>He may have the stated intention of telling a "great story."
>He may also know that his film will revive the same patriotic
>impulses that caused so many to rush to join the military
>after the terrorist attacks which are the subject of the
>film.
>
>He may not be making the film specifically to stir up those
>impulses, but he may also be aware that his film will have
>that effect.
>
>Where does his responsibility lie?
>
>There are lots of double effect examples.
>
>Catholicism allows that a morally grave wrong is permissible
>as a secondary effect given the following:
>
>1. The act itself must be morally good or at least
>indifferent.
>
>2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may
>permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad
>effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be
>indirectly voluntary.
>
>3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as
>immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily
>in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the
>good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by
>the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means
>to a good end, which is never allowed.
>
>4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to
>compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.
>
>I think that the problem with World Trade Center is that it
>fails #4. If you tell a good story and as a result many
>people are killed, I don't think that the good storytelling is
>sufficiently desirable to compensate for the death of
>innocents.

And I think that the problem is that you're assuming this movie is going to lead to the death of innocents. It's like blaming gangsta rap music 4 any acts of gang violence. No one just started randomly started rappin about drive by shootings & then all of a sudden they started happening in real life. They're only talked about cuz they already existed. This movie was made because of an incident that already happened. Anyone who sees this movie & leaves w/ the idea of, "Nice flick, I think I'll go out & kill some innocent people now" well then they deserve the full blame & not Oliver Stone.

>Unless you're saying that Karl Rove is waaaaay smarter than
>Oliver Stone -- which he may indeed be -- I think we have to
>assume that at some point during the making of the film Stone
>must have considered the possible/probable effects of
>upsetting people all over again about the terrorist attacks.

He certainly might've. And if he considered that, I'd say he also considered @ the same time that this is certainly still a story that deserves & needs to be told & those upset over it are not being forced to see it. Furthermore, those that do or dont see it but still feel the need to go out & kill innocent people because of it, have some serious mental problems that Stone is not responsible for & shouldn't be held accountable for while he was trying to pay tribute to the actual heroes involved with this story.