Remarkable man Essay Example for Free

Remarkable man EssayIn Oliver Stones 1987 film Wall Street, the protagonist, develop flurry is faced with a series of ethical challenges. His follow throughs in the beginning of the film would allow delight Nicolo Machiavelli, however, bewilders decisions at the films end would dedicate strikingly disappointed the Italian. On the other hand, Foxs beginning(a) actions would have disappointed Henry David Thoreau, however, Foxs decisions at the end of the film would be more to Thoreaus liking. At the start of the film, Fox plant as a stock broker, trying 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 patron him and his family. Foxs decision to break the law and provide big-time capitalist Gordon Gekko with insider training would have been applauded by Machiavelli, who, in The Prin ce declared the following It is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to recognise how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity. (Machiavelli 62)The decision is even more complicated, because the insider information Fox has to trade is about his stimulates own company. If Gekko buys stock in the company, it will help prop the company up, however, Foxs father would never approve of such an unethical deal. solely If Gekko buys company stock, he is similarly 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 approximately important thing a prince can do is compact himself the reputation of being a great and remarkable man. (Machiavelli 86) Gekko does, indeed profit from Foxs information. Foxs wealth and reputation skyrocket. Fox is even able to date the interior designer he is interested in. All is well, until Fox is presented with other question of ethics. Gekkko begins making changes to his fathers company that the company does not appreciate. Fox must settle whether he ought to go along with Gekkos plan and backstab his father, or to support his father and lose the perks of his kin 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 make 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 peril 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 cordially approve of Foxs decision to break his fathers company. Indeed, Machiavelli praises the notion 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 sells. The competitor agrees not to sell off part 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 law-breaking. This, Thoreau would have praised. Indeed, in his Civil Disobedience, Thoreau speaks against following unjust laws and recommends that laws that further in umpire 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 rescues 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 often ruin him (Machiavelli). This is certainly the case with Foxs decision. Yet Thoreau would credibly have done the exact same thing. Indeed, Thoreau went to prison, rather than paying taxes which he felt 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 action. industrial plant CitedMachiavelli, Nicolo. The Prince. Hazelton Penn State University, 2001. Thoreau, Henry D. On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. Hazelton Penn State University, 1998.