Change Your Image
kjhylton225
Reviews
Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)
Who acted morally?
Crimes and Misdemeanors follows the differing lives of multiple characters that are all intertwined by some common factors. The characters are all pursuing happiness, but the way in which they do this differs dramatically. Dr. Judah Rosenthal has been having an affair with Dolores and she has decided to come clean to Miriam, Dr. Rosenthal's wife. When Dr. Rosenthal finds the confession letter written by Dolores, he wants to end the affair, but Dolores has high hopes that Judah will leave his wife and family on behalf of her. Now Judah is faced with the conflict of whether to come clean to his wife or just get rid of Dolores to make it seem as if the affair never happened. Because Judah was raised in a religious family, he knows what he has done is wrong but knows he could ask forgiveness of his family, even though they will be hurt. Jack, Judah's brother, says he can "get rid" of Dolores if Judah pays him. Judah sees more happiness in his life with his wife and children and provides the funds for his brother to kill Dolores, but is instantly wrought with guilt when the deed is done. Judah considers turning himself in because he is sickened by his guilt, but Jack reminds him that turning himself in would also be turning his own brother in.
Cliff is living the married life, but does not find happiness in it anymore. While filming a documentary on his brother-in-law Lester, Cliff meets Hallie who he instantly becomes fond of. Cliff sees how happy he can be with Hallie, which makes him more inclined to end his marriage. Cliff wants to do what will make him happy and confesses his love to Hallie, but she says she is not ready and is going away for four months.
The movie picks up four months later at a wedding. Dr. Rosenthal is living a happy life with his family and has put his guilt in the back of his mind because he did not get caught. Cliff is separated from his wife and when he finally sees Hallie, she is with Lester and Cliff is heartbroken. This movie juxtaposes the life of a man who lives immorally yet ends up happy and the life of a man who lives more morally yet ends up sad.
From a utilitarian perspective, Judah made his decision based on the fact that his family would be destroyed if they knew of the affair; therefore making it seem as if it never existed was for the good of a greater amount of people. Because Cliff was looking out for his own self-interest, he ended up hurt because he did not consider the happiness of others, like Hallie's happiness. From the Kantian view, Judah was acting immorally because he lied and he was only acting in accordance of the advantage of himself and his family. Kant does not see happiness as the end, while Mill does. Kant would probably not consider Judah or Cliff to be acting morally because neither of them acted in accordance to duty, but rather in relation to their own happiness and the consequences that they thought would follow.
L'enfant sauvage (1970)
The State of Nature
The Wild Child demonstrates the transition from the state of nature to society by a young boy called Victor. Victor is found living alone in the woods like an animal – walking on his hands and feet, sleeping in the leaves, eating natural berries or nuts and having no capability or need of speaking. Although this life seems savage to the civilized people, Victor is living a simple and happy life because that is all he has ever known, much like the savage life depicted by Rousseau's state of nature. Many people show interest in Victor's unique situation and he is soon shipped off to Paris to be observed by Dr. Itard. The Dr. wants to evaluate Victor and see if he can improve his education. Victor begins walking upright, eating and becoming aware of the utility for clothing. Eventually Victor begins showing more emotions and reacts to punishment, which he previously did not exhibit. This displays the type of self-love discussed by Rousseau that man acquires only after realizing how others view him. Victor shows that he wants to be valued by the Dr. and is ashamed when he is punished. The Dr. symbolizes a type of Hobbes' all-powerful Leviathan for Victor because there is fear of his punishment if Victor does not follow the rules. The Dr. wants to test Victor's understanding of just and unjust. He believes if he punishes Victor unjustly and he rebels, it will show his understanding of justice. Victor does fight back when the Dr. attempts to put him in the closet after Victor responded correctly. The Dr. thinks Victor understands justice and the morality of actions. Near the end of the film, Victor runs away – returning to his beloved state of nature. After searching for Victor and waiting to hear anything of his whereabouts, the Dr. believes he is gone forever. To the Dr.'s surprise, Victor returns. Whether Victor returned because of his need for food or his need of affection is debatable. Did Victor become accustomed to the civilized way of life and lose his ability to live in the wild? Or did Victor find himself lonely and wanting the affection he can only gain from others? In the state of nature, Victor had very little needs and only looked out for his own self-preservation, similar to Rousseau's state of nature. Unlike Hobbes state of nature, Victor did not have any possessions or an innate fear of punishment because he had no knowledge of this previous to becoming socialized with others. Victor made the transition into society, therefore becoming aware of the material things and views of others that corrupted his state of nature and ability to ever live that way again.
Antigoni (1961)
Justice vs. Morals in Antigone
Antigone is a tragic tale that centers on honor, justice and morals. The story takes place in Thebes soon after the city has been attacked. The movie begins with Antigone and Ismene being devastated after their two brothers killed each other in battle. Antigone tells Ismene how the new ruler, King Creon, is going to provide an honorable burial for Eteocles, but leave Polynieces unburied for the vultures to pick apart for his betrayal to Thebes. The Ancient Greeks held the honor of their cities in very high regard. The fact that Polynieces attacked the city that gave him his life was appalling to King Creon. King Creon based his decision off of divine law and what Zeus would want for betraying ones homeland and brother. This basis can be compared to Socrates' argument that he must obey the gods and his divine sign. King Creon believed he stood for justice and was doing the right thing by following the gods rule, yet in Euthyphro Socrates came to the conclusion that something is not right or just, just because the god commands it.
On the other hand, Antigone sees honoring her family and her love for her brother as the right thing to do. Antigone tells Ismene that she is going to give Polynieces a proper burial even if it goes against the King's command. Antigone also bases her decision on the unwritten law of the gods because she thinks it is higher in power than the King's edict not to bury her brother. After Antigone buries Polynieces he is unburied by the King's soldiers and they catch Antigone at the burial site when she returns to her brothers side a second time.
King Creon sentences Antigone to death without any deliberation. Haemon, King Creon's son, stands for reason and tells his father that others can be right too and one should not be so fast to judge. He tells his father how the city sees Antigone as noble, but they are too afraid to speak out against the King's verdict. This situation is similar to the trial of Socrates in that all parties on both sides say they believe in the gods and base their decisions off them, yet they all have differing views of what is right. Antigone believed she was following the rules of the gods and standing for the justice of her own blood. King Creon also believed he was following the god's laws and stood for the justice and values of the state. Socrates claimed to be obeying the command of the god and stood for all that is right and good (i.e. virtues, truth, fairness and justice). The jurymen in Socrates' trial accused him of being impious and used the justice of the laws to sentence Socrates to death. In both cases neither side showed any flexibility in what they saw as right and just. There is an ethical dilemma in that what is just is not always morally right and one should use reason to determine this rather than basing decisions solely off the gods command.