AMC's "The Killing" has replaced "Mad Men" and "The Sopranos" in raising questions about the right thing to do.
As in all great performance art, "The Killing" leverages conflict. In the series, the clash is between what the characters actually do and what would have been the right thing to do. Because of this misalignment tragedy is born. These issues resonate in this era when we are forcing ethical questions on law enforcement, the legal system, families in crisis, political leaders, and friends. Campaign 2012, for example, could provide some interesting confrontations.
So far, on "The Killing," homicide detective Sarah Linden sets in motion what leads to the near-fatal beating of suspect Bennet Ahmed who is later ruled out. That puts the murder victim Rosie's father Stan Larsen in jail and unable to support the family. Larsen's wife Mitch dared Stan to do that when she jumped to the conclusion that the teacher had done it.
Sarah, a flawed human being unable to navigate human relationships, has nothing but her work. Her son Jack, who's acting out, is trying to add himself on her radar. Her boyfriend, who she was supposed to marry, gave up in this episode. Without boundaries, Sarah got too close to Mitch.
The rest was predictable, of course. The police's internal affairs department should review her behavior. Meanwhile, we ask why didn't family such as Mitch's sister and mother demand she get professional help. She almost accidentally killed her two sons when she left the car running in the closed garage. Does doing the right thing not happen when human beings are scared off by the profound pain? Harvard psychiatrist Srinivasan Phillay looks at the raw entity in his new book "Life Unlocked: 7 Revolutionary Lessons to Overcome Fear."
Politico Darren Richmond fluctuates between ethical courage and being trapped in a private emotional hell. When the teacher is flagged as the suspect, Richmond refuses to join in the vilification, even though Bennet is attached to his campaign and had access to the car in which Rosie had been found. On the other hand, he can't break open to the possibility that the woman who killed his wife in a drunk driving accident could have changed enough to be granted parole. In addition, we witness some hardening around the edges as his brave ethical stance had been used against him. He will cut the salaries of those who didn't stand by him.
On a secondary level, there is a layer of minor characters who don't consider the right thing to do when the going gets tough. The school official forbids Bennet to teach when he's under investigation. She is ambitious. No, Bennet had not been charged yet. There's lost soul Belko who could have fixed himself. If he had he might have talked Stan out of the attack on Bennet. There's the head of the police who should have suspended Sarah for violations of ethics.
The one character who seems to be developing a moral compass is former substance abuser turned detective Stephen Holder. At his NA meeting he bears witness to his previous unethical behavior. He is capable of growth, learning from his mistakes and then applying that to what's next. Although he too bungled parts of the murder investigation, he tells Sarah he's not going to lose sleep over it. With each lesson learned, he becomes stronger.
There are three more episodes left in the series.
Why is the right thing to do such a puzzle?
Ethics expert Mark Matousek is a guest columnist on this blog. Here is a complimentary excerpt from his new book "Ethical Wisdom: What Makes Us Good" Download PagesfromMato_9780385527897_5p_all_r1-1. You can also visit Matousek's blog http://ethicsguerrilla.typeapd.com. Recently, he has become a client for my messaging/marketing services.