Agatha Christie’s mystery novel: Murder in the Orient Express has become a movie once again, now with an elite of characters playing each role to make us belive what they want and to take part in the mystery game: to find the killer. Who murdered someone and why? Those questions become the real plot as well as finding this person with every clue and time consumming as we wait for the excellent Hercule Poirot to solve it.
We may have our suspicions and our ideas of who might be the one who’s really guilty. As the story unfolds we can change our suspect and relate their motif as we become experts. As the mystery is solved, we apply our mathematical (yes! math) knowledge where we have to find “x” in the equation step by step to find the real killer.
But what happens when there is a good reason to commit murder? What then? If killing is bad and there is no way to justify such action by any means, then what can we say about taking justice into our own hands? Would you be the person to punish a victim? What about, someone that deserved it? Or who has nothing else to lose, because everything was taken from him/her?
Justice is the social virtue that gives everyone what they need according to their necessities. But murder? There is black and white in ethics without shades: there is wrong and right with nothing in between. But we already know that, what about justice?
To be just is to give what is proportionate, not what is equal. Hercule Poirot has this moral dilemma where there has to be an explanation, but a lie to cover it is worse than the truth. Perhaps we may be true to our moral duties, but from time to time the punishment is already been taken.
With all the skills we have thanks to math to solve problems, life can’t be as an exact operation. Liberty is something that is out of an exact calculation of circumstances. What Christies’s shows us, is that in life there is always the truth, but is it convenient? We are free to do what we can, even if it’s wrong?