Vito Corleone: Hypocrite or Warped Moralist?
Offline I was discussing Mafia movies, or more specifically, why he does not like them. One of the key reasons why he disliked them was because of their hypocritical (in some cases I would agree) attitudes towards the various acts they commit. For example, he feels its hypocritical of them to feel morally justified in killing others just as long as they don't kill women or children. IN this case, I would agree since, either way, you are killer. You don't get brownie points or a meret badge for only killing a certain group of individuals while letting another group live. The one cinematic moment we disagreed upon though was how to interpret Vito Corleones refusal to endorse the selling of drugs. He felt that, like the not killing children maxim, it was hypocritical since selling drugs and killing someone are equally horrible actions. I, however, disagree. I believe that selling drugs is more horrible than killing someone. The main reason being, when you kill someone, thats it, its over, there is no dealing with that person anymore and if you kill the person quickly, not much suffering. However, if you sell someone drugs, not only would they get hooked on drugs but, the drug business thrives on people getting hooked. This means that the drug business, unlike the killing business, requires that you actually promote and encourage perpetual suffering upon your clients whom you claim to serve. At least with killing someone, there is a bit more honesty or a moment of truth where your target realizes "he was going to kill me all along". In the drug business, on the other hand, you are almost entailed to get your clients hooked to the point that they view you as their savior since you can provide them with their next fix and the last thing you want is for them to either a) die or b) lose their trust in you since if any of those two things occur, you lose business. Of course option b) would rarely happen since your clients would be so hooked that even if they wanted to to tell you "Fuckl off I don't need it" they know it is ultimatley a lie since they have become dependant on the drugs. So, based on that, I would maintain that Vito Corleone is not being hypocritical when he endorses the killing of others but not selling drugs since, in the film, it is strongly suggested that it was for the very reasons just described that he did not want to get involved in the drug business (that and he felt that all the hook-ups in the government that e=he had would be lost since they would not want to be invovled with drugs either). However, I will concede that if we are to suppose this is a form of morality, it is a little warped since he, in most cases, justifies the killings as being for the sake of business (of course, anyone who has seen the first film knows that he also does so for moral reasons as well). Nevertheless, he did hold true to them knowing full well that by doing so he, essentially, put a bigger target on his head which is what moralists, at least claim to believe about themselves.
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
- Login to post comments
Well even murders for mafia is an last resort. They kill only when theres no other choice, or someone is bad for business.
This would sound bad and I don't want to sound like a baby-eating atheist, but i have to say:
I think that revenge is of highest moral value. And I would go and kill anyone who touches me or my family.
I think everyone is OK with killing for self defence or justice(if the government fails). It's the the 'someone is bad for business' part that people have a problem. Killing the competition is OK? This is why there needs to be a clear contract with society for anyone that goes into business. The mafia goes into business outside the law, so the competitors, business associates and customers are all criminals. So they should expects some bad things from these people.
When Vito's sons were killed I tried to have sympathy for him, but I could not. He knew they kind of business he was getting into. He could have decided to be content with less money in an honest business, but easy money was more important to him.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Well "someone is bad for business" part means other mafia familys, they are criminals too, so I don't see anything wrong about that.
No matter what, "The Godfather" is probably one of the best movies ever
It was not Vito Corleone who sought vengeance for the killings or even the attempt on his life. It was Michael and Sonny who were pushing for Vito to respond with violence. In fact, in the opening scene he openly expressed his, alomst, moral indignation of being asked to kill someone on his daughter's wedding day and he only did so out an obligation to grant any single request to any single individual. Furthermore, he, much more so than Michael, valued his family more than the business and made it clear that Michael should do the same.
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
Whats the difference between killing someone and putting hundreds of people out of work? Or taking a small business away from its owners? The "legit" business world is not anymore legit then the criminal one, they can just fenaggle the system more ffectively becuase "At least we aren't killing people". THe criminals are just more honest and direct about what they want, namely, for you not the be there.
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
I see nothing hypocritical in it...
but a personal moral code is what seperates Lawful Evil from Chaotic Evil (to use DnD)
so just be glad a global organized crime syndicate HAS rules that it follows...
What Would Kharn Do?
The mafia code presented in the movies is partially hypocritical and partially warped moralistic code. The idea that killing a man is fine but a woman and child isn't is correct for the old Italian mafia (these days russian, columbian, chinese mafia kill women and children alike as well but the reasoning behind it is a different topic). The old mafia types believed in the code deeply, so deeply that on mothers day no one could get wacked, it was completely out of the question. Even so, the idea of introducing drugs to the operation took decades because many of them saw it as a blight on society, and even though they were not exactly johnny do gooders they weren't about to be part of that blight. Now with that said, they eventually got into it as the older heads of the family died off (eventually money talks and bullshit walks right). The old dons came from time of protection money, racketeering and gambling, and if you need to kill someone it was men because they usually worked for the mafia or were not paying their tribute to the mafia (mainly because that time, women weren't exactly committing all these crimes and weren't involved in it, as well because most women were house wives not in the work force). As such it maybe warped but it worked in those times because of the views of society in that time as well.
However these days it is a different world, drugs are part of the mafia, killing women and children are part of it as well (making sure everyone's hands are dirty that are involved so that no one can just run to the cops)
So you would agree that Vito Corleone is a Warped Moralist as opposed to a hypocrite?
Well, yeah the modern mafia are bunch of douches and assholes whom are more than likely drugged up. Isn't it interesting how the introduction of drugs played a major part in the downfall of the Mafia heydays? The Old Mafia Dons weren't just being stubborn, they were actually hitting on a very subtle, yet, fundemental moral note.
This is nothing new. Even Vito Corleone bought off police and the aforementioned polticial officials. I really have no moral justification for this on his part. Its just good business to have "friends" in high places or dressed in blue.
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
fyi mafia listeners, i am available for employement, ill even whack Dogbutt here for free...
(oh you sick fucks
)
What Would Kharn Do?
Murder is worse.
Well the old don's wouldn't allow women or children to be killed because they found it dispecable to do, however these days with the amount of drugs that are being sold, the idea of don't kill women or children is out and many the new mafia actually make it a habit to kill of the children and wife/girlfriend of a rival because it makes it easier that those doing the killings won't turn on them because now their hands are dirty with the killing of chidlren and women, because in most societies (actually i think they are all on agreement on this one) the killing of a child is one of the worse things you can do. Now buying off cops, politicians etc, is as old as civilization. But I figure the main reason for no drugs policy was mainly because many of them were family men and there where huge family ties, and the idea of destroying a family through drugs didn't appeal to them, as well the break down of society and the addiction, in which crime rates would increase did not appeal to them as i would probably hurt their racketeering and protection business. If you can control the crime in an area you can make sure you have money coming all the time, however if you have addicts causing crime, well you don't have control of the crime then, because as we all know, addicts aren't exactly rational, controllable people when their craving kicks in. However the new mafias aren't really concerned with protection money, they make more than enough money from the drugs.
Get in line Doomstick.
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
The issue now, in regards to children, is that there might be a harsher penalty for killing children as opposed to killing adults. Nevertheless, you are correct, it is easier to kill people close to rivals than the rivals themselves, also, it will make you feared which. in their world, is just as good as being respected . . . . until they get killed by someone crazier than they are.
I will have to agree.
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
How so?
I am going to disagree, in regards to the old mafia rules (not the new ones) and the reason I disagree with you is that murder although not a good thing, was usually kept to those not paying or those of other mafia families. Now with that said, the general public was ususally not caught in the middle of it all. The murders were usually with in those within or involve in that community (italians/polish/irish) generally speaking of course. Now with drugs it can and has been far worse effects, again you can control crime if it involves racketeering/protection money and generally those types of crimes. However the introduction of drugs gives an unknown factor, mainly drug related crimes, and addicts don't care about rules or what background of the people they are committing crimes against. Because again, once the craving kicks in all they care about is getting the next high, and to do that you need money and some of them will resort to any type of crime to get it, as such this is far worse over time than simply killing a guy involved in all of this.
When someone's dead, they're dead. When someone's alive, even if that someone is addicted to some drug, they're still alive and the addiction is not necessarily the end of their life and regardless of what they might do, save something as horrible as killing a person or the equivalent, they still don't deserve death. I don't even know that within the context you're talking about that it's actually more moral to have killed a person than to lead them to a life of drugs. If you're talking about cost effectiveness and saving time for the mafia, killing the person may have been cheaper at some point in time(?). In my books selling drugs does not equate with murder, but considering the culture of drugs in the US, I wouldn't call it moral either. I disagree with every single drug law enforced in my country and the type of things that occur now would arguably be negated if the substances were controlled instead of prohibited. Drugs aren't bad, m'kay?
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I have to say the War on Drugs propaganda has gone pretty far when someone can actually suggest with a straight face that it might be better to murder someone than to sell them drugs. I have bought a lot of drugs from a lot of people and I, for one, am quite glad that they didn't murder me instead.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Again, my concern was with the drug business depends on, namely, to keep people addicted, thus, the drug business relies on the perpetual suffering of individuals. Even if a former addict gets rehab, it doesn;t change the fact that the drug business relies on getting other people addicted and keeping them in a perpetual state of suffering. Killing someone is usually, and literally sometimes, a one shot deal and does not require or necesitate perpetual suffering.
The mafia was not into sellin ectacy, marijuana joints and LSD but the hard stuff like heroine and cocaine. So in what context are these drugs "not bad m'kay"?
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
In the context that drugs can be used responsibly and that prohibition is what makes the drugs more dangerous, not the drugs themselves. Drugs really aren't the problem, the way drugs are treated is the problem.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Heroin can be used responsibly without addiction? umm no, no it can't, same with Meth, another drug that has been shown to be addictive and there is no way to use it responsibly without getting addicted. Cocaine some people can use it without getting addicted, some. Now weed, hash, have no addictive qualities, but organized crime isn't about using this responsibly now are they, they are about getting people addicted to the drugs so that they have reoccuring revenue. They don't care about the cost of human life and the break down of society because of it. Plus the laws against drugs, well I agree and disagree with them, certain soft drugs can be used with harm to society, marijuana and hash for example, however harder drugs such as heroin and meth that actually change your brain chemistry and cause a physical addiction, well sorry there no responsible way to use them, since the usuage done to abuse the drug to cause the high, and because of such abuse.
So provide the context for responsible cocaine or heroine use.
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
Actually only for medical usage and in prescribed dosages can it be used safely and it is done...only under regulated use....which is legal, however the drug laws of most countries, including those of the US, UK and Canada for example outlaw the usage of the drug outside of the medical field because of it's addictive qualities, heroine being addictive in as little as 3 days of continous usage. However to show how this became known we have to go back as far as 1898 when Bayer marketed the drug as a non addictive substitute for morphine (oh how wrong they were) and cough medicine for children (got to love the testing on this drug back in the days before introducing it to the public), however it was found that heroine metabolized in the liver and became morphine. Of course they didn't figure this out until 1910....an embarrassing footnote in history for bayer.
Although you did provide a context, it does kinda side-step my point about the drug dealing business and what it requires of the person selling the drug. If you remember, my whole point is that the seller of drugs needs to get the clients addicted, meaning, that the drug dealer encourages irresponsible use of the drug, which often involves continiuous lying or bullshitting to get new customers. Hit men, on the other hand, usually do not know the poeple they are killing and do not have to keep the bullshit or lying going since, once they kill the person, there is no need for it. So, drug dealers are, at least, the twice amount of scumbag since they have to keep the lie or bullshit going continuously to keep their clients (thats the other thing, Drug dealers do not, necessarily want their clients to die; just to get them addicted so they keep coming back). I fail to see how providing a medical usage of the stuff gets the drug dealers on better moral ground than hitmen. Thats like appealing to cases in which assisted suicide or euthinasia is the better moral decesion to defend the actions of hitmen. Clearly what hitmen do is radically different than what a docter who recommends euthenasia does, simimarly, a docter who perscribes cocaine or heroine to a patient is aradically a different than a drug dealer getting a client hooked.
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
I'm pretty sure everyone has missed my point. If drugs were not illegal, there would be no illegal drug trade, or at least it would be negligible. The government would provide the safe context in which to use drugs. Even highly addictive drugs can be used safely and just because a drug is highly addictive does not mean that a person will become addicted and just because a drug is legal does not mean that there would be more addicts (actually it means the exact opposite). A controlled substance is safer than an uncontrolled substance. The ready proof of this is in the United States where an entirely ineffective, multi-billion dollar a year War on Drugs is being 'waged'. The drug trade within the United States is easily more than the thirty billion annually spent fighting. The War on Drugs actually drives up the value of drugs, increases their proliferation and the demand. Drug use in the U.S. continues to go up. Deaths attributed to the drugs themselves (overdoses, drug mixing) are relatively low (one thousand five hundred for heroine, I believe and a zero (O) for marijuana), it's the secondary effects of drug use that are killing people, namely, the fact that they are illegal, uncontrolled and that people often have to use in unsafe environments with unsafe tools.
In the context of this discussion, yes drugs are bad, but in and of themselves they are not and I find it doubtful that you will be able to convince me that murder would be moral as opposed to starting an addiction. I'm in no way condoning the actions of the drug dealers or of the junkies, but to say that people would be better of dead is just sick. Drugs are in no way a death sentence (you need only look at the number of deaths per year for any drug to know that), the fact that they are illegal, however, means that drugs guarantee people are criminals and are involved in criminal activities.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Sure there's corruption in government that allow "legit" businesses get away with bad practices. But we have to strive to be a society of laws and contracts. Fix the corruption problems, anarchy is not the solution.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Do you know what the average addiction rate to heroin is? One in four. That's right, three people out of four can use heroin without getting addicted to it at all. Not that I like those odds, but it is a far cry from the certain death sentence that the drug warlords want us to think it is.
Yes, meth is even more addictive. Interestingly, as this fact is becoming better known among young people, meth use is trailing off across the country quite independent of any action by the drug warriors.
Actually, almost all. And cocaine is a lot easier to kick than heroin or meth, not even in the same category, really.
If you think about what you have written here, you will agree with me that addiction is not really the problem, the violence and chaos associated with the drug trade is. From there, you have to ask yourself why organized crime controls the drug trade. Um, maybe because the drug trade is illegal, yet enjoys a huge demand? Drugs are illegal, therefore only criminals sell drugs.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Wait... i thought it was 1 in 4... EVERY TIME that it is used o_O damn propaganda! i could have used a second hit of heroin for along time now...
What Would Kharn Do?
Ahhh, k. Although I would agree this is a stronger point than the one I incorrectly interpreted from your earlier post it is still side-stepping the question, or at least, adding a condition (or a few) that was part of the original question. Granted, if hard substances like cocaine and heroine were made legal, thus heavily regulated and inspected, it has the potential to remove the appeal away from such drugs or at least take a lot of business away from the illegal drug dealers since they would not be able to make, or can be forced to maintain, a garuntee on their product. However, the question presupposes the situation we are in right now in which such drugs are addictive which is the situation Vito Corleone was in in the context of the film. My point being, based on your responses, you too would agree that Vito is not being hypocritical but a warped Moralist since Vito was against the unregulated selling of such substances since he understood what it would lead too and clearly killing for business did not lead to such consequences since the mafia has practiced that long before he was ever a Don, in fact it is how be became one more or less (of course there was also a moral angle to him killing the man in the white suit as well).
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
The Mafia is, or was, a society of laws, or codes, and contracts and did pretty well until drugs entered the picture.
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
Umm... yes, in so many words.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."