Why fear?

Well, it is a comedy. Why take it so seriously?
Anyway, if it's based on moral ... on whose moral will it be?
To the suicide bomber, it's morally right to kill since it's for the name of their religion. Besides, who knows what happen when we die? Only we will find out for ourselves and by then we can't really post it in the forum.

I think it was pointed out in another thread, but that may have been his shortcoming, and not necessarily the deciding factor for everyone.


You just have to be resigned-
You're crashing by design

They never said morality wasn't important. They said right at the beginning of his trial that he was a quality human being. It's just that fear is what holds people back. Suicide bombers aren't necessarily brave people, they were too scared to think for themselves and just believe what they're taught. They were scared to think of the moral reality of their actions and relied on simplistic religious justifications. And it's not brave to kill yourself if you really think you're going straight to a chauvinistic paradise.

Similarly for people that are just amoral or don't give a spit. Selfishness and apathy can be defense mechanisms. These are people who shut themselves off from others because they are afraid of being hurt. They're scared of emotions, scared of the implications responsibilities that come with caring about others.

There's moral and emotional courage as well as physical courage. You seem to be focusing on risk taking. Well sometimes not taking a risk can be courageous. It takes courage to set priorities. It's not courage that let's someone gamble away the mortage payment. It's foolish, it's immature, it's fear of behaving the way you know an adult should.

And doing the right thing, not just the easy thing, often takes tremendous courage. I think Albert Brooks was onto something here. When a person just reacts to his instincts, they're acting like animals. When a person has the courage and strength to overcome his instincts and look at a situation in a rational and moral way, he's acting like a human being.

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

The Litany Against Fear
From Dune by Frank Herbert

The choice of fear is sort of arbitrary, but it allows Brooks to focus on human traits that we admire--the ability to put fear behind us and act courageously for others and ourselves.

Psychologically, you can boil people's problems down to fear, and even suggest that people are afraid of either abandonment or engulfment, by turns.

Brooks' films have usually have a fear/anxiety theme so choosing to have humanity judged by their response to fear in their lives probably seems as natural to him as can be. The film is about how people respond to their weaknesses. Fear works for a lot of people.

<< So, the deciding factor according to this film of wether you can move on or wether you have to return to Earth and live another life is wether or not you have any fear? What about morals and ethics?

I mean, think about it. You could be a serial rapiest murderer and not care if you get caught and/or killed, and you'd be allowed to move on simply because you have no fear. Or be a suicide bomber working for Al-Quida or some similar terrorist faction and be allowed to move on because of lack of fear. >>

Being a terrorist or murderer does not mean that you aren't fearful just because you supposedly don't fear death. It could simply mean that you fear your ememies more than death. It could mean that you fear the hard work, slowness, and ups & downs of a more diplomatic/peaceful route. For example, suicide bombers take the cowardly way out. Sure, they "die for their cause," however it takes more courage to live in a messed up world.

<< Consiquently, what exactly is wrong with having fear, that basic survival emotion? What's wrong with having common sense, like conserving your money and not blowing it on things like first class plane tickets or gambling casinos? >>

Nothing is "wrong" with it... At the same time, fear can sometimes keep us from actions that can benefit people more. The interesting thing is, that often there are no right or wrong answers. Situations often have many interpretations depending on how you look at them. (Note that I said "often," not "always."

[deleted]

Well from a Christian perspective, Jesus Christ said "Fear not" way more than He said "Love one another" or anything else - so there is definitely some very sound theological basis for this film's premise.

I'm not sure we're supposed to agree with the worldview of the people of Judgment City. Like Daniel, I find their views pretty baffling and implausible; and I suspect that's what the movie wants me to think. Sure, it's easy to see some ways in which his being less fearful would have improved his life. But overcoming such fears isn't all there is to living a good life, right? It just seems that can't be right.

This isn't necessarily a problem for film's plausibility, though. For, if there is an after-life, it's possible that we'll find that those who will be judging us have moral views quite different from our own. Indeed, it's possible that their moral views--the correct moral views--are incomprehensible to us. (And isn't this how they treat Daniel, as if he couldn't possibly understand their views and why they're clearly correct? He raises objections, and they brush them aside as if trying to explain themselves isn't worth their time.) We could be completely wrong about pretty much everything, including what does and doesn't make for a good life; and that may be one of first truths we discover when we head off to meet our maker(s).