I Kant Understand Sergeant James

In the movie Hurt Locker, we are shown a quote in the opening scene from a best-selling book by Chris Hedges, a New York Times war correspondent. The quote says, “The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction for war is a drug.”

With this quote in mind and watching how the movie unfolds, we are left with two significant questions surrounding the main character, Sergeant Will James:

Is James doing his job/duty out of good will?

Or is he doing his duty, because he is merely addicted to the thrill or the ‘rush’ of it?

When pondering these questions, I think it is important to look at what Kant says about duty and good will in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. In this week’s reading, Kant uses an example of a shopkeeper. Kant says it is in accordance with the shopkeeper’s duty that he should not overcharge a customer. For instance, this shopkeeper does not overcharge an inexperienced, confused customer, nor does he overcharge the prudent, experienced customer. Kant says that these customers get the honest treatment from the shopkeeper. It is not nearly enough to justify us believing that the shopkeeper acted in this way out of duty or from principles of honesty; his own interest required him to act as he did. He did this action out of solely self-interests.

Let’s therefore compare the shopkeeper example with James in the Hurt Locker. We have James, who has a rogue, reckless work ethic, and he has a duty to serve as a team leader and soldier in a US Army Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) unit. This job/duty, in turn, causes him to be faced with some dangerous and life-threatening situations, not only for him, but his team members. We learn that towards the end of the film, he is allowed to go home having finished his designated rotation. However, he goes home, and realizes that he cannot live with his ex-wife and son. He tells his son his heart and love is somewhere else, and at the conclusion of the film we see him returning to his job working in an US EOD unit.

Sooo..we can look at James as a courageous, honorable man who loves his duty for the right reasons. We can assume that he is a self-sacrificing man, who puts his life on the line so that others may live (this can be evidenced by the way he tries to save an innocent Iraqi civilian who is strapped with bombs..almost getting himself killed in the process). Or we can see a man, who is addicted to the thrill of his duty. In otherwords, we can see him as a man whom is obsessed with the rush he gets from putting himself and others at risk in dangerous, life-threatening scenarios.   

To relate back to the reading, Kant says that a good will is manifested when it is acted out of duty rather than inclination; only such acts have moral worth.

What does this say about James then? Is he acting out of good will? Or is he acting out of inclination?

It would seem to me that Kant would say that James is acting out of inclination. This can be evidenced by James deciding to return to his role as a soldier in the E.O.D, despite being let go. He also is detached from his ex-wife and son, while he is at home. He tries to communicate with his ex-wife about his experiences, but it is apparent they both cannot relate to each other. It would also seem that he is too obsessed and consumed with his experiences as a soldier in Iraq to stay at home and support his family. Consequently, He willingly neglects his role as a father to his son.

It can also be suggested that he is merely obsessed with his role as a soldier, because of the thrill. This is judging by the way he risks his life, as well as his fellow squadmates, in the line of duty. He is extremely reckless like a drug addict.

  

What do yall think? Is James doing his duty out of good will? Or is he acting out of inclination? 

Am I being too harsh on James?