Ethical Analysis of the Shawshank Community

Once I got over how young Morgan Freeman looked in the film, for the first time ever I put on my TOK hat while watching a movie, and flipped the switch over to its new “ethics” setting I recently installed. Still, my hat had a very hard time trying to filter out only the ethical issues in the movie – many interesting chunks from other areas such as sociology and psychology kept getting caught in the filter within it. Perhaps I did a poor job installing “ethics” into it. But this is what I can say:

The viewer is introduced to a hostile and extremely intimidating environment known as Shawshank Prison. As we become familiar with the facility through the experiences of Andy Dufresne, “fresh fish” in prison convicted for murder, we discover the largely immoral community within its walls. Harassment, oppression, tyranny, beatings, murder, and rape are all prevalent in the prison – both from officers and convicts. What we also see is a hierarchy of power within the community: Warden Norton at the very top, followed by the officers led by Captain Byron Hadley, who are followed by the prisoners who have a hierarchy within themselves – the “Sisters” being one of the most powerful groups, and the “fresh fish” the lowest class. Most interestingly however, is how these factions use the power they possess.

What I seemed to find is that almost flawlessly, individuals with greater power were less morally principled in our conventional way of thinking – almost as if both were inversely proportional variables. Warden Norton laundered money, arranged murders, locked inmates into solitary confinement for extreme periods of time (two months), lied, and essentially promoted slave labor all for his own benefit. Officers murdered, beat inmates to the point of paralysis, and followed the Warden’s orders. The Sisters raped. Inmates harassed each other. All of these actions were carried without consequences throughout most of the film. This gives the appearance that with power certain actions become justified in Shawshank. Perhaps this sounds unethical in our society – or “the outside” as the inmates call it – but it appears to be a universal law inside Shawshank that almost all individuals within it abide by: if you have the power to do it, you may do it. It may seem difficult for us to grasp, but it seems to be their ethical code.

The relationship of power and immorality appears to be largely universal, applying to everyone except one character: Dufresne. Dufresne, with or without intent, becomes a very influential individual in Shawshank – within the culture of the prison, he is a very eccentric man. In the beginning, when he had no power, he put himself at the risk of death by confronting the officers to earn a pack of beer for men he hardly knew. Red, the second protagonist, reflects on why he would do this:

“You could argue that he’d done it to curry favor with the guards. Or maybe make a few friends among us cons. Me, I think he did it just to feel normal again.”

Perhaps to “feel normal” is to feel the feeling after having done something selflessly – something the inmates had long forgotten how to do. More remarkably is how Dufresne manages to maintain this ethical principle of doing for others even as he gains influence and power in Shawshank. As he climbs the rungs of the hierarchy, becoming the Warden’s personal banker, the officers’ financial advisor, and representative for the inmates, he gains access to precious resources – such as the officers’ respect, the convicts’ respect, the Warden’s acquaintance, and letters he could mail out. But he does not use his power maliciously – instead, he builds a library for the inmates, provides education to convicts who wish to finish their high school diploma, plays classical opera throughout the prison, or rids Shawshank of the Sisters. I doubt that many would use this kind of power for the same things Dufresne spent his on. However, there was personal gain involved for Dufresne that came with his power. For example, after being the victim of the Sisters many times, the officers, who cared enough for Dufresne, beat the Sisters’ leader so severely he had to be relocated; also, Dufresne was excused from hard labor and was given a more privileged cell. Are these advantages gained due to power ethically different from the advantages gained by other characters through their level of power? Also, to a less ethical level, Dufresne directly used his power to gain a personal advantage. While he organized the banking documents involving the Warden’s money laundering, he was saving some of the profits for himself for when he was set free. It seems unethical, but I believe this is different from the abuse of power of other characters in the film. Many of the examples of abuse of power were benefits for individuals at the expense of others. I agree it may be said Dufresne was benefiting at the expense of the Warden, but seeing that the Warden’s expense is actually not actually his, this can give rise to an interesting question: is it more ethically correct to take something from someone that is not theirs?

What I also noticed in the film was that there was still a conventional sense of morality within the rape and murder of Shawshank. It was interesting to notice how characters took very seriously to favors done for them, and honorably returning those favors. So despite the environment of machismo and violence of Shawshank, the community does still abide to this conventional ethical code. As a small example: for getting beer for the inmates, the convicts gift to Dufresne soap rock and alabaster for him to carve into chess pieces. This in turn creates almost a cycle of favors: because Dufresne risks his life for beer for the inmates by trying to give Captain Hadley financial advice, he gains not only rocks to carve from convicts but also both officer and convict popularity, as a consequence of his popularity the officers remove the Sisters and instill Dufresne as a financial advisor and prison banker, with this new position Dufresne renovates the library gaining even more popularity, consequently receiving more gifts from convicts and tolerance from guards, which allows him to carry out his escape plan over the next twenty years. However, perhaps this isn’t the moral “return the favor” kind of situation we may be thinking of – very easily we can analyze these as actions aimed for self-utility. Perhaps the officers only removed the Sisters so that they could not harm Dufresne so that he could keep giving them financial support. Or that Warden Norton allowed only for the library to be built so that he had something to take away from Dufresne, as he said he would if Dufresne dared reveal his scams. Is it ethical, then, if an action appears superficially good, but is based on more selfish intents?

One of the greater mysteries for me is why convicts say, “everyone at Shawshank is innocent.” I believe it is a much deeper statement than a simple denial of responsibility for a crime. Perhaps what King, when writing the original novel, meant to say was that through the convicts’ suffering at the prison, they became innocent of their crimes and achieved redemption. If that is what is implied, is that an ethically correct claim? Can one’s suffering make up for another’s? When stated in this manner, it seems like the answer may be no for most people, as it seems comparable to the “eye for an eye” ideology many reject; but in reality, it is the prevalent doctrine nowadays that instilling suffering as a consequence for causing suffering, is justice.

There are so many other topics I would like to discuss about his movie, such as Dufresne’s UNBELIEVABLE dedication, the conflicting ideas of hope and submission, the re-installment of a convict into society... and I guess I have to apologize for some “chunks” concerning these subjects I was unable to filter in this discussion which may not be closely tied to ethics. I will have to re-watch the movie again with different filters set on my hat.