Kant's Depiction Of Violence In Hacksaw Ridge

Using Kant’s ethical framework, the depiction of violence in Hacksaw Ridge fails to pass the necessary tests. It’s not a moral portrayal. To explain this conclusion, it is useful to examine the violence on display from each of the three facets of Kant’s ideas: the good will, the means/end formulation, and the universalization formulation. Since the two formulations of the categorical imperative are the same, according to Kant, an action must pass both iterations of the rule, and this one does not.
Before delving into the formulations, however, it bears examination to decide whether Gibson and the other filmmakers followed the good will. It’s almost impossible to determine if they acted in accordance with duty like Kant requires, since they have not said why they portrayed violence in this way, but one can arrive at a logically plausible answer. Most likely, the filmmakers did not portray violence in Hacksaw Ridge based on a determination that it represented the right thing. Instead, it’s more probable they relied on a combination of what depiction they deemed would help the film be most profitable and their on artistic preferences. Gibson, for example, has shown a preoccupation with graphic violence in all his films, so

it’s in keeping with his work for him to show violence this way. Again, it’s possible the filmmakers decided this depiction represented the right one, but without knowing for sure their motivations related to the good will seem dubious.
Moving on to the formulations of the categorical imperative, it seems the filmmakers passed the first explanation of the rule.

With the graphic, glorifying representations of violence in the movie, it seems clear the creators used Doss and his story as a means. They used him as an excuse to show audiences these rousing instances of brutal combat. Nevertheless, they did not use Doss’ tale only as a means. While several shots showcase a titillating side to violence, numerous ones also display the horrendous effects it can have. Furthermore, Doss’ beliefs and arguments are given plenty of credence and screen time, allowing people to hear his side of the issue. By doing so, the filmmakers treated Doss as an end, thus passing the means/end

formulation.
Despite passing the first formulation, the creative forces behind Hacksaw Ridge failed the universalization formulation. A reasonable person would not want a portrayal of violence this graphic to be permissible in any film, including those that aim to promote nonviolence. If that were the case, a nonviolent belief system could conceivably become contemptible since films would always seem to discredit it. Moreover, if any movie could show violence like Hacksaw Ridge does, moviegoers could be subject to terrible images of death and destruction in movies that do not warrant them. Therefore, the portrayal of violence here fails Kant’s categorical imperative since the good will probably was not considered and it fails the second formulation of the categorical imperative.
Next, the representation of violence in Hacksaw Ridge can be tested from the teleological perspective of John Stuart Mill and his utilitarian theory. Per Mill’s utilitarianism, the goal of ethical people is to create the most happiness over the pervasion of pain (unhappiness) for the most people. In other words, actions are right as they promote the predominance of happiness and wrong as they promote the prevalence of unhappiness. This is termed the Greatest Happiness Principle.
Importantly, in describing the Greatest Happiness Principle, Mill distinguished between higher and lower pleasures. Higher pleasures are those that are intellectually demanding and satisfying, such as solving a complex math problem or watching an acclaimed opera. Lower pleasures, in contrast, provide no intellectual challenge or satisfaction, such as eating fried food or getting drunk with friends. Mill believed both forms of pleasure are valuable and important, but he thought the lower pleasures were not as valuable as their higher counterparts. To support this, he argued those who have enjoyed both types of pleasure always prefer the higher ones. If someone has experienced both types yet still chooses the lower one, Mill said that person has not really experienced and understood the higher pleasures.
To apply utilitarianism, one must use utilitarian calculus. This involves listing the chief moral agents or actors, alternative actions, and potential consequences. Once these are listed, the ethical theorist connects each actor with each alternative action and potential consequence. Then, one assigns a number on a scale, in this case 1-10, to describe how much pleasure and pain the pairing would produce. The combination that numerically produces the most pleasure over pain is the correct moral choice, according to Mill.
Below, I have performed utilitarian calculus for this case using the filmmakers, moviegoers, and believers in nonviolence as the moral agents. In the first table, I list the moral agents and the main alternative actions and potential consequences. In subsequent tables, I pair the moral agents with one of the alternatives and each of the potential consequences and assign a value between 1 and 10 to describe the pleasure and pain caused in this scenario.