also Michael's sister. Sonny's execution was also orchestrated by Carlo. Due to the circumstances surrounding the murder, it is justified. Not all of the family's actions are necessarily justified. Toward the end of the movie, Michael orders the execution of all the other heads of families. These families had been fighting for years, and many members of Michael's family were likely killed in their hands. However, Michael killed the other heads of families for the sake of progressing his family. The motive behind the killings makes it much harder to justify the action. One of the heads of the families attempted to kill Vito early in the movie. After Vito recovered, he chose to forgive them and move on from the attack. This shows that Vito could take action and seek vengeance by killing the heads of families. However, he sees that as being unjust. Perhaps Michael's choice isn't justified. Another example of justifying murder appears early in the movie. According to the man standing in front of Vito, two men attacked his daughter. When he went to the police, they did nothing. Now, the man wants Vito to kill the two men who attacked his daughter. Vito tells the man he won't kill the men because the daughter is still alive. This is very similar to Vito's decision not to seek vengeance after being shot. Since Vito survived, it would not be just to murder his attackers.
ReplyDeleteRevolting against laws or government can be justified. Just like the murder scenario, rebelling is justifiable depending on the circumstances around the event. If the laws or government are corrupt, revolution is just. In the movie, McClusky represents the corruption in the government. When Michael goes to the hospital to protect Vito from attackers, McClusky tries to force Michael to leave. McClusky first uses his authority to arrest Michael. When that fails, McClusky resorts to violence, punching Michael in the face. In this scenario, the system of justice is corrupt. This would therefor justify a revolt against the institution.
We talked about this (a bit) in class today. As John had written on the board, in case of the Corleones there are two types of "family"-blood family, and the business, an outer family. In my opinion (as other people have said today), the killings that occurred in order to maintain and protect his direct family were justified. (I won't be able to use references in the first half, as I STILL haven't watched that part) By that I mean the murder of Carlo, who was directly tied to the loss of Santino, Michael's brother. For that reason, Michael was justified and would ideally (hypothetically) not get flak for it, other than the blatant act of taking one's life. The slaughter of the five heads was also justified I think. Not really justified, but rationalized, as you were able to differentiate the two terms. Though murder is never a recommended method of going about your problems, in a world where committing illegal acts are the norm and family is even more important, murder is your best bet.
ReplyDeleteWhen is it exactly OK for someone or some group to disregard and to revolt against laws that many do find corrupt and that clearly discriminate against certain individuals and groups?
You just answered the question in your posed question. When the majority of the population finds that a law is corrupt and that it discriminates against a certain race. Obviously, that leaves room for the majority to get it wrong, but this is what I think.