Change Your Image
lesbrand10
Reviews
Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)
Ethics in Crimes and Misdemeanors
This movie is mainly about Dr. Judah Rosenthal and the huge decision he made to allow someone to take his mistresses' life. Dr. Rosenthal had been having an affair with a woman, Delores, for two years. Delores sent Dr. Rosenthal's wife a letter telling her that she wanted to meet with his wife to discuss her and Dr. Rosenthal's more than intimate friends relationship. He deals with Delores for weeks, and her threats and guilt trips begin to wear on Dr. Rosenthal. Dr. Rosenthal then goes to someone he knows that could get rid of Delores for good. The person he contacts ends up killing Delores, and this causes him to live in months of guilt and anxiety.
Two philosophers, John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant, have very different views on whether this was a moral decision. According to John Stuart Mill's greatest happiness principle, which states that an action is right as long as it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people, Dr. Rosenthal's decision to have someone kill Delores was a right and moral act. This is justified because although Delores' happiness was taken from her, Dr. Rosenthal, his family, and his friends all continued to have the greatest amount of happiness. Dr. Rosenthal allowing the murder of Delores resulted in the best consequences.
Although Mill claims that this act was moral, Kant would disagree. Kant believes that one should act in a way that would be worthy of a universal law. This means that whatever you're doing, you would expect everyone else to act or do that same thing. The categorical imperative that Kant uses frequently states that there are no exceptions to Kant's rules; therefore the murder of Delores is not moral because murder would not be acceptable or justified in any circumstance. Since Dr. Rosenthal could not say that he would want someone to murder him for something he had done, this means that his action of allowing someone to kill Delores is not a universal law and is not moral.
L'enfant sauvage (1970)
State of Nature in Wild Child
In Wild Child, a young boy who lives in the wild alone is taken to a school for the deaf and mute to try to become educated. When Wild Child was captured, he had no clothing on and his hair was very long and tangled. Dr. Itard attempts to educate Wild Child, whose new name becomes Victor, and the movie shows the ways in which Dr. Itard taught Victor.
This movie follows along perfectly with Hobbes and Rousseau's views of the State of Nature. Although Hobbes and Rousseau both had definitions of the state of nature, they were very different. Hobbes views the state of nature as a state of war, meaning everyone is fighting one another. This movie supports this view because when Wild Child is captured, he tries to fight his way out of the men's' captivity. Also throughout the movie Wild Child, Victor, bites people, illustrating his warlike and aggressive qualities.
This movie also supports Rousseau's definition of the state of nature. Rousseau sees the state of nature as a time of peace. Contrary to Hobbes, Rousseau claims that man is not in a constant state of war because he has the feelings of compassion and pity, which allow him to live a peaceful life with others. At first, Wild Child is resistant to Dr. Itard, but as the movie progresses we see him touch people's faces, which shows his affection. Victor also cries in one point in the movie, showing that he is upset when Dr. Itard gets angry with him.
At the end of the movie, Victor runs away from Dr. Itard and his caregiver, and they think that he is gone forever. He attempts to steal food, but he is not successful. Victor comes back to Dr. Itard at the end of the movie. According to Hobbes, he would say that he was just hungry and new that to preserve himself he had to return to Dr. Itard for food. According to Rousseau, he would say that Victor could not return back to the state of nature that he was once in; therefore he knew that living with Dr. Itard was the only thing he could do, and he could also have felt compassion for Dr. Itard.
Antigoni (1961)
Ethical Dilemmas in Antigone
The movie "Antigone" made justice a very large topic. Antigone buries her brother even though King Creon had ordered everyone to leave him unburied and untouched. The grounds for Antigone's moral claim were her religion and her family values. Antigone believed in the unspoken rule of the gods, and she believed that burying her brother Polynices was a right and just act because of the gods. Antigone is indifferent to what is right and wrong unless it pertains to the gods. This reason is very closely linked to Socrates' reasons for his actions. Socrates is sent to court because he is charged with corrupting the youth and not believing in gods. Socrates claims that he could not have been acting unjustly because the gods ordered him to go search for someone that was less knowledgeable than he. When the courts claim that he has been acting wrongly, Socrates claims that he will not stop living a philosophical life even if the courts tell him to. Likewise, Antigone claims that she will not stop burying her brother even though the King has ordered her not to.
King Creon claims that Antigone committed an unjust act because she disobeyed him, and the king demands obedience whether his rules are right or wrong. This ties in with Socrates' argument that one must never do wrong, return an injustice for an injustice, or mistreat others. Even though Antigone knew that the King's orders were not just, she should not have buried her brother Polynices because that was a wrong act. She should not have returned the injustice of the king ordering the people not to bury P with disobeying the king by burying him. If the laws were to ask Antigone if they had made an agreement, Antigone would have said yes. Because she was a resident of that city and was ordered to adhere to its laws, her action of burying her brother was unjust.