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?
