Film Analysis: 97 Billion

1009 Words5 Pages
To start off with the image above is not factual to be on sale for $1.97 Billion. The most expensive shoe ever made is The ruby slippers by Ronald Winston to recreate Dorothy’s slippers in the 1939 Film, The Wonderful wizard of OZ. The slippers have only been worn once by Judy Garland, who played Dorothy in the mentioned film as a 50-year anniversary.

The pair of slippers consists out of, 1,350 carats of rubies, meaning 4600 pieces, and 50 carats of diamonds.

To date it has not been sold.

A few facts to mention before I continue. The wizard of Oz made $33 754 967 at the Worldwide box office to date. For most of us 1st world to 3rd world countries this film made part of our childhood. Books, Comics, TV Series and Toys has also contributed
…show more content…
Is it okay to make a pair of shoes worth $1.97 Billion Dollars in contrast to the crossroad statement, “The world population is 7 billion. 4 Billion live in poverty”.

To tie this inn with the tale on the bees, honeyguide, and farmer I don’t think all options were explored. Bees collect nectar from flowers all over, possibly the farmer flowers too. The Honeyguide has to leave some nectar in the flowers for the bees to make honey. Since the honey guide gets a share every time, and the bees use the nectar to create housing for their young, I don’t see a problem with the farmer taking his share as a one-time payment for the utilization of his crops, flowers, plants nectar. I will use this point to prove my Hypothesis at a later stage.

Off the bat I feel the utilitarianism would strongly condemn this type reckless spending of $1.98 Billion purely because it doesn’t maximize the total benefits of the population. I also feel that the utilitarian would condemn not sharing in the wealth as the gems on that shoe came from the earth we all share in.

A true utilitarian would have advocated the use of $1.97 Billion dollars to this cause, as it maximized the benefits for half the world’s
…show more content…
Sure there are 4 million people who can’t fulfill those needs. Sure $1.98 billion can make a difference. Why does others needs become someone else’s responsibility? Realistically, anyone that can buy shoes to the value of $1.98 billion, has much more money than that. I feel that if it’s your money others needs are not your concern, irrespective of their situation.

The next application is sharing who it Benefits the most, applying that to monetary values in my view is impossible. It basically means you share with anyone that will benefit more than the other – material or psychological benefit. And the ones who believes their benefits is the greatest gets a piece. To me it seems completely irrational, and secondly I do not see the point of sharing if it’s your money.

The last factor I’d like to explore is Equality. This ties in with my argument in Assignment two, Equality only means everyone will have everything and everyone will have nothing. I don’t believe in equality when it comes to money. You get what you work for or you get what you make for yourself. I cannot justify in my mind to equally share proceeds with all parties if they have not delivered the same amount of effort as
Open Document