“‘It will end the check and balance system. Precrime will no longer be an independent agency. The Senate will control the Police, and after that–’ his lips tightened. ‘They’ll absorb the army too.’” pg. 234
This quote of a “check and balance system” seems to suggest that there is at least some hint, or attempt to create the facade of, a democratic-like government. Because it didn’t seem like a completely totalitarian government, I was uncertain how to feel about the morality or justice of this seemingly utilitarian society. If there is no religion, as you suggested in class, then it seems like this society must have some other underlying philosophy that the majority of the people subscribe to, and it seems to be utilitarianism. Therefore, I have a feeling that perhaps the people in this society aren’t truly being forced to subscribe to the rules of Precrime, but perhaps they choose to in a democratic sort of way. The majority might decide that they would rather have the protection of the majority at the expense of the liberties of a small minority of their society. Precrime might not be forced on them at all; it seems likely that people would prefer to not have crime and just assume that they will not be in the minority that suffers for the peace of the majority of society. Of course, when one turns out to be in this minority, opinions (as shown with Anderton) obviously change, but that is just human nature to survive. If it is the case that the society is choosing the Precrime system out of their own free will, then I would have no real qualms with the society or the treatment and detainment of a minority of the people–not that I’m really that concerned with the immorality of it otherwise; I felt rather apathetic about how the precogs were treated and about the struggle between the Army and Precrime. Anyway, I didn’t really get enough of a glimpse into the normal society of this world to be sure that it really was a totalitarian government as everyone seemed to assume in class.
