In the future, in a scenario where a special police unit has the capability to apprehend murderers before they commit their crimes, a police officer from that unit is accused of a future homicide.
Minority Report - Cover
Welcome to the analysis of the movie Minority Report through the prism of the
, watching the actual movie is also necessary for understanding this analysis.The motivation for this analysis is not found in the mere deconstruction of the artistic work into moral components and an overview of their interconnectedness, but in the desire to encourage the reader to reassess their perspectives while watching movies in general. This involves placing oneself in the shoes of each character in different situations and contemplating how one would act in their place. The usual process of identifying with characters is sequential, where we identify with one character within a single scene. However, the author here calls for a different method of identification with characters. It involves a process we will refer to as parallel identification. This is a mental process in which we imagine that all characters in the movie are parts of one spiritual being. When considering their actions, we approach the issue by asking what each character should do so that the being as a whole remains free and does not become a victim of violence.
Phenomenons
Precrime
Precrime is a crime that will occur in the future. The underlying philosophy of the Precrime Department is that if we could predict a future crime with hundred percent certainty, we could not only prevent the crime but it would also be right to arrest the perpetrator before the act occurs. Additionally, it would be right to punish the perpetrator with the penalty for a crime committed in the future, not just for the attempt of it. Now, we will dissect and analyze each part of this philosophy one by one.
Precrime Advertisement
The first thing that catches the eye is the theory that one can predict and prevent an event with one hundred percent certainty. Although this question is not of a moral nature, it pertains to the fundamental functioning of reality that serves as the foundation for all other actions and the philosophy of the Precrime Division as presented in the film. According to all known principles, this theory undermines the law of causality, and we can easily reduce it to a contradiction in the following manner.Premise 1: If we can predict that event X will occur AND
Premise 2: If we can prevent event X that we predicted
Conclusion: It follows that event X may not occurWe can see that the conclusion is in contradiction with Premise 1.Any justification for the use of force against someone that is based on a logical fallacy would be invalid. In the absence of another valid justification, we would be immoral by using force against that person.The only way to avoid a contradiction, without modifying the philosophy, would be if those preventing the crimes were somehow separate from this universe, which is not the case here. The best assumption in favor of this philosophy could be that the mechanism predicting these events in time can exclude supposed saviors from its calculations. However, this would mean that the predictive model would be different from reality, and predictions would not be made with definitive certainty.
Precrime ballAlthough the previous discussion could conclude the analysis, let's make a modification to the philosophy to leave room for further examination. Let the prediction be very probable instead of certain. In that case, monitoring the potential victim and perpetrator to prevent harm would be justified. However, precisely because absolute certainty is not guaranteed, using force on individuals whom are innocent at that moment would still not be right.An additional detail is that arresting the perpetrator attempting the crime, such as murder, for an actual future murder, instead of an attempted murder, is incorrect.Given the immorality of using force for defense before acquiring certainty in violation of the non-aggression principle,
the question of punishing
for precrime is a question of punishing someone for something they have not done.
Precognitives
Precogs are three individuals used by the Precrime Department for predicting murders. Throughout the movie, we learn that these individuals are actually born with mutations due to their parents using a specific type of drug. They are afflicted individuals whose ailment is, at the same time, a gift that enables them to dream of murders that will occur.
PrecogsThe precogs, as stated by the woman who discovered Precrime, are "innocents we use to stop the guilty." In this statement, the crucial concept is the "use of innocents." The use is evidently not voluntary on the part of these beings, but rather is coerced. The line of commiting violence against innocent beings is crossed when one begins to exploit another without the other's consent, seizing something that belongs to the other. These precogs are so tormented to the point where they no longer resemble humans, leading many, including John, to think of them as creations rather than conscious beings capable of suffering. The argument can be made that the precogs are exploited like animals, which is as immoral as exploiting animals. For more on a life without exploiting animals, read
here
.If we eliminate euphemisms, we will see that the entire department is guided by the idea that coercing the innocent to stop the guilty is morally justified. This premise treats the innocent as automatically guilty of whatever they do to resist the demands of the masters who control them. In other words, if they do not comply, the use of physical force on them is automatically considered justified to compel obedience. This entire philosophy is in contradiction with the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy. The use of force on the innocent violates the principle of non-aggression, rendering the exploitation of the precogs immoral.Unfortunately, in the world we live in, things often function in this manner. An obvious example is when someone consumes a substance in countries where it is marked as illegal. Regardless of whether it poses a threat to anyone, the police can use force and detain the person, placing them in a cage. In response to this violence, people usually blame the victim, saying, for instance, "He is to blame for using that and carrying it with him" or "If he uses it, he should have the courage to face the consequences." For more on the freedom to put any substances you want into your own body, read
this text
.Through the development of the plot in the film, we learn that the precogs do not predict with hundred percent certainty but rather with high probability, further confirming the immorality of using force on the foreseen perpetrators solely based on a vision, especially if it does not involve preventing violence.
Characters
In this part of the text, we will provide a moral judgment based on the alignment of characters' behavior with
, and we will examine their awareness of the morality of their actions. Therefore, apart from assessing characters as moral or immoral, we will attempt to understand whether they are aware of the immoral acts they commit and consider whether, if they are unaware, they at least strive for justice.
John Anderton
John, portrayed by Tom Cruise, is generally presented as an honorable character with deep wounds from the past who strives for justice throughout the movie. We observe his strong dedication to justice, through scenes where he is working, especially in preventing murders, the focus of his work. Based on this, we can assume that his main motivation for joining the police is the desire for justice. Moreover, in other situations, such as the conversation with the woman who "invented" the precogs, we see how deeply disturbed he is when he receives information that disrupts the image of justice in what he does. Based on this, we can say that he has a pure and just spirit, i.e. he strives for justice on a certain level.Based on the previous information, one might think that John is moral, but unfortunately, his actions show otherwise. Firstly, the fact that he is a police officer makes him immoral because he agrees to blindly follow orders even if they go against his conscience or are immoral. Additionally, if he is getting paid from the state budget, it means he is fine with others being robbed under the threat of force so that he can earn a living. Here, we are talking about taxation, and you can read a thought provoking dialogue on that topic
. Furthermore, John believes in and adheres to the philosophy of Precrime we discussed, making him immoral until the moment he learns the truth about the precogs. We can only speculate on how he would react and whether he would continue his job if he learned this truth under ordinary circumstances. Based on his reaction, I would say he would definitely try to change something, but the question is what and to what extent. On the contrary, he probably would not change his profession even if he did learn about the immorality behind it, given that, like many other real-life police officers, he has been indoctrinated from a young age into the righteousness of that path.
John AndertonWhen we talk about his past and the tragedy he experienced when his son was abducted at the pool, many of us in his position would blame ourselves, and would possibly never forgive ourselves. However, we must not forget that the only real culprit for the tragedy is the kidnapper who abducted the child, and using force against John would not be right. From this, it follows that any potential laws prescribing parental guilt in such a situation would be immoral. By supporting such laws, we endorse immorality.The logic of "action - reaction with force - law" can be applied to all actions when considering whether it is right to support a certain law. Therefore, the question to ask when considering the justification of any human law is not "Would things be better this way?" but rather "Is it morally acceptable to use force because of this?". Many things, such as a healthy diet, exercise, regular sleep, might be better for people, yet forcing someone to practice them would make us aggressors. In addition to this, we must never forget that human laws are merely words of authority and have nothing to do with morality, but solely with the interests of those in power, in one way or another. A movie that portrays this well is The Island of Dr. Moreau, and you can read an analysis of this film
here
.Contrary to the immorality ingrained in his everyday life, in the early scenes, we see a clear application of the principle of defending others from violence. He did everything in his power to prevent a murder from happening. In all subsequent scenes, he essentially defended himself from people who wanted to capture him even though he had done nothing wrong, so all those acts of defense were entirely moral. Any damage that occurred in the process, such as the destruction of civilians' homes, is the fault of the thugs in uniforms.The torture treatment the police gives civilians becomes evident when they search for John in the building where he was situated after the eye surgery. Not only do they enter other people's homes without respect whenever they please, intimidating and scaring both adults and children, but they also release spider-like robots that forcibly scan their eyes. In these scenes, we see how accustomed people have become to this torture, to the point that they no longer question it. Spiders invade their homes while they argue, they momentarily pause the argument to be scanned, and then continue as if nothing happened.Although John did not extract Agatha from the Precrime division to free her but rather to seek her assistance, it seems that he still acted according to her will because her intention was undoubtedly to find a just person in him who would reveal the truth about her mother's murder to the world. Therefore, the move to abduct Agatha from the Precrime division appears to have indeed been moral.One of the most interesting situations in which we get to know John is the conflict with Leo Crow, who claims to have killed his son. In anger, John beats Leo, and it escalates to the point where he draws his gun. Since this man admitted to killing his son, it would be entirely moral for John to shoot him at that moment. Whether the crime was murder or complicity in it through deception and cover-up, punishing Leo by taking his life would be acceptable. For more on the nature of punishment and when and what kind of punishment is morally justified, read this
text
.John ultimately opts for mercy, although he perceives it less as mercy and more as a moral way to achieve justice through systemic processes. John, embodying the stereotype of an honest cop, arrests Leo and reads him his legal "rights" with tears in his eyes, contrary to what his heart tells him. The indoctrination in him is so strong to the point that he believes he acted in the highest moral capacity, although his decision is, in fact, just a socially accepted way of achieving justice imposed by authorities to suppress the principle of (self)defense and thus prevent moral progress in society. As a ruler, you want a society of passive individuals because they are easier to control. You want those who believe they personally have no right to defend others or themselves from violence but that this right is somehow reserved for individuals in blue suits chosen by the system you have built. Afterward, Leo, surprised by the turn of events, admits that he was blackmailed to do so to ensure the security of his family. This admission does not make Leo less immoral because the truth is that committing violence or being an accomplice to it against the innocent is immoral even when it is done for personal gain, whether it be financial, emotional, or any other kind. Realizing that John will not kill him, Leo reaches for the gun in John's hand, pulls the trigger, and takes his own life.Based on everything observed, we can conclude that John is an unconsciously immoral character who strives for justice.
Danny Witwer
When it comes to Danny, portrayed by Colin Farrell, we can conclude from the previous analysis with John that he is also immoral due to the nature of his job. Like John, he is indoctrinated into the philosophy that a uniform grants greater rights to those who wear it.Since the film is centered around John, we don't learn much about the lives of other characters. However, despite this, there is a moment where we see the depth of Danny's character. It was the moment when he discovered that John was set up. He professionally departed from his previous belief that John was guilty, putting aside his possibly wounded ego, and continued to search for the truth. Unfortunately, he acted naively, assuming Lamar's morality, which cost him his life.
Danny WitwerIn addition to what has been mentioned, it is also immoral that he pursued John. He wanted to disgrace John or report him for substance use, which is a clear violation of the non-aggression principle because everyone, as the sole owner of their body, has the right to ingest what they want as long as it does not harm others. He was also willing to arrest John for precrime, although we can say that he was not aware of precrime prediction uncertainty but was rather guided by the same illusion as John. Like John, Danny is unconsciously immoral, with a pronounced inclination toward the truth.
Agatha
Agatha, portrayed by Samantha Morton, gifted with precognition, which is at the same time a curse, gives the impression of someone living a life of eternal suffering. As if the visions and dreams she has are not enough, people have chosen to enslave her and others like her, selfishly exploiting them.
AgathaDespite the fate that befell her, we see that Agatha is a rather pure soul who, even in rare moments of freedom, strives to help prevent evil. While walking with John through the mall, she managed to help him avoid capture and offered useful advice to passersby, such as a woman cheating on her husband whom she advised not to go home. She is a character who, throughout the film, was responsible for applying the principle of defense more than any other character. She violated the non-aggression principle only once when she asked John to throw money to a beggar so that the police would stumble over him. She used an innocent person to prevent violence, which is immoral and makes her a perpetrator of violence at that moment. Perhaps due to a lack of awareness on the part of the screenwriter or perhaps intentionally, we see that Agatha is not a saint, and unfortunately, we must also evaluate her as an unconsciously immoral person who strongly strives for justice.
Lamar Burgess
The main, yet covert, antagonist in this film is Lamar. This is a good analogy to reality because real villains always strive to operate from the shadows. When people don't see them, they are untouchable. Like Lamar, they are psychologically adept and know how to manipulate the minds of others from a position of power.
Lamar BurgessThe role of Lamar is played by Max von Sydow. Lamar is a man who presents himself as a friend, but his intentions are completely opposite of that. He exploits his position of trust for personal gain. All his misdeeds began with one, which is the murder of Anne Lively. He deprived this innocent woman of her life so that he could gain control over Agatha, one of the precognitives, and thus establish the Precrime division. Blinded by ambitions of personal glory, he consciously violated the principle of non-aggression, killed Anne, and enslaved the precognitives. Knowing that the precognitives would have a vision of that crime and understanding how precognition works, he skillfully manipulated the situation by ordering the murder of Anne, knowing it would be prevented.When Danny made John take him to the precognitives section, John violated the rule that no one except the technician Wally is allowed into their chamber. In that unexpected turn of events, Agatha showed John a vision of Anne Lively's death. This intrigued John, prompting him to inquire and investigate the murder. Lamar decided not to leave anything to chance. He chose to set John up for murder and thus divert him from his path. Precognition was on his side in this case as well, and John, accused of precrime, had to flee. Interestingly, the setup for murder triggered the process of condemnation for precrime by the precognitives, and the moment John received a ball with his name as the murderer, it compelled him to escape, leading to the foreseen event.When Danny discovered that something was amiss due to the "sea of evidence" at the crime scene, Lamar had to go even further and kill him too, using John's gun and pinning that murder on him as well. The position of trust he enjoyed solely because of the authority he held, and which Danny naively appealed to, allowed him to continue without being exposed. This situation clearly illustrates the toxicity of belief in the legitimacy of authority.He went so far with his manipulation that even John's wife, Lara, called him for help when John arrived with Agatha at her place. The Precrime team then arrested John, and he was convicted of crimes he did not commit. The deception worked perfectly until he inadvertently revealed his awareness about Ann Lively's murder in a conversation with Lara. That's when she realized that Lamar was up to something. She was courageous and used the resources she had available to free John from hibernation. This was the beginning of Lamar's downfall.Even at the very end, when faced with John and given two inconvenient choices, Lamar chose a third, cowardly one, that suited him best. John explained to him that if he killed him, Precrime would still function in the public eye, but Lamar would be convicted. On the other hand, if he didn't kill him, Precrime would be exposed as unreliable, and he would lose the glory he had gained. Lamar chose to spare himself the agony and killed himself.Based on everything we've seen from him, we can conclude that he was an exceptionally consciously immoral character, putting himself and personal interests above everything. Contrary to the initial associations we may have when it comes to satanism, this kind of character is the embodiment of a satanist, as he follows the
principles of satanism
.One of the main psychological weapons of the world's leading satanists is projecting the image of the "mini me Satanist" onto people. This way, Satanists manage to control people because controlling what you are familiar with is easier. There is a high probability that you, like most people, are indoctrinated into these principles and have not questioned them, making you actually a member of this cult your whole life without being aware of it. To understand the principles of satanism and give them some thought, read
this text
.
Conclusion
The movie Minority Report has a happy ending. After everything that happened, the seemingly best possible course of action was taken to set things right for the future. Precrime has been shut down, so people are no longer arrested for alleged future crimes, and all frozen convicts for precrimes have been released. Agatha and the twins have been taken to a safe place where they live a peaceful life away from society and their burdensome visions. John has restored his relationship with his wife with hope for the continuation of a new chapter in life.I hope you enjoyed this analysis. If you are interested in reading analyses of other movies, please visit the home page and select the "Movies" filter.
RATE THIS ARTICLE
READERS RATED THIS ARTICLE WITH AN AVERAGE RATING OF
