Introduction
John Q. is about a man who takes extreme measures to save his son, who needs an emergency heart transplant. Despite his efforts, John cannot raise the funds needed in time. Michael, John Q. decides to take his son’s Cardiologist, several hospital staff members, and several patients hostage (Burg, 2002). In the end, Michael receives the heart transplant just in time (Burg, 2002). John Q. is found guilty of kidnapping and false imprisonment. To analyze the protagonist’s act, utilitarian ethics is applied, which determines the moral act based on its benefit to the most people.
Ethical Analysis
Utilitarian ethics concerns the consequences of one’s actions, the amount of pleasure or pain produced by that action, and the total number of people impacted. Moral value is placed on actions that produce the greatest good for many people (Mulgan, 2019). Utilitarianism also holds that a person should have a goal that will benefit people, which implies the abandonment of selfish motives (Mulgan, 2019). Happiness may be a person’s goal, but it must be achieved by minimizing suffering. John Q.’s act cannot be justified because it did not benefit the most significant number of people.
Main Character’s Moral Values
John Q. is responsible, fair, honest, compassionate, altruistic, and courageous. He works hard to provide for his wife and son, as they are his pride and joy. He understands he is responsible for his son’s well-being and is willing to lay down his own life to ensure his son is healthy and prosperous.
He has a fair disposition for most of the movie and expects everyone else to be fair (Burg, 2002). He stands by his beliefs and does not back down even when the odds are not in his favor. The character’s moral qualities correlate with utilitarianism’s ideas about a good person. However, he morally justifies his actions based on his personal understanding of good and evil. Utilitarianism assumes that a person will apply positive moral qualities based on the goal of achieving the common good, which the main character does not do.
Moral Dilemma and Conflicting Moral Values
The central moral dilemma of the film lies in the conflict between the image of a caring father and a criminal who takes hostages to achieve his own goals. On the one hand, John Q. takes responsibility for any consequences of his actions and saves his son’s life (Burg, 2002). On the other hand, he harms far more people than if he did not intervene in the process (Burg, 2002). Such an act can be justified from the point of view of an everyday moral approach, and one can conclude that John Q. acted recklessly, because his son was in danger. However, utilitarian ethics cannot allow the justification of the ethical choice in favor of one person against several dozen people.
John must be deceptive, callous, and selfish to fulfill his role as a responsible father. He was dishonest when he took hostages and threatened to shoot them if his demands were not met, knowing that the gun was not loaded, and he had only one bullet intended for himself. He acted callously when he locked down the ER department and held several healthcare providers hostage. He disrupted healthcare services for people who were waiting to be evaluated, or were in the process of being evaluated, or en route to the ER. Moreover, he showed no regard for the people who were on the waiting list for the heart that Michael received.
A utilitarian would find John’s actions morally and ethically impermissible. Although John Q. succeeded in saving his son’s life, he also brought pain and unhappiness to countless people who did not receive the medical care they needed (Burg, 2002). He left the burden of caring for Mikey solely on his wife while serving time for his crimes. His ability to contribute financially will be limited once he is released because of his status as an ex-offender.
Moral Guidance
Utilitarianism suggests that morality should be based on the common good. The happiness of most people is the hallmark of a goal that is not selfish (Mulgan, 2019). All human pleasures are permissible so long as they do not interfere with achieving the common good and are distinct from the suffering of the majority (Mulgan, 2019).
That is, utilitarianism offers moral guidelines for the inadmissibility of selfishness, the pressure of the general over the particular, and the need to act from the motives of protecting the good of the most significant possible number of people. Utilitarianism gives an unequivocal answer that John Q’s actions harmed more people than they helped; he acted out of selfish motives and, therefore, cannot be justified. From a utilitarian point of view, John Q. should have meekly waited in line for a donor transplant for his son.
The film’s synopsis clearly suggests that without decisive action, the child could die, and John Q. has no second choice. However, utilitarianism would be more likely to justify the actions of the protagonist if so many people were not involved in the situation. For example, stealing money to save a life would be more justified if no one was hurt in this crime.
Moreover, John Q., by his actions, could only move the queue for donor organs, which would not have accelerated the search for a transplant (Burg, 2002). The fact that a donor heart was eventually found is the result of luck, not a competent plan. Conversely, utilitarianism assumes that a person bases their decision on the ultimate goal and considers its consequences. The actions of John Q. did not guarantee the salvation of his son in any way and could only harm the staff and patients of the hospital.
Even though, as a result of the actions of the protagonist, none of the staff and patients of the hospital were injured, Michael was saved, and John Q. himself at the last moment avoided death from suicide, the actions violated the queue for a donor transplant. Gross interference in the hospital’s work could disrupt the provision of medical care to those in need, but the film does not address these consequences. John Q. most likely did not think about the consequences of his actions and indeed was not guided by an understanding of the common good. The actions of the protagonist decisively violate the postulates of utilitarianism.
Concluding Reflection
Utilitarian ethics cannot morally justify the actions of the film’s protagonist, John Q. The main character violates the postulates of utilitarianism and acts selfishly, not guided by achieving the common good. The lesson to be learned from critical reflection is that sometimes the happiness of the many may be more important than individual needs. Of professional importance is the lesson that a person should not act from selfish motives. A vital lesson that needs to be emphasized in professional life is calculating actions in advance and taking responsibility for any choice one makes.
References
Burg, M. (2002). John Q [Film]. Evolution Entertainment.
Mulgan, T. (2019). Utilitarianism. Cambridge University Press.