Remarkable man Essay Example for Free

Remarkable man EssayIn Oliver Stones 1987 plunk for Wall Street, the protagonist, Bud rag is faced with a series of ethical challenges. His actions in the beginning of the film would harbour pleased Nicolo Machiavelli, however, duns decisions at the films end would have greatly disappointed the Italian. On the other hand, blurs first actions would have disappointed henry David Thoreau, however, haves decisions at the end of the film would be more to Thoreaus liking. At the start of the film, dodger works as a stock broker, difficult to compete for big mens money. As long as he behaves ethically, the big fish wont give him a chance. Foxs first ethical decision, then, is whether it is worse to follow the law and remain poor, or to break the law, to make money that will help him and his family. Foxs decision to break the law and provide big-time capitalist Gordon Gekko with insider information would have been applauded by Machiavelli, who, in The Prince declared the follow ing It is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or non according to necessity. (Machiavelli 62)The decision is even more complicated, because the insider information Fox has to trade is or so his fathers own confederation. If Gekko buys stock in the ships company, it will help prop the company up, however, Foxs father would never approve of such an unethical deal. But If Gekko buys company stock, he is likely to do well. He and Fox will make a great deal of money, and Foxs status will go up accordingly. This is justification enough for Machiavelli, who states that the most important thing a prince can do is get himself the reputation of organism a great and remarkable man. (Machiavelli 86) Gekko does, indeed profit from Foxs information. Foxs wealth and reputation skyrocket. Fox is even able to betrothal the interior designer he is interested in. All is well, until Fox is presented with another question of ethics. Gekkko begins making changes to his fathers company that the company does not appreciate. Fox must decide whether he ought to go along with Gekkos plan and backstab his father, or to support his father and drop off the perks of his relationship with Gekko. If he works against Gekko, he will lose his sources of income.He will also lose his girlfriend, who is a former girlfriend of Gekko and has had her career fostered by the tycoon. He will also lose the contacts he has made through Gekko. If Fox does go along with Gekko, he will probably continue to live richly. He will enjoy the company of his girlfriend. On the other hand, he will let his own father be ruined. He will destroy his fathers company and he will let down his family. He will be compelled to continuously break the law and he will risk prosecution with every step. Henry David Thoreau would object to this decision, because it would mean treating other men unjustly.Machiavelli, on the other hand, would heartily approve of Foxs de cision to break his fathers company. Indeed, Machiavelli praises the pattern of destroying ones enemies in order to secure ones position (Machiavelli). Foxs father has a heart attack, and this seems to turn Fox around. Instead of allowing his fathers company to be ruined, he works with one of Gekkos competitors to drive the stock down until Gekko transfers. The competitor agrees not to sell off parts of the company, and so rescues Foxs father and his counterparts from ruin. The move also allows Fox to break free of Gekkos grip.Yet, it involves more insider trading and umbrage. This, Thoreau would have praised. Indeed, in his Civil Disobedience, Thoreau speaks against following unjust laws and recommends that laws that further injustice be transgressed. (Thoreau 12) Thoreau, then, would happily have broken the law to bring justice to Gekko. While Fox could sit by and hope that someone else could make things right, Thoreau urges men not to sit idly by. At the film wraps up, Fox re scues his fathers company from ruin, but he lands himself in jail for insider trading.This is a move that would have shamed Machiavelli. For the Italian, a prince showing weakness is a very bad thing. Machiavelli does not believe in sacrificing oneself for others. While Foxs move to save his fathers company seems virtuous, Machiavelli warns that things that seem like virtue are a great deal ruin him (Machiavelli). This is certainly the case with Foxs decision. Yet Thoreau would likely have done the exact same thing. Indeed, Thoreau went to prison, rather than paying taxes which he mat up he ought not pay (Thoreau).Foxs move, then, although it put him behind bars for a time, is exactly the kind of action Thoreau would applaud. Although I would hope that I would not make Foxs original decision to get ahead by breaking the law, I might, having already broken the law, use law-breaking to bring justice to a man like Gekko. Though, following the law does seem like a safer course of acti on.Works CitedMachiavelli, Nicolo. The Prince. Hazelton Penn State University, 2001. Thoreau, Henry D. On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. Hazelton Penn State University, 1998.