The philosophy behind morality helps to train mind in the disciplines of logical and critical thinking to distinguish between good and evil and what merely appears to be both of these things. As normative ethics became widespread, more theories and addendum were proposed by scholars and philosophers. Over the years, many scientists offered theories of ethics that address standards and norms of fundamental principles of ethical behavior. One of the most common hypotheses is Mill’s doctrine (Utilitarianism) and Kant’s doctrine (Kantianism or deontology). The principal difference between these theories lies in the underlying moral code of the actions. To fully understand the core principles and differences between them, two doctrines will be compared with the film Liar Liar (Tom Shadyac) by analyzing if the main character’s actions are morally acceptable.
Kant’s deontology judges actions to be right or wrong based on whether they conform with our duties. For Kant, most important was having goodwill, since it was the true good without any limitations for him. All other concepts in some respects are good too, but they can also become highly evil and harmful, primarily if an individual uses them in selfish interests. According to Kant, “power, wealth, honor, even health, under the name of happiness, make for courage and thereby also for arrogance, where there is not a goodwill to correct their influence on the mind” (9). To break it down, the actions that a person chooses must be the right kind of actions and conform to the moral law and have the right motive.
Kantianism suggests that a reasonable person commits good deeds because it is the right thing to do, not because they are afraid of punishment or expect a reward in return. Kant came up with few different tests for telling whether a given action is in accord with duty or fits with the moral law. An individual has to ask whether the world would have been a great place to live if everyone acted the way a person is about to act. Thus, a person “ought never to conduct myself except so that I could also will that my maxim become a universal law” (Kant 18). Kant claimed that people should be treated as ends and never simply as means to someone’s end.
In the movie, successful lawyer Fletcher Reede (Jim Carrey), who basically built his entire career on lying and fraud, loses his ability to lie for twenty-four hours due to his son’s, Max, birthday wish. The following incidents are inconvenient for the main character since now he cannot lie about anything, which makes people around him angry and makes him lose in a divorce case which could have been a huge career boost. By applying Kant’s theory to the film, the main character’s actions were unethical and morally wrong. Reede was a pathological liar who lied to his wife, son, co-workers, and clients, broke promises and failed as a father and husband. After a climax, when the main character realized how much he cares about his son, Reede is still selfish and acted wrong. Due to Kant, goodwill should come from good and pure intentions, but in the case of the protagonist, he did not consider his family’s feelings. Reede did a “right” thing only after he was punished and, in return, expected his son’s respect and love as a reward.
In John Mill’s perspective, utilitarianism suggests that actions are morally permissible only if they produce positive outcomes and less suffering. In fact, any other action is ethically wrong with no exceptions. Utilitarianism’s thesis can be broken into two parts: values and right actions. Due to this theory, the only thing valuable in its own right is happiness and the absence of suffering. This principle can be described as Greatest Happiness Principe and “is not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether” (Mill 14). Other material, physical things can be derivatively valuable because, in a capitalistic society, they can make a person happy. The right action theory maximizes the value or produces the most expected value.
In the case of utilitarianism, lying is considered to be morally acceptable only if the resulting positive consequences outweigh the harm. The main character used to lie to his co-workers and clients to benefit from cases and bargains. He also lied to his family by giving them hollow promises and expectations, which he could not keep or meet. Everything that Reede did was motivated by a desire to make himself happy but not those around him. Thus, even though he gave these promises to make his son happy, he always ended up hurting and disappointing him. It is evident that the harm he caused outweighs the happiness, which makes his actions, according to Mill, morally wrong. However, after the incident, he changed his ways and stopped lying, which helped him to gain back the trust and love of his son and wife. Reede started to be honest and attentive to other’s needs and feelings, thus maximizing the positive value of his actions.
To conclude, both applied theories prove the protagonist’s actions to be either morally acceptable or morally wrong. Reede’s actions were morally wrong from the start and throughout his life. One can argue that the metamorphosis of his attitude is rooted in his selfish desire to make himself happy, making his actions after culminations morally indecent too. From the beginning of time, the most basic questions concerning reality, human existence, and morality were debated. Thus, by examining and analyzing the nature of someone’s actions and attitude, considering its cause, consequences, and impact on individual and surroundings, the final and universal decision on moral code can be created.
References
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Liar Liar. Directed by Tom Shadyac, performance by Jim Carrey, Universal Pictures, 1997.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Canada. Batoche Books, 2001.