This blog post takes a deep dive into whether knowing the future, as depicted in Minority Report, enables truly free choice or becomes a new form of determinism that suppresses human judgment.
Every day, we encounter news of people dying. So many tragic deaths fill us with regret, thinking, “If only we had known beforehand, we could have saved them.” This film begins with an imagination many of us have likely had at least once: “If we knew about murders that would happen in the future, could we prevent them?”
The Precrime Division tracks future murders seen by three precogs and arrests future criminals. For six years, they operated this way, achieving a 0% murder rate and great success. The core story begins when the protagonist, a member of the Precrime Division, is identified as the suspect in the next murder. He flees, insisting he would never commit murder, and in the process discovers flaws in the system. The prophecies have never been wrong, but the three prophets sometimes contradict each other. However, since the system must be perfect, ‘Minority Reports’ are deleted. Furthermore, since the same prophecy often repeats, the system deletes similar ones based on judgment. This means that if someone targets the same victim using the exact method described in the prophecy, they can commit murder without being caught. Ultimately, the system collapses, and the three prophets regain their normal lives, concluding the film.
The thoroughness and accuracy of the crime prevention system depicted in the film are impressive, but this only amplifies the fear of the system’s potential flaws. Particularly, the premise that the prophecies never fail demonstrates just how terrifyingly effective the system could operate. Yet, we cannot help but question whether such a system can truly replace human moral judgment. Human moral judgment has evolved over centuries through diverse events and debates, encompassing complex issues that cannot be resolved by simple prophecy or calculation. Ultimately, this film reminds us how dangerous predicting the future can be and that human judgment remains crucial.
Watching this, we can’t help but wonder, ‘Arresting someone who hasn’t committed a crime yet, just because they’re predicted to commit one in the future?’ The characters in the film also continually debate whether this is right or wrong. The most crucial point is that it violates the presumption of innocence. Article 27, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea states that a defendant or suspect shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This demonstrates that punishing the innocent is more unjust than failing to punish the guilty. The ‘criminals’ in this film are potential murderers who might commit murder in the future, but they haven’t actually committed murder yet. Arresting someone who might commit a crime could save an innocent victim. Since the full context isn’t understood, it’s impossible to know whether the victim provoked the criminal, leading to the murder, or if the criminal truly wronged the victim. While murder can never be justified, even if someone lashes out after enduring a decade of repeated harassment and a killing occurs, in this worldview, the person arrested is the murderer. He is imprisoned in a capsule without any trial. This situation is akin to the trolley dilemma. How should we wisely prevent this?
Furthermore, I couldn’t stop wondering: what exactly should these captured ‘criminals’ reflect on and reform? The desire to die or to kill isn’t a crime. It becomes a crime only when acted upon. But they didn’t act upon it. That means reforming them is impossible.
The film also made an interesting point. When the proponents argued, “The prophets’ words have never been wrong,” someone countered, “But the moment the Precrime Division prevents a murder, doesn’t that prophecy become wrong?” That’s exactly right. In the end, the murder didn’t happen. The prophets’ prophecy was wrong. If they had seen the future more accurately, they should have seen the moment the ‘criminals’ were arrested.
Furthermore, this film poses a crucial question about human free will. If the future is already predetermined, can we truly make free choices? If the prophets’ predictions accurately foresee everything, we might conclude that our choices are merely predestined parts of a set future. However, the film conveys the message that human free will remains significant through the final scene where the protagonist stops himself from committing the murder he was about to commit. Even if the future is visible, we possess the ability to change it, and this is one of the most crucial abilities we have as humans. Thus, the film emphasizes the importance of humanity, and the free will that protects that humanity, rather than technology and systems.
The protagonist John vehemently denies that he would ever commit murder, but when he learns that the victim is the man who ‘claimed to have killed’ his son, he attempts to kill him. Even though I already knew that taking personal revenge outside society’s laws is wrong, watching the film, I understood how much he longed for his son. I found myself thinking I couldn’t condemn him even if he committed murder. Can any murder ever be justified?
The line from the film, “The fault always lies with humans,” ultimately resonates throughout the entire movie. The seemingly perfect ability to foresee and prevent murders crumbled under human greed and flaws. Somehow, they find the system’s limits and commit murder. How essential could murder possibly be? Human greed knows no bounds. Perhaps this mirrors the limitations of capitalist society. Even in the reality of 2023, someone with the ability to see the future would be owned by the wealthy the moment this fact was discovered. In this film, just as only a few powerful individuals can see the precise future, even if prophets existed in reality, most people would live unaware of the future. Prophecy is merely another form of power held by the few.
Given this, it’s inevitable that the human rights of the three prophets cannot be protected. Even within this film, they were ‘sacrificed’ of their daily lives to deliver accurate prophecies. They live lives superior to humans, yet inferior to humans. This mirrors the trolley dilemma. If sacrificing three reduces harm to humanity, is sacrifice preferable? Three versus eight billion. While the film sides with the three’s human rights, rationally judging a better future leads one to believe siding with the eight billion is correct. Three vs. 8,000,000,000. The endless zeros trailing the 8 feel heavy.
It was also striking when, knowing the existence of ‘Minority Report’ and the flaws in this system, he still went to the party and declared confidently, ‘No more gunshots will ring out.’ Is reassuring someone with a lie better than telling them the truth and causing them worry? I’ve always been the type who wants to know the truth no matter what, but if the other person is striving to turn a lie into truth, if they’re working to create a truly secure future, I don’t know which is better.
“You know the future, so if you wish, you can change it. You have a choice.” When John, the protagonist, tries to kill Leo, who claims to have killed his son, Agatha says this. John repeats it himself at the end, making it clear this is the film’s core. Because they know the certain future, they can change it. We, who don’t know the future, find it hard to be moved by this line to the point of being affected. We can’t predict even the next second, let alone the distant future. Yet watching this film, one can’t definitively say that seeing the future truly brings a better one. Perhaps it’s precisely because we don’t know the future that we can live each day more meaningfully.
