A Few Good Men

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1204
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

A Few Good Men

Post by Philosophy Now »

Matt Qvortrup casts Tom Cruise as a Kantian and Jack Nicholson as a utilitarian in this Cold War courtroom ethics epic.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/138/A_Few_Good_Men
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: A Few Good Men

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Philosophy Now wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:53 pm Matt Qvortrup casts Tom Cruise as a Kantian and Jack Nicholson as a utilitarian in this Cold War courtroom ethics epic.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/138/A_Few_Good_Men
The author is wrong is attributing Kant's ethics as absolutely deontological and portraying om Cruise as a Kantian and Jack Nicholson as a utilitarian.
And according to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and other deontological ethicists, to follow the command of ‘the moral law’ is a categorical imperative – meaning, the moral law ought to be followed whatever the circumstances.
Actually the theme of the movie has no significant ethics elements but rather more to politics.
Whatever the politics, its grounded in the enacted constitution.
In this case, the question is whether the defense [Jack Nicholson] complied with whatever is in the constitution.
Generally in Martial Laws there are provisions for soldiers to kill enemies.
If he and his men has complied with whatever is stated in the Constitution and its sub-laws [the army in this case] then he is not guilty.
There is no question of ethics that is imperative with politics and martial laws.

The case it very straightforward.
It is up to the judge or jury to decide whether the defense has complied strictly with whatever is enacted.
If there is compliance to the law, then the defense is not guilty, if there is non-compliance, then the defense is guilty. If anything marginal we have to accept the final judgment as properly carried within the agreed laws and process.

The relation between politics [martial laws] and ethics [where it happened albeit not imperative] is only in the establishment and enactment of the said laws. In this case, the legislators may borrow principles from ethics or simply enact laws based on the subjective consensus of the majority which can be evil-laden, thus not ethics nor morality.

In Kant's case, his ethics/morality does not endorse enforcements on the individual[s] in practice but only in theory which is to be used as a guide for moral progress.
Therefore Kant's ethics is not related to implementation thus not deontological in practice.
Kant's purpose is merely to justify the moral principle but not to enforce it.
Where it is only imperative in theory, the term 'deontological' is not effective nor relevant.
Post Reply