Philosophy of High Noon
The movie "High Noon" has interesting comparisons to the
philosophies and views of Kant. While many will say it can
mirror the philosopher's views, particularly through the actions
of the lead character Kane, this paper will analyze the
interesting and somewhat contrary view by looking at the actions
of Kane's wife.
It is important to note first that Kane's wife is an emotional
person. She is a religious woman, a Quaker to be precise, and
chose this lifestyle after she saw her father and brother killed
by guns. Her current viewpoints on guns, violence and personal
involvement reflect her emotional side which Kant would clearly
say as a weak point and completely differs from Kantian view.
Supporting her anti-Kantian ways is the fact that she focuses
much on consequences. She does not see the act of killing simply
for its act and the defensive purpose. She worries too much
about who could and will die and not enough about why they would
risk their lives to perform the act. Kant would say that she
does not see the duty in the individual's action and rather is
heavily focused on how and what this may lead to no matter how
unpredictable it is.
On the contrary, it is also important to note that Kane's wife
is an analytical person. She does rely on her reason to some
degree to establish her own views on life. It is clear that she
does not believe in killing because she finds it morally wrong
in her religion, but she also analyzes the very human and mortal
aspect of killing. She recognizes how worthless killing another
man would be and that it would shatter all your moral standards
in doing so. One may say she is merely acting in the teachings
of God, but she has come to accept this at her own willingness
and established these views after personal experience. Kane's
wife is not just another religious fanatic protesting
self-justice and mortal/civilized laws. She is a woman that has
great self-respect and is able to transfer that respect among
all life so that she is clear of one thing: she can honestly and
justifiably say that killing is wrong. She does have a strong
moral basis.
By the end of the movie though, Kane's wife takes a drastic
turn towards Kant's philosophy. She is able to set her mind free
of worry and future analysis, and by doing so realizes the duty
that she has of protecting her husband of him protecting her.
She is willing to break her view upon kill to save her husband,
though she does not break her moral. What she does is justified
and a logical, moral act which Kant would promote for the simple
fact that it follows the Ethics of Duty.
It is clear that the character of Kane's wife is a dynamic one.
She stays moral and true to herself through the whole movie, but
how she defines this or how her actions define her is what
changes. Though she does not lose her emotions to fulfill any
actions, she is able to in a way push them aside and let them
not interfere. Kane's wife always had the underlining rules for
the Ethics of Duty, but it took a clear, determining act at the
end to truly allow her to express what she had and already knew.