Change Your Image
asdf4-693-788396
Reviews
Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)
Ethics
Killing an enraged, obsessive, gold-digging mistress might come off as bad to most, but what about those Utilitarians? John Stuart Mill, one of the greatest proponents of utilitarian thought, cites the "Greatest Happiness Principle" (Utilitarianism). The Greatest Happiness Principle states that actions are right if they cause a greater amount of happiness and the contrary to a wrong action. In Judah's case, killing his mistress provided the greatest amount of happiness. He became a better husband and father, or so it seemed, and he was relatively guilt free. The woman threatened to tell Judah's wife and presumably ruin all he had built through his marriage and successful medical practice. If the mistress had told Judah's wife and everyone would have been fine with some infidelity, who's to say that course of action would not have generated the most happiness? Perhaps the mistress did not have to die, but if the world worked as Judah's mind did, the only course for ultimate happiness was to kill his mistress.
Perhaps his guilt was transparent because he himself did not do the killing, but he still paid for it and is directly responsible. Mill's philosophy is based on consequences. The consequence of Judah and his mistress's affair brought about her death and his better life. Is her happiness exchangeable for his? It would seem that based solely on the greatest unit of happiness, Judah was happier, his family was happier, there didn't seem to be any other individuals upset about her death, and so from a utilitarian standpoint killing the mistress was a good action. Utilitarian thought is not based on the idea of individualism. There are such things as martyrs that give up their happiness, but it is so that others can have happiness so still there is not individualism, happiness to for the greatest number, and that is the way it must be. Mill would, in this case I believe, allow for a murder of a mere obsessive mistress.
L'enfant sauvage (1970)
A State of Nature
A child, left in the wild for most of his formative years, is captured and took into care by the doctor. What kind of explanation could there be for the behavior and the overall character of child soon to be known as Victor? The movie by itself is a joy to watch, but there are underlying hints at something called the state of nature which many renown thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau theorized on. The state of nature represents a time in which humans were uncivilized. Hobbes and Rousseau both try to theorize how humans would be before society.
Take for example the Hobbesian view. Humans were a brutes, animals, and lived short lives that resulted from continual violence upon each other. Humans in this state of nature were actually in what Hobbes called a "State of War" (Leviathan I). In this primitive state humans desired peace as a means of self-preservation. To preserve one's life in a Hobbesian state of nature is a law of nature, or something humans universally wanted. Victor did not want to be taken from the wild. He wanted to stay in the violence that was his home. Hobbes believed humans were rational beings even in his state of nature. Was Victor really all that rational for not wanted to exit his state of nature for peace and self-preservation? It would seem that if Hobbes were right, the wild child would naturally want nothing more than to protect his own life. Through the desire to protect is life he would have willingly went into civilization and into the arms of some absolute ruler for protection; i.e the absolute sovereign (Leviathan I). This was not the case.
It is not ironic that a French film would have such a popular French philosopher as Rousseau in the tacit footnotes. Like Hobbes, Rousseau also wrote on a state of nature of humans. In Rousseau's state of nature, humans were at their most perfect state. All that was desired was food, sex, and sleep (Social Discourse). Not a bad life, at least that is what Rousseau thinks. Due to land masses coming together and more populous areas of humans, certain things happened that brought about society and thus the corruption of humans (Social Discourse).
If we took at Victor through a Rousseau's eyes, of course he would try to escape change and continue living his primitive life. Granted the doctor did make significant progress in the memory and educational facets of the boys life, but the fundamental faculties were already present. The doctor locked the boy in the closet for no reason and it was obvious the boy felt their was unnecessary harm done. This means there was some innate intelligence. Was the doctor even right in keeping the boy as he did? For Hobbes it would seem the boy should have accepted his new life because he valued his own life. For Rousseau, the doctor should have recognized the perfect in the life the boy was living and left him. Welcome to the world of philosophy.
Antigoni (1961)
Justice
Antigone represents the epitome of philosophical thought in antiquity. The ruler in Creon is set opposite to the loyal sister in Antigone. The ethical dilemma presented in the film is much like Plato's works: Euthyphro and Republic. Creon, as the ruler Thebes, thinks it just to not bury the fallen enemies near the city as it would disgrace the city. Antigone on the other hand feels it just to her fallen brother, a confederate to the previous regime, that he be given a proper burial in regard to his and Antigone's beliefs in the Gods.
The conflict gets its genesis from a varying view of what is just or the right thing to do. Take Plato's dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro in Euthyphro. Euthyphro explains to Socrates that something pious (just, good) is something unanimously loved by the Gods. Socrates raises the question as to whether the gods love the pious because it is the pious or whether something pious is only pious because it is loved by the gods. The circular dilemma present by Euthyphro brings a question to Antigone. Is she right for wanting her brother buried and disrupting edicts by Creon's rule? Is her pious belief in the Gods something she ought to uphold? Does the good or justice in her brother's burial supersede Creon's rule? Additionally, in Plato's Republic Thraseymachus explains to Socrates that the just is the advantage of the stronger, and that it is just to obey one's rulers. Socrates argues against this conclusion but with weak premises. For Euthyphro, Antigone would be justified in wanting her brother buried in his religious fashion which would dictate his corpse not rotting in the woods. Thraseymachus on the other hand would say that the justice resides in the ruler, Creon, for better or worse. Which is right?