Kantianism and radically against Utilitarianism

In the film Boomerang, it depicts a severe moral dilemma when an individual has to choose between ambitions and profession while also considering ethical uprightness. The key character in the film, State attorney Henry Harvey, has to make a decisions that may lead to alienation from most his associates as well as ruining his career. However, he is adamant in his quest to defend an individual that may be unfairly sentenced. The dilemma and the fundamental actions of the main character may be deliberated from certain perspectives. For example, through David Hume’s ethics and Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy.

David Hume’s concepts are applicable to the situation faced by Henry Harvey. The cornerstone of Hume’s ethics is the perception that reasons ought not to be the key driver of individual’s moral decisions. According to Ferrarin, the ethical value of an action is not established rationally (63). It is derivative from feelings and emotions of an individual that makes decisions. In this case, Henry Harvey is has a daunting task of making decisions in challenging circumstances. Foremost, he is distressed by the growing fury from the public and discontent with certain policies. The actions of the film’s key characters can be clearly explained using Hume’s argument. He states that reasons alone can certainly not be a purpose to any acts of the will. Secondly, it can by no means dispute passion in the way of the will.

To a greater extent, actions portrayed by Harvey back the argument. If the attorney approached the suit in a relational and egocentric manner, he may have sentenced the accused without seeking evidence for his defence. According to Macnabb, persons may state that David Hume’s ethical theory offers a very probable account of Henry Harvey’s deeds (2). Nonetheless, this concept denotes that such a predicament cannot be determined impartially. In general, Hume’s moral viewpoint does not define the methods and principles of determining such predicaments. This is the key restraint of this context.

Kant’s interpretations on integrity contrast intensely from Hume’s philosophy. From Kant’s view, reasons cannot be degraded to the slave roles as done by Hume. According to Alger, Kant’s ethical principle, while gauging the moral value of a deed, an individual ought to deliberate on what should happen if everyone’s actions are based on the Attorney’s deeds(67). Therefore, the principles or wickedness of a deed can be identified if it is made universal. It is relatively challenging to identify if the character’s behavior and values should turn out to be widespread. However, such deeds may inhibit numerous acquitted individuals unjust sentencing. At the same time, such acts of State’s Attorneys may provide loopholes to countless offenders. This is why Kant’s constraints are not quite pertinent to the condition in which Harvey found himself in.

Utilitarianism concept and Kantian ethics tend to dispute each other theoretically. In general, these concepts by David Hume and Kant oppose in analysis of the ethical predicament in film, Boomerang. According to Ferrarin, the morality of a deed is identified by the purposes of the corresponding deed (65). In contrast, utilitarianism theory established by David Hume discounts deeds’ purposes in defining its principles. Essentially, according to mmm, the Kantian ethics, the moral actions are those that are forced by obligations while utilitarianism denotes of actions that profit the majority as moral.

Conclusion

The argument specifies that Henry Harvey’s ethical choices could be determined by his instinctive intelligence of justice and responsibility towards another individual. However, similarly, he could protect Waldron as he does not suffer from the predicament of integrity. Generally, David Hume’s moral viewpoint offers a more substantial explanations of Henry Harvey’s choices. Sequentially, Immanuel Kant’s principles assist in the evaluation of the moral value of actions.

Works Cited

Ferrarin, Alfredo. “From the world to philosophy, and back.” Phenomenology in a new key: Between analysis and history. Springer, Cham, 2015. 63-92.

Macnabb, Donald George Cecil. David Hume: His theory of knowledge and morality. Vol. 4. Routledge, 2019.

Alger, Ingela, and Jörgen W. Weibull. “Evolution and Kantian morality.” Games and Economic Behavior 98 (2016): 56-67.

Hire a Writer