War Kant be moral

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. 

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? 

The Moral Ambiguity of War

Splash. 

Good kill. 

These are the words spoken after almost every confirmed drone strike in Andrew Niccol’s 2014 war drama, Good Kill. The film follows Major Thomas Egan, an Air Force officer who flies UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) in the Middle East from a base near Las Vegas, Nevada. After six tours of combat, Egan struggles with the nature of drone warfare despite the fact that he is one of the most capable and precise pilots when it comes to flying these UAVs. The lines for Egan begin to blur when his unit becomes under the control of the CIA and he begins to doubt the ethics of his role in this war. 

A major problem that Egan has in the film is coming to terms with the disjointedness his feels between his duty to his country and what he believes to be the right thing. His problems begin arising after he is put into situations where civilian casualties die, in some cases a demand to preform a second attack on first responders and in others the result is the deaths of children. In his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that “the concept of duty includes the concept of good will” and “what makes acts out of duty morally worthy is not their actual or intended results, but the underlying principle on which they are based” (260, 261). A line from the film that really sticks out in this fine line between duty and good will is when Jack Johns states, “Don’t ask me if this is a just war. It’s just war.” For Johns, duty is the most important aspect. He must do whatever he is called upon in this need to defend his nation. For Egan, he begins to see the injustice in the killing of innocents. 

UAVs also pose other ambiguous aspects of morality for Egan. Throughout the film Egan wishes to return to combat. Although he preforms his duty and does it well, he is visibly shaken at times because of these attacks. The use of UAVs bring a component to warfare that is new in the era of advancing technology. Egan and his team is based approximately 15,000 km away from the bombs they are detonating. Are acts of war made more morally wrong when the attacker has no chance of being hurt in the process?