Soylent Green, 1973
May, 2023 | GRIFFIN OAKES
Free will: The ability to choose something because you have decided to. Except that’s not a full explanation, not really. Determinism shows free will to be an illusion, that is governed by forces both external and internal. The Thanatorium in “Soylent Green” is an excellent example of how our choices are affected by these external and internal forces.
So, what is the Thanatorium? Simply put, it is a place where people go after choosing to be euthanized. Euthanasia is perfectly legal in the world of “Soylent Green” though the process shown in the film is technically physician-assisted suicide, as the lethal concoction is self-administered, another example of supposed free will. Theoretically, the legality of euthanasia and a location specifically created for the process provides more of a choice–and thus free will–when deciding to get euthanized, but I would argue this is not the case. These are external forces that guide people toward this option and actively work against free will.
In “Soylent Green” the Thanatorium was present long before Roth sought euthanasia. There were likely advertisements or discussions that led to him hearing about it. Had the Thanatorium not been present, providing an out to the circumstances of life, it is possible Roth would not have pursued this option. As said by Thomas Nigel “[I]n each case, the circumstances that exist before we act determine our actions and make them inevitable.” There was no other path for Roth to take due to the way the world had been set up.
Another example of Roth’s ultimate lack of free will is his fate after death. In “Soylent Green” the dead are turned into food. This effectively makes the Thanatorium into a factory. In theory, Roth could have gone on living, but in the end, all his choices would have led to becoming food. “The social circumstances and the nature of the choice facing him, together with other factors that we may know not about, all combine to make a particular action in the circumstances inevitable” (Nagel). This inevitability is part of what spurs Roth’s decision to go to the Thanatorium. If he is going to turn to food when he dies anyway, it might as well be on his own terms, but again, it is not really his own terms if the choice was predetermined. Even if it is argued his choices were free will, the ultimate fate of being turned into green flakes destroys possibility.
To be pedantic for a moment, this lack of free will ultimately turns the actions taken in the Thanatorium back into euthanasia and not physician-assisted suicide. Yes, Roth drank the concoction with his own two hands, but if this act was predetermined by the circumstances of his life, it can be argued that his drinking of the concoction was not his choice and is thus euthanasia.
Utilitarianism gives a different perspective on the Euthanasia and the Thanatorium. Utilitarianism is the pursuit of the greatest happiness, wherein happiness is defined as an action that benefits society more than it harms it. Essentially, something that is more good than bad. In this case, the action would be euthanasia. In the particular society of “Soylent Green” all dead bodies are unknowingly turned into food. This sounds unethical to the average person and would certainly feel horrible if known to the general populace, but it isn’t. Since nobody knows soylent green (the product) is human, there is no harm to society, but there is the benefit of free food. The loss of a single human can feed many, so in theory euthanasia for the purpose of food is ethical. In the case of euthanasia without the added benefit of food, the death of a society member may skew this towards greater harm. It is widely debated in utilitarianism whether death is a harm, but for the sake of the argument, let's say it does. Regardless, death and the process of dying are two different states. Euthanasia is a process of dying, and this process only harms society by taking up the resources needed to make the drug, with the subsequent death and loss of a human being separate. This process of dying is voluntary in “Soylent Green” so there is a benefit to the person undergoing euthanasia. The joy of the patient outweighs the loss of resources, and therefore euthanasia is ethical under a utilitarian lens.
The Thanatorium being ethical is arguably a separate matter from euthanasia. It’s a building, not an action, so it must be determined if the building existing leads to happiness or not. To start simply, the construction of the building had the benefits of employing people who may not have otherwise had a job, something very important in the world of “Soylent Green” as many do not even have apartments, sleeping on staircases and such. Upon the building's completion, it was equipped with air conditioning and proper lighting, something that again, is a rarity in the world of “Soylent Green”. Air condition is of particular importance as the whole planet is suffering from rising temperatures. Also, upon completion the Thanatorium employs permanent workers to man the facility. The harm of the building is the simple fact that it could have been used as a space for people to live. This, however, is the case for every non-residential building in the world and cannot cause the Thanatorium to be unethical unless every non-residential building becomes unethical.
As euthanasia is legal in “Soylent Green” the Thanatorium can claim safely performed euthanasia as a benefit. It is certainly less harmful to society for someone to begin dying in a facility meant for that purpose rather than on the street due to a riot. Even if someone argued the actions taking place within the building cannot be separated from the building itself, it has already been determined that the actions taking place within the building are ethical in the world of “Soylent Green”. Therefore, the Thanatorium is an ethical establishment.