Duties and consequences
Movie Interpretation John Q. is a movie that will definitely leave you in deep thought. I saw the movie John Q. many years ago for the first time. For the purpose of this paper, I chose to watch this movie again but from an ethical and moral standpoint. I did not look at this movie in the same way as I did back then. I can now empathize with the character John Q. in the movie. I have a son and I could only imagine if I had to be in the same situation. The movie …show more content…
He has no concerned with the outcome of an individual. Kant expressed that the good will, is a single thing that is naturally good (Garrett, 2006). The will of something is made good by performing a duty (in honor of the law of morality) without feeling obligated to do so. This is done by knowledge of the moral law. The characters I consider to represent Kant 's moral philosophy of duty and the categorical imperative was the heart surgeon (James Wood).
After carefully reviewing the circumstances and situation that John Q. was in, the surgeon decides that he will not perform the heart transplant surgery on John’s son for free. Despite all of the begging, pleading, bargaining, and even raising money that John and his wife did, the heart surgeon still refused to perform the surgery. Kant explains that one must use the "Categorical Imperative." Which is a way to challenge Kant’s rule. The Categorical Imperative must have the following: before someone can take action they should consider the maxim to the action which they are taken and then challenge Kant’s …show more content…
At this point in the movie a hostage who I believe volunteered to pretend to be John Q.; surrendering to the feds which he was not obligated to do so. The agreement was already fulfilled between John and the feds in which the son gets his new heart, the hostages are set free, and John surrenders. This hostage who could have easily joined the other hostage’s conceders John Q. as his hero and did an act that he believed was morally