There are two aspects of the film, ‘The Hurt Locker’ that I’d
like to focus on, both of which relate to this week’s reading by Immanuel Kant,
Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. The first is Sergeant James and his
unusual methods. Watching the film you can see he is reckless, does not listen
to his team, and possibly places little value on his own life. And then some
may just say he’s crazy. His job is to diffuse bombs. So why does he do it? At
the very end we see him returning for another tour. He tells his son that as
you get older you only love a few things. And he says he only loves one. That
one, we can presume is working to stop these bombs. Does he do it because he
wants to save people? Does he do it because he loves the thrill of being so
close to death? Some could view him as a hero, risking his life day in and day
out. But are his acts in fact moral? Or should it matter if the outcomes are
good? “A good will is not good because of its effects or accomplishments, and
not because of its adequacy to achieve any proposed end: it is good only by
virtue of its willing- that is, it is good in itself” Kant says an act isn’t
moral because of it’s results or the satisfaction felt from doing a good deed. An
act should in itself be good. Going off this, I think it is fair to say that
no, James is not doing his job because it is morally good. He is doing it because
he loves being in the chaos that surrounds possible death. There is no doubt
that there are good consequences surrounding his actions, but he
could almost be described as selfish.i
While the Hurt Locker focuses around the story of Sergeant James,
there is something that really stood out to me throughout the whole thing and
it is likely something people forget about as the story went on. This is the
scene where the American patrol unit have shot an enemy in the field who was
trying to attempt to cause a bomb to explode. He was shot and sustained a wound
that could have been treated according to the medic on site if they got him out
of there quickly. The officer in charge (excuse my lack of knowledge on the
order of ranks in the army) said clearly to the others that “he wasn’t going to
make it”. Basically, he wanted them to leave him with his wounds to die. Now I
know, he was trying to cause an explosion with the intent of causing harm, but
we are lacking more information than that. Both sides can think they are fighting for the better cause. How can we justify leaving a man to
die when he can be saved? He is no longer a threat with his injuries, which
were caused by being shot by the troops who can possibly help him. And let’s
say we could still call him a threat. Again, referring back to Kant, an action is
not morally good based on the outcome. So let me ask again, is helping a man
who can be saved good? Yes, it is. While The Hurt Locker showed many acts of heroism
and how difficult the conditions are when fighting in a war, it was very hard
for me to find good moral acts in it. My conclusion therefore is war is not morally good regardless of the cause.
