Change Your Image
bleckleymk
Reviews
Antigoni (1961)
Morality in Antigone
When Antigone's two brothers are killed, King Creon rules that only Polynices will be denied a proper burial because he died an enemy of the state. While Polynices died banding together with others against the city of Thebes, his brother Eteocles died defending the state. Antigone buries her brother Polynices even though the King ordered that he be neither touched nor buried. When caught, Antigone did not argue nor deny her actions, for she believed what she did was right. When banished to a cave, Antigone killed herself before the king could retract his punishment. The morality in question here is about the placement of Antigone's loyalty. Should she obey the commands of her God or the commands of her city's ruler? In Crito, Socrates claims that disobeying one's country is worse than disobeying one's mother and father; that doing so harms the soul, and makes life not worth living. Antigone's moral beliefs however were to obey the rules of her God and give her brother a proper burial, and rather than breaking those rules, she acted upon them and accepted her fate calmly just as Socrates did in the Apology. In Euthyphro, Socrates ponders over the meaning of "piety" with Euthyphro, and although a definition is never reached, many examples of piety are given. Actions that are pleasing to the gods, or that are concerned with the care of the gods are all pious actions and therefore good and moral. This is because the gods would not will anything that is immoral. I think that in Euthyphro and Socrates' opinion, Antigone's actions would be moral because she is acting upon her knowledge of the rules of the gods.
Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)
Morality of actions in Crimes and Misdemeanors
In the movie Crimes and Misdemeanors, main character Judah encounters a problem with his mistress after a 2 yearlong affair. She refuses to stay quiet about their love, and demands that he marry her. When she threatens to expose Judah for embezzling money from his company, Judah's brother suggests murder to get rid of her and to keep his secret. After following through with the act, Judah struggles with the burden of the consequences of his actions and debates with himself over whether what he did as moral. In the closing of the movie, it is said, "We define ourselves by the choices we have made. We are in fact the sum total of our choices". This poses the question, was Judah an immoral person for having his mistress murdered? Or was it valid since he didn't get caught? The question is more debatable than it first seems, as in the context of the movie, Judah was acting for his own self-preservation and because he felt threatened.
Simultaneously, Cliff Stern is struggling to survive through both a failing marriage as well as a failing career, and finds solace in the friendship of a coworker (Halley) on the set of shooting his successful brother in-laws biographical video. When Lester finds himself falling in love with Halley, he seems to give no care to the fact that he is married, even though his brother in-law ends up winning over Halley's heart before Lester does. A question of morality is posed, was it justifiable for Lester to kiss/love another woman since his wife was also cheating on him?
John Stuart Mill is a utilitarianist that speaks of the happiness of all. According to his happiness principle, an action is moral and right as long as it results in the most happiness for the greatest number of people possible. He would have said that all of Judah's actions were moral, since doing anything else would result in a great amount of people being unhappy. Exposing his embezzling and adultery would not only hurt himself, but his family and friends and career as well. By killing his mistress, he hurt one person, but for the good of many, therefore it was right.
On the other hand, philosopher Kant would argue that these actions were immoral and wrong. He believes that an action if right if it is worthy of universal law. Both Judah and Cliff did things (murder and infidelity) that they would not want as universal law because they would not want them done to themselves.
L'enfant sauvage (1970)
morality in wild child
In the movie Wild Child, a savage boy is found in the woods is France, giving doctors an opportunity to observe him in what Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes describe as the state of nature. The boy is later named Victor, and has spent his entire life up until the point of capture surviving independently in the wilderness, gathering food and finding shelter without any interactions with humans. When he is thrown into a world where he must constantly come in contact with people, and learn to act how those around him act, the question "Was it moral to remove the child from his own environment and force him to change his every behavior?" can be asked. As Victor spent more time with the doctor that he lived with, he was taught table manners, how to ask for food, and how to begins to speak and recognize objects/words. Are these abilities that one can forget? When Victor escapes at the end of the movie, does he return because he has established a relationship and emotions towards those whom he lives with, or because he realizes he can no longer return to his state of nature and survive? This brings up the age-old debate over nature verse nurture; Just how influenced are we by the society around us? And are those who are less affected/less civilized than other less moral? Victor was not fully able to learn to speak, showing he was incapable of leaning some things in the time period he was with the doctor, so was he incapable of being a totally moral human being? Or was he human at all?