Kerrigan James Roi Palattao Maulit

ACETHIC M72
June 9, 2015
Margin Call is a movie of epic proportions. It is a reality
check, an eye opener to the harsh reality that behind a building of
lavish glass doors and walls, that at the back of the concrete
jungle where men in suits thrive lies an egoistic, an all-forthemselves ideology that hurts not only us business inclined but
the people in general, an ideology that approves of success at
somebody elses expense. The movie was not all bad as it has
also shown that there are still businessmen out there that are
imprisoned in that jungle but not by its general perceived
philosophy.
The movie shows the two sides of corporate business, the
good and the bad. There would always be people out there that
goes in this kind of business that would only think of themselves
and their own welfare, people that would make decisions not by
the ethical standpoint but by what route will take them to higher
ground. On the other hand there would always be those innately
good and thinks of their business position in a greater view than
themselves, a person that thinks of how much an action or a
decision would affect the totality, the society as a whole, the one

that would always see it in an ethical perspective and do the right

thing.
New York, the setting of the movie, is a cauldron where
dreams come true or so they say. The movie reveals that there is
a lot to it than we perceive. That what could be a breeding ground
for amazing things could also be where it crashes down
completely. The movie is about mortgage backed securities the
firm, left unnamed in the movie, has had in their books and that if
left there would incur losses that are more than what the firm is
worth. It would be detrimental for such company, one so big,
impliedly, to keep these kinds of instruments in its midst. They
would fall so hard that they know that this is no tragic story turned
success after it. It was just a disaster waiting to happen. What is
one to do?
The story is so complex that we focus on two competing
thoughts in the story, one that goes for the companys good and
the other that thinks of it in a larger scale, the greater good. One
of the schools of thought is spearheaded by the CEO, John Tuld,
thinking solely of the survival of the firm. It argues that the
company and its employees should seek out the option that would
best cater to the companys welfare. This is, by letting go of the
securities that the firm has, therefore passing on the risk attached
to such security to the people that are willing to buy it at current

market price, the company could mitigate the risk of it having to

sustain losses that would outweigh the current capitalization that it
has. On the other hand, the other school of thought has to do
what serves the greater good. This is shown by Sam Rogers
thought on the issue at hand. He knows that by selling the
securities that the company has, with zero value at that, they
would kill the market, make it paralyze therefore having to affect
the lives of hundreds of thousands. It is like having to poison a
river killing everything that thrives in it, that depends on it. These
two competing thoughts have points under their belts and a side
to protect. Let us analyse these perspective in the light of
Kohlbergs stages of moral development.
Kohlbergs stages of moral development are products of a
study of points of uncertainty, the reasoning we do at these points
and its moral implications. If we take the two schools of thought
that we have devised in the paragraph before this one, we could
easily plot it in one of the six stages of the theory. First, we have
the perspective of Tuld that champions the thought of having to
put the companys own good over others. He is clearly placed
under the Pre-Conventional stage of the theory. More likely, he
falls under stage 2 of that larger stage which explains self-interest
orientation. In this stage, people are expected to develop an idea
of having to look for a goal in life and to think in such a way that in

making decisions, one has to think of the question, What is in it

for me? There is a thinking that in a situation one has to weigh
whether there will be, or a lack thereof, of rewards upon making a
decision or doing something in particular. When faced with the
issue of having to carry a lot of worthless securities, Tuld looked
into his subordinates asking them what to do next. He
immediately and without reluctance asked if it was possible when
one suggested selling securities, all of them in this case. He,
knowing all repercussions like losing a part of its market, losing
tons of money and having to fire and destroy careers of its
employees, decided that it would best for them to let go of all the
securities they had and passing it on to willing buyers. It is a
thought of going for what they thought would be best for them.
There would be a lot more for them if the company survives, a
job, the money, all of it. If they choose to relieve themselves of all
the risk attached to the securities, they would still be riding the
high rollers ride. The rewards could go on and on, no problems of
a failing company and still a source for money.
The second thought lead by Sam Rogers falls under the
Post-Conventional stage, particularly stage 6, universal ethics
orientation since it champions a more utilitarian view of the
situation. This I think is the moral core of the whole movie, having
to think about the greater good, that by selling lots and lots of

worthless securities to the public they would be shutting down the

market with losing their customers the least of their problems.
They would leave companies shutting down, firms paralyzed, and
business after business falling to their knees. Thousands, maybe
millions, of lives would be affected. The bottom line here is we
make decisions, not by having to think of ourselves only, but to
think of it in a much wider scope, to develop that thinking that in
every decision we make, some other people might be affected by
it.
Each and every day we make decisions, for ourselves or for
others. We make decision based on our perceptions, our general
understanding in life or of what things we value the most. We
have a standpoint, a particular perspective in life that we use to
weigh things, to properly see them. I believe that in the given
situation, it would be better to come clean, basically it was the
companys fault and the company should take the blame on it.
Passing on the risk and having to jeopardize lots of lives other
than you own would be too hard to do, hard to imagine as well. In
these kinds of situation, I think, one must take it at a perspective
of having to risk less or saving more, to think beyond ones self
interest, to think that a single move you make could mean a lot
more to others.