1.  What was the ethical dilemma faced by Ned's friends?  Explain, in your opinion, the situational ethics displayed in the movie and give 5 scenes or situations that best illustrate ethical dilemmas and define situational ethics in each of the 5 scenes. 

Jackie & Michael had many ethical dilemmas.  The primary one was whether or not to hide Ned’s death and proceed with impersonating Ned to collect the lottery winnings.  Although they mentioned not making this particular choice, they never really showed action of not pursuing this deception.

One illustration of an ethical dilemma occurred when they first found out someone in their town won the lotto.  They decided to try and charm their way into a portion of the lotto monies by “buying” for a closer friendship with anyone that might have been the winner.  Once they determine someone was not the winner, they moved on quickly.  They were dishonest with their intent when they invited folks over for the chicken dinner, etc.

Another instance was when Annie & Jackie figured out that Ned was the winner.  Jackie then went to Ned’s home and found him dead.  He had to decide whether or not to call the authorities and notify them of Ned’s death.  If he did, he and Michael would not get any of the money.  If he concealed Ned’s death, he and Michael could pursue their deception.  The situational ethics here were honesty versus selfishness.

The ethical dilemmas continued as the two actually called the lotto to claim they had the winning ticket and pretended to be Ned.  Jackie interpreted a dream he had as being Ned’s blessing for them to claim the money.  He justified this decision and Michael blindly went along with the scam.  At that time, they both made the decision to lie and move forward risking incarceration.  The situational ethics here marked the point of no return.

When Jim arrived to verify “Ned” as the winner, he stopped at the beach where Jackie & Michael were.  They did not realize who he was until Jackie identified himself.  Once he did that he no longer could be the one to pretend to be Ned.  Immediately the dynamic duo switched roles and Michael knew he had to be the new “Ned.”  Here the situational ethics were to admit their fraud or proceed with it.

When Jim stated he would return to the village to verify with the townspeople that Michael was actually “Ned,” they had to either give up on the scheme and face jail or involve the village.  They did not want jail obviously, so they made the decision to let the townspeople in on their plan thus forcing them to share the money.  Once the townspeople knew, it had to be all or nothing.  If even one of them refused to cooperate, the whole thing was sabotaged.  Each of them had to make a decision on this ethical situational dilemma.  All but one chose to be coconspirators.

Once the village knew that the real Ned was dead, they made a good ethical decision and held a respectful funeral for their friend.  This good intention quickly became more of a deception when Jim arrived as Jackie was giving the eulogy that was supposed to be for Ned.  He acted in this situational dilemma as if Ned was his friend Michael and spoke of him as he really felt about Michael.  When all the time Michael sat and listened to this and the townspeople went along with the deception.   They stuck with their greater good theme even at the departed Ned’s funeral.

2. I found myself booing or cheering for several of the cast...who were the good guys or bad guys in this movie for you?  State three good and 3 bad that emerge in this movie and tell me why this is so (6 total).

I am torn about Jackie’s character as to whether he was purely good or bad.  His initial intensions were selfish and bad, but once the townspeople got involved, he saw that not only had he become obligated due to circumstances, but that he needed to share the fortune as his departed friend Ned would have done.  The entire deception plot was morally bad, but the overall good portrayed to come to the village was seen as good.

Good guys: I believe Ned was portrayed as the ultimate good guy.  By the way everyone spoke of Ned he was a giving and loving man.  Even though it may have been out of greed, all of the townspeople spoke highly of Ned.  All of them believe or at least made themselves believe that Ned would rather the village share his reward than let it go unclaimed due to his death.

Finn was also a good guy for me in this movie.  He so loved Maggie, but his lifestyle as a pig farmer was too much for Maggie.  She claimed it was the smell, but I wondered if was just because he was not affluent.  Finn was willing to do whatever it took to have Maggie as his wife and he wanted to be Maurice’s father.  He was not even sure he was the father and Maggie never told him otherwise.   He lived to love Maggie.

Maggie herself was seen as a good yet bad gal for me because throughout the entire movie once it was revealed to the village that Ned was the winner, she knew Maurice was the real heir to the lotto money.  But, she allowed the greater good of the village to prevail while she also kept the paternity of Maurice a secret.  I am not sure why she would not want anyone to know who Maurice’s real father was except to allow Finn to think he was since he wanted to be so badly.  It could be because Ned appeared to be quite a bit older than Maggie’s character and maybe that was an unacceptable relationship.  In the light of her being bad, she could have claimed the entire winnings for Maurice which could have had good or bad consequences.  By the time Maggie was made aware of Ned’s death along with the other townspeople, if she admitted Ned was the father of Maurice, the town could have turned against her.  Her entire storyline could be considered an ethical dilemma for question 1.

Bad guys:

The townspeople saw Lizzie as a bad guy.  Her intentions were selfish.  She tried to work the situation to her advantage.  Her bitter character was not well received in the first place by the people.  Her plan was to essentially rat out the whole village so she could personally gain more money than she would have had she gone along with the original plan.  She figured by reporting their fraud, she would get more money.  Ironically, as she tries to make it to the phone booth to contact the lottery about the fraud, the Priest mentioned throughout the movie as being gone returns.  In a strange turn of events he and Jim nearly wreck and swerve knocking the phone booth along with Lizzie out off of the cliff.  The parallel of this scene along with the scene of the townspeople celebrating at Fitzgerald’s is ironic.  Even the music plays in accordance with Lizzie’s failing efforts.

Pat is one of the antagonists.  His main goal is to “obtain” Maggie.  He does not show any real affection to her that is genuine.  He is simply trying to buy her and persuade her father that this is a good idea.  He is also engaged in making Finn look like a fool.  He tries to convince Maggie’s father that Finn is not capable of caring for Maggie and Maurice.  I saw no good will or intentions in this character.

If one took the perspective that the whole deceptive plan was of greater benefit than the truth, then it could be said that Jim from the lotto was bad.  He was the one who had to go through the tedious process of verifying all of the “false” information and at anytime could have discovered the whole thing was a cover up.  If this had happened, the entire town would have been in turmoil.  He could have quickly turned into the ultimate bad guy for this village once almost everyone was on board with the scheme.

3.  Was the welfare of the community worth the 'sin' or illegal activity in the movie?  Explain why.

This too is a moral issue.  The whole situation was based on a lie and therefore it was not honest or moral.  This in and of itself makes this wrong, and as mentioned “sin[ful]”.  It appears as though everyone in the village was willing to overlook the actual sin if the result was what they considered to be positive and that was how they viewed the massive amount of money they were going to get to split.

So it depends on if the opinion is based on solid conservative morals versus temporal monetary value.  Although I am sure that Ned would have shared just as the village said he would and the village ended up doing, they did so for selfish reasons and only mourned the Ned’s life at the brief funeral that became a lie too when Jim showed up.  Were they truly thinking of what Ned would have wanted or just themselves?  Although it was good to see the community come together for a common cause, it would have been better if the cause were not fraudulent.