MovieChat Forums > Gone Baby Gone (2007) Discussion > There's No Moral Dilemma...

There's No Moral Dilemma...

posted 5 years ago by MavKilledGoose (859)
14 replies | jump to latest

People are looking at this from the wrong frame. They merely consider whether or not this girl would have a better life with her well-off kidnappers versus her absentee mother. That's a false choice. Even if THIS girl is better off with Freeman, the fact remains there are other children in need of stable homes who are left out of the equation. Freeman's character had legal options available to assist children in even worse circumstances. His abuse of power/corrupt actions undermined faith in law enforcement and harmed the greater community.

So, to recap: 1) He could have saved children in greater need of saving; 2) There's almost no risk of blowback since it would be perfectly legal (unlike this scheme, which always had the potential of unraveling).

Now, one could argue that for Affleck's character this is all a sort of sunk cost. He has to make a decision *at this point in time,* that is, *after* Freeman's suboptimal, immoral decision. However, by siding with the law, he discourages anyone inclined to miscalculate along Freeman's lines.

[–] GordonGartrelle (1267) 5 years ago

But so what about other kids needing stable home.

Freeman wanted to save this one.

[–] MavKilledGoose (859) 5 years ago

I want ten million dollars -- so what?

[–] Windsaar (324) 4 years ago

Soooo...I think that was their rebuttal to your post.
Unfortunately you couldn't grasp the reply ...and since your first argument made almost no sense and was borderline complete conjecture, you appear to have immediately devolved your already shaky side of the debate into a strawman.

"Freeman wanted to save this one".

"Yeah, and I want $10mil, so what?"

Lol What?
If you want $10mil, go make $10mil...like how when Freeman wanted to save the girl, he did.

[–] MavKilledGoose (859) 4 years ago

This is impressive in its ineptitude.

Freeman simply wanting this child is not an argument; it's an assertion. You've gone head-past-sphincter if you think he's offering a "rebuttal."

"and since your first argument made almost no sense and was borderline complete conjecture"

Silliness. There are children in every major city who are orphaned, molested, and so on. There are almost certainly other children available for saving. I don't know how you did it, but you managed to surpass Gordon in cluelessness.

"If you want $10mil, go make $10mil...like how when Freeman wanted to save the girl, he did."

Jesus. If you want to be at least a little consistent then you should say, "If you want ten million dollars, go steal it." We can also turn it around as per the OP: If Freeman wants to save a child, he can go save a child. He doesn't need to save THAT child. Just because somebody wants something does mean they're entitled to it. You have to generate a moral argument.

[–] BeaSouth (3282) 4 years ago

But your solution would only serve to add yet another child to the vast group of children lacking the safety and well being of stable homes that you describe. Your solution adds another vulnerable child to those “left out of the equation.”

[–] MavKilledGoose (859) 4 years ago

It's not framed as a solution; there's going to be suffering regardless. Freeman's actions are sub-optimal. In fact, they're probably, on the whole, downright bad. He has other options.

[–] Degree8 (0) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I totally agree.

You can't justify a police chief and lead investigator conspiring to kidnap a child, pin it on someone else and have them killed. Even if the mother is terrible and the framed kidnappers are drug dealers.

[–] PaladinNJ (21509) 4 years ago

Maybe legal adoption wasn't an option. He may have already been rejected by the system. You're talking about a couple who are both past middle age. Government Agencies set age limits to minimize the chances that an adopted child once again ends up as an orphan.

[–] MavKilledGoose (859) 4 years ago

Legal adoption *could* be an option, but you're right about age as a factor (as I recall, the Parkland shooter's mother had to use a shady, but legal agency since she was over 50 when she adopted; she died and homeboy flipped his lid). Nevertheless, as noted, Freeman had alternatives. If he insisted on an illegal route, he could set up a straw-adoption for less hassle (and downside).

[–] Esterhowse (468) 4 years ago

This is very good point.

[–] DrRed (536) 4 years ago

This is a totally outrageous allegation made by the OP.

There is no way in hell that Mav killed Goose.

Didnt you read the official navy report?

[–] MavKilledGoose (859) 4 years ago

That report was horeshit, and you know it! The Navy let this psychotic killer off the hook in order to boost recruitment.

[–] hootiehome (462) 4 years ago

Lolol