system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
[Passengers] Was there an ethical way out?

In case you are unfamiliar-  'Passengers' recent SF film.  Setting is  an advanced STL starship, on a 120 year colonization trip.  Everyone aboard is in suspended animation.

One passenger is accidentally awoken 90 years early.  He cannot go back into suspended animation.  

After a year of complete solitude and suicidal depression, he deliberately awakens another passenger so he wouldn't be alone.  He doesn't tell her he did it though.  She thinks her pod malfunctioned too.

So, what is his ethical out?  Is there one?  How wrong was he?
gpt
Jim's actions can't really be judged on an ethical - unethical scale very easily. It's like punishing a starving orphan for stealing a loaf of bread. It's most certainly wrong/illegal/unethical on it's own, but the extenuating circumstance is that the orphan would most certainly have died without that action. Desperation for survival is recognized as forcing people to perform actions they would refuse to do otherwise.

And make no mistake, Jim is most definitely a "starving orphan". Humans are not just social creatures by choice, but by necessity. Without regular contact with other humans (or dogs oddly enough), people eventually suffer from severe psychological distress, potentially leading to suicidal thoughts. This is precisely the reason that "solitary confinement" is considered a form of physical torture. 

So with this in mind, it becomes clear that Jim was a starving man for a whole year, and even worse, he was surrounded by "food" the entire time. Human contact was just on the other side of a little glass, so close, always. Studies have suggested that will power and self control are finite resources. Resisting the temptation to take those donuts at work all day makes it that much harder to resist the ice cream at the end of the day. And he lasted a whole year.

In summary, Jim was being tortured, he had a way out, and he waited for as long as possible, til he was basically at death's door, so as to minimise the harm to others. That's about as ethical a choice as we can ask or expect, given the circumstances. Still doesn't make his actions "good" though, it's just impossible to see a preferable option.

Some other thoughts about this: Waking her up was dooming her to the same fate as him, essentially a death sentence. However, since there were now two of them, Aurora didn't have to suffer to quite the same extent as Jim did initially. 

Also, if waking her up is akin to murder, then one must conclude that Jim was already dead. How do you judge a dead man?