How would a utilitarian, a libertarian, a Kantian, or Rawls respond to the events documented in the film? How would they analyze the morality of the financial meltdown? For example, how would Rawls respond to it in terms of his two principles of justice? How would a Mill style utilitarian evaluate the meltdown in terms of the principle of utility? If you want to concentrate on just one ethical theory or compare how two different people espousing two of the theories would evaluate the morality of it, that is fine too. This is up to you.
Do you agree or disagree with the ethical stance you have chosen? Why or why not? I am leaving this fairly open so you can select how you want to approach the topic. Keep in mind the strengths and weaknesses of the theory or theories that you choose. It is important to develop a thesis. It is fine to be selective in the details that you choose to focus on given that this is a fairly short paper. Obviously, this is a complicated issue but the film gives a fair amount of excellent background information about what led up to the crisis and how it unfolded.
Organize your response into an essay with introduction, development of thesis, and conclusion. Be sure your first paragraph contains a thesis and refers to the topic, i.e., the financial meltdown as presented in the film. Names of films are italicized: Inside Job.