Probably for the same reason that they didn’t just go to a deposit farther away; convenience.
Wasn’t the point of the story that everyone has some good in them somewhere, and therefore everyone should forgive Hal Jordan for almost destroying the universe?
I may be misremembering. It wasn’t a story I was compelled to read more than once.
God, yes. Godwin or not, this feels like it sums up about 60% of the “ethical quandaries” I see in fiction. And most of the rest are rationalizations of “if we did that, we’d end the plot too fast!”
You are now officially my new favorite schemer. 
One that always niggled me in an otherwise good movie, Scent of a Woman.
Moral dilemma of protagonist: to grass on his classmates or not.
But they’re not really his friends, and they’re hanging him out to dry. And they’re spoiled little shits who intentionally damaged someone’s property. There’s no moral dilemma there for me - I’d let the hammer fall with the quickness. (Although Pacino is a great orator and manages to sway the audience towards his opinion, IIRC)
Maybe someone slipped them a history book and they found out that that has never worked out well for the colonized. Ever.
Charles is trying to live up to what he thinks Baird is and he isn’t going to be deterred in that notion just because the clowns he hangs with are chuckleheads. He believes a poor kid has much farther to go to prove himself to his rich peers (and he’s right). Integrity keeps him from telling, not gullibility, and it becomes courage when it’s clear he’ll burn for his decision.
Though I’ll grant you he comes off like a schmuck when talking about them to Slade in the limo.
Better yet, for me the lack of any dilemma is that I don’t understand why the concept of “snitching” exists. People should be responsible for their actions, do the crime, do the time. If someone is called to give evidence in a court a valid response to questions is not “I’m sorry but I’m not a snitch”. These guys had done something wrong and the main character had a civic duty to tell the truth so they would be accountable for their actions.
Punishing people for telling the truth, or pressuring them to cover up for the misdeeds of others, leads you into all sorts of horrible situations. I absolutely don’t understand why we punish children for being tell tales when in such a situation it’s actually that whoever they’re telling on has done something wrong. Ludicrous to me.
Illuminati you were that guy on the UK gay dating TV show, right? You were cool on that show 
Anyway, I see your point and agree somewhat. I think there are two concepts in opposition here:
-
The idea that wrongdoers should face the consequences of their actions.
-
The idea that it’s important to be loyal to ‘your own’.
In the abstract, I can agree with both of these positions. The difficulty is, when these two positions come into conflict, where do you draw the line and which side of the line do you fall on?
I can agree with, for example, the seargent who helps in covering up one of his platoon member’s contraband infraction because, while the infraction was wrong, it didn’t hurt anyone else, and, on the balance, in that kind of situation it might be more important to demonstrate solidarity to the group than to punish for a minor infractions of the rules.
But when the wrongdoing results in harm to another is where I too have a problem with, as you allude to, the cultural stigmatism of ‘snitchers’. Morally, you can’t turn a blind eye to murder just because it’s your friend who committed the act, unless you think that, morally, murder is OK in some situations (internet lawyers, please take out your dictionaries and read the words before becoming indignant).
Getting back to the movie - The Scent of a Woman - Mantis helpfully pointed out Charles’ thought process in that he was trying to live up to a code of integrity. But that the code of integrity didn’t really exist at the school was kind of the point. So I think the Charles character was misguided and I couldn’t find a moral dilemma in the movie. Each to their own.
The moral dilemma here is that snitches get stitches. IOW, “Is having the perpetrators punished important enough to me to accept the risk of future grievous bodily harm in a best case scenario” ?
OK, so maybe it’s not that *moral *a dilemma :).
I just want to point out that I can’t help but to hear this in Annie Wilkes’ voice. (Annie Wilkes from Stephen King’s ‘Misery’)
The actions of the headmaster also muddied the waters. Charles snitches - he gets into Harvard. If it’s really the right thing to do, there’s no need for a bribe.
After getting locked in the jail cell for the umpteenth time, Sheriff Taylor turns around and says “Screw it, I don’t care if you are my cousin, Barney you’re fired!”
“Gomer, here’s Barney’s bullet, put that gun back in your mouth.”
“And Aunt Bee, quit making those pickles, nobody likes them.”
His moral dilemma IS the movie. The students in his class are misguided. The principal is misguided. This is an institution that prides itself on morality and doesn’t show a shred of it. Charles is the only guy in this movie that is moral, and at the end finally Slade sees it.
A soldier doesn’t get to chose the war he fights he can only chose how honorably he conducts himself.