Source Code: Highly Immoral *SPOILERS*

This thread basically can't do what it does without lots of spoilers, so if you haven't seen Source Code, don't read it.

So I just came back from the movie, and I have a couple of very big ethical problems with what happened in the movie. Here are the big ones:

1) Goodwin was absolutely wrong to pull the plug on Stevens at the end. Dr. Rutledge may have been an *******, but he was absolutely right - if Stevens was one of the few matches - or maybe the only match - for the Source Code equipment, and his continued use of it would likely save thousands or even millions of lives in future uses, then sorry, but **** whether being in the box makes Stevens miserable. Balancing millions of lives against one person getting all emo about still being alive when he'd rather not be is no moral contest at all. Wipe his memory and get ready for the next mission. This is why the old cliche about not getting too close to your subject exists, and why, for all that it is a cliche, it's still a good idea. If Stevens died, and the next day, or week, or month, he was needed again to save another few thousand lives, but wasn't there because Goodwin went soft, then she'd be responsible for the deaths of those people.

2) So at the end of the film, we see the kiss, and Stevens thinks he's going to die, but then the kiss ends, he's still there with the girl, and everything's happy. Cue music and credits, right? Well, not so fast. Let's think about this a second. Apparently what's happened is that somehow Stevens ended up in a timeline where he saved everybody on the train, and ended up as Sean Fentress permanently. Which brings up the question: What about Sean Fentress? If Colter Stevens's personality has overwritten Sean Fentress's personality permanently, then hasn't Colter Stevens effectively just killed Sean Fentress and stolen Fentress's body, stuff, life, and future? You could say that Fentress was going to die anyway, but is that true? Remember, while it's true that in this timeline Fentress survived only because Stevens became him for eight minutes, after that, Fentress would have survived and had his whole future ahead of him. Is it right that Stevens ends up with all of that? After all, Colter Stevens made his choices - we are told that he kept going back to Afghanistan again and again to be with his unit. Whether that was noble of him or not, it should be him who faces the consequences of his choices - not Sean Fentress.
Certainly, it makes what Stevens said untrue. He didn't save everybody on that train, because for Fentress, what's the effective difference between the bomb going off and what ended up happening to him? For all real purposes, he's dead either way.

At very least, this makes the end of the film not quite as happy an ending as one might have been led to believe.

Anyhow, am I alone in thinking all of this?

EDIT- Please watch the language

 

Sorry, have no idea what this movie is.

And yes, there are frequently "happy ever after" story lines that grossly violate ethics without realizing it. Usually some exec's idea of how fantasy movies should end. Funny, that.