The Moral Dilemma in Cause of Death: Unknown

Mohsen Soleimani Fakher, film critic and sociology researcher:

The film Cause of Death: Unknown begins with a central question: when does morality become possible? It explores this concept through the lens of Emmanuel Levinas’ philosophy, which suggests that morality emerges in the encounter with the Other. Being in the presence of another person places one in the position of a moral human being. Yet, in such a situation, just as the characters in this film, one must remain passive and fix their gaze upon the eyes of the Other. In Cause of Death: Unknown, seven individuals find themselves traveling together on an unusual, scarcely traveled route. Each of them carries their own worldview and personal struggles—each seeking something, each harboring hidden secrets and philosophies. However, their fates become intertwined with a “lifeless body” and a large sum of money. This is where the “moral field of action” comes into play, as if the secrets themselves have taken control of reason and judgment. The audience is repeatedly confronted with a question, projecting themselves into the characters’ shoes: “What would I do in this situation?”

The situation dictates that they must not resist the Other. None of them are powerful; they are deeply fragile within, weak, filled with suffering, and overflowing with unfulfilled desires and aspirations. This is why the abandoned and ownerless money becomes significant to them—it gains purpose. Now, they are placed in a position where they must decide whether to become moral or the most immoral. As secrets gradually unravel, it seems as though everyone is justified. It’s as if, through an unspoken agreement, they all assume responsibility for helping the Other—whether it’s a friend, a spouse, a lover, or ultimately themselves. The passengers of this van seem to share something fundamental: the shared burden of suffering. None of them are greedy; it’s as if they are all striving for the “survival of life itself.” Their misfortune and wretchedness stem from being ignored and marginalized by the structures of power. Whether they are common folk or intellectuals, they are united in their struggles.

Humans do not possess a fixed and universal “essence”; the essence of humanity must be understood through human “potential.” The characters in Cause of Death: Unknown are no exception. They lack the ability to confront their circumstances—a man has died, and what remains is his abandoned inheritance.  They strive to gift survival to the Other, yet they are acutely aware that empty hands cannot achieve this. Their shared journey feels like an inexplicable miracle, something they had all been awaiting without knowing it. They firmly believe they played no role in the death that occurred, and they see the remaining money as a means to untangle many of the knots in their lives. The only “sin” of each character is their position as a “witness” and the act of “testifying.” Yet, testifying is neither easy nor convincing for those pressed by time—whether it’s the politically entangled couple seeking to escape their homeland, the man whose friend faces imminent execution, the ailing woman in constant pain, or the silent woman and the driver forced to endure the weight of another’s possessions.

However, neither testifying nor empathizing with the victim is possible, nor does the law offer any hope of achieving justice. A witness typically testifies in the name of justice and truth, demanding the punishment of the culprit. But in this turmoil, there is no killer, no clear perpetrator. The culprit is the merciless wheel of fate.

As Giorgio Agamben suggests, the law is not concerned with establishing justice, nor is it capable of uncovering the truth. The law is focused solely on judgment, detached from truth or justice. The travelers of this shared destiny understand well that turning to the law will make proving their innocence nearly impossible—especially since there is no perpetrator to blame. Instead, they become the arbiters of their own fate, deciding, perhaps rightly, that the deceased must be buried with due rituals—and so they proceed to do just that. Along the way, each character has taken a share of the money belonging to the deceased they buried, believing it to be their salvation. This shared perception, rooted in a harmony of reason and emotion, unites them. Yet, a profound truth is revealed at the journey’s end: the hidden secret in the expectant eyes of the deceased woman. This raises a pressing question: how can the morality of a society be tested and reformed?

Alain Badiou once said that philosophy becomes possible when “incompatible matters” are brought together. Here, two incompatible forces confront each other, and truth must emerge and become possible through a choice. The rationality and emotions of the four male beneficiaries clash with the innocence and silent expectation of a grieving family. The scene becomes one of truth and inquiry. Innocence and victimhood challenge the power of masculinity. The emergence of truth is on the horizon, manifesting in the power of a gaze and the weight of shame. A decision must now be made—to remain suspended in the divide between poverty and despair, or to embrace innocence and rightful merit.

This is where Ali Zarnegar, as both writer and filmmaker, challenges the audience, asking: can a society, when confronted with moments of suffering and merit, truly test its morality and engage in ethical action? The film becomes a mirror, reflecting not only the struggles of its characters but also the broader moral fabric of society itself.