Among the plethora of questionable moral decisions made by Johnny Friendly and Charley Mulloy in the movie On the Waterfront, a closer look at the context of their decisions reveals defects in the process of preliminary reflection on what they believe to be moral. By focusing on these two characters, we can analyze their past to understand how they have been socialized to judge actions in the present; and then base their decisions on them. Furthermore, we can discern that, despite having different reasons for their morals, Charley and Johnny are essentially similar in their perception of morality. This raises the question of whether the context and reasoning for their morals are important in judging their character. When considering the decisions made by both Charley and Johnny throughout the film, it is clear that their actions, moral or otherwise, are a byproduct of their past; with this their actions are hypocritical and not justifiable because their experiences should have taught them to act differently. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The first step in breaking down Charley and Johnny's morals is to look back at their past to consider how their experiences have shaped them today. If we take an absolutist perspective, Charley and Johnny's actions are immoral because they break the law by abetting multiple murders and extorting money from innocent workers at the docks. However, if we adopt a relativist lens, Johnny and Charley's past provides an explanation for their current perspectives on morality. For example, the film adopts a relativist lens by empathizing with Johnny even though he is the main antagonist. By choosing to include his difficult childhood through an inspirational speech given by Johnny, the film attempts to make us feel sorry for him despite all the criminal activities he participates in. In the film, Johnny mentions the hardships he went through to manipulate members of his mob into having sympathy for him and his corrupt agenda. For example, Johnny states: “My old lady raised us ten kids on a crappy caretaker's pension. When I was sixteen I had to beg to work in the hold. I couldn't get out of there at all." It was this lack of stability and wealth during his childhood that motivated Johnny to desire power and inevitably led to his moral downfall. The influx of power Johnny gained prevented him from developing morally in his new workplace. If we were to use Kohlberg's stages of moral development, Johnny would currently be in the second stage, also known as “individualism and exchange.” This stage is characterized by individuals acting in their own self-interest by evaluating how a moral decision will benefit them. If we apply this to Johnny, we can see how he runs his organization through favors exchanged between members. Every decision he makes is validated by the members of his organization because of the mutually beneficial relationship they have. Johnny allows his members to reap the benefits of his extortion if they remain loyal and perform tasks that help the organization as a whole. As a result, all his judgments about right and wrong are based on how it will affect him and his organization/family at the end of the day. Looking at this from a relative perspective, Johnny has created a community where his power is used to financially support members of his organization. If he helps people in exchange for their loyalty, Johnny can classify his actions as moral because.