Gone Baby Gone (2007): Ethical Analysis
In the final scene of the movie “Gone Baby Gone,” the main character, Patrick Kenzie, encounters a moral dilemma and makes a difficult decision which ultimately impacts the lives of many people. Patrick is a private detective who was hired to investigate the case of a kidnapping. The mother of a kidnapped child, Helene, is a drug addict. Before the kidnapping, she mostly neglected her little daughter and did not demonstrate a bit of emotional bonding with her. First, it appears that the girl was kidnapped by a drug dealer whose money Helene had stolen. But, ultimately, it is revealed that the whole situation is planned by the uncle of the girl who deeply loved his niece and, wishing the best life for her, arranged the kidnapping to place little Amanda in the foster family of Jack Doyle, the police chief, and his wife. Even after Amanda was officially declared dead, Patrick does not give up the case – he discovers the conspirators and ultimately arrives at Doyle’s house where he finds Amanda happy and alive. Without the consideration of the motives that triggered the kidnappers’ actions and their good intentions, Patrick decides that the girl should be returned from the house of a caring couple to the mother and calls the police.
According to Kant’s philosophy, the nature of human consciousness is comprised of two major aspects: sensuous gratification and social rationalization (Bustos 248). At the same time, he considers that morality can be defined by three factors: duty, inclination, and fear (Schapiro 231). Rational nature is regarded by the philosopher as an autonomous agent and as equal to “universal validity of moral requirements” (Reath 173), while the inclination is considered an anti-rational phenomenon (Schapiro 232). Therefore, from Kant’s point of view, it is moral to obey the voice of reason. Reason itself is a duty – a requirement which arises from reasoning and determines individual obligations towards oneself and others, and humanity as a whole (Bustos 241).
Judging Patrick’s choice from a Kantian perspective, it seems that in his decision-making, he primarily relied on his rational, non-emotional nature. He was driven by the social principles of morality and regarded the case of kidnapping, even when it is motivated by the best intentions, as a crime – an action that threatens social well-being. Therefore, at first blush, his decision to return Amanda to her mother can be perceived as moral and ethical. However, Kant also claimed that an action can be regarded as moral when it is performed only due to respect for duty (Timmermann 170). It means that if individual behavior follows the principle of moral duty but, at the same time, is motivated by an inclination (a need or desire that should be fulfilled), then it cannot be called moral. Since it coincides with duty, it is not immoral as well and, thus, Kant regards such an act as legal, i.e. made by law but exclusive of ethical content (Timmermann 171).
In the final dialogue with Doyle, Patrick says that he would never forgive himself if he broke the promise given to Helene and left Amanda with people who stole her. Thus, it is possible to say that to some extent his choice was made out of fear or the inclination to avoid unpleasant feelings. If so, then his decision contradicted Kant’s Second Maxim because he treated others not as ends in themselves but as a means to an end – as a means to fulfill his inclination.
Overall, it is hard to say if Patrick’s choice was moral or immoral because by his decision he likely caused suffering to many people. Nevertheless, his action was not motivated by some positive inclinations and was not merely built on emotions. By Kant’s perception of morality, it was rational, based on reason and duty which was also confirmed with Patrick’s intuition. And from a Kantian perspective, the relative and subjective degree of human intuition equals the absolute dictate of moral requirement and, therefore, it is ethical.
Works Cited
Bustos, Keith. “Defending a Kantian Conception of Duties to Self and Others.”The Journal of Value Inquiry 42.2 (2008): 241-54. Web.
Reath, Andrews. Agency and Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Theory. Oxford: Clarendon, 2006. Web.
Schapiro, Tamar. “The Nature of Inclination.” Ethics 119.2 (2009): 229-256. Web.
Timmermann, Jens. “Simplicity and Authority: Reflections of Theory and Practice in Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” Journal of Moral Philosophy 4.2 (2007): 167-182. Web.