Boomerang is a story about the death of a priest, Father Lambert, on a Bridgeport, Connecticut street. The shooting occurs at night, which makes it challenging to identify the culprit and bring him before the law to face crime charges. As a result, the community and political actors blame the police for incompetence. However, after pressure on the criminal justice system, John Waldron is arrested and charged with the murder, although the prosecutor Henry Harvey believes that he is innocent and focuses on defending him before the court of law. The movie has critical implications on ethical principles, especially Kantianism and Utilitarianism. Although the film could be analyzed from numerous ethical perspectives, it argues in favor of Kantianism and radically against Utilitarianism.
Boomerang is aligned more with Kantianism than with Utilitarianism. Kant suggests that some kinds of actions are wrong regardless of the possibility that they will bring the greatest happiness to the majority, as Utilitarianism suggests (Mulgan 17). Therefore, acts, such as theft, murder, and lying, are absolute wrongs and prohibited by law. The theory suggests two questions that a moral agent should ask when evaluating the ethicality of an action. First, whether one would view others acts in the same way he or she proposes to act. If the answer to the question is no, then one should act in the said way since it would be unethical. Secondly, whether the action respects the goals of humanity instead of simply using them for personal interests (Herman 17). If the answer to the question is no, then the actor should avoid the action.
The movie meets the conditions of the categorical imperative, universalizability, and never to treat humans as a means to an end. The moral law binds human actions through the principle of perfect duty, which is the duty of not to lie. Humans should act ethically as part of a moral community. In the movie, John Waldron is accused of killing the priest without adequate evidence to connect him with the crime. The district attorney’s decision to defend the accused person is ethical, according to Kantianism. Kant would recommend the act due to the need to apply the same criteria of morality to all humans (universalizability) (Herman 18). In the movie, Chief Robinson and the entire police force wants to solve the case at all cost, including implicating an innocent person. However, the district attorney, acting according to Kantianism, wants to prevent a case of using another person as a means to an end, while he might be innocent. Therefore, the prosecutor’s actions meet the condition for categorical imperative.
The prosecutor upholds the duty to act ethically as part of a moral community. Regardless of the possible consequences of acting according to Kantianism, such as conflict with the chief of police and political judgment following the importance of the case, he is willing to fight for justice for the accused person. He understands that John Waldron is arrested due to political pressure to charge someone with the murder since he is not the actual killer. Politicians, the press, and the public want the police to bring someone to justice. The police also use unconventional means, such as, piling pressure on the accused person, so as to confess to a crime he might not have committed. Utilitarianism would lean towards the act of charging the person, but Harvey ignores the majority to stand with the truth, which is ethical, according to Kant. The prosecutor focuses on the need to preserve justice by maintaining the upholding, this dictates the moral community.
Moral actions, according to Kant, enhances fulfillment of the moral duty. Harvey is prepared to meet the ethical obligation by defending the accused person, who might be innocent. He focuses on finding the truth to ensure that justice is served for Waldron by investigating the evidence and witnesses. The prosecutor is prepared to bear the risk to his reputation and the police department’s wrath, in suggesting that the suspect might be wrongly accused of the murder. His family is also in danger from Harris and others who would like the case to be closed fast. However, he goes against all the odds to protect the moral community. Kant suggests that he would expect a moral agent to act in the way Harvey acted to safeguard against a miscarriage of justice (Herman 47). Thus, the prosecutor fulfills the moral duty by protecting the accused person from being wrongly prosecuted for the murder of the priest.
Conversely, the movie goes against Utilitarianism since the theory focuses on the greatest happiness for the majority whenever a moral agent acts. The model focuses on the consequences of an action and the effect on the majority (Mulgan 27). In the movie, the greatest majority would have the best happiness if the case surrounding the death of the priest is solved, and the culprit faces justice. According to the theory, the means to the end does not matter as much, as the end itself. The case has a lot of political interest, which drives the police department to work hard to get the suspect and charge him for the murder. Thus, it would generate the greatest happiness if Chief Robinson and his team managed to get the person who killed the priest. Finding the killer would protect the reputation of the police department and the reform-minded administration. However, the movie avoids the ethical theory and instead focuses on Kantianism, which is concerned about uncovering the actual truth regardless of the consequences.
Ethical theories play an important role in explaining human actions, decisions, and choices. The film, Boomerang, is one of the movies that can be analyzed using ethical frameworks, such as Kantianism and Utilitarianism. The two theories operate in the opposite direction since one looks at the morality of the action itself (Kantianism), while the other looks at the consequences of an action to determine its ethicality (Utilitarianism). Although numerous ethical perspectives could apply in analyzing the film, it argues in favor of Kantianism and radically against Utilitarianism. The ethical principles focus on the actions of the district attorney, Harvey, who decides to go against everyone and everything to defend a person who could be wrongly accused of killing a priest. Harvey’s decision supports the ethical duty held by a moral community by defending the accused person whom the majority would like to be charged for the murder. It goes against Kantianism since Harvey’s actions ignore the happiness of the majority, which would be evidence in charging the suspect and closing the case. Thus, the movie is a typical case of Kantianism in practice.
Works Cited
Boomerang. Directed by Elia Kazan, performances by Dana Andrews, Jane Wyatt, Arthur Miller, Karl Malden, and Lee, J. Cobb, Twentieth Century Fox, 1947.
Herman, Barbara. Morality as Rationality: A study of Kant’s Ethics. Routledge, 2016.
Mulgan, Tim. Understanding Utilitarianism. Routledge, 2014.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
